issue-1994-01-04•Federal Register proposed rules — 1994-01-04
Federal Register proposed rules — 1994-01-04
issue-1994-01-04Federal Register proposed rules — 1994-01-04Proposed Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 94-9 Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 280-281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-9]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 15 and 90
[ET Docket No. 93-7; DA-1550]
Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics
Equipment
In the Matter of Implementation of Section 17 of the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992.
Compatibility between cable systems and consumer electronics
equipment.
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Order extending time for comments and reply comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This order grants a request by the Cable-Consumer Electronics
Compatibility Advisory Group (the ``Advisory Group'') for an extension
of time to filing comments in the proposed rulemaking proceeding on
compatibility between cable systems and consumer electronics equipment
(58 FR 65153, December 13, 1993). The Commission is taking this action
to provide the Advisory Group additional opportunity to prepare a
single joint filing on the proposals set forth by the Commission.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 25, 1994, and
reply comments on or before February 9, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Stillwell, Office of Engineering
and Technology, (202) 653-8162.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Order Extending Time for Comments and Reply Comments
Adopted: December 27, 1993; Released: December 28, 1993.
Comment Date: January 25, 1994.
Reply Comment Date: February 9, 1994.
By the Chief Engineer:
1. On December 23, 1993, the Cable-Consumer Electronics
Compatibility Advisory Group (Advisory Group) requested that the time
for filing comments to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in the
above-captioned proceeding be extended from January 10, 1994 to January
25, 1994 and that the reply comment date be extended from January 25,
1994 to February 9, 1994.
2. In its request, the Advisory Group indicates that a 15 day
extension of the comment periods would increase the chances that the
cable and consumer electronics industries, though the Advisory Group,
will be able to prepare a joint filing that help to narrow the issues
in dispute between those industries and should increase the quality of
such joint submission.
3. The Commission does not routinely grant extensions of time.\1\
In this instance, however, we believe that extending the comment
deadline by 15 days will serve the public interest by providing the
cable and consumer electronics industries additional opportunity to
reach a consensus on the proposals set forth in the NPRM and should
result in a improved record being submitted to the Commission. We also
believe it is in the public interest to extend the reply comment
deadline correspondingly. Accordingly, it is ordered That the deadline
for filing comments is extended to January 25, 1994, and the deadline
for filing reply comments is extended to February 9, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\47 CFR 1.46 (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. This action is taken pursuant to authority found in sections
4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
154(i) and 303, and pursuant to 47 CFR 0.31, 0.241, and 1.46. For
further information, contact Alan Stillwell, Office of Engineering and
Technology, (202) 653-8162.
Federal Communications Commission.
Thomas P. Stanley,
Chief Engineer.
[FR Doc. 94-9 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-89 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Extension of Comment Period and Notice of Public Hearing on Proposed Endangered Status and Designation of Critical Habitat for the Alabama Sturgeon
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 288-289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-89]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AB73
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Extension of
Comment Period and Notice of Public Hearing on Proposed Endangered
Status and Designation of Critical Habitat for the Alabama Sturgeon
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period and notice of public
hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) gives notice that a
second public hearing will be held on the proposed rule to determine
endangered status and designate critical habitat for the Alabama
sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus suttkusi. The comment period is extended to
accommodate the public hearing.
DATES: The public hearing will be held from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. on
January 13, 1994. The public comment period is extended through January
31, 1994.
ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be held at South Hall # 1,
Montgomery Civic Center, 300 Bibb Street, Montgomery, Alabama. Written
comments and materials should be sent to the Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, suite A, Jackson,
Mississippi 39213, or may be submitted at the public hearing. Comments
and materials received will be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James H. Stewart, at the above address
(601/965-4900).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Service proposed to determine the Alabama sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus
suttkusi, to be an endangered species and to designate its critical
habitat on June 15, 1993 (58 FR 33148). The Alabama sturgeon, a small
sturgeon with a maximum length of about 30 inches, is endemic to the
Mobile River system, Alabama and Mississippi. Its current range is
restricted to the lower Alabama River and the Cahaba River in Alabama.
Both of these areas and the free flowing portion of the lower Tombigbee
River are proposed as critical habitat. Factors in the sturgeon's
decline include dams, and possible adverse effects from altered water
flows, channel maintenance and gravel dredging.
A public hearing on the proposed rule was announced in the Federal
Register of September 13, 1993 (58 FR 47851) and was held on October 4,
1993 near Mobile, Alabama. The capacity of the facility selected for
the public hearing was not sufficient for all the individuals that
wished to attend. A second hearing was then announced in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1993 (58 FR 55036). The second public hearing
was scheduled for November 15, 1993, in Montgomery, Alabama, to allow
additional oral statements to be presented and to receive comment on a
scientific report prepared by experts on the taxonomy and on the
likelihood of existence of the Alabama sturgeon.
The November 15 hearing was canceled in response to a preliminary
injunction issued on November 9, 1993, that restrained the Service and
others from: (1) Disseminating the scientific report to the public;
and, (2) utilizing or relying upon the scientific report or any product
of the experts' deliberations in connection with the decision-making
process on the proposal to list the Alabama sturgeon and to designate
its critical habitat. Because the notice announcing the November 15
hearing specifically addressed the availability of the scientific
report and the Service's intent to receive comments on it, the Service
decided to postpone the hearing until a revised notice could be
published to announce the limitations imposed by, and to thereby avoid
inadvertent violations of, the court order.
On December 22, 1993, the court that issued the November 9 order
issued another order providing, in most relevant part, as follows:
Federal defendants and defendant-intervenor, and those acting in
active concert with them, are hereby permanently enjoined from
publishing, employing and relying upon the Advisory Committee report
* * * for any purpose whatsoever, directly or indirectly, in the
process of determining whether to list the Alabama sturgeon as an
endangered species.
Therefore, a second public hearing has now been scheduled for
January 13, 1994, and will allow additional oral statements to be
presented (of course, written comments will also be accepted and will
be given equal consideration). The time allocated for individual oral
statements may be limited if the number of parties present at the
hearing, or if the conduct of the individual commenter, necessitate
such a limitation. There is no limit, however, on the length or volume
of written comments or materials presented at the hearing or mailed to
the Service office in the ADDRESSES section.
In keeping with the court restrictions issued in Alabama-Tombigbee
Rivers Coalition v. Fish and Wildlife Service, Civ. No. 93-AR-2322-S,
the Service considers itself compelled to enforce the following
constraints on the submission of oral and written comments while the
court restrictions remain in effect:
(1) Individuals or organizations cannot refer to the scientific
report, issued on November 5, 1993, or to any drafts or other product
derived from the preparation of that report, in presenting any oral
statement or written comment; and,
(2) Individuals or organizations cannot attempt to bolster their
oral or written comments or opinions by reference to the scientific
report as authority.
The Departmental hearing officer at the hearing on January 13,
1994, will be authorized to terminate the opportunity to speak of any
person making a statement if, in the judgment of the hearing officer,
that person disregards the instructions not to address the scientific
report or its contents. Written comments or materials that contain
information that violates the above restrictions will be marked and
thereafter excluded from the administrative record while the court
restrictions remain in effect.
The Service intends that any final action resulting from the
proposed rule will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Except
for the court-imposed restrictions set out above, the Service
encourages the submission of all individual scientific opinions,
biological data, and other relevant scientific data that will assist in
arriving at the ``best scientific and commercial data available,'' as
mandated by Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act.
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened wildlife, Fish, Marine mammals, Plants
(agriculture).
Dated: December 20, 1993.
Richard N. Smith,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 94-89 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-75 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Wisconsin
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 278-280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-75]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[W12-2-5550; FRL-4821-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Wisconsin
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: USEPA is proposing to disapprove the State of Wisconsin's
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Rules, Natural Resources
(NR) 405.01 through 405.17, as a revision to the Wisconsin State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The State developed the rules as Wisconsin's
plan to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in areas
designated as unclassifiable or attainment of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and to satisfy the requirements of part C of
the Clean Air Act (Act). USEPA proposes to disapprove these rules
because they do not meet USEPA's regulation governing State PSD
programs (40 CFR 51.166). Until USEPA approves a SIP submission from
Wisconsin satisfying these requirements, the Federal PSD requirements
at 40 CFR 52.21 remain applicable within the State of Wisconsin.
DATES: Comments on this revision and on the proposed USEPA action must
be received by March 7, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton Nash, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Toxics and Radiation Branch (AT-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Please submit an original and five
(5) copies, if possible.
Copies of the SIP revision request and USEPA's analysis are
available at the following address for review: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air Toxics and Radiation Branch (AT-18J),
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. It is recommended
that you telephone Constantine Blathras at (312) 886-0671, before
visiting the Region 5 Office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constantine Blathras, Grants
Management and Program Evaluation Section, Air Toxics and Radiation
Branch (AT-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-0671.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act added part C to title I,
which required implementation of a PSD program. On June 19, 1978 USEPA
promulgated a PSD program to meet the requirements of part C. It
promulgated 40 CFR 51.24 (now 40 CFR 51.166), which listed the
requirements a State must meet in order to have a State PSD program
approved as a part of its SIP. It promulgated 40 CFR 52.21, which
contains the procedures and requirements which USEPA follows when it
carries out the mandates of part C itself. These Sec. 52.21
requirements were then promulgated into those State SIPs where a State
did not have an approvable plan in place. Section 52.21 provides that
its requirements and authorities, or parts thereof, can be delegated to
the State and local air programs if USEPA determines they have the
ability and authority to carry out its mandates.
On June 19, 1978 (43 FR 26410), USEPA promulgated the Federal PSD
program, 40 CFR 52.21(b) through (v), into the Wisconsin SIP at 40 CFR
52.2581 because Wisconsin had not submitted an approvable PSD program.
On August 19, 1980 USEPA gave Wisconsin partial delegation to run the
Federal PSD Program and on November 13, 1987 gave Wisconsin full
delegation of the program.
Seeking a SIP approval of the State's PSD Program, the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) submitted its PSD rules, NR
405.01 through NR 405.17, to USEPA as a revision to its SIP on March
16, 1987. A further revision to these rules, which addresses oxides of
nitrogen (NOx), was submitted on November 24, 1992.
Wisconsin NR 405 deals exclusively with PSD permitting
requirements.\1\ USEPA evaluated NR 405 by comparing each section of
the rule to the appropriate paragraph of 40 CFR 51.166 (formerly 40 CFR
51.24). Although Wisconsin's PSD rules essentially incorporated the
Federal PSD provisions in 40 CFR 51.166, USEPA's evaluation revealed
deficiencies relative to references to New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS), National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP), federally issued PSD permits, source-specific allowable
emissions, and modeling guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Chapter NR 405 applies the PSD regulation within the total
area of the State of Wisconsin. Court decisions have determined that
State governments do not have jurisdiction over most Indian lands.
This in itself does not affect USEPA's proposal to disapprove the
rule, but would have to be addressed by Wisconsin if it submitted a
revised rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. USEPA's Evaluation of the Proposed Revision
A. NSPS and NESHAP
The Federal PSD definitions at 40 CFR 51.166 pertaining to: (1)
``Best Available Control Technology'' (BACT), (2) ``Allowable
emissions'', (3) ``Federally enforceable'', and (4) the control
technology review requirements make reference to applicable standards
and standards of performance under 40 CFR part 60 (NSPS) and 40 CFR
part 61 (NESHAP), respectively. In the comparable provisions of the
State rule, the State refers to other NR 400 series chapters, i.e., NR
440, 445 to 499, and 400 to 499 of the State code. Although the State
may have intended that these chapters approximate the requirements of
40 CFR parts 60 and 61, Wisconsin's NSPS and NESHAP regulations are not
federally enforceable and may, in certain circumstances, differ
significantly from the parts 60 and 61 requirements in the Federal PSD
requirements. The references to parts 60 and 61 in the Federal PSD
requirements for BACT and control technology review
(Secs. 51.166(b)(12) and 51.166(j)(1), respectively) set minimum
emissions requirements. Because the State can set less stringent NSPS
and NESHAP emission limits than the Federal standards, or not set any
limits at all, the State PSD provisions which are dependent upon the
requirements of Chapter 440 and Chapters 445 to 449 are not approvable.
B. Stack Height
The provisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart I--``Revision of New
Sources and Modifications'' set forth both general and specific
requirements for permitting PSD sources, including definitions. In
order for the State to implement the stack height provision in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.164 and 51.166(h), it must have definitions
of such terms as ``stack'', ``dispersion technique'', and ``good
engineering practice''. On November 6, 1985, the State submitted a
letter stating that permits issued for new or modified sources will
conform with the requirements with the Stack Height Regulation, as set
forth in the Federal Register on July 8, 1985, until such time that the
State promulgates its own rule. As submitted, this provision meets the
stack height requirements of the PSD program, and USEPA approved
Wisconsin's commitment on August 4, 1989 (54 FR 32074), as a portion of
Wisconsin's stack height plan.
C. Federally Issued PSD Permits
In the State's definition of ``major modifications'', NR
405.02(21)(b)(6), the rule exempts an increase in hours of operation or
in production rates from review unless such increases are prohibited by
permits issued after January 6, 1975, under NR 405. This rule is
deficient for not requiring review of sources with such increases if
the increases were prohibited by previously issued Federal permits or
during the period when EPA issued the permits prior to the delegation
of the program's authority. The State rule only exempts from the
exclusion those permits with conditions ``pursuant to this chapter'',
which is in the Wisconsin rule. There is no requirement for review of
modifications to federally issued permits with exemptions pursuant to
40 CFR 52.21. As submitted, this provision is not approvable as a PSD
rule.
D. Source-Specific Allowable Emissions
NR 405.02(1) contains the term ``source-specific allowable
emissions''. The meaning of the term is unclear. The Federal rule
depends upon the preamble language published in the Federal Register on
August 7, 1980 (Vol. 45, No. 154), to qualify the term to exclude cases
where data on actual emissions are available. The language in NR
405.02(1) would have to be clarified so that the State term has the
same meaning as the Federal term. This provision is not approvable in
its present form.
E. PSD Increments
The State PSD increments for sulfur dioxide and particulate matter
are found in Chapter NR 404.05. The increments were not included in
Wisconsin's March 16, 1987 PSD SIP submittal, but were included in its
November 24, 1992 submittal.
F. Modeling Guidelines
The modeling guidelines referenced in NR 405.10 are now outmoded,
although they were current at the time of submittal. To make NR 405.10
approvable, it would either have to reference the most recent
guidelines (See 40 CFR 165(l)) or state that the applicant must use
USEPA's most current applicable guideline models. Although the modeling
guidelines were current at the time of submittal, this deficiency would
need to be addressed if Wisconsin were to resubmit the rule as a SIP
revision.
G. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Increments
On October 17, 1988 (53 FR 40656), USEPA promulgated PSD air
quality increments for NO2. The States were required to submit to
USEPA by July 17, 1990, plan revisions to protect the NO2
increments. Wisconsin submitted such increments to USEPA on November
24, 1992. This submittal meets the NOX increment requirements and
is approvable.
H. Particulate Matter (PM) Significant Level
On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24713), USEPA promulgated the significant
level for PM at 15 tons per year. Wisconsin submitted two PM SIP
revisions on March 13, 1989 and May 10, 1990 to meet the Federal PM
requirements. These submittals were proposed for approval on March 13,
1989 (NR 400.02, 404.02, 405.02, 406.04, 484.03) which contain the PM
significant level, and May 10, 1990 (NR 404.04, 484.03). USEPA then
proposed to disapprove the package on December 23, 1992. After
receiving comments from the State, USEPA moved to approve the package.
The final rulemaking approving these rules was published on June 28,
1993 (58 FR 34528).
Proposed Action
Because of the deficiencies noted above, USEPA is proposing to
disapprove Wisconsin's Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit
Program as not meeting the requirements of part C of the Clean Air Act.
The Agency reviewed this PSD SIP revision request for conformance
with the provisions of the 1990 Amendments enacted on November 15,
1990. The Agency has determined that this action did not conform with
the statute before it was amended, that the Amendments did not in any
way affect this determination, and that the revision does not conform
to the Act, as amended. If resubmitted, Wisconsin's PSD SIP submission
should include all requirements and changes added by the 1990
Amendments. Thus, USEPA is proposing that the revision be disapproved.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C., section 605(b), I certify
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities (see 46 FR 8709). If USEPA were to
disapprove this rule, its disapproval would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because
USEPA's PSD program remains in effect under delegated authority.
Sources would remain subject to the same requirements.
Under Executive Order 12291, this action is not ``Major''. It has
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: November 15, 1993.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-75 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-68 Abandoned Mine Reclamation Grant Procedures
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-68]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Parts 870, 886, 887, and 888
RIN 1029-AB72
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Grant Procedures
AGENCY: Office and Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of public comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)
of the United States Department of the Interior extends until March 8,
1994, the public comment period on the proposed rule published in the
November 8, 1993 Federal Register (58 FR 59334). The extension will
provide interested persons more time in which to comment.
DATES: Written Comments: OSM will accept written comments on the
proposed rule until 5 p.m. Eastern time on March 8, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Written Comments: Hand deliver to the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative Record, room 660,
800 North Capitol St., Washington, DC; or mail to the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative Record, room 660 NC,
1951 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Norman J. Hess, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
U.S. Department of the Interior, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20240; Telephone: 202-208-2949.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OSM published a proposed rule on November 8,
1993 (58 FR 59334), that would revise the Abandoned Mine Lands (AML)
regulations in 30 CFR chapter VII, subchapter R to ensure that they
will be consistent with agency practice and all past amendments to
Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. The
specific changes proposed to the AML rules are set forth in the
November 8, 1993, Federal Register notice.
The comment period for the proposed rule was scheduled to close on
January 7, 1994. However, an extension of the comment period was
requested in order to provide more time in which to comment on the
proposed rule. Therefore, OSM is extending the comment period. Comments
will now be accepted until 5 p.m. local time on March 8, 1994.
Dated: December 29, 1993.
Brent Wahlquist,
Assistant Director, Reclamation and Regulatory Policy.
[FR Doc. 94-68 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-56 Milk in the Chicago Regional and Other Marketing Areas; Notice of Hearing on Proposed Amendments to Tentative Marketing Agreements and Orders
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 260-265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-56]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
VOL. 59, NO. 2
Tuesday, January 4, 1994
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 1030, 1065, 1068, 1076, and 1079
[Docket Nos. AO-361-A31, etc.; DA-92-27]
Milk in the Chicago Regional and Other Marketing Areas; Notice of
Hearing on Proposed Amendments to Tentative Marketing Agreements and
Orders
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 CFR Part Marketing Area AO Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1030...................... Chicago Regional.......... AO-361-A31
1065...................... Nebraska-Western Iowa..... AO-86-A50
1068...................... Upper Midwest............. AO-178-A48
1076...................... Eastern South Dakota...... AO-260-A32
1079...................... Iowa...................... AO-295-A44
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This hearing is being held to consider proposals to amend five
Federal milk marketing orders. The proposals would establish a multiple
component pricing plan for pricing producer milk under the orders.
Producer milk utilized in Class II and Class III would be priced to
handlers on the basis of three components. The components priced would
be butterfat, protein and solids-not-fat other than protein. Under some
of the proposals, producer prices or protein prices would be adjusted
for quality attributes of milk, such as somatic cell content. The
hearing was requested by a dairy trade association and several
cooperative associations that represent a substantial number of dairy
farmers who supply these markets. A number of other dairy cooperative
associations and dairy organizations submitted proposals to be
considered at the hearing. The proponents maintain that the proposed
payment plans would give producers a direct economic incentive to
produce the components valued by the marketplace.
DATES: The hearing will convene at 9 a.m. local time on January 25,
1994.
ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held at the Sheraton Inn Airport, 2500
E. 79th Street, Bloomington, Minnesota 55425, telephone (612) 854-1771.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance M. Brenner, Marketing
Specialist, USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room
2971, South Building, P. O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, (202)
720-7183.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This administrative action is governed by
the provisions of Sections 556 and 557 of title 5 of the United States
Code and therefore, is excluded from the requirements of Executive
Order 12866.
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held at the
Sheraton Inn Airport, 2500 E. 79th Street, Bloomington, Minnesota 55425
(telephone 612/854-1771), beginning at 9 a.m. on January 25, 1994, with
respect to proposed amendments to the tentative marketing agreements
and to the orders regulating the handling of milk in the aforesaid
marketing areas.
The hearing is called pursuant to the provisions of the
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-
674), and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the
formulation of marketing agreements and marketing orders (7 CFR part
900).
The purpose of the hearing is to receive evidence with respect to
the economic and marketing conditions which relate to the proposed
amendments, hereinafter set forth, and any appropriate modifications
thereof, to the tentative marketing agreements and to the orders.
Actions under the Federal milk order programs are subject to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354). This Act seeks to ensure
that, within the statutory authority of a program, the regulatory and
information requirements are tailored to the size and nature of small
businesses. For the purpose of the Act, a dairy farm is a ``small
business'' if it has an annual gross revenue of less than $500,000, and
a dairy products manufacturer is a ``small business'' if it has fewer
than 500 employees. Most parties subject to a milk order are considered
as a small business. Accordingly, interested parties are invited to
present evidence on the probable regulatory and informational impact of
the hearing proposals on small businesses. Also, parties may suggest
modifications of these proposals for the purpose of tailoring their
applicability to small business.
The amendments to the rules proposed herein have been reviewed
under Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform. They are not
intended to have a retroactive effect. If adopted, the proposed
amendments would not preempt any state or local laws, regulations, or
policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with these
rules.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with the law and requesting a modification of an order or to be
exempted from the order. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a
hearing on the petition. After a hearing the Secretary would rule on
the petition. The Act provides that the district courts of the United
States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has
its principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review
the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided a bill in equity is
filed not later than 20 days after date of the entry of the ruling.
Interested parties who wish to introduce exhibits should provide
the Presiding Officer at the hearing with 6 copies of such exhibits for
the Official Record. Also, it would be helpful if additional copies are
available for the use of other participants at the hearing.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 1030, 1065, 1068, 1076, and 1079
Milk marketing orders.
The authority citation for 7 CFR parts 1030, 1065, 1068, 1076, and
1079 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 1-19, 48 Stat. 31 as amended; 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
The proposed amendments, as set forth below, have not received the
approval of the Secretary of Agriculture.
Proposed by National All-Jersey, Inc., and supported by a number of
cooperative associations and other dairy organizations:
Proposal No. 1
For the Chicago Regional, Upper Midwest and Iowa Federal milk
orders (Orders 30, 68 and 79), establish a multiple component pricing
plan for producer milk by revising each of the orders to incorporate
the pricing plan included in detail in this notice for part 1030, to
include the following provisions:
Change the introductory text and add paragraphs (e) and (f) to
Sec. 1030.20, as follows:
Sec. 1030.20 Product prices.
The following product prices shall be used in calculating the basic
Class II formula price pursuant to Sec. 1030.51(b) and the component
prices defined in Sec. 1030.50 as follows:
* * * * *
(e) Monthly Cheddar Cheese Price. The Monthly Cheddar Cheese Price
means the National Cheese Exchange (Green Bay) monthly average price
for 40 pound blocks of cheddar cheese as calculated and reported each
month by the Dairy Division, Agricultural Marketing Service in Dairy
Market News.
(f) Whey Protein Concentrate Price. The Whey Protein Concentrate
Price means the monthly average whey protein concentrate price (central
and western (f.o.b.) edible 34 percent protein) calculated and reported
each month by the Dairy Division, Agricultural Marketing Service in
Dairy Market News.
Revise Sec. 1030.30 to read as follows:
Sec. 1030.30 Reports of receipts and utilization.
On or before the 10th day after the end of each month, each handler
shall report for such month to the market administrator, in the detail
and on the forms prescribed by the market administrator as follows:
(a) Each handler described in Sec. 1030.9(a), (b) and (c) shall
report for each plant of the handler (except if a handler requests and
is approved by the market administrator, a handler may file a
consolidated report for supply plants and/or a consolidated report for
distributing plants) the following information:
(1) Product pounds, pounds of butterfat, pounds of protein and
pounds of solids-not-fat other than protein contained in:
(i) Receipts of producer milk, including producer milk diverted by
the handler, and
(ii) Receipts of milk from handlers described in Sec. 1030.9(c).
(2) Product pounds of butterfat contained in:
(i) Receipts of fluid milk products not included in (a)(1) above
and bulk fluid cream products from any source;
(ii) Receipts of other source milk;
(iii) Inventories at the beginning and end of the month of fluid
milk products and products specified in Sec. 1030.40(b)(1);
(iv) The utilization or disposition of all milk, filled milk, and
milk products required to be reported pursuant to this paragraph.
(b) Each handler operating a partially regulated distributing plant
shall report with respect to such plant in the same manner as
prescribed for reports required by paragraph (a) of this section.
Receipts of milk that would have been producer milk if the plant had
been fully regulated shall be reported in lieu of producer milk. Such
report shall show also the quantity of any reconstituted skim milk in
route disposition in the marketing area.
(c) Each handler not specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section shall report with respect to its receipts and utilization of
milk, filled milk, and milk products in such manner as the market
administrator may prescribe.
Revise Sec. 1030.31 to read as follows:
Sec. 1030.31 Payroll reports.
(a) On or before the 25th day after the end of each month, each
handler described in Sec. 1030.9(a), (b), and (c) shall report to the
market administrator its producer payroll for such month, in the detail
prescribed by the market administrator, showing for each producer:
(1) Name and address;
(2) The total pounds of milk received from such producer;
(3) The pounds of butterfat contained in such milk;
(4) The pounds of protein contained in such milk;
(5) The pounds of solids-not-fat other than protein (Other Solids)
contained in such milk;
(6) The price per pound of butterfat, protein and Other Solids, the
gross amount due, the amount and nature of any deductions, and the net
amount paid.
(b) Each handler operating a partially regulated distributing plant
who elects to make payment pursuant to Sec. 1030.76(b) shall report for
each dairy farmer who would have been a producer if the plant had been
fully regulated in the same manner as prescribed for reports required
by paragraph (a) of this section.
Class and Component Prices
In Sec. 1030.50, change the introductory sentence and add four
component prices following the existing three paragraphs for Class
prices as follows:
Sec. 1030.50 Class prices and component prices.
The Class prices for the month per hundredweight of milk containing
3.5 percent butterfat subject to the provisions of Sec. 1030.52, and
the component prices for the month shall be as follows:
* * * * *
(d) Skim Milk Price. The skim milk price per hundredweight, rounded
to the nearest one-hundredth cent shall be the Class III price less an
amount computed by multiplying the butterfat differential computed
pursuant to Sec. 1030.74 by 35.
(e) Butterfat Price. The butterfat price per pound rounded to the
nearest one-hundredth cent, shall be the sum of (1) the skim milk price
per hundredweight for the month computed pursuant to paragraph (d) of
this section, divided by 100 and (2) the butterfat differential for the
month, computed pursuant to Sec. 1030.74 multiplied by 10.
(f) Protein Price. The protein price per pound, rounded to the
nearest one-hundredth cent, shall be 1.32 times the monthly cheddar
cheese price pursuant to Sec. 1030.20(e) plus .735 times the whey
protein concentrate price pursuant to Sec. 1030.20(f) and subject to
(g) of this section.
(g) Other Solids Price. The other solids price per pound, rounded
to the nearest one-hundredth cent, shall be the basic formula price
pursuant to Sec. 1030.52(a) less the sum of (1) 3.5 times the butterfat
price pursuant to Sec. 1030.50(e) and (2) the average protein content
of the milk on which the basic formula price is based for the previous
month as reported by the Department and adjusted for the current month
by the Dairy Division times the protein price pursuant to
Sec. 1030.50(f), and dividing the resulting price by the difference
between (i) the average solids-not-fat content of the milk on which the
basic formula price is based for the previous month as reported by the
Department, and adjusted for the current month by the Dairy Division
and (ii) the average protein content of the milk on which the basic
formula price is based for the previous month as reported by the
Department and adjusted for the current month by the Dairy Division. If
the resulting price is less than zero, then the protein value shall be
adjusted so that the other solids price equals zero.
(h) Class I Differential Price. The Class I differential price
shall be the difference between the current month's Class I and Class
III prices (this price may be negative).
(i) Class II Differential Price. The Class II differential price
shall be the difference between the current month's Class II and III
prices (this price may be negative).
Revise Sec. 1030.51 to read as follows:
Sec. 1030.51 Basic formula prices.
(a) Basic Formula Price.
Include all material now contained in Sec. 1030.51 without change.
(b) Basic Class II Formula Price.
Include all material now contained in Sec. 1030.51a without change.
Revise Sec. 1030.53 to read as follows:
Sec. 1030.53 Announcement of class and component prices.
(a) On or before the 5th of the month, the market administrator
shall announce the following prices and any other prices deemed
appropriate:
(1) The Class I price for the following month;
(2) The Class III price for the preceding month;
(3) The skim milk price for the preceding month;
(4) The butterfat price for the preceding month;
(5) The protein price for the preceding month;
(6) The other solids price for the preceding month.
(7) The butterfat differential for the preceding month.
(b) On or before the 15th day of the month, the market
administrator shall announce the Class II price for the following month
computed pursuant to Sec. 1030.50(b)
Handler Obligations and Producer Prices
In Sec. 1030.60, revise paragraphs (a) and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 1030.60 Handler's obligation and producer prices.
For the purpose of computing a handler's obligation for producer
milk, the market administrator shall determine for each month the value
of milk of each handler described in Sec. 1030.9 (a), (b), and (c) as
follows:
(a) The handler's obligation for producer milk shall be computed as
follows:
(1) Multiply the total hundredweight of producer milk in Class I as
determined by Sec. 1030.44 by an amount equal to the Class I
differential price pursuant to Sec. 1030.50(h) for the month (this
amount may be negative);
(2) Add an amount obtained by multiplying the total hundredweight
of producer milk in Class II as determined by Sec. 1030.44 by an amount
equal to the Class II differential price pursuant to Sec. 1130.50(i)
for the month (this amount may be negative);
(3) Add an amount obtained by multiplying the hundredweight of skim
milk in Class I as determined pursuant to Sec. 1030.44 by the skim milk
price pursuant to Sec. 1030.50(d);
(4) Add an amount obtained by multiplying the pounds of skim milk
in Class II and Class III as determined pursuant to Sec. 1030.44(a) by
the average protein content of producer skim milk received by the
handler (reported pursuant to Sec. 1030.30(e)), and multiplying the
resulting pounds of protein by the protein price specified in
Sec. 1030.50(f);
(5) Add an amount obtained by multiplying the pounds of skim milk
in Class II and Class III as determined pursuant to Sec. 1030.44(a) by
the average other solids content of producer skim milk received by the
handler and multiplying the resulting pounds of other solids by the
other solids price specified in Sec. 1030.50(g);
* * * * *
(f) Add the amount obtained from multiplying the Class I price
applicable at the location of the nearest unregulated supply plants
from which an equivalent volume was received less the Class III price
by the pounds of skim milk and butterfat in receipts of concentrated
fluid milk products assigned to Class I pursuant to Sec. 1030.43(d) and
Sec. 1030.44(a)(7)(i) and the pounds of skim milk and butterfat
subtracted from Class I pursuant to Sec. 1030.44(a)(11) and the
corresponding steps of Sec. 1030.44(b), excluding such skim milk and
butterfat in receipts of bulk fluid milk products from an unregulated
supply plant to the extent that an equivalent amount of skim milk or
butterfat disposed of to such plant by handlers fully regulated under
any Federal milk order is classified and priced as Class I milk and is
not used as an offset for any other payment obligation under any order;
In Sec. 1030.61, redesignate paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) as
(c), (d), (e) and (f); revise the introductory language and paragraph
(a), add a new paragraph (b), and revise redesignated paragraph (e) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1030.61 Producer price differential.
For each month the market administrator shall compute a producer
price differential per hundredweight for Zone 1 (this price may be
negative). If the unreserved cash balance in the producer settlement
fund to be included in the computation is less than 2 cents per
hundredweight of producer milk on all reports, the payments required
pursuant to Sec. 1030.71 for the preceding month shall not be included
in the computation of the uniform price. The report of such handler
shall not be included in the computation of the uniform price. The
report of such handler shall not be included in the computation for
succeeding months until he has made full payment of outstanding monthly
obligations. Subject to the aforementioned conditions, the market
administrator shall compute the producer price differential in the
following manner:
(a) Combine the values computed pursuant to Sec. 1030.60 (a)(1),
(a)(2), and (b) through (k) for all handlers;
(b) Add the values computed pursuant to Sec. 1030.60 (a)(3),
(a)(4), and (a)(5) and subtract the value obtained by multiplying the
protein price by the handlers' total pounds of protein and by
multiplying the other solids price by the handlers' total pounds of
other solids.
* * * * *
(e) Divide the resulting amount by the sum of (1) the total
hundredweight of producer milk and (2) the total hundredweight of skim
milk and butterfat for which a value was computed pursuant to
Sec. 1030.60(f); and
* * * * *
Revise Sec. 1030.62 to read as follows:
Sec. 1030.62 Statistical uniform price.
The statistical uniform price is the sum of the basic formula price
and the producer price differential pursuant to Sec. 1030.61.
Add a new Sec. 1030.63 to read as follows:
Sec. 1030.63 Announcement of producer prices.
(a) On or before the 5th day after the end of each month, the
market administrator shall announce the butterfat differential pursuant
to Sec. 1130.74 for such month.
(b) On or before the 14th day after the end of each month, the
market administrator shall announce the following prices:
(1) The statistical uniform price for milk containing 3.5 percent
butterfat and the average protein and other solids content of producer
milk;
(2) The producer price differential;
(3) The butterfat price;
(4) The protein price;
(5) The other solids price; and
(6) The butterfat differential.
Payments for Milk
Revise paragraph (a) of Sec. 1030.71 to read as follows:
Sec. 1030.71 Payments to the producer-settlement fund.
(a) On or before the 16th day after the end of the month, each
handler shall pay to the market administrator the amount, if any, by
which the amount specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section exceeded
the amount specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section:
(1) The total value of milk of the handler for such month as
determined pursuant to Sec. 1030.60.
(2) The sum of:
(i) An amount obtained by multiplying the total hundredweight of
producer milk as determined pursuant to Sec. 1030.44 by the producer
price differential calculated pursuant to Sec. 1030.61 as adjusted by
Sec. 1030.75;
(ii) An amount obtained by multiplying the total pounds of protein
contained in producer milk by the protein price;
(iii) An amount obtained by multiplying the total pounds of other
solids contained in producer milk by the other solids price; and
(iv) An amount obtained by multiplying the pounds of skim milk and
butterfat for which a value was computed pursuant to Sec. 1030.60(f) by
the producer price differential as adjusted for plant location by
Sec. 1030.52.
* * * * *
In Sec. 1030.73, paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) are revised, and a new
paragraph (e) is added, to read as follows:
Sec. 1030.73 Payments to producers and to cooperative associations.
(a) * * *
(1) On or before the 3rd day after the end of each month, to each
producer who has not discontinued shipping milk to such handler before
the end of the month, for producer milk received during the first 15
days of the month at a rate per hundredweight not less than the Class
III price under the order for milk of 3.5 percent butterfat for the
preceding month, less proper deductions authorized in writing by such
producer; and
(2) On or before the 18th day after the end of each month, for
producer milk received during such month, an amount not less than the
sum of:
(i) The pounds of milk received from the producer times the
producer price differential for the month pursuant to Sec. 1030.61,
adjusted pursuant to Sec. 1030.75 and Sec. 1030.86;
(ii) The pounds of butterfat received from the producer times the
butterfat price for the month,
(iii) The pounds of protein received from the producer times the
protein price for the month;
(iv) The pounds of other solids received from the producer times
the other solids price for the month;
(v) Less any payments made pursuant to paragraph (a) of this
section; and
(vi) Less proper deductions authorized in writing by such producer
and plus or minus adjustments for errors in previous payments made to
such producer.
(vii) If by such date the handler has not received full payment
from the market administrator pursuant to Sec. 1030.72 for such month,
he may reduce pro rata his payments to producers by not more than the
amount of such underpayment. Payment to producers shall be completed
thereafter not later than the date for making payments pursuant to this
paragraph next following receipt of the balance due from the market
administrator.
(b) * * *
(c) Each handler shall pay a cooperative association for milk
received by the handler from a pool plant(s) operated by a cooperative
association as follows:
(1) For milk received during the first 15 days of the month, the
handler shall pay the cooperative association on or before the 1st day
after the end of the month during which the milk was received at a rate
per hundredweight not less than the Class III price under the order for
milk of 3.5 percent butterfat for the preceding month; and
(2) For milk received during the month the handler shall pay the
cooperative association on or before the 16th day after the end of the
month during which the milk was received as follows:
(i) The hundredweight of Class I milk received times the Class I
differential for the month plus the pounds of Class I skim milk times
the skim milk price for the month;
(ii) The hundredweight of Class II milk received times the Class II
differential for the month;
(iii) The pounds of butterfat received times the butterfat price
for the month;
(iv) The pounds of protein received in Class II and III times the
protein price for the month;
(v) The pounds of other solids received in Class II and III times
the other solids price for the month,
(vi) Less any payment made pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this
section; and
(vii) Less proper authorized deductions.
(d) Each handler shall pay a cooperative association acting as a
handler described under Sec. 1030.9(c) as follows:
(1) For milk received during the first 15 days of the month, the
handler shall pay the cooperative association on or before the 1st day
after the end of the month during which milk was received at a rate per
hundredweight not less than the Class III price under the order for
milk of 3.5 percent butterfat for the preceding month; and
(2) For milk received during the month the handler shall pay the
cooperative association on or before the 16th day after the end of the
month during which the milk was received as follows:
(i) The hundredweight of milk received times the producer price
differential for the month as adjusted pursuant to Sec. 1030.75;
(ii) The pounds of butterfat received times the butterfat price for
the month;
(iii) The pounds of protein received times the protein price for
the month;
(iv) The pounds of other solids received times the other solids
price for the month;
(v) Less any payment made pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this
section; and
(vi) Less proper authorized deductions.
(e) In making payments for producer milk pursuant to paragraph
(a)(2) or (b)(2) of this section, each handler shall furnish each
producer or cooperative association to whom such payment is made a
supporting statement in such form that it may be retained by the
recipient. Such statement shall show:
(1) The month and the identity of the producer;
(2) The daily and total pounds of milk for each producer;
(3) The total pounds of butterfat contained in the producer's milk;
(4) The total pounds of protein contained in the producer's milk;
(5) The total pounds of other solids contained in the producer's
milk;
(6) The minimum rate or rates (for total pounds and components) at
which payment to the producer is required pursuant to the order;
(7) The rate that is used in making the payment if such rate is
other than the applicable minimum rate;
(8) The amount, or the rate per hundredweight, or rate per pound of
component, and nature of each deduction claimed by the handler; and
(9) The net amount of payment to such producer or cooperative
association.
Revise Sec. 1030.74 to read as follows:
Sec. 1030.74 Butterfat differential.
The butterfat differential shall be .138 times the butter price
less .0028 times the average price per hundredweight, at test, for
manufacturing grade milk, f.o.b. plants in Minnesota and Wisconsin, as
reported by the Department for the month. The butter price means the
simple average for the month of the daily prices per pound of Grade A
(92 score) butter. The prices used shall be those of the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange as reported and published weekly by the Dairy
Division, Agricultural Marketing Service. The average shall be computed
by the Director of the Dairy Division, using the price reported each
week as the daily price for that day and for each following day until
the next price is reported.
Proposed by Land O' Lakes, Inc.:
Proposal No. 2
Adopt Proposal Number 1 for the Nebraska-Western Iowa and Eastern
South Dakota Federal milk orders (Orders 65 and 76) in addition to the
three orders included in Proposal No. 1.
Proposal No. 3
In Sec. 1030.73, add a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1030.73 Payments to producers and to cooperative associations.
* * * * *
(e) In making payments to producers, deductions may be made to
individual producers for variations in quality or volume of milk
relative to an announced norm of up to 10 percent, provided that such
deductions are offset by premiums paid to other individual producers of
equal or greater value.
Proposed by Central Milk Producers Cooperative and supported by
Mid-America Dairymen, Inc., and Associated Milk Producers, Inc.:
Proposal No. 4
Adopt Proposal No. 2 with the following modifications:
a. Compute the protein price by multiplying the barrel cheddar
cheese price, instead of the cheddar cheese price for 40-pound blocks,
by 1.32, and eliminate the plus adjustment based on the whey protein
concentrate price.
b. Include an adjustment for the somatic cell count of producer
milk and for milk used in Classes II, III, and III-A. Class I milk
would not have a somatic cell adjustment. The adjustment for somatic
cells would be on a hundredweight basis and would be a positive
adjustment beginning with a somatic cell count of 500,000, increasing
as the somatic cell count approaches zero. No adjustment would be
applied for somatic cell counts greater than 500,000. The somatic cell
adjustment would be computed by subtracting the actual somatic cell
count (in thousands) from 500 and multiplying by .0005 times the barrel
cheese price.
Formula:
Somatic cell adjustment=(500-SCC) x (.0005 x CP)
SCC=actual somatic cell count in thousands
CP-National Cheese Exchange monthly average barrel cheese price.
Proposed by Kraft General Foods:
Proposal No. 5
Adjust the protein or other component price on the basis of somatic
cell content (and any other relevant quality characteristic) of
producer milk.
Proposed by Wagner's Weyauwega Milk Products, Inc.:
Proposal No. 6
Modify Proposal No. 4 to include negative somatic cell adjustments
for somatic cell levels between 500,000 and 750,000.
Proposed by the Wisconsin Cheese Makers Association:
Proposal No. 7
Adopt Proposal No. 4 with the following modifications:
a. Apply the somatic cell adjustment contained in Proposal No. 4 to
all milk, including Class I.
b. Apply the somatic cell adjustment to producers' protein price,
rather than on a hundredweight basis.
c. In calculating the protein price, subtract an appropriate make
allowance per pound of barrel cheddar cheese from the cheese price
before multiplying by 1.32. This modification may require creation of a
separate residual ``component'' in addition to the butterfat, protein
and other solids components, which would require a formula to determine
the value of other milk solids (not protein).
Proposed by the National Cheese Institute:
Proposal No. 8
Adopt Proposal No. 4 with the following modifications:
a. Calculate a ``residual fluid price'' instead of an ``other
solids price'' by subtracting the values of butterfat and protein from
the Minnesota-Wisconsin price.
b. Instead of including in the order a somatic cell price per
hundredweight, allow handlers to submit a plan for the market
administrator's approval to pay premiums or make deductions based on
somatic cell count or other quality considerations so long as the total
payment to all producers reflects the monthly minimum pay price under
the Order.
c. Payouts to producers should be made on the basis of the same
factors as determine the cost of milk to handlers.
Proposed by the Trade Association of Proprietary Plants, Inc.:
Proposal No. 9
Adopt a multiple component pricing plan that closely resembles
Proposal No. 4, modified in the following ways:
a. Protein value per hundredweight to be expressed as a protein
differential.
b. Protein value per hundredweight to be adjusted by a positive
somatic cell adjustment of approximately 1 cent per 15,000 somatic
cells as somatic cell counts decline below 300,000, and a negative
adjustment of approximately 1 cent per 15,000 somatic cells as somatic
cell counts increase above 350,000, up to a maximum adjustment of plus
or minus 10 cents to the value of protein per hundredweight of milk.
c. Sweetened condensed milk to be reclassified as Class III or
exempted from the protein pool obligation.
Proposed by the Galloway Company:
Proposal No. 10
Milk used for the manufacture of ice cream, ice cream mixes, and
various Class II sweetened condensed milks shall continue to be priced
as under the current regulations and shall not be priced using multiple
component pricing.
Proposed by Dairy Division, Agricultural Marketing Service:
Proposal No. 11
Make such changes as may be necessary to make the entire marketing
agreement and order conform with any amendments thereto that may result
from this hearing.
Copies of this notice of hearing and the orders may be procured
from the Market Administrator of each of the aforesaid marketing areas,
or from the Hearing Clerk, room 1083, South Building, United States
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or may be inspected
there.
Copies of the transcript of testimony taken at the hearing will not
be available for distribution through the Hearing Clerk's Office. If
you wish to purchase a copy, arrangements may be made with the reporter
at the hearing.
From the time that a hearing notice is issued and until the
issuance of a final decision in a proceeding, Department employees
involved in the decisional process are prohibited from discussing the
merits of the hearing issues on an ex parte basis with any person
having an interest in the proceeding. For this particular proceeding,
the prohibition applies to employees in the following organizational
units:
Office of the Secretary of Agriculture
Office of the Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service
Office of the General Counsel
Dairy Division, Agricultural Marketing Service (Washington office
only)
Office of the Market Administrator, Chicago Regional, Nebraska-
Western Iowa, Upper Midwest, Eastern South Dakota and Iowa Marketing
Areas
Procedural matters are not subject to the above prohibition and may
be discussed at any time.
Dated: December 22, 1993.
Kenneth C. Clayton,
Deputy Administrator for Marketing Programs.
[FR Doc. 94-56 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-34 Exclusions From Income; Correction
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-34]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 3
RIN 2900-AG47
Exclusions From Income; Correction
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Correction to proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the comment and
inspection periods allowed in the Department of Veterans Affair's
proposed rule on Exclusions from Income, published Friday, December 17,
1993 (58 FR 65958).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 15, 1994.
Comments will be available for public inspection until February 25,
1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven Thornberry, Consultant, Regulations Staff, Compensation and
Pension Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20420, Telephone (202) 233-3005.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Executive Order 12866 orders that the public be afforded a
meaningful opportunity to comment on a proposed rule, which includes
being granted a comment period of not less than 60 days.
Need for Correction
As published, the proposed rule allows only a 30 day comment
period.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the publication on December 17, 1993 of the proposed
rule, which is the subject of FR Doc. 93-30811, is corrected as
follows:
In the DATES caption of the preamble, remove the date ``January 18,
1994'' and in its place add ``February 15, 1994''; remove the date
``January 26, 1994'' and in its place add ``February 25, 1994''.
Dated: December 23, 1993.
B. Michael Berger,
Director, Records Management Service.
[FR Doc. 94-34 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-U-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-31 Standards of Conduct and Reporting Requirements for Transportation and Affiliate Transactions
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 268-278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-31]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Parts 161 and 250
[Docket No. RM94-6-000]
Standards of Conduct and Reporting Requirements for
Transportation and Affiliate Transactions
Issued December 23, 1993.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
proposing to revise its regulations governing standards of conduct and
reporting requirements for transportation and affiliate transactions.
The Commission is proposing to reduce the reporting requirements based
on changes in the way pipelines will be allocating capacity after
implementation of Order No. 636 and the Commission's experience with
the reporting requirements.
DATES: Comments are due February 3, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goldenberg, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, (202) 208-2294.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to publishing the full text of
this document in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides all
interested persons an opportunity to inspect or copy the contents of
this document during normal business hours in room 3104, 941 North
Capitol Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS), an electronic
bulletin board service, provides access to the texts of formal
documents issued by the Commission. CIPS is available at no charge to
the user and may be accessed using a personal computer with a modem by
dialing (202) 208-1397. To access CIPS, set your communications
software to use 300, 1200 or 2400 bps, full duplex, no parity, 8 data
bits, and 1 stop bit. CIPS can also be accessed at 9600 bps by dialing
(202) 208-1781. The full text of this notice will be available on CIPS
for 30 days from the date of issuance. The complete text on diskette in
WordPerfect format may also be purchased from the Commission's copy
contractor, La Dorn Systems Corporation, also located in room 3104, 941
North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is proposing
to amend its regulations governing standards of conduct and reporting
requirements for transportation and affiliate transactions. The
Commission is proposing to reduce the reporting requirements
significantly based on changes in the way pipelines will be allocating
capacity after implementation of Order No. 6361 and the
Commission's experience with the reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Pipeline Service Obligations and Revisions to Regulations
Governing Self-Implementing Transportation; and Regulation of
Natural Gas Pipelines After Partial Wellhead Decontrol, 57 FR 13,267
(Apr. 16, 1992), III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles 30,939 (Apr. 8,
1992), order on reh'g, Order No. 636-A, 57 FR 36,128 (Aug. 12,
1992), III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles 30,950 (Aug. 3, 1992),
order on reh'g, Order No. 636-B, 57 FR 57,911 (Dec. 8, 1992), 61
FERC 61,272 (1992), appeal pending sub nom., Atlanta Gas Light Co.
and Chattanooga Gas Co. v. FERC, No. 92-8782 (11th Cir. Aug. 13,
1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Reporting Requirements
The Commission estimates the public reporting burden for this
collection of information under the proposed rule to average 66.2 hours
per respondent, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The
information will be collected under FERC-592, Marketing Affiliates of
Interstate Pipelines. In lieu of being physically filed with the
Commission on a periodic basis as a ``response'' or ``filing'', the
data will be updated continuously and made available to customers/
shippers, the public, and the Commission by Electronic Bulletin Boards
(EBBs) established and maintained by the pipeline respondents pursuant
to Order No. 636. The annual reporting burden for some 61 respondents
under the proposed rule is estimated to total 4,038.2 hours.
Because the proposed rule provides for fewer information items, the
burden estimate for FERC-592 in the subject Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR) represents a burden reduction of 63 hours per
respondent--or a total reduction of 3,843 hours. The current annual
reporting burden attributable to the FERC-592 information collection is
7,882 hours. A copy of this proposed rule is being provided to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Interested persons may send comments regarding the burden estimates
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for further reductions of this burden, to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 941 North Capitol Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Michael Miller, Information Services
Division, (202) 208-1415, FAX (202) 208-2425]. Comments on the
requirements of this proposed rule may also be sent to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Washington, DC 20503
[Attention: Desk Officer for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (202)
395-6880].
II. Background
The Commission, in Order No. 497,2 issued a rule intended to
prevent pipelines from providing preferential treatment to their
marketing or brokering affiliates. The rule adopted standards of
conduct (codified at part 161 of the Commission's regulations)3
and tariff and reporting requirements (codified in Sec. 250.16).4
The reporting requirements required the pipelines to file FERC Form No.
592, a log containing information relating to transportation for
affiliated marketers, and to maintain the same information for
nonaffiliated shippers. The Commission imposed a sunset provision
requiring a reevaluation of the requirements of the rule within one
year to determine whether increased competition in transportation had
mitigated the concerns about affiliate abuse. The Commission has
extended the sunset provision until December 31, 1993, and,
contemporaneously with this NOPR, is issuing Order No. 497-E which
extends the reporting requirements until June 30, 1994.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Inquiry Into Alleged Anticompetitive Practices Related to
Marketing Affiliates of Interstate Pipelines, Order No. 497, 53 FR
22139 (June 14, 1988), FERC Stats. & Regs. [Regulations Preambles
1986-1990] 30,820 (1988), order on rehearing, Order No. 497-A, 54
FR 52781 (Dec. 22, 1989), FERC Stats. & Regs. [Regulations Preambles
1986-1990] 30,868 (1989), order extending sunset date, Order No.
497-B, 55 FR 53291 (Dec. 28, 1990), FERC Stats. & Regs. [Regulations
Preambles 1986-1990] 30,908 (1990), order extending sunset date and
amending final rule, Order No. 497-C, 57 FR 9 (Jan. 2, 1992), III
FERC Stats. & Regs. 30,934 (1991), reh'g denied, 57 FR 5815 (Feb.
18, 1992), 58 FERC 61,139 (1992), aff'd in part and remanded in
part, Tenneco Gas v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 969 F.2d
1187 (D.C. Cir. 1992), order on remand, Order No. 497-D, 57 FR 58978
(Dec. 14, 1992), III FERC Stats. & Regs. 30,958 (1992).
\3\18 CFR part 161.
\4\18 CFR 250.16.
\5\Order No. 497-E also revises Sec. 161.3(f) of the standards
of conduct dealing with the contemporaneous disclosure to
nonaffiliates of transportation, sales, and marketing information
provided to affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Order No. 636, the Commission created a new operating
environment for interstate pipelines and shippers by requiring
pipelines to unbundle their sale of gas from their transportation
service and implementing changes in the terms and conditions for
providing transportation. One of the principal changes introduced by
Order No. 636 was the initiation of capacity release mechanisms through
which firm shippers can release their firm transportation capacity,
including storage capacity, to others wanting to obtain the capacity.
The Commission mandated that all allocations of firm capacity, both
firm capacity available from the pipeline and released capacity, be
implemented through Electronic Bulletin Boards (EBBs) operated by the
pipelines (or operated on their behalf by third parties). The
Commission also has begun the process, in Docket No. RM93-4-000, of
standardizing the methods by which pipelines will provide information
about available capacity through their EBBs.
Another significant change in Order No. 636 was the Commission's
determination that pipelines must provide shippers with flexible
receipt and delivery points. The Commission provided this flexibility
to promote efficient use of pipeline capacity particularly through the
capacity releasing mechanism. A shipper obtaining released capacity
(replacement shipper) is not restricted to using the receipt or
delivery points of the releasing shipper; it is able to select
alternate receipt or delivery points for that capacity to accord with
its requirements for transportation service.
The Commission previously has addressed the effect of EBBs and
capacity release on the Order No. 497 requirements. In Order No. 497-D,
the Commission eliminated the requirement that pipelines file the Form
No. 592 containing the affiliated transportation log with the
Commission, requiring instead that they provide this information on
their EBBs.6 The Commission also determined that Order No. 497
does not apply to temporary capacity releases, because such releases
are not a request for transportation to the pipeline.7 The
releasing shipper, not the pipeline, controls and makes the
determination to release capacity; the pipeline merely facilitates the
transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Order No. 497-D, III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles at 30,737.
\7\Northwest Pipeline Corporation, 65 FERC 61,007 (1993). A
temporary capacity release occurs when the releasing shipper retains
its rights to the capacity when the release period ends. A permanent
release ends the releasing shipper's rights and responsibilities
under the contract and the contract is transferred to the
replacement shipper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that Order No. 636 has been implemented on virtually all
pipelines, the Commission finds this to be the opportune time to do a
comprehensive reevaluation of the Order No. 497 requirements in light
of the requirements of Order No. 636 as well as the Commission's
experience under Order No. 497. In Order No. 636, the Commission stated
that increased competition resulting from the unbundling of gas sales
from transportation service might reduce the pipelines' incentive for
granting preferences to affiliates, but it concluded such competition
probably would not eliminate the incentive altogether.8 Similarly,
the implementation of capacity release may reduce the pipelines'
incentive to provide its marketing affiliates with preferences for
interruptible transportation, because shippers seeking interruptible
service are not restricted to the pipeline as the sole avenue for such
service, as they were in the past; they now can obtain firm service
through capacity release which is superior to the pipelines'
interruptible service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Order No. 636-A, III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles at 30,621.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this juncture, the Commission does not deem the evidence
sufficient to warrant rescission of the Order No. 497 standards of
conduct and tariff and reporting requirements. As part of its
continuing assessment of the need for these regulations, the Commission
will consider in the final rule any comments relating to the need for,
and retention of, these regulations as a whole. Nevertheless, the
significant changes wrought by Order No. 636 do appear to warrant
substantial revision of the Order No. 497 standards of conduct and
tariff and reporting requirements to eliminate unnecessary information
and to reduce and streamline the compliance burden. Modifications to
the Order No. 497 filing requirements also are needed to conform the
regulations with the requirement that affiliate information be posted
on pipeline EBBs.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\The Commission is proposing to eliminate current
Sec. 161.3(h), Secs. 250.16(b)(1) (ii) and (iv), and
Secs. 250.16(b)(2) (ii), (iv), and (vii)-(xiv). It proposes to
modify current Sec. 250.16(a), Secs. 250.16(b)(1)(i),
Secs. 250.16(b)(2) (iii), (vi), and (xvii), and Secs. 250.16(c)-(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. The Proposed Rule
A. Standards Of Conduct
The Commission proposes to eliminate Sec. 161.3(h) of the
regulations which prohibits pipelines from conditioning or tieing an
agreement to release gas subject to take-or-pay relief to the purchase
of services from a marketing affiliate. The Commission in Order No. 636
established procedures for dealing with gas supply realignment costs
resulting from the reformation or termination of take-or-pay contracts
after the unbundling of sales from transportation service.10
Accordingly, a standard of conduct provision relating to take-or-pay
relief should no longer be needed.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\0Order No. 636, III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles at 30,458.
\1\1For the same reason, the Commission is proposing to
eliminate current Sec. 250.16(b)(2)(xiii) requiring pipelines to
include in their transportation log a statement of whether the gas
being transported is subject to take-or-pay relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Tariff And Reporting Requirements
1. Revisions To Coordinate With Other Regulatory Changes
The reporting requirements currently apply to interstate pipelines
transporting gas pursuant to subparts B, G, H, or K of part 284. The
Commission proposes to remove the references to subparts H and K.
Subpart H applies to capacity release transactions and is an
unnecessary and duplicative reference, since, by its own terms, it
applies only to pipelines transporting gas under subparts B and G.
Subpart K, which applies to pipelines transporting gas on the outer
continental shelf, is similarly unnecessary because, it too, requires
such pipelines to transport gas pursuant to subpart G.
2. Tariff Provisions
Current Sec. 250.16(b)(1) presently requires pipelines to include
in their tariffs information about shared operating personnel and
facilities, the information and format for a request for service, the
procedures used to address complaints, and the procedures used to
inform shippers about the availability and pricing of transportation
service. Current Sec. 250.16(g)(1) requires pipelines to maintain and
follow certain procedures to make the tariff information available to
the public.
The Commission proposes to eliminate the requirement, in current
Sec. 250.16(b)(1)(ii), that pipelines include in their tariffs the
information required for a valid request for service, including the
information required for the Form No. 592 affiliate transportation log.
This provision was intended to ensure that pipelines obtained from a
shipper requesting service information known to the shipper, but not to
the pipeline, which the pipeline was required to maintain by the
regulations.12 The information which pipelines needed to obtain
included items such as the supplier of gas, the end-user, and whether
or not the gas was subject to take-or-pay relief. The requirement for
pipelines to include the request for service information in their
tariff no longer appears necessary, because pipeline tariffs already
include procedures for requesting service, and more important, this
NOPR is proposing to eliminate the information which the pipelines
previously had to obtain from the transportation request form. Under
the proposed regulations, pipelines should know all the relevant
information, without having to obtain additional information from the
requesting shipper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\2See Order No. 497, FERC Stats. & Regs. [Regulations
Preambles 1986-1990] at 31,147 (transportation request must include
the items to be disclosed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission proposes to eliminate the requirement, in current
Sec. 250.16(b)(1)(iv), that requires pipeline tariffs to include the
procedures used to inform affiliated and nonaffiliated shippers of the
availability and pricing of transportation service and of the capacity
available for transportation. This requirement appears superfluous
since pipelines are required under Order No. 636 to provide equal and
timely access on their EBBs to information relevant to the availability
of service on their systems.13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\318 CFR 284.8(b)(3), (4); 18 CFR 284.9(b)(3), (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also is proposing to eliminate the requirement, in
current Sec. 250.16(g)(1), that pipelines maintain and make available
to the public (at the pipelines' offices and through the mail) the
tariff information they file with the Commission. This provision merely
duplicates existing provisions. Section 4(c) of the Natural Gas Act
requires pipeline tariff information to be publicly available and the
Commission's regulations already require that the information be made
available at the pipelines' offices as well as through the mail.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\415 U.S.C. 717c(c) (1988); 18 CFR 154.16, 154.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Reporting Transportation Transactions
Current Sec. 250.16(b)(2) requires pipelines to file with the
Commission a transportation log reporting a variety of information
related to affiliate transactions, and Sec. 250.16(c) requires
pipelines to maintain the same information for nonaffiliate
transactions. The Commission is proposing to reduce the amount of
information that must be maintained and to clarify the filing
requirements in light of the requirement, promulgated in Order No. 497-
D, that pipelines post the information on their EBBs in lieu of filing
it with the Commission.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\5Order No. 497-D, III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles at
30,737; 18 CFR 250.16(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Information requirements. The Commission is proposing to
eliminate the requirement that pipelines maintain information relating
to firm transportation under Sec. 250.16. As a result of Order No. 636,
the posting and awarding of firm service, including the reservation
charge for that service, will be conducted through, and reported on,
the pipelines' EBBs.16 Since all the details regarding an
affiliate's or other shipper's acquisition of firm service will be on
the EBB, a similar posting requirement for affiliate information under
Sec. 250.16 appears unnecessary.17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\618 CFR 284.8(b)(3), 284.8(b)(4); Order No. 636, III FERC
Stats. & Regs. Preambles at 30,419-20.
\1\7The Commission recognizes that pipelines may offer firm
shippers discounts on the reservation charge after the capacity is
awarded and also may discount the firm usage charge. But the
Commission does not deem the potential for such discounting
sufficient to warrant the continuation of the reporting requirements
under Sec. 250.16. Such discounting has not proven to have been
extensive in the past. Moreover, information on any firm discounts
that pipelines do provide affiliates will be available on pipeline
EBBs under former standard I and under the Commission's Part 284
discount reporting requirements, although without as much detail as
required by Sec. 250.16. See 18 CFR 161.3(i)(revised Sec. 161.3(h));
18 CFR .8(b)(4)(v) (requiring standards of conduct information to be
posted on EBBs); 18 CFR 284.7(d)(5)(4). In addition, the
Commission's adoption of straight-fixed-variable (SFV) rate design
in Order No. 636 virtually eliminates the pipelines' ability to
discount the firm usage rate as well as the impact of any discounts
if they did occur. Under SFV, the usage rate reflects only variable
costs (and applicable volumetric surcharges), and pipelines cannot
discount below variable cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For interruptible transportation, however, the EBBs will not
provide the relevant discount information, because, unlike firm
service, the EBBs will not be used to allocate interruptible capacity
or establish a shipper's rate for interruptible service.18 The
allocation of interruptible transportation and the rate for individual
transactions usually takes place during the pipelines' monthly and
daily nomination and scheduling process. Accordingly, the Commission is
retaining the current requirement to maintain and post information for
discounts on interruptible service (proposed Sec. 250.16(c)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\8Order No. 636 only required pipelines to post their
available interruptible capacity on their EBBs, but it did not
mandate that the awarding of interruptible capacity take place on
the EBBs. 18 CFR 284.9(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is proposing to eliminate a number of reporting
requirements relating to requests for interruptible service.19 The
Commission's experience in administering Order No. 497 is that the most
important information for monitoring potential undue discrimination is
the discount information for individual transactions. Once that
information is known, the Commission can obtain information regarding
the transportation request during an investigation if it is needed.
Indeed, some of the information on the request, such as the extent of
affiliation between pipelines and suppliers or shippers, would appear
to be well known to the parties transacting business on the pipelines
and should not need to be posted.20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\9The Commission is proposing to eliminate current
Secs. 250.16(b)(2)(ii), (iii), (v), (vi), (xiv), (xv), (xvii).
\2\0For the same reason, the Commission is proposing to
eliminate the reporting of corporate affiliation in the discount
reporting requirement under current Sec. 250.16(b)(2)(xix).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is proposing to eliminate a series of requirements
for posting information obtained from the transportation request on the
source and destination of gas.21 Information from the
transportation request form on source and destination should no longer
be of much value since the Commission has required pipelines to provide
for flexible receipt and delivery points. By making use of alternate
receipt or delivery points, shippers will be able to transport gas
between a variety of sources and destinations, regardless of the source
or destination information provided on the transportation request form.
The Commission, however, is retaining the requirement that pipelines
post the quantity of gas at each delivery point for discounts actually
granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\1Current Secs. 250.16(b)(2) (vii), (ix), (xi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has not proposed to delete certain information
relating to requests for service, such as the position of the request
in the transportation queue and the disposition of the request.
Nevertheless, the Commission is unsure about the value of retaining the
requirements for posting information concerning the requests for
service and solicits comments on whether they should be deleted as
well.
In Order No. 636-A, the Commission addressed the requirement in
current Sec. 250.16(b)(2)(xiv) for reporting whether gas sales are
being made below cost.22 A commenter had requested additional
protection against affiliate abuse, contending that, after unbundling,
a pipeline could avoid the Order No. 497 requirement to post
transportation discounts by charging its affiliate the maximum
transportation rate to deliver the gas, but selling gas to its
affiliate at a loss. As part of its response, the Commission stated
that concealment of such an arrangement would be difficult in light of
the Sec. 250.16(b)(2)(xiv) requirement for pipelines to report whether
affiliated marketers or their blanket sales operating units were
selling gas below cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\2Order No. 636-A, III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles at
30,622-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, after further consideration and review of experience under
Order No. 497, the Commission is proposing to eliminate the sales below
cost provision, because it has not proved meaningful in evaluating
discounts granted by pipelines. The Commission understands the
pipelines obtain the information on below cost sales from the
affiliated marketer in its initial request for service. The information
reported by the pipeline, therefore, would not provide current below
cost sales information that can be directly related to the current
transportation arrangements posted in the log. Experience also shows
that 98% of the time pipelines report this information as ``no'' or
``unknown''.
The Commission has no evidence that the manipulation of gas and
transportation prices, as suggested by the comment in Order No. 636-A,
has occurred or resulted in discrimination. Moreover, the Commission
seriously doubts whether, in the competitive market for gas sales, any
pipeline reporting requirement would permit monitoring of the ever-
changing price which shippers, whether affiliated marketers or others,
will be paying for gas. Shippers in the market are in a better position
to obtain information on gas prices and to file complaints with the
Commission if they believe a manipulation of gas and transportation
prices results in an undue discrimination relating to the
transportation component.
The Commission also is proposing to clarify the reporting
requirements by requiring the provision of information on whether an
affiliate or sales operating unit is involved in the transportation
transaction and its role. Current Sec. 250.16(b)(2) (revised
Sec. 250.16(d)) already requires pipelines to report transactions in
which an affiliated marketer is involved, even if it is not the
shipper. For example, an affiliate or pipeline sales operating unit
could be involved in a transaction as a seller of gas or as an agent,
but not as the shipper. The requirement to report the extent of such
involvement would ensure that those obtaining the affiliate information
would know the role of the pipeline affiliate when it is not a shipper.
b. Access to the affiliate and nonaffiliate information. The
existing regulations require pipelines to file transportation logs at
the Commission. The Commission is proposing to conform these filing
requirements to the requirement, established in Order Nos. 497-D and
497-E, that pipelines post affiliate information on their EBBs rather
than submitting it to the Commission.23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\3Under Order No. 497-E, the requirement for filing
transportation logs at the Commission terminates the earlier of 90
days after a pipeline is in compliance with Order No. 636 or June
30, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To conform the Order No. 497 regulations with the requirements for
EBBs, the new regulations would require pipelines to post affiliate
information on their EBBs in conformity with the requirements of
Sec. 284.8(b)(4) and their tariffs and to provide access to the
affiliate information using the same procedures and protocols as used
for accessing their EBBs.24 Pipelines, therefore, must ensure that
their EBBs for affiliate information are user-friendly and incorporate
the same features as apply to the other aspects of the pipelines'
EBBs.25 They also must permit users to obtain the affiliate
information by using the same phone number and log-on procedures they
would use to access and obtain information about available capacity
from the pipelines' EBBs.26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\4Pipelines with waivers of the EBB requirements under Order
No. 636 would have to file for a waiver of the posting and
downloading requirements for the affiliate information and propose
an alternate method for making the information available.
\2\5See Order No. 636, III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles at
30,415. For example, the requirements to provide information through
downloadable files, to provide on-line help, search functions, and
menus, and to provide for backing-up, archiving, and retrieval of
this material would be the same as those for the capacity
availability information posted pursuant to Sec. 284.8(b)(4).
\2\6For example, the Commission envisions that, in most cases,
the Order No. 497 information would be a separate menu item that
users could choose when they log-on to the pipeline's EBB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission previously had required pipelines to file their
affiliate transportation logs with the Commission on magnetic tape or
computer disks according to specified data formats.27 The
Commission similarly required the pipelines to maintain nonaffiliate
information in electronic form and to provide this information to the
Commission upon request or to the public under the Commission's
discovery procedures.28 Since pipelines are now required to comply
with the Part 284 EBB requirements for posting of the affiliate
information, they must make this information available through
downloadable files. The regulations have been revised to reflect this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\718 CFR 250.16(e).
\2\818 CFR 250.16(c); 18 CFR 385.401-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is also proposing to modify the requirements for
providing both affiliate and nonaffiliate information to the Commission
upon request. Under the proposal, pipelines would only have to maintain
the information and be prepared to make it available electronically
within a reasonable time upon request, according to specifications and
formats promulgated by the Commission. Under the proposal, pipelines
would not have to maintain the nonaffiliate information in one computer
file. They could maintain the information in different files so long as
they could extract the information and provide it, upon request, in
electronic form. The Commission proposes to revise Form No. 592 to set
forth the specifications and formats to be used for downloading and for
providing the information to the Commission upon request.29
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\9The proposed specifications and format are attached as
Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Sec. 250.16(d)(4)(ii) provides that filing the discounted
rate report for affiliate transactions within 15 days of the close of
the billing period satisfies a pipeline's obligation to file discount
reports under Sec. 284.7(d)(5)(iv). Since pipelines are no longer
required routinely to file transportation logs with the Commission,
they must now fully comply with Sec. 284.7(d)(5)(iv) for affiliate
transactions.
IV. Sunset Date
The Commission is not proposing to include a sunset provision in
this rule. The proposed revisions reduce the compliance burden
significantly, and a firm sunset date, such as one year from issuance,
would not necessarily provide sufficient time for the Commission fully
to evaluate the effect of Order No. 636 on the pipelines' incentive to
favor affiliates. The Commission always can reevaluate the rule when
sufficient information is available. For example, after evaluation of
the impact of the capacity release mechanism, the Commission may find
that the availability of released capacity has so reduced the
significance of interruptible discounts from the pipeline that the
regulations are no longer needed. But, the Commission cannot predict
when it would have sufficient data to make such a determination. The
Commission notes that even without a sunset provision, it must review
these regulations within three years because the Paperwork Reduction
Act does not permit OMB to approve an information collection
requirement for a period in excess of three years.30
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\044 U.S.C. 3507(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Environmental Analysis
The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment
or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a
significant adverse effect on the human environment.31 The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these
requirements as not having a significant effect on the human
environment.32 The action taken here falls within categorical
exclusions provided in the Commission's regulations.33 Therefore,
an environmental assessment is unnecessary and has not been prepared in
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\1Order No. 486, Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. &
Regs. Preambles 1986-1990 30,783 (1987).
\3\218 CFR 380.4.
\3\3See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii), 380.4(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)34 generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the Commission hereby certifies
that the regulations proposed herein will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\45 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Information Collection Requirement
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require approval
of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency
rules.35 The proposed rule revises and reduces the reporting
requirements/burden under existing FERC-592, Marketing Affiliates of
Interstate Pipelines (OMB Control No. 1902-0157).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\55 CFR 1320.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information required under FERC-592 enables the Commission to
carry out its legislative mandate under the NGA and NGPA and will help
ensure a viable capacity release market under the Commission's Order
No. 636. Specifically, the required information allows the Commission
to review/monitor pipeline transportation, sales, and storage
transactions with its marketing affiliates to deter undue
discrimination and to take appropriate action, where and when
necessary. The information is also used by others to indicate whether
or not there has been discrimination in pipeline/affiliate/nonaffiliate
transactions.
The Commission is submitting notification of these FERC-592
information requirements to OMB for its review and approval. Interested
persons may obtain further information by contacting the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 941 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426 [Attention: Michael Miller, Information Services Division, (202)
208-1415]. Comments on the requirements of the subject proposed rule
may also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk
Officer for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission].
VIII. Comment Procedures
The Commission invites interested persons to submit written
comments on the matters proposed in this notice, including any related
matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss.
An original and 14 copies of comments to this notice must be filed with
the Commission no later than February 4, 1994. Comments should be
submitted to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, and
should refer to Docket No. RM94-6-000.
All written comments will be placed in the Commission's public
files and will be available for inspection in the Commission's Public
Reference Room at 941 North Capitol Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426,
during regular business hours.
List of Subjects
18 CFR Part 161
Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
18 CFR Part 250
Natural gas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By direction of the Commission.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend
parts 161 and 250, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as
set forth below.
PART 161--STANDARDS OF CONDUCT FOR INTERSTATE PIPELINES WITH
MARKETING AFFILIATES
1. The authority citation for part 161 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
2. In Sec. 161.3, paragraph (h) is removed, paragraphs (i) through
(l) are redesignated (h) through (k), and redesignated paragraph (i) is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 161.3 Standards of conduct.
* * * * *
(i) It must file with the Commission procedures that will enable
shippers and the Commission to determine how the pipeline is complying
with the standards in this section.
PART 250--FORMS
1. The authority citation for part 250 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717-717w, 3301-3432; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352.
2. Sec. 250.16 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 250.16 Format of compliance plan for transportation services and
affiliate transactions.
(a) Who must comply. The requirements of this section apply to
interstate natural gas pipelines that transport natural gas for others
pursuant to subparts B or G of part 284 of this chapter and are
affiliated, as that term is defined in Sec. 161.2 of this chapter, in
any way with a natural gas marketing or brokering entity and conducts
transportation transactions with its affiliate.
(b) Tariff requirements. An interstate pipeline must maintain
tariff provisions containing the following:
(1) A complete list of operating personnel and facilities shared by
the interstate natural gas pipeline and the affiliated marketing or
brokering company, which the pipeline must update and refile with the
Commission on a quarterly basis to reflect changes occurring during the
quarter;
(2) The procedures used to address and resolve complaints by
shippers and potential shippers including a provision that the pipeline
will respond within 48 hours and in writing within 30 days to such
complaints.
(c) Transportation information. An interstate pipeline must
maintain the following information for all requests for interruptible
transportation service conducted pursuant to subparts B or G of part
284 of this chapter.
(1) The identity of the shipper making the request for service,
including a designation of whether the shipper is a local distribution
company, an interstate pipeline, an intrastate pipeline, an end user, a
producer, or a marketer.
(2) The date of receipt of the request.
(3) The specific affiliation of the requester with the interstate
pipeline.
(4) Whether an affiliated marketer or pipeline sales operating unit
is involved in the transaction and its role.
(5) The maximum daily contract volume of gas requested to be
transported.
(6) The position of the request in the transportation request
queue.
(7) The disposition of the request.
(8) Any complaints by the shipper or end user concerning the
requested or furnished service and the disposition of such complaints.
(9) Whenever service is requested, offered, or provided at
discounted rates: The name of the shipper requesting or being offered
or provided the discount; the amount and duration of the discount
requested, offered or provided; the maximum rate or fee; the rate or
fee actually charged during the billing period; and the quantity of gas
scheduled at the discounted rate during the billing period for each
delivery point.
(10) Whether the pipeline has granted a waiver of a tariff
provision in providing the requested service.
(d) Filing requirements for transportation involving affiliated
marketers or brokers. An interstate pipeline must file the information
specified in paragraph (c) of this section for transportation requests
by affiliated marketers or brokers or in which an affiliated marketer
or broker is involved in the following manner and must provide this
information when service begins and update the information on a daily
basis.
(1) It must post each transaction on its Electronic Bulletin Board
for no less than 90 days in conformity with the requirements of subpart
A, part 284, Sec. 284.8(b)(4) of this chapter and its tariff, and using
the same protocols and procedures for access as used for its Electronic
Bulletin Board.
(2) It must provide for downloading of the information according to
specifications and format contained in Form No. 592, which can be
obtained at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference
and Files Maintenance Branch, 941 North Capitol St., NE., Washington,
DC 20426
(e) Provision of data for affiliate and nonaffiliate transactions.
(1) The information pipelines are required to maintain by paragraph (c)
of this section for both affiliate and nonaffiliate transaction must be
made available to the Commission upon request and to the public under
subpart D of part 385 of this chapter.
(2) When requested by the Commission, the information must be
provided, within a reasonable time, according to the specifications and
format contained in Form No. 592, which can be obtained at the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference and Files Maintenance
Branch, 941 North Capitol St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
(f) Penalty for failure to comply. (1) Any person who transports
gas for others pursuant to subparts B or G of part 284 of this chapter
and who knowingly violates the requirements of Sec. 161.3, Sec. 250.16,
or Sec. 284.13 of this chapter will be subject, pursuant to
Secs. 311(c), 501, and 504(b)(6) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978,
to a civil penalty, which the Commission may assess, of not more than
$5,000 for any one violation.
(2) For purposes of this paragraph, in the case of a continuing
violation, each day of the violation will constitute a separate
violation.
Note: The following Appendix will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Appendix A
Form Approved OMB No. 1902-0157; FERC Form No. 592
Marketing Affiliates of Interstate Pipelines
Record Formats
Revised December 7, 1993.
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 66.2 hours per year per respondent, including
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing
and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding
this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to each
of the following:
Michael Miller, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North
Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426;
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Table of Contents
General Information
I Purpose
II Who must Comply
III How to Comply
IV Where to Submit
General Instructions
Specific Instructions
Schedules: Marketing Affiliates of Interstate Pipelines, Schedule X1
(1) The Header Record
(2) The Transportation/Storage Request Record
(3) The Transportation Discounted Rate Record
(4) The Storage Discounted Rate Record
(5) The Narrative Record
(6) The Footnotes Record
General Information
I. Purpose
The information required is to support the monitoring of
activities of pipeline marketing affiliates (which includes holders
of subpart J of part 284 blanket sales certificates) so as to deter
undue discrimination by pipeline companies in favor of marketing
affiliates, and to prevent any harassment of non-affiliates.
II. Who Must Comply
All interstate natural gas pipeline companies that
Transport natural gas for others pursuant to subparts B
or G of part 284
Are affiliated in any way with a natural gas marketing
or brokering entity, as that term is defined in 18 CFR Sec. 161.2,
and
Conduct transportation transactions with an affiliate
must maintain the requisite information for interruptible
transportation service as specified in the FERC Form No. 592 and in
the manner prescribed herein.
III. How to Comply
A. Affiliate Data
The required Form No. 592 information for interruptible
transportation/storage service must be publicly available on an
electronic bulletin board (EBB) which satisfies the pipeline's
obligations under Order No. 636. This Form No. 592 data/information
is also required to be downloadable in ASCII flat files conforming
with the specifications of these instructions and record formats.
The requirement for back-up, archive, and retrieval of the Form
No. 592 interruptible transportation/storage information on the EBB
is the same as for information posted pursuant to Sec. 284.8(b)(4).
Each affiliate interruptible transportation/storage transaction must
be posted for a 90 day period. EBB functionality shall be provided
to permit users to extract currently posted Form No. 592 data, for
one or more months, and to download a flat file containing this
material formatted in accordance with these instructions.
B. Affiliate and Nonaffiliate Data
Pipelines must have the capability to create flat files
containing the Form No. 592 interruptible transportation/storage
information, for a specified time period, for both pipeline
affiliates and nonaffiliates. For discovery, the Commission may
require pipelines to submit these Form No. 592 flat files for both
affiliates and nonaffiliates on 9-track tape reel(s), 18-track tape
cartridges(s), or on computer diskette(s).
The pipeline may also be requested to provide one paper copy of
the information submitted on the magnetic tape(s) or diskette(s)
formatted so as to assist Commission staff in reading the company's
flat files. The paper copy, if requested, must cover the same time
period as the flat files submitted on the magnetic tape(s) or
diskette(s).
IV. Where to Submit
(1) Any required submission should be addressed to: Office of
the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 N. Capitol
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
(2) Hand deliveries can be made to: Office of the Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, room 3110, 825 N. Capitol
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
General Instructions
1. The notation f(m,n) will be used to denote a numeric string
of length ``m'' including a decimal (``.'') with ``n'' digits
following the decimal.
2. In preparing the required flat file, the following
conventions must be followed:
(A) All numeric fields must not be left blank and must be right
justified unless indicated otherwise.
(B) All money items should be rounded to the nearest dollar
except where noted.
(C) All volumetric data should be stated in MMbtu's (rounded to
the nearest MMbtu), except where noted.
(D) All rates should be stated in cents per MMbtu fixed decimal
numbers, format f(10,2). For example, $1.5264/MMbtu should be stated
as 152.64.
(E) Negative values should be reported with a ``-'' sign
preceding the first nonzero digit reported.
(F) Commas must not be included in any numeric field.
(G) Percents should be reported as whole numbers between 0 and
100 inclusive.
(H) All dates should be reported as six digit numerics (year,
month, day), unless otherwise indicated.
3. The sequence number is the sequential number assigned to a
record as it is recorded on a schedule/record. The sequence number
is incremented as additional records are added to a schedule/record
and will be between 1 and 999,999, inclusive. (Note: The sequence
number should be right justified, zero filled.)
4. The reference number is the alphanumeric string formed by
concatenation of the Schedule ID, Record ID, sequence number, and
item location number. E.g., a respondent's Company ID reported in
the first record on the ``General Information'' record would have
reference number ``X101000001011'' formed by joining (concatenating)
the schedule ID ``X1'', the record ID ``01'', the sequence number
``000001'', and the item location number ``011''.
5. Report any footnote relative to any item reported on Schedule
X1 in the ``Footnotes Record'', (Record 06 of Schedule X1). Each
footnote should be cross referenced to the schedule and record
(line) it pertains to by the appropriate reference number. E.g., a
footnote for Company ID reported in the first record of the
``General Information'' record, (Schedule X1, Record 01), would be
recorded in the ``Footnote Record,'' (Schedule X1, Record 06), using
the reference number ``X101000001011''. At a minimum, the respondent
should report the following information, in footnotes, for each
contract/ request reported in the ``Transportation Service Data
Record,'' (Schedule X1, Record 02).
a. The field ``Respondent Affiliation,'' item number 15, should
be footnoted to provide a complete list of personnel and facilities
shared by the interstate pipeline and affiliated marketer or broker,
or by the interstate pipeline and its blanket sales operating unit.
Negative reports are required.
b. The field ``Disposition of Request,'' item number 11, should
be footnoted to provide any complaints and the disposition of such
complaints by the shipper or end user concerning the requested or
furnished service.
6. Source of codes.
(A) Pipeline Company ID: Use the code for the pipeline as
contained in the Buyer Seller Code List, U.S. Department of Energy's
publication DOE/EIA-0176. A code may be obtained by calling EIA at
(202) 254-5435.
(B) Contract ID: The respondent's own designation for the
contract or agreement covering the transaction being reported. This
identifier will either be assigned by the respondent or the party
providing a service to the respondent.
7. A pipeline blanket sales operating unit is any entity
operating under a subpart J of part 284 blanket sales certificate,
and is considered the functional equivalent of a marketing
affiliate.
Specific Instructions
1. Request ID: The Request ID is the unique sequential number
assigned by the respondent to a request for transportation service
when that request is received by the respondent.
2. Date Request Received: The month, day, and year the pipeline
company received the request for transportation service.
3. Maximum Daily Contract Volumes To Be Transported (or Maximum
Storage Withdrawal Quantity): The total maximum daily contract
volumes of natural gas to be transported by the pipeline company (or
withdrawn from storage).
4. Delivery Point ID: The point at which the pipeline company
delivers the natural gas to a designated end user, local
distribution company, etc. as specified by the transportation
service requested. The respondent will provide a unique 20-byte
alphanumeric identifier for each delivery point on his pipeline
system. This delivery point ID will be the alphanumeric label/name
which the respondent uses in conducting his daily business, (or a
unique abbreviation thereof if the company identifier is more than
20 characters in length.)
5. Maximum Rate for Transportation Service: The maximum rate
contained in the respondent's currently effective tariff for the
rate schedule under which the interruptible transportation service
is being conducted.
6. Discounted Rate for Transportation Service: A rate that is
less than the maximum rate on file with the Commission.
7. Contracted Storage Capacity: Contracted working gas (Top Gas)
volume.
Schedules
Marketing Affiliates of Interstate Pipelines--Schedule X1
Definitions of Items and File Layout for the Marketing Affiliates of
Interstate Pipelines--Schedule X1
This schedule will consist of six record formats:
(01) The Header Record
(02) The Transportation/Storage Request Record
(03) The Transportation Discounted Rate Record
(04) The Storage Discounted Rate Record
(05) The Narrative Record
(06) The Footnotes Record
(1) The Header Record
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Character
Item No. Item position Data type Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schedule ID....................................... 1-2 Character...... Sch=X1.
Record ID......................................... 3-4 Numeric........ Code=01.
1.............. Company ID........................................ 5-10 Numeric........ Company code from buyer/seller code list, see general
instruction 6.
3.............. Month Posted...................................... 11-14 Numeric........ (MMYY); month and year which data represents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The Transportation/Storage Request Record
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Character
Item No. Item position Data type Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schedule ID....................................... 1-2 Character...... Sch=X1.
Record ID......................................... 3-4 Numeric........ Code=02.
Sequence No....................................... 5-10 Numeric........ Right justified, zero filled, see general instruction
3.
4.............. Contract ID....................................... 11-18 Character...... See general instruction 6(b).
5.............. Request ID........................................ 19-25 Numeric........ See specific instruction 1.
7.............. Position in Queue................................. 26-30 Numeric........ Place in waiting line for contract for transportation
service.
8.............. Total Number of Requests in Queue................. 31-35 Numeric........ Total number of requests pending with pipeline for
initial transportation service.
9.............. Date Request Received............................. 36-41 Numeric........ (MMDDYY); see specific instruction 2.
11............. Disposition of Request............................ 42 Numeric........ See general instruction 5b; code=1, granted at
maximum rate; code=2, granted a discounted rate;
code=3, denied due to a capacity limitation; code=4,
denied due to financial condition of requestor;
code=5, other (provide specific details in a
footnote).
14............. Shipper........................................... 43-82 Character...... Name of the shipper requesting service.
15............. Pipeline Affiliation with Shipper................. 83 Numeric........ See general instruction 5a and note 1; code=1,
respondent affiliated with shipper; code=2,
respondent not affiliated with shipper.
18............. Shipper Type...................................... 84 Numeric........ Code=1, LDC/distributor; code=2, interstate pipeline;
code=3, intrastate pipeline; code=4, end user;
code=5, producer; code=6, marketer; code=7, other,
(specify in footnote).
Affiliate Name.................................... 85-124 Character...... Name of the pipeline affiliate involved in the
transportation/storage service being provided; if
more than one affiliate is involved in the service,
provide name(s) in a footnote.
Role of Affiliate................................. 125 Character...... Affiliates role in the transportation/storage service
is: code=1, shipper; code=2, marketer; code=3,
supplier; code=4, seller; code=5, buyer; code=6,
agent; code=7, enduser; code=8, other, (identify
role in a footnote).
Is Affiliate a Pipeline Sales Operating Unit of 126 Character...... Code=Y, yes; code=N, no.
the Respondent.
20............. Discounted Rate Requested......................... 127 Numeric........ Discounted rate requested by party requesting the
transportation service; code=0, discount not
requested; code=1, discount requested.
21............. Maximum Daily Contract Volume to be Transported 128-137 Numeric........ (MMbtu); see specific instruction 3. Post contracted
(or Maximum Storage Withdrawal Quantity). storage capacity in Item 33b.
31............. Type of Service................................... 138 Numeric........ See note 1; code=1, interruptible service without
waiver; code=2, interruptible service with waiver.
33a............ Type of Transaction............................... 139 Numeric........ Code=1, code=2, a previously posted transaction in
which changes occurred.
33b............ Contracted Storage Capacity....................... 140-149 Numeric........ (MMbtu); see specific instruction 7.
33c............ Character of Service.............................. 150 Numeric........ Code=1, storage service; code=2, transportation
related to sale made by pipeline blanket sales
operating unit; code=3, other transportation.
Posting Date...................................... 151-156 Numeric........ (YYMMDD), year, month, and day entry is posted on
pipeline's electronic bulletin board.
Footnote.......................................... 157 Numeric........ Code=1, footnote is provided for this record; code=0,
no footnote provided.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: Report in this data item whether a waiver of a tariff provision has been granted in providing the requested service. Code 1 will be used to
indicate interruptible transportation service without waiver of a tariff provision; code 3 and 4 will be used to indicate interruptible transportation
service with a waiver of a tariff provision of the respondent. Provide details on any waiver granted in a footnote.
(3) The Transportation Discounted Rate Record
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Character
Item No. Item position Data type Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schedule ID....................................... 1-2 Character...... Sch=X1.
Record ID......................................... 3-4 Numeric........ Code=03.
Sequence Number................................... 5-10 Numeric........ Right justified, zero filled, see general instruction
3.
4.............. Contract ID....................................... 11-18 Character...... See general instruction 6(b).
5.............. Request ID........................................ 19-25 Numeric........ See specific instruction 1.
35............. Delivery Point ID................................. 26-45 Character...... See specific instruction 4 and note 2.
38............. Billing Period.................................... 46-65 Character...... The billing period during which the discounted rate
was collected.
39............. Duration of Discount.............................. 66-67 Numeric........ Number of days in the billing period the discount was
offered or provided.
14............. Shipper........................................... 68-107 Character...... Name of the shipper receiving transportation service.
18............. Shipper Type...................................... 108 Numeric........ Code=1, LDC/distributor; code=2, interstate pipeline;
code=3, intrastate pipeline; code=4, end user;
code=5, producer; code=6, marketer; code=7, other,
(specify in footnote).
36............. Maximum Rate for Transportation Service........... 109-118 Numeric........ (Cents/MMbtu); maximum effective rate/fee currently
on file with the Commission for the service
provided; format f(10,2); e.g., 35.62 cents is
reported as ``35.62''; see specific instruction 5.
37............. Discounted Rate for Transportation Service........ 119-128 Numeric........ (Cents/MMbtu); actual rate/fee collected for the
transportation service rendered; format f(10,2);
e.g., 32.15 cents is reported as ``32.15''; do not
report a negative value; see specific instruction 6.
40............. Volume Transported................................ 129-139 Numeric........ (MMbtu); volume of gas transported at the discounted
rate.
Posting Date...................................... 140-145 Numeric........ (YYMMDD), year, month, and day entry is posted on
pipeline's electronic bulletin board.
Footnote.......................................... 146 Numeric........ Code=1, footnote is provided for this record; code=0,
no footnote provided.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 2: This record is filed for each delivery point actually used during the billing period reported. Only transactions actually discounted should be
reported.
(4) The Storage Discounted Rate Record
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Character
Item No. Item position Data type Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schedule ID....................................... 1-2 Character...... Sch=X1.
Record ID......................................... 3-4 Numeric........ Code=04.
Sequence No....................................... 5-10 Numeric........ Right justified, zero filled, see general instruction
3.
4.............. Contract ID....................................... 11-18 Character...... See general instruction 6(b).
5.............. Request ID........................................ 19-25 Numeric........ See specific instruction 1.
35............. Delivery Point ID................................. 26-45 Character...... See specific instruction 4 and note 3.
38............. Billing Period.................................... 46-65 Character...... The billing period during which the discounted rate
was collected.
39............. Duration of Discount.............................. 66-67 Numeric........ Number of days in the billing period the discount was
offered or provided.
14............. Shipper........................................... 68-107 Character...... Name of the shipper receiving storage service.
18............. Shipper Type...................................... 108 Numeric........ Code=1, LDC/distributor; code=2, interstate pipeline;
code=3, intrastate pipeline; code=4, end user;
code=5, producer; code=6, marketer; code=7, other,
(specify in footnote).
42............. Maximum Rate for Storage Capacity................. 109-118 Numeric........ (Cents/MMbtu); format f(10,2); see specific
instruction 5 for definition.
43............. Maximum Rate for Maximum Storage Withdrawal 119-128 Numeric........ (Cents/MMbtu); format f(10,2); see specific
Quantity. instruction 5 for definition
44............. Maximum Storage Injection Rate.................... 129-138 Numeric........ (Cents/MMbtu); format f(10,2); see specific
instruction 5 for definition.
45............. Maximum Storage Withdrawal Rate................... 139-148 Numeric........ (Cents/MMbtu); format f(10,2); see specific
instruction 5 for definition.
46............. Discounted Rate For Storage Capacity.............. 149-158 Numeric........ (Cents/MMbtu); format f(10,2); see specific
instruction 6 for definition
47............. Discounted Rate For Maximum Storage Withdrawal 159-168 Numeric........ (Cents/MMbtu); format f(10,2); see specific
Quantity. instruction 6 for definition.
48............. Discounted Storage Injection Rate................. 169-178 Numeric........ (Cents/MMbtu); format f(10,2); see specific
instruction 6 for definition
49............. Discounted Storage Withdrawal Rate................ 179-188 Numeric........ (Cents/MMbtu); format f(10,2); see specific
instruction 6 for definition.
50............. Discounted Storage Capacity Volume................ 189-198 Numeric........ (MMbtu).
51............. Discounted Maximum Storage Withdrawal Quantity.... 199-208 Numeric........ (MMbtu).
52............. Discounted Storage Injection Volume............... 209-218 Numeric........ (MMbtu).
53............. Discounted Storage Withdrawal Volume.............. 219-228 Numeric........ (MMbtu).
Posting Date...................................... 229-234 Numeric........ (YYMMDD), year, month, and day entry is posted on
pipeline's electronic bulletin board.
Footnote.......................................... 235 Numeric........ Code=1, footnote is provided for this record; Code=0,
no footnote provided.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 3: This record is filed for each delivery point actually used during the billing period reported. Only transactions actually discounted should be
reported.
(5) The Narrative Record
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Character
Item No. Item position Data type Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schedule ID....................................... 1-2 Character...... Sch=X1.
Record ID......................................... 3-4 Numeric........ Code=05
Sequence No....................................... 5-10 Numeric........ Right justified, zero filled, see general instruction
3.
Text ID........................................... 11 Numeric........ See note 4.
Text.............................................. 12-143 Character...... See note 5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 4: Character positions 12-143 are to be used to enter free form text. The ``Text ID'' is the corresponding code as set forth below which identifies
the required information.
Text ID: 1. Required Information: A complete list of operating personnel and facilities shared by the interstate natural gas pipeline and any affiliated
marketing or brokering company (or blanket sales operating unit).
Text ID: 2. Required Information: The procedures used to address and resolve complaints by shippers and potential shippers.
Note 5: A total of 132 character positions are provided for entering footnote text. If the respondent chooses to enter information in less than the 132
allowed character positions, the information should be left justified and the remainder of the record (line) should be blank filled through character
position 255.
(6) The Footnotes Record
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Character
Item No. Item position Data type Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schedule ID....................................... 1-2 Character...... Sch=X1.
Record ID......................................... 3-4 Numeric........ Code=06.
Sequence No....................................... 5-10 Numeric........ Right justified, zero filled, see general instruction
3.
Reference No...................................... 11-23 Numeric........ Reference number for record being footnoted see
general instruction 4.
Footnote Text..................................... 24-155 Character...... See note 6.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 6: A total of 132 character positions are provided for entering footnote text.
[FR Doc. 94-31 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-23 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 265-266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-23]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 93-NM-174-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the supersedure of an existing
airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 747
series airplanes, that currently requires that the FAA-approved
maintenance inspection program include inspections which will give no
less than the required damage tolerance rating (DTR) for each
Structural Significant Item (SSI). This action would require the
inclusion of additional airplanes to the candidate fleet. This proposal
is prompted by a recommendation from the Airworthiness Assurance Task
Force, Model 747 Structures Working Group. The actions specified by the
proposed AD are intended to ensure the continued structural integrity
of the total Boeing Model 747 fleet.
DATES: Comments must be received by March 1, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 93-NM-174-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Fox, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206) 227-2777; fax (206) 227-1181.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 93-NM-174-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 93-NM-174-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
On March 18, 1993, the FAA issued AD 93-06-01, Amendment 39-8526
(58 FR 19571, April 15, 1993), applicable to certain Boeing Model 747
series airplanes, to require that the FAA-approved maintenance
inspection program be revised to include inspections which will give no
less than the required damage tolerance rating (DTR) for each
Structural Significant Item (SSI). That action was prompted by a
structural re-evaluation by the manufacturer which identified
additional structural elements where, if damage should occur,
supplemental inspections may be required for timely detection. The
requirements of that AD are intended to ensure the continued structural
integrity of the total Boeing Model 747 fleet.
Since the issuance of that AD, the FAA has reviewed and approved
Boeing Document No. D6-35022, Volumes 1 and 2, ``Supplemental
Structural Inspection Document (SSID) for Model 747 Airplanes,''
Revision E, dated June 17, 1993, that revises the effectivity by adding
airplanes to the candidate fleet on which supplemental inspections that
give no less than the required damage tolerance rating (DTR) for each
Structural Significant Item (SSI) must be performed. This document also
clarifies the selection criteria for candidate airplanes. The original
Model 747-100 and -200 series airplanes in the candidate fleet were
selected based on having accumulated 10,000 flight cycles by June 30,
1983. Subsequently, selected high time airplanes were added to the
candidate fleet to replace out-of-service airplanes. Incorporation of
the inspections described in this document will ensure the continuing
structural integrity of the total Boeing Model 747 fleet.
Since the failure of an SSI can compromise the structural integrity
of these airplanes, and since such conditions are likely to exist or
develop on other Model 747 series airplanes, the proposed AD would
supersede AD 93-06-01 to expand the applicability to require that the
inspections identified in the Boeing document, described previously, be
performed on the airplanes in the candidate fleet to provide no less
than the required damage tolerance rating (DTR) for each Structural
Significant Item (SSI) listed in Revision E of the SSID.
Moreover, the FAA has identified eight additional airplanes that
are not listed in Revision E of the Boeing Document, and that must be
added to the candidate fleet to replace certain airplanes that were
removed from the candidate fleet. Some of these newly identified
airplanes were operated as short range (SR) airplanes and have now been
converted to freighters. Therefore, the FAA has determined that these
airplanes must be included in the SSID program, and that supplemental
inspections must also be performed on these additional airplanes to
ensure safety of the entire Boeing Model 747 fleet. The AD proposes to
expand the applicability by adding these eight airplanes.
There are approximately 128 Boeing Model 747 series airplanes of
the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 87
airplanes of U.S. registry and 8 U.S. operators would be affected by
this proposed AD. Incorporation of the SSID program into an operator's
maintenance program, as required by AD 93-06-01, and retained in this
proposal, is estimated to necessitate 1,000 work hours (per operator)
at an average labor rate of $55 per work hour. Based on these figures,
the total cost to the 8 affected U.S. operators to incorporate the SSID
program is estimated to be $440,000, or $55,000 per U.S. operator.
The recurring inspections costs, as required by AD 93-06-01, and
retained in this proposal, is estimated to be 1,275 work hours per
airplane at an average labor rate of $55 per work hour. Based on these
figures, the annual recurring cost required by AD 93-06-01, and
retained in this proposal, is estimated to be $6,100,875 for the
affected U.S. fleet, or $70,125 per airplane.
Since no new operators have been added by this proposal, there will
be no new costs associated with incorporating the SSID program into an
operator's maintenance program. Therefore, the future economic cost
impact of this proposal on U.S. operators is now only the cost of the
recurring inspections for these additional airplanes.
The number of required work hours for the recurring inspections in
this proposal, as indicated above, is presented as if the
accomplishment of the actions were to be conducted as ``stand alone''
action. However, in actual practice, these actions, for the most part,
would be accomplished coincidentally or in combination with normally
scheduled airplane inspections and other maintenance program tasks.
Therefore, the actual number of necessary additional work hours will be
minimal in many instances. Additionally, any costs associated with
special airplane scheduling will be minimal.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14
CFR part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a), 1421 and 1423; 49 U.S.C.
106(g); and 14 CFR 11.89.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-8526 (58 FR
19571, April 15, 1993), and by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD), to read as follows:
Boeing: Docket 93-NM-174-AD. Supersedes AD 93-06-01, Amendment 39-
8526.
Applicability: Model 747 series airplanes, as listed in Section
3.0 of Boeing Document No. D6-35022, Volumes 1 and 2, ``Supplemental
Structural Inspection Document (SSID) for Model 747 Airplanes,''
Revision E, dated June 17, 1993; and manufacturer's line numbers 42,
174, 221, 231, 234, 239, 242, and 254; certificated in any category.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To ensure the continued structural integrity of the total Boeing
Model 747 fleet, accomplish the following:
(a) For airplanes listed in Boeing Document No. D6-35022,
Volumes I and II, ``Supplemental Structural Inspection Document
(SSID),'' Revision D, dated February 1992: Within 12 months after
May 17, 1993 (the effective date of AD 93-06-01, Amendment 39-8526),
incorporate a revision into the FAA-approved maintenance inspection
program which provides no less than the required Damage Tolerance
Rating (DTR) for each Structural Significant Item (SSI) listed in
Boeing Document No. D6-35022, Revision D, dated February 1992. (The
required DTR value for each SSI is listed in the document.) The
revision to the maintenance program shall include Sections 5.0 and
6.0 of the SSID and shall be implemented in accordance with the
procedures contained in those sections.
(b) For airplanes listed in Boeing Document No. D6-35022,
Volumes 1 and 2, ``Supplemental Structural Inspection Document
(SSID) for Model 747 Airplanes,'' Revision E, dated June 17, 1993;
and manufacturer's line numbers 42, 174, 221, 231, 234, 239, 242,
and 254: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace the revision of the FAA-approved maintenance inspection
program required by paragraph (a) of this AD with a revision that
provides no less than the required DTR for each SSI listed in Boeing
Document No. D6-35022, Volumes 1 and 2, ``Supplemental Structural
Inspection Document (SSID) for Model 747 Airplanes,'' Revision E,
dated June 17, 1993. (The required DTR value for each SSI is listed
in the document.) The revision to the maintenance program shall
include Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of the SSID and shall be implemented in
accordance with the procedures contained in those sections.
(c) Cracked structure must be repaired, prior to further flight,
in accordance with an FAA-approved method.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Seattle ACO.
Note: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with FAR
21.197 and 21.199 to operate the airplane to a location where the
requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 28, 1993.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 94-23 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 94-22 Airworthiness Directives; de Havilland, Inc., Model DHC-7 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 266-268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-22]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 92-NM-157-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; de Havilland, Inc., Model DHC-7 Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of
comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document revises an earlier proposed airworthiness
directive (AD), applicable to certain de Havilland Model DHC-7 series
airplanes, that would have required a one-time inspection to assess the
adequacy of the clearance between various adapter plates and seal
retaining angles on the fuselage side access panel, and modification,
if necessary. That proposal was prompted by reports of incidents
involving corrosion and fatigue cracking in commuter-class airplanes
that are approaching or have exceeded their economic design goal. This
action revises the proposed rule by requiring modification of both the
forward and rear seal retention angles, regardless of whether damage is
found. The actions specified by this proposed AD are intended to
prevent degradation of the structural capabilities of the affected
airplanes.
DATES: Comments must be received by February 13, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 92-NM-157-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from de Havilland, Inc., Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario
M3K 1Y5, Canada. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at
FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, New York Aircraft Certification
Office, 181 South Franklin Avenue, room 202, Valley Stream, New York.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sol Maroof, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York
Aircraft Certification Office, 181 South Franklin Avenue, room 202,
Valley Stream, New York 11581; telephone (516) 791-6220; fax (516) 791-
9024.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 92-NM-157-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 92-NM-157-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations to
add an airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain de Havilland
Model DHC-7 series airplanes, was published as a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on March 4, 1993 (58 FR
12349). That NPRM would have required a one-time inspection to assess
the adequacy of the clearance between: (1) The wing forward pick-up
adapter plate and the seal retaining angle on the fuselage side access
panel, and (2) the wing rear mounting adapter plates and the seal
retaining angle on the fuselage side access panel; and modification, if
necessary. That NPRM was prompted by reports of incidents involving
corrosion and fatigue cracking in commuter-class airplanes that are
approaching or have exceeded their economic design goal. That
condition, if not corrected, could result in degradation of the
structural capabilities of the affected airplanes.
Since the issuance of that NPRM, the FAA has received a comment
that has caused the FAA to reconsider its position on certain aspects
of the proposed rule.
The commenter requests that the proposal be revised to require
modification of the forward and rear retention angles and adapter
plates, regardless of whether damage is found in the adapter plates.
The commenter contends that if the forward and rear seal retainers are
not trimmed, they may be inadvertently interchanged with seal retainers
from other airplanes in an operator's fleet. The FAA concurs. The FAA
has reviewed all available data and has determined that in order to
preclude the possibility for installing an untrimmed seal retainer in
an airplane that lacks sufficient clearance, the forward and rear seal
retainers must be trimmed. Although the referenced service bulletins do
not specify trimming the forward and rear seal retainers when the seal
retainers are found undamaged, the FAA finds that safety can be best
assured when the seal retainers are trimmed, regardless of whether
damage is found, to avoid the possibility for inadvertently
interchanging seal retainers from other airplanes. Therefore, proposed
paragraph (a) of the previously issued NPRM has been revised to propose
requiring that Modification 7/2319 (forward adapter plates and seal
retaining angle), and paragraph (b) of the NPRM has been revised to
propose requiring that Modification 7/2355 (rear adapter plates and
seal retaining angle) be accomplished.
Further, this commenter indicates that the proposed 6-month
compliance time to accomplish the inspection was unnecessarily
stringent in light of the age of the service bulletins. From this
comment, the FAA infers that the commenter requests an extension to the
compliance time, although the commenter does not specify an
alternative. The FAA concurs that the compliance time may be extended
somewhat. The FAA has determined that extending the compliance time by
6 additional months will not adversely affect safety, and will allow
the inspection to be performed at a base during regularly scheduled
maintenance where special equipment and trained maintenance personnel
will be available. It will also provide additional time to accomplish
the additional modification proposed in this action. Therefore,
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this supplemental NPRM have been revised to
require that the inspection be accomplished within 12 months.
Since certain of these changes expand the scope of the originally
proposed rule, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to reopen
the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public
comment.
The FAA estimates that 44 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 8 work
hours per airplane to accomplish the modifications and inspections, and
that the average labor rate is $55 per work hour. Required parts would
be nominal in cost. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of
the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $19,360, or $440
per airplane. This total cost figure assumes that no operator has yet
accomplished the proposed requirements of this AD action.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14
CFR part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a), 1421 and 1423; 49 U.S.C.
106(g); and 14 CFR 11.89.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
De Havilland, Inc.: Docket 92-NM-157-AD.
Applicability: Model DHC-7 airplanes having serial numbers 1
through 99 inclusive, certificated in any category.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent structural failure, accomplish the following:
(a) For airplanes having serial numbers 1 through 77 inclusive,
79 through 83 inclusive, 85, and 86: Within 12 months after the
effective date of this AD, inspect the clearance between the wing
forward pick-up adapter plates and the seal retaining angle on the
fuselage side access panel in accordance with de Havilland Service
Bulletin 7-57-11, dated December 17, 1982.
(1) If the adapter plates are undamaged or if scoring on the
adapter plates does not exceed 0.050 inch in depth, prior to further
flight, accomplish Modification 7/2319 in accordance with the
service bulletin.
(2) If scoring on the adapter plates is equal to or exceeds
0.050 inch in depth, prior to further flight, repair in accordance
with a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, Engine and Propeller
Directorate.
(b) For airplanes having serial numbers 1 through 99, inclusive:
Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect the
clearance between the rear mounting adapter plates and the seal
retaining angle on the fuselage side access panel in accordance with
de Havilland Service Bulletin 7-57-19, dated February 24, 1984.
(1) If the adapter plates are undamaged or if scoring on the
adapter plates does not exceed 0.050 inch in depth, prior to further
flight, accomplish Modification 7/2355 in accordance with the
service bulletin.
(2) If scoring on the adapter plates is equal to or exceeds
0.050 inch in depth, prior to further flight, repair in accordance
with a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA,
Engine and Propeller Directorate.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA, Engine
and Propeller Directorate. Operators shall submit their requests
through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may
add comments and then send it to the Manager, New York ACO.
Note: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the New York ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with FAR
21.197 and 21.199 to operate the airplane to a location where the
requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 28, 1993.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 94-22 Filed 1-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-32106 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Antilock Brake Systems for Light Vehicles
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 281-289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-32106]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 93-94; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AE47
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Antilock Brake Systems
for Light Vehicles
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Authorization Act of 1991 directs this agency to initiate rulemaking to
consider the need for any additional brake performance standards for
passenger cars, including antilock brake standards. Pursuant to this
mandate, the agency is issuing this notice to obtain responses to
questions regarding the braking performance of passenger cars and other
light vehicles and the need to require antilock brake systems on these
vehicles. This notice poses questions about the desirability of a
requirement that light vehicles be equipped with antilock brake systems
(ABS), including questions about such a requirement's anticipated
safety benefits, potential regulatory approaches and anticipated
performance requirements and test procedures, the requirement's
applicability, its schedule for implementation, and the anticipated
costs.
DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before March 7,
1994.
ADDRESSES: All comments on this notice should refer to the docket and
notice number and be submitted to the following: Docket Section, room
5109, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (Docket hours 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. George Soodoo, Office of Crash Avoidance, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590
(202) 366-5892.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Existing and Proposed Standards
B. Statutory Mandates
C. Antilock Brake Systems
D. Current Size of ABS Market
II. NHTSA Activities Related to Braking Performance
III. Issues for Possible Agency Action
A. Overview of the Issues
B. Safety Need
C. Regulatory Approaches to Improving the Lateral Stability and
Control of Light Vehicles
D. Test Procedures
E. Test Conditions
F. Varieties of ABSs Permissible Under Potential Proposals
G. Implementation
H. Costs Associated with Potential Proposals
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
B. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
I. Background
A. Existing and Proposed Standards
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake
Systems, specifies requirements for vehicles equipped with hydraulic
brake systems. (49 CFR 571.105). Standard No. 105 applies to all
vehicles except motorcycles that are equipped with hydraulic brakes. It
has specific requirements which apply to passenger cars and to vehicles
other than passenger cars with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) (1)
equal to or less than 10,000 pounds and (2) greater than 10,000
pounds.\1\ The Standard's purpose is to ensure safe braking performance
under normal and emergency conditions. The Standard includes a variety
of performance requirements that evaluate a vehicle's service brake
system in terms of stopping distance, partial failure, fade and
recovery, water recovery, and spike stops. It also sets forth
requirements related to a vehicle's parking brake performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This document will refer to passenger cars and other vehicles
with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (e.g., light trucks and vans
and multipurpose passenger vehicles) as ``light vehicles.'' Where
necessary to refer to passenger cars, ``passenger cars'' will be
used, and where necessary to refer to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000
pounds or less other than passenger cars, ``other light vehicles''
will be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of NHTSA's safety standards currently mandates the
installation of antilock braking systems (ABS) on light vehicles or
specifies performance requirements intended to ensure the proper
functioning of an ABS voluntarily installed on a light vehicle. A light
vehicle equipped with an ABS is required to meet the same stopping
distance requirements as a non-ABS-equipped light vehicle. In addition,
a light vehicle with a failed ABS must be capable of meeting the
stopping distance requirements for partial failure of the service brake
system, as follows: passenger cars are required to stop within 456 feet
and other light vehicles must stop within 517 feet when traveling at 60
mph on a high coefficient of friction surface. (See section S5.5 of
Standard No. 105).
NHTSA has proposed requirements for functioning and failed ABSs.
NHTSA is currently reviewing comments to a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) that proposes to establish a new standard,
Standard No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems, which would replace
Standard No. 105 as it applies to passenger cars. (56 FR 30528, July 3,
1991). The rulemaking to establish the new standard resulted from
NHTSA's efforts to harmonize its safety standards with international
standards. The agency anticipates the next regulatory action related to
Standard No. 135 will be issued in early 1994.
In the SNPRM, NHTSA proposed requirements for functioning antilock
systems, which include straight line stops on high and low coefficient
of friction surfaces, a high coefficient of friction to low coefficient
of friction surface transition test, and a low coefficient of friction
to high coefficient of friction surface transition test. A high
coefficient of friction surface, such as dry asphalt, is one that is
relatively sticky and thus provides higher levels of braking force and
better lateral stability and control during braking. Conversely, a low
coefficient of friction surface, such as wet or icy pavement, is one
that is relatively slippery and thus provides lower levels of braking
force and poorer lateral stability and control during braking. These
surfaces are referred to as high mu and low mu surfaces, respectively.
The agency also proposed requirements for failed antilock systems,
which are more stringent than Standard No. 105's antilock failure
requirements. For an antilock functional failure, the agency proposed a
stopping distance of 85 meters (279 feet) from 100 kilometers per hour
(62 mph).
B. Statutory Mandate
Sections 2500 through 2509 of the ``Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991'' are called the ``National
Highway Traffice Safety Administration Authorization Act of 1991''
(``Authorization Act''). Among other things, the Authorization Act
directs NHTSA to initiate rulemaking on a number of safety matters,
including brake performance standards for passenger cars.
Today's ANPRM initiates the rulemaking required by section 2507 of
the Authorization Act. That section provides that, not later than
December 31, 1993, an advance notice of proposed rulemaking be
published, in accordance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act of 1966, to consider the need for any additional brake
performance standards for passenger cars, including ABS standards. The
Act also directs the agency to ``consider any such [antilock brake
system] adopted by a manufacturer'' to facilitate and encourage
innovation and early application of economical and effective antilock
brake systems for all such vehicles.
Section 2507 requires the rulemaking action to be completed not
later than 36 months from issuance of the ANPRM. Under sections 2507
and 2052(b)(2)(B)(ii), the action will be considered completed when the
agency either promulgates a final rule or decides not to promulgate a
rule.
C. Antilock Brake Systems
The primary benefit of an ABS is its ability to prevent loss-of-
control accidents caused by wheel lockup during braking. This allows
the driver to maintain steering control and lateral stability even in
panic braking situations. In addition, vehicles equipped with an ABS
typically have enhanced braking efficiency and as a consequence usually
have shorter stopping distances, particularly on low mu surfaces,
compared to the same vehicle without an ABS.
ABSs help prevent braking induced loss-of-control situations by
automatically controlling the amount of braking pressure applied to a
wheel. Current antilock braking systems include wheel speed sensors
that measure wheel speeds and transmit signals to an Electronic Control
Unit (ECU). The ECU monitors wheel speeds, and changes in wheel speeds,
based on electrical signals transmitted from sensors located at the
wheels or within the axle housings. If the wheels start to lock, the
ECU signals a modulator control valve to actuate, thereby holding
constant or reducing the amount of braking pressure applied to the
wheel or axle that is nearing lockup. This continuous feedback cycle of
sensing, controlling, modulating, and sensing prevents wheel lockup,
and results in improved vehicle stability and steering control during
braking on all types of road surface conditions.
There are two primary types of ABS configurations that are
currently available for most light vehicles: all-wheel systems and
rear-wheel-only systems. An all-wheel ABS directly controls all the
wheels on the vehicle, typically by using individual wheel control for
the front axle wheels and either individual wheel control or select low
control for the rear axle wheels. (Select low control provides the same
brake pressure modulation to both wheels of an axle whenever either
wheel on that axle approaches lockup.) A vehicle equipped with an all-
wheel ABS is able to maintain steering control, even during hard
braking on wet surfaces. Because maintaining steering control can be a
key factor in accident avoidance, a vehicle equipped with an all-wheel
ABS would be expected to experience better lateral stability and
control during hard braking, particularly on wet or slippery road
surface conditions.
Rear-wheel-only ABSs directly control only the rear wheels of the
vehicle, using the select low method of control. A vehicle equipped
with a rear-wheel-only ABS may still experience front wheel lockup
during braking, since the front wheels are not controlled by the ABS.
Rear-wheel-only systems have relatively less accident reduction
potential than all-wheel systems, because front wheel lockup could
result in a vehicle losing steering control. In a crash-threatening
situation, maintaining steering control can be a critical factor in
accident avoidance.
D. Current Size of ABS Market
ABSs are currently available on over 130 models of passenger cars
and other light vehicles (light trucks and vans (LTVs), and sport
utility vehicles). ABSs are offered as standard equipment on almost all
top-of-the line models and as standard equipment or an option on an
increasing number of mid-priced and low-priced models. For instance,
the Chevrolet Cavalier with a manufacturer's suggested retail price of
under $10,000 offers an ABS as standard equipment. Manufacturers of
ABSs currently available on vehicles sold in the United States include
Bendix, Bosch, Dewandre-WABCO, GM-Delco, Honda, Kelsey-Hayes,
Nippondenso, Sumitomo, and Teves.
In 1992, 2,682,218 of the passenger cars sold in the United States
were equipped with an ABS. This represented approximately 32 percent of
all passenger cars sold in this country during that year. Passenger
cars that are equipped with an ABS typically have an all-wheel ABS that
permits steering control since the system modulates the brake force at
each wheel. That same year, approximately 3,600,000 of the other light
vehicles sold in the United States were equipped with an ABS, and
approximately 3,100,000 of those vehicles were equipped with a rear-
wheel-only ABS. While rear-wheel-only systems provide benefits (e.g.,
improved stability during braking) for light trucks that frequently
experience a wide range of loading levels, a rear-wheel-only ABS
provides no ABS control to the front wheels.
These nearly 6,300,000 ABS-equipped passenger cars and light trucks
represented 49 percent of the 12.8 million light vehicles sold in the
United States in 1992. Based on reports from industry, NHTSA estimates
that over 75 percent of all new passenger cars and other light vehicles
will be equipped with an ABS by 1996.
II. NHTSA Activities Related to Braking Performance
Over the years, NHTSA has studied the effectiveness of ABSs in
avoiding crashes and reducing their severity. The agency conducted the
Tri-Level Study of the Causes of Traffic Accidents, (DOT HS 801-631,
Final Report, June 1975) to determine the effectiveness of ABSs. While
this is not a recent study, its conclusions might still be relevant.
Among these conclusions are that (1) rear-wheel-only ABSs had an
accident reduction potential of one to four percent, (2) four wheel
ABSs provide the greatest safety benefits and could reduce accidents by
eight to 15 percent, (3) an ABS's ability to maintain control was found
to be a more important safety attribute than its ability to improve
stopping distance performance.
NHTSA has also conducted test track evaluations of ABS equipped
light vehicles. (Hiltner, Arehart, and Radlinski, ``Light Vehicle ABS
Performance Evaluation,'' DOT HS 807 813, December 1991; and ``Light
Vehicle ABS Performance Evaluation--Phase II,'' DOT HS 807 924, May
1992.) The December 1991 report describes tests conducted on ten light
vehicles to evaluate the improvement in braking performance and vehicle
stability and control resulting from each vehicle's ABS. The test
program's purpose was to show the degree to which an ABS improves a
given vehicle's brake performance, not to compare vehicles or similar
ABSs to one another. Therefore, each vehicle was tested with the ABS
``on'' and with the ABS ``off'' or disabled. Eight of the ten vehicles
were equipped with an all-wheel ABS. Each vehicle was run through a set
of eighteen separate test conditions, using both panic stops and
driver-best-effort stops in both the empty and loaded condition at
speeds of 35 mph and 60 mph. Braking maneuvers consisted of straight
line stops on a uniform surface, straight line stops on a split mu
surface, stops in a 500 foot curve, and stops involving lane changes.
The tests were conducted at 35, 45, 50, and 60 mph, at both the empty
and loaded weight conditions. The tests were conducted on a variety of
surfaces, including wet Jennite, gravel, and dry concrete.
Among the findings in the December 1991 report were that (1) each
ABS, and especially the all-wheel systems, improved the vehicle's
lateral stability during panic braking; (2) the all-wheel systems
shortened stopping distances on most hard paved surfaces, with
improvements of up to 25 percent on wet concrete and up to 50 percent
on wet Jennite; (3) each ABS lengthened the vehicle's stopping
distances in panic stops on gravel, with increases exceeding 25 percent
in some cases; and (4) the rear-wheel system enhanced the vehicle's
lateral stability but did not reduce stopping distances in most panic
brake applications.
The May 1992 report describes tests conducted on eight light
vehicles to evaluate how the ABS influenced vehicle stopping distance
and lateral stability and control on various surfaces. This evaluation
supplements the December 1991 program by testing different vehicles on
more slippery test surfaces, although it only used straight line
maneuvers. Among the report's findings were that (1) with one
exception, the seven vehicles with all-wheel systems were under
complete directional control during the tests with the ABS ``on,'' (2)
the vehicle with a rear-wheel-only ABS generally provided improved, but
not complete, lateral stability and control, (3) ABSs improved stopping
performance on all surfaces, except that stopping distance worsened on
dry gravel surfaces, and (4) no vehicle experienced problems in the
high to low mu transition testing with the ABS operational.
NHTSA has recently published two proposals related to the braking
performance of medium and heavy vehicles (hereinafter referred to as
``heavy vehicles''). On February 23, 1993, the agency proposed
reinstating stopping distance requirements for these vehicles. (58 FR
11003). In addition, on September 28, 1993, the agency published a
proposal that would require heavy vehicles to be equipped with an ABS
to improve the lateral stability and control of these vehicles during
braking. (58 FR 50738). The ABS requirement would be supplemented by a
30 mph braking-in-a-curve ``check'' test conducted on a low coefficient
of friction surface using a full, panic brake application. Some of the
issues raised in these rulemakings, such as the test surface and the
proposed definition of ``ABS,'' are relevant to this rulemaking.
III. Issues for Possible Agency Action
A. Overview of the issues
This ANPRM discusses whether the agency should propose to require
ABS for light vehicles, pursuant to the mandate in ISTEA. While
manufacturers are equipping an increasingly large number of light
vehicles with ABS, it appears that it would be quite a few years, if
ever, before all light vehicles would voluntarily be equipped with such
devices. Based on the agency's review of comments to this notice and
its review of additional accident data and other information, NHTSA
will determine whether it should propose to require that all light
vehicles be equipped with ABSs.
This ANPRM also makes a number of requests for data and
information. The agency wishes to emphasize that since this is an
ANPRM, no rule will be issued on this specific subject without first
issuing an ANPRM to provide further opportunity to comment. In
commenting on a particular matter on responding to a particular
question, interested persons are requested to provide any relevant
factual information to support their conclusions or opinions, including
but not limited to, testing, statistical, and cost data, and the source
of such information.
The agency seeks comments about the following topics:
(a) The anticipated safety benefits from requiring light vehicles
to be equipped with ABSs;
(b) Potential regulatory approaches to improve the lateral
stability and control of light vehicles during braking, including a
requirement for an ABS and any anticipated performance requirements and
test procedures;
(c) The types of light vehicles to which these requirements would
apply and whether all vehicles should be required to be equipped with
an all-wheel ABS;
(d) A schedule for implementing the ABS requirements to maximize
their benefits at reasonable costs; and
(e) The costs of requiring light vehicles to be equipped with
antilock braking systems that would comply with the anticipated
requirements.
For ease of reference, the questions below are numbered
consecutively. The agency requests that commenters identify each answer
they give by the number of each question being answered.
B. Safety Need
The threshold issue in deciding whether to amend an existing safety
standard concerns the requirement's safety need. NHTSA is reviewing
accident data, including information from the Fatal Accident Reporting
System (FARS), NHTSA's General Estimates System (GES), the National
Accident Sampling System (NASS), and State accident data files. This
review focuses on the benefits achieved by equipping light vehicles
with an ABS in a variety of different crash modes. Among the crash
modes being studied are (1) single vehicle run-off-the-road crashes in
which skidding or spinning was the vehicle's pre-crash stability
condition, (2) multi-vehicle crashes resulting from a vehicle's loss-
of-control or inability-to-stop-in-time, and (3) crashes in which a
vehicle strikes pedestrians, animals, or road objects.
Initial data from these sources indicate that braking induced loss-
of-control crashes and inability-to-stop-in-time crashes are frequent
types of crashes that warrant further study. Such crashes are
especially prevalent on wet or slippery roads, a condition in which
ABSs would be effective. Eleven percent of all fatal crashes in 1991
occurred on wet or slippery roads, and 18 percent of property-damage-
only crashes occurred under such conditions.
NHTSA's research test findings indicate that equipping light
vehicles with an ABS would be beneficial to safety. The primary benefit
with equipping light vehicles with an ABS is that a driver is better
able to maintain vehicle stability and steering control during crash-
threatening braking situations. A secondary, but still important
benefit with an ABS, is that a vehicle's stopping ability is improved
on some surfaces.
NHTSA's preliminary evaluation of rear-wheel antilock brake systems
indicates that such ABSs on light trucks are particularly effective in
reducing the number of run-off-road crashes. Analyses of State accident
files found that rear-wheel ABS was effective in reducing the risk of
such nonfatal rollovers (and side and frontal impacts with fixed
objects) for almost every type of truck, under any type of road
condition. Reductions of rollovers were typically in the 30-40 percent
range, reductions of side impacts with fixed objects in the 15-30
percent range, and reductions in frontal impacts with fixed objects in
the 5-20 percent range. The risk of collisions with pedestrians,
animals, bicycles, trains, or on-road objects was also significantly
reduced, by about 5-15 percent. A copy of this preliminary evaluation
is available in the public docket.
NHTSA is continuing to analyze the data and a comprehensive report
of the findings will be published at a later date. In the meantime, the
agency requests additional information on braking induced loss-of-
control crashes and inability-to-stop-in-time crashes from rental
fleets, corporate fleets, insurance companies, police officers, and
others. This information would assist the agency in its efforts to
quantify the benefits from ABSs. Accordingly, the agency requests
comments from these organizations and others about their experiences in
which drivers of light vehicles have lost control during braking or
been unable to stop before a crash.
With these considerations in mind, the agency poses the following
questions.
1. Based on the available data, what safety benefits would result
from the issuance of requirements to prevent or minimize the effect of
braking induced loss-of-control crashes or inability-to-stop-in-time
crashes? In what types of crashes would these benefits occur? Please
provide estimates in terms of accidents, injuries, and fatalities
prevented. The agency also requests quantitative estimates of
reductions in property damage.
2. What additional injury and non-injury data and other information
exist about real-world crashes and near crashes involving drivers of
light vehicles who skidded or otherwise lost control?
3. At the time of loss-of-control or inability-to-stop-in-time
crashes, what were the driving conditions and weather environment? At
what speed was the vehicle traveling? Was the roadway dry, wet, or icy?
To what degree did these adverse driving conditions contribute to the
crash and its severity? Did the crash occur on an interstate, secondary
highway, or residential road? What, if any, crash avoidance maneuver
precipitated the crash?
4. With respect to loss-of-control or inability-to-stop-in-time
crashes known to the commenter, would equipping the vehicle with an ABS
or a more effective ABS (e.g., an all-wheel system instead of a rear-
wheel-only system) have helped in avoiding any of the crashes or
reducing their severity?
5. With respect to fleets that have switched or begun switching to
ABS-equipped light vehicles, have the ABS-equipped light vehicles had a
lower crash rate than the non-ABS-equipped light vehicles? If there has
been a reduction in crashes, please quantify the reduction in terms of
lives saved, injuries prevented, and property damage reduced.
C. Regulatory Approaches to Improve the Lateral Stability and Control
of Light Vehicles
If NHTSA were to propose amending its braking safety standards to
improve the lateral stability and control of light vehicles during
braking, the amendment would have to meet the Vehicle Safety Act's
criteria that the requirement be practicable and be stated in objective
terms (section 103(a)). Any rulemaking addressing antilock would also
be guided by the findings in PACCAR v. NHTSA, 573 F.2d 632 (9th Cir.
1978) cert. denied 439 U.S. 862 (1978). Even though PACCAR concerned
air braked vehicles subject to a different safety standard, some of
that decision's concerns about testing brake systems are relevant to
proposing to require ABSs on light vehicles. PACCAR held that at the
time of their implementation, parts of Standard No. 121 were not
reasonable nor practicable. The court held that objective test methods
and more probative and convincing data evidencing the reliability and
safety of vehicles that are equipped with antilock and in use must be
available before the agency can enforce a standard requiring its
installation.
6. In the NPRM addressing lateral stability and control for heavy
vehicles, NHTSA proposed that each heavy vehicle be equipped with an
antilock braking system that satisfies the agency's proposed definition
of ``ABS.'' In addition, as a ``check'' on the performance of the ABS,
the agency proposed that a heavy vehicle would have to comply with a
braking-in-a-curve test. The agency tentatively concluded that this
approach would ensure that heavy vehicles would be able to
significantly improve their lateral stability and control during
braking.
NHTSA is considering applying this approach to light vehicles by
proposing both a requirement mandating the installation of ABSs on
light vehicles and road tests that serve as a check on the performance
of the ABS. The agency requests comments about the possible benefits
and shortcomings of using this approach for light vehicles.
7. In developing the proposed definition for ``ABS'' in the heavy
vehicle rulemaking, NHTSA referred to the definitions of ``ABS''
adopted by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the Economic
Commission for Europe's (ECE) Regulation 13, Annex 13 (1988). Based on
these definitions and other considerations, the agency proposed the
following definition of ``antilock brake system'' in the heavy vehicle
rulemaking:
a portion of a service brake system that automatically controls the
degree of rotational wheel slip during braking by:
(1) sensing the rate of angular rotation of the wheels;
(2) transmitting signals regarding the rate of wheel angular
rotation to one or more devices which interpret those signals and
generate responsive controlling output signals; and
(3) transmitting those controlling signals to one or more
devices which adjust brake actuating forces in response to those
signals.
Under this definition describing fundamental and necessary
performance aspects that any braking system must have to be considered
an ABS, the agency believes that any ABS would be permitted, provided
that it is a ``closed loop'' system that ensures feedback between what
is actually happening at the tire-road surface interface and what the
device is doing to respond to impending wheel lockup.
The agency requests comments about whether to apply to light
vehicles the approach proposed to improve the lateral stability and
control of heavy vehicles. Is it necessary and appropriate to
supplement the combination of a definition of ``ABS'' and an equipment
requirement with one or more ``check'' tests to ensure the lateral
stability and control of light vehicles? Is the definition of ``ABS,''
as proposed in the heavy vehicle NPRM, appropriate for light vehicles?
What are the advantages or disadvantages of a requirement expressly
mandating an ABS instead of taking the more indirect approach of
adopting dynamic tests? Notwithstanding the agency's tentative
conclusion that the proposed definition for heavy vehicle ``ABS'' is
sufficiently broad to allow a variety of ABSs, the agency welcomes
comment about the use of this definition for light vehicles. Would it
ensure suitable stopping distances and cover all appropriate brake
designs, while not unnecessarily prohibiting brake systems that
effectively prevent wheel lockup in a sufficiently wide variety of
circumstances?
D. Test Procedures
8. In the heavy vehicle ABS rulemaking, NHTSA proposed that such
vehicles would have to comply with a braking-in-a-curve test, but
decided not to propose additional tests such as a split mu test or a
lane change test. The agency believed that such additional tests would
be impracticable for heavy vehicles given the criteria set forth in
PACCAR. Notwithstanding the agency's tentative decision in the heavy
vehicle ABS rulemaking to propose only a braking-in-a-curve test, the
agency is seeking comment on whether to require that light vehicles be
capable of stopping without loss-of-control in the following test
maneuvers:
(a) While turning on a low mu surface;
(b) While stopping on a straight line split mu surface;
(c) While in transition from a high mu surface to a low mu surface;
and
(d) While in transition from a low mu surface to a high mu surface.
NHTSA is considering additional tests for light vehicle antilock
systems for three reasons. First, ABS requirements on passenger cars
were originally developed in proposals for Standard No. 135, Passenger
Car Brake Systems, which are based on the effort to harmonize braking
standards with EEC and ECE requirements. These proposals included split
mu tests and surface transition tests. Second, the agency believes that
light vehicle ABS may need to have a higher level of capability for
some aspects of performance than heavy vehicle ABS. For instance, the
antilock systems on heavy vehicles do not have to be as quick as the
systems on light vehicles in responding to impending wheel lock. The
wheel lockup allowed by light vehicle antilock systems available today
is about 0.2 seconds, compared with a lockup duration closer to one
second for heavy vehicle systems. This is so because heavy vehicles
typically have a longer wheel base than light vehicles, and a high
vehicle moment of inertia about the vertical axis. On these vehicles,
yaw movement during braking with ABS on a split mu surface or during a
braking-in-a-curve maneuver takes place at a relatively slower rate
than on light vehicles, primarily because of the higher vehicle moment
of inertia. Third, in contrast to testing light vehicles, the
availability of test facilities and the safety of the tests would make
more extensive testing impracticable for heavy vehicles because such
vehicles are larger and more prone to rollover than light vehicles. For
the above reasons, the split mu and surface transition tests might be
appropriate additions to the braking-in-a-curve test for light
vehicles.
The agency anticipates that each of these tests would be conducted
at 30 mph using a full pedal application (200 pounds pedal force
applied within 0.2 seconds) and that the vehicle would be required to
stay within a 12-foot lane. There would be no stopping distance
requirement as part of these tests. (The issue of separate tests for
stopping distance is discussed below in connection with question 13.)
9. As mentioned above, NHTSA is considering whether to propose a
``braking-in-a-curve test'' in which a light vehicle's braking would be
evaluated at a relatively slow speed on a slippery surface. This test
is designed to evaluate the capability of a vehicle to be controlled
while braking in a curve. The test could be conducted on a 500-foot
radius curve on a surface with a peak friction coefficient (PFC) of 0.5
or less. What benefits would be obtained from such a braking-in-a-curve
test? What problems, if any, would be associated with this maneuver?
Would this testing approach be a sufficient indicator of the lateral
control and stability expected from an ABS equipped light vehicle? How
would rear-wheel-only antilock systems perform under this test
procedure?
10. NHTSA is considering whether to propose another type of test,
possibly as an alternative to the braking-in-a-curve test. This test is
known as a ``split coefficient of friction test'' (or split mu test)
and is designed to evaluate a vehicle's ability to be controlled when
one side of a road is slick and the other side is much stickier. If
NHTSA were to propose such a test, it probably would be conducted on a
straight lane surface with the high mu part of the surface having a PFC
equal to or greater than 0.5 and the low mu part of the surface having
a PFC of less than or equal to one-half the PFC of the high mu surface.
An alternative way to describe the test surface would be to specify the
PFCs for both parts of the surface (e.g., the high mu part would be 0.9
or greater and the low mu part would be 0.45 or less). The test lane
would be split down the centerline along its length, so that the wheels
on one side of the vehicle are on the high friction surface and the
wheels on the other side of the vehicle are on the slick surface. What
benefits would be obtained from testing on such a split mu surface?
What problems, if any, would result from such a surface? Would this
test be a sufficient indicator of the lateral stability and control
expected from an ABS-equipped vehicle? How would rear-wheel-only
antilock systems perform under this test procedure? What is the best
way to specify the test surface?
11. NHTSA is also considering whether to propose a ``low to high mu
surface transition test.'' This test is designed to evaluate the
capability of an antilock system to modulate brake pressure to achieve
a high level of deceleration after the vehicle makes a transition to
the high mu surface. NHTSA anticipates that if it proposes such a test,
the high mu surface would have a PFC equal to or greater than 0.5, and
the low mu surface would have a PFC of less than or equal to one half
the PFC of the high mu surface. The agency is considering whether to
propose requiring that the vehicle achieve at least 95 percent of the
deceleration of the uniform coefficient deceleration on the high mu
surface within one second. What benefits would be obtained from such a
transition test? What problems, if any, would be associated with this
test maneuver? Would this test be a sufficient indicator of the
modulation capability expected from an ABS-equipped light vehicle?
Would the suggested way of specifying test surfaces be appropriate? The
agency requests comments about whether to specify the time needed to
achieve a specific deceleration and to specify a maximum lockup
duration during the transition. How would rear-wheel only antilock
systems perform under this test procedure?
12. NHTSA is considering whether to propose a ``high to low mu
surface transaction test.'' This test is designed to evaluate the
response for the ABS when the vehicle begins braking on a high mu
surface then experiences a change to a low mu surface. This type of
surface is discussed in the previous question. The agency is
considering whether to require that the vehicle's wheels not lock for
more than 0.2 seconds, with wheel lock defined as 100 percent slip.
What benefits would be obtained from such a surface transition test?
What problems, if any, would be associated with this test maneuver?
Would this test be a sufficient indicator of the modulation control and
the response to impending wheel lock expected from an ABS-equipped
light vehicle? How would rear-wheel only antilock systems perform under
this test procedure?
13. The efficiency of an ABS affects a vehicle's stopping distance
performance with the ABS cycling. Consistent with the agency's decision
in the heavy vehicle ABS rulemaking not to propose stopping distance
requirements with tests involving low mu surfaces, NHTSA does not
anticipate proposing, at this stage of this rulemaking, stopping
distance requirements with the curve, split mu, or transaction tests
because of the variability of vehicle stopping distance performance on
low mu surfaces. Do commenters agree with the agency's tentative
decision not to propose stopping distance requirements with tests
involving low mu surfaces?
Notwithstanding this tentative decision, NHTSA believes that a
measurement of efficiency might provide consumers with information to
compare the relative overall performance of various ABSs. In its
evaluations, the agency has calculated ABS efficiency by dividing
vehicle decelerations (g's) by the peak friction coefficient measured
with the vehicle's tire. The agency notes that an ABS efficiency value
could provide consumers with a means of comparing the ABS performance
capability since no stopping distance requirements are being considered
for the tests mentioned in this notice to evaluate ABS performance.
Each antilock system achieves a certain level of efficiency based on
design factors such as the wheel deceleration rate threshold at which
ABS cycling begins, the control algorithm, and the modulator valves. In
general, the higher the ABS efficiency, the shorter the stopping
distance should be with the ABS operational. NHTSA's light vehicle ABS
testing has shown that the improvements in braking performance provided
by an ABS varies, in some cases considerably, from system to system and
from vehicle to vehicle. Hence, simply setting a standard that requires
all-wheel ABS would not necessarily mean that the performance of these
systems would be similar. The agency therefore request comments on what
would be an appropriate method for measuring ABS efficiency, and
whether ABS efficiency would be a meaningful indicator of a system's
overall performance.
14. The current requirements in Standard No. 105 for vehicles with
failed antilock systems including stopping distance requirements from
60 mph of 456 feet for passenger cars and 517 feet for other light
vehicles with a GVWR of not more than 10,000 pounds. This test is
designed to ensure that the vehicle has adequate braking if the ABS
fails. These distances may be overly generous for an ABS failure on
some vehicles, given that the service brake system is generally still
intact. NHTSA anticipates proposing ABS failure requirements for
Standard No. 105 similar to those proposed for Standard No. 135. In
that rulemaking, the agency proposed a stopping distance of 279 feet
from a test speed of 62 mph on a surface with a PFC of 0.9. What
problems, if any, would be associated with such a requirement? Should
the standard allow an ABS that experiences a large degradation of
stopping performance if the ABS fails? What is the best method for
disabling an ABS for a failed system test? Should performance
requirements for integrated ABSs be any different from the requirements
for add-on ABSs, in the failed condition? If so, why? Should the failed
ABS stopping distance be one absolute value for all vehicles, or should
it be based on the performance relative to the stopping distance
performance when each vehicle's ABS is in the ``on'' position?
E. Test Conditions
15. As explained in the previous section, NHTSA anticipates
specifying the test surfaces used in the test procedures in terms of
peak friction coefficient. While the braking-in-a-curve test would have
a PFC of 0.5, the split mu and transition tests would have the surface
specified based on the relative PFC of each of the two portions of the
surface. The braking-in-a-curve test surface represents a wet secondary
road in poor condition, and the split mu and transition test surface
represent roads with different coefficients of friction such as those
with ice patches. What practicability concerns, if any, are raised by
conducting tests on surfaces with both low and high coefficients of
friction?
16. Two different methods of applying brakes can be used when
testing ABSs (and braking systems in general). One method is a ``full
pedal'' application typical of how a driver might apply the brake pedal
in reaction to a crash-threatening situation. This type of brake
application can precipitate wheel lock-up and loss-of-control if the
vehicle is operating on a slippery surface. A second method is a
modulated ``driver-best-effort'' application in which the driver
modulates the brake in an attempt to maintain stability and lateral
control. This method enables stops that are as quick and short as
possible while still maintaining stability and steering control. As
with the heavy vehicle ABS rulemaking, the agency anticipates proposing
a full pedal application because it is more representative of a typical
driver's response to a real world crash-threatening situation. In
addition, such an application is more objective and repeatable. In
specifying the amount of brake application force in this test
procedure, the agency anticipates that a pedal force of 200 pounds in
0.2 seconds would adequately represent a full pedal application for
light vehicles. The agency requests comments about the best way to
specify the brake application provisions.
F. Varieties of ABS Permissible under Potential Proposals
17. Agency testing indicates that all-wheel antilock systems
provide full steering control and lateral stability during braking.
Real-wheel-only antilock systems do not ensure steering control during
braking, but provide some measure of vehicle stability during braking.
Should the proposed requirements be drafted so that light vehicles must
be equipped with systems that provide ABS control on all wheels, or
should the requirements be drafted to allow rear-wheel-only systems as
well? What are the differences in benefits between rear-wheel-only and
all-wheel systems?
18. If NHTSA were to propose its braking standards to improve the
lateral stability and control of light vehicles during braking, all
light vehicles would have to be equipped with lateral stability and
control devices to achieve the new performance requirements. As
mentioned above, all-wheel ABSs were installed on 2,700,000 passenger
cars and on 470,000 other light vehicles in 1992. While another 3.1
million light vehicles were equipped with rear-wheel-only ABSs,
vehicles are increasingly being equipped with all-wheel systems rather
than rear-wheel-only systems. How many vehicles would need to be
equipped with ABSs to comply with the requirements discussed in this
notice? Would it be necessary to equip a vehicle with an all-wheel ABS
to comply with the requirements discussed in this notice or would rear-
wheel-only systems be adequate?
19. The ECE currently uses three categories to classify antilock
systems by their performance capabilities. While the ECE mandates the
most sophisticated Category I systems for heavy vehicles, ABS
installation remains voluntary for light vehicles. Nevertheless, if a
manufacturer decides to equip a light vehicle with ABS, then it must
inform the government approving body about the Category of ABS being
installed on a given light vehicle. After being reviewed by the
government, the manufacturer may market its system to consumers as that
category of ABS.
NHTSA is considering whether to propose a classification system
like the ECE's in which there would be categories of increasingly
stringent performance criteria instead of a minimum requirement for all
antilock systems. The performance criteria, if proposed, might include
the following factors:
Category I--
Braking efficiency of the vehicle equal to or greater than
75 percent on all road surfaces, including split mu.
Meets braking-in-a-curve or split mu test requirements for
stability.
Meets low mu to high mu surface transition requirement of
achieving 95 percent of the uniform coefficient deceleration within a
specified time period.
Meets high mu to low mu surface transition requirements
for lockup duration.
Wheels on all axles must be directly controlled by ABS.
Category II--
Braking efficiency of the vehicle equal to or greater than
75 percent on all road surfaces except split mu.
Meets braking-in-a-curve or split mu test requirements for
stability.
Meets low mu to high mu surface transition requirements of
achieving 95 percent of the uniform coefficient deceleration within a
specified time period.
Meets high mu to low mu surface transition requirements
for lockup duration.
Wheels on each axle must be directly controlled by ABS.
Category III--
Braking efficiency of each axle having at least one
directly controlled wheel equal to or greater than 75 percent, on all
road surfaces except split mu.
Meets low mu to high mu surface transition requirements of
achieving 95 percent of the uniform coefficient deceleration within a
specified time period.
Meets high mu to low mu surface transition requirements
for lockup duration.
The agency anticipates that most, but not all, of the all-wheel ABSs
would satisfy the criteria for Category I systems and that poorer
performing all-wheel ABSs and rear-wheel only ABSs would satisfy the
less stringent criteria of either Category II and Category III.
Specifying categories would permit simpler antilock braking systems
to comply with the standard, without lowering the requirements for the
higher capability systems. It would also serve to inform consumers that
not all ABSs have the same performance capabilities. However, the
agency notes that there might be significant drawbacks to specifying
categories, since such an approach might result in unnecessary
complexity and permit the manufacture and installation of poorer
performing systems that do not provide steering control and other
significant safety benefits. The agency invites comments about whether
the standard should specify categories of ABSs.
G. Implementation
NHTSA's goal in initiating rulemaking to require light vehicles to
be equipped with an ABS is to determine whether significant
improvements in braking performance can be achieved at a reasonable
cost to manufacturers and consumers. There are a number of different
approaches that the agency could take in scheduling the implementation
of the potential proposals. One approach would be to apply the
requirements to passenger cars first and then to all other light
vehicles. A second approach would be for the agency to apply the ABS
standards to all light vehicles at the same time.
20. While the Authorization Act requires NHTSA to initiate
rulemaking on brake performance for passenger cars, NHTSA is
contemplating using its general authority under the Vehicle Safety Act
to broaden this mandate to include trucks, vans, sport utility
vehicles, and buses under 10,000 pounds GVWR. The agency is considering
this approach because it believes that ABS has more potential benefits
for vehicles which have a greater disparity between their unloaded and
fully loaded weights. These latter type vehicles fall into this
category. The agency notes that the market appears to agree with this
position as ABS is more prevalent in light trucks than passenger cars.
NHTSA seeks comment on its tentative decision to include these
vehicles.
21. At this stage in the rulemaking, NHTSA is inclined to propose
an effective date of two years after the final rule, for passenger
cars, and three years after the final rule for light vehicles other
than passenger cars (i.e., trucks). The agency believes that this would
give the industry sufficient leadtime to develop the production
capacity needed to supply the market with antilock systems. The agency
expects that an increasing number of light trucks will be offered with
all-wheel antilock systems, particularly if the proposed requirements
cannot be met with rear-wheel-only systems. If this is the case, then
manufacturers of light trucks with these systems might need more
leadtime than manufacturers of passenger cars to comply with the
proposed requirements. Would this implementation schedule be
appropriate? Would it be reasonable to accelerate or delay any portion
of it? Should the agency apply requirements for ABSs to some light
vehicles but not others?
H. Costs Associated with Potential Proposals
22. NHTSA estimates that this rulemaking's potential cost would be
approximately $1.04 billion per year. This cost consists of ABS costs
of $920 million, installation costs of about $80 million, and increased
fuel costs of about $40 million due to a small increase in vehicle
weight. The average retail price of an ABS system to the consumer would
be about $450. This price is based on a cost study of seven ABS systems
entitled ``Evaluation of Costs of Antilock Brake Systems'' and a markup
factor of 1.51. The agency's cost estimate assumes that all-wheel ABS
would be required on all light vehicles. It projects that all-wheel ABS
would be voluntarily installed as standard equipment in 85 percent of
model year 1999 passenger cars, the first model year that would be
affected if a final rule were issued in 1996 and a 2-year leadtime for
compliance were provided. The remaining 15 percent or about 1.4 million
vehicles would be equipped only as a result of a requirement. The cost
estimate also projects that all light trucks would be voluntarily
equipped with ABS by model year 1999/2000, 75 percent of them having
all-wheel systems. Thus, 25 percent of new light trucks, or about 1.5
million vehicles, would be involuntarily equipped with all-wheel ABS if
the agency issued a final rule requiring this. In this case, all-wheel
ABS hardware and installation costs would be incrementally higher
(about $200 more), as compared to those for rear-wheel systems.
How much would it cost per vehicle to equip all light vehicles with
all-wheel ABSs? How much would it cost per vehicle to equip these
vehicles with rear-wheel-only ABSs? What would be the likely costs to a
final purchaser for either of the two types of antilock systems?
23. Each light vehicle manufacturer is requested to provide, with
respect to model year 1994, and for each of the following types of
vehicles, passenger cars, light trucks, and light MPVs: the total
number of the vehicles it will produce; the vehicles it will equip with
rear-wheel-only ABSs; and the vehicles it will equip with all-wheel
ABSs.
With respect to each of model years 1995-1999, and for each of the
following types of vehicles, passenger cars, light trucks, and light
MPVs, what percentages of vehicles do you expect to voluntarily equip
with a rear-wheel-only ABS? With an all-wheel ABS?
Do you expect to install all-wheel ABSs on all of your passenger
cars? If so, when? On all of your light trucks? On all of your light
MPVs?
24. NHTSA notes that some insurance companies currently offer
discounts for antilock equipped passenger cars, light trucks and light
MPVs. Which insurers provide such a discount? How large is the discount
offered by each of those insurers? What is the basis for such
discounts?
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures and Executive Order 12866
NHTSA has considered the potential burdens and benefits associated
with this advance notice. NHTSA has determined that this advance notice
is a significant rulemaking action under the Department of
Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures and an economically
significant notice under Executive Order 12866. The advance notice
would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. It
concerns a matter in which there is substantial public interest.
Further, there is a potential for significant safety benefits if
effective requirements can be developed to address braking stability
and control of light vehicles. The preliminary Assessment of Economic
Significance for this advance notice addresses preliminary estimates of
the costs and benefits of potential countermeasures that the agency is
considering in this action. Those estimates are summarized below.
NHTSA believes that ABS is effective in preventing, and reducing
the severity of many inability-to-stop-in-time and loss-of-control
crashes. The previously mentioned 1975 Tri-Level study found ABS to be
effective. Also, a preliminary agency evaluation of more current data
found rear-wheel ABS on light trucks to be effective in preventing
certain types of crashes. The agency is continuing to analyze the on-
road experience of ABS-equipped vehicles as compared to those with
standard braking systems. At this time, the agency does not have
sufficient data to estimate the safety benefits of requiring mandatory
installation of ABS on all light vehicles types. In this advance
notice, the agency is requesting information on ABS effectiveness and
the safety benefits that could be expected from a requirement for
mandatory installation of the technology. In assessing the cost-
effectiveness of any requirement for mandatory installation of the
technology, benefits accruing to vehicles on which ABS would not have
been voluntarily installed would be estimated and compared to the costs
associated with equipping those vehicles with ABS. In the case of light
trucks, depending on the extent and type of ABS voluntarily installed
and the type of ABS required, the benefits at issue might be those that
would be realized from all-wheel ABS as compared to rear-wheel systems.
NHTSA estimates that the annual consumer cost of requiring antilock
brake systems on light vehicles to be $1,040 million: $710 million for
passenger cars and $330 million for light trucks. This assumes that
all-wheel systems would be required. Estimated ABS hardware cost would
be $920 million, installation costs would be $80 million, and increased
fuel costs (due to a small increase in vehicle weight) about $40
million.
B. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this action under the principles and criteria in
Executive Order 12612. The agency had determined that this advance
notice does not have sufficient Federalism implication to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment. No State laws would be
affected. The agency welcomes comment on this issue.
Comments
NHTSA invites comments from interested persons on the questions
presented in this advance notice and on other relevant issues. It is
requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
Comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated in the ``Dates'' caption
of this advance notice. To the extent possible, the agency will
consider comments filed after the closing date. Comments on the advance
notice will be available for inspection in the docket. After the
closing date, NHTSA will continue to file relevant information in the
Docket as this information becomes available, and recommends that
interested persons continue to examine the Docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
A regulatory information number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes their Unified
Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the
heading of this document can be used to cross reference this action
with the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
(15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1407; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50
and 501.8)
Issued on: December 29, 1993.
Barry Felrice.
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 93-32106 Filed 12-29-93; 3:35 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 93-31816 Food Labeling: Reference Daily Intakes
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 1994)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 427-432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 93-31816]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 101
[Docket No. 90N-0134]
RIN 0905-AD08
Food Labeling: Reference Daily Intakes
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to amend
its regulations to establish Reference Daily Intakes (RDI's) for
vitamin K, selenium, chloride, manganese, fluoride, chromium, and
molybdenum for use in declaring the nutrient content of a food on its
label or labeling; change the units of measure for biotin, folate,
calcium, and phosphorus; and make consideration of selenium,
molybdenum, fluoride, and chromium optional when determining
nutritional inferiority. The agency is taking this action to assist
consumers in understanding the nutritional significance of the levels
of these nutrients in the context of the total daily diet and in
recognition of the fact that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has
established Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA's) or Estimated Safe
and Adequate Daily Dietary Intakes (ESADDI's) for these nutrients.
DATES: Submit written comments by March 7, 1994. The agency is
proposing that any final rule that may issue based on this proposal
become effective 30 days after date of publication of that final rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, rm. 1-23, 12420 Parklawn Dr.,
Rockville, MD 20857.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Camille E. Brewer, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-165), Food and Drug Administration,
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-205-5483.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In the Federal Register of July 19, 1990 (55 FR 29476), in a
document entitled ``Food Labeling; Reference Daily Intakes and Daily
Reference Values'' (hereinafter referred to as the July 1990 proposal),
FDA proposed to amend its food labeling regulations by revising and
expanding the list of label reference values for nutrients in foods
that it had established. This list was known as the ``U.S. Recommended
Daily Allowances'' (U.S. RDA's) (Sec. 101.9(c)(7)(iv) (21 CFR
101.9(c)(7)(iv)). The agency proposed to replace the U.S. RDA's with
RDI's for protein and 26 vitamins and minerals for which RDA's or
ESADDI's were provided in the 9th and 10th Editions of NAS'
``Recommended Dietary Allowances'' (proposed Sec. 101.9(c)(11)(iv) (56
FR 60366 at 60390)). FDA proposed to establish RDI's for vitamins and
minerals for five groups: Adults and children 4 or more years of age,
children less than 4 years of age, infants, pregnant women, and
lactating women. It also proposed to establish Daily Reference Values
(DRV's) for eight nutrients and food components (i.e., total fat,
saturated fat, unsaturated fat, cholesterol, total carbohydrate,
dietary fiber, sodium, and potassium) for adults and children 4 or more
years of age.
During the comment period on this proposal, Congress passed, and
the President signed into law, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act
of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-535) (hereinafter known as ``the 1990
amendments''). In response to this new law, in the Federal Register of
November 27, 1991 (56 FR 60366, and corrected at 57 FR 8178, March 6,
1992), FDA issued a document entitled ``Food Labeling: Reference Daily
Intakes and Daily Reference Values; Mandatory Status of Nutrition
Labeling and Nutrient Content Revision'' (hereinafter referred to as
``the supplementary proposal''). In that document, FDA republished and
supplemented the July 1990 proposal and a proposal on nutrition
labeling that FDA had also published in July of 1990 to make clear that
in the agency's view, with some modifications, these proposals
addressed the requirements of the 1990 amendments.
FDA received approximately 800 responses to the July 1990 proposal,
and approximately 700 responses to that part of the supplementary
proposal that addressed the RDI's and DRV's, from trade and retail
associations, government organizations, retailers, consumer groups,
State groups, private organizations, professional societies, and
universities. Each of the responses contained one or more comments. FDA
summarized and reviewed these comments in the final rule entitled
``Food Labeling; Reference Daily Intakes and Daily Reference Values''
that it published in the Federal Register of January 6, 1993 (58 FR
2206, and corrected at 58 FR 17104, April 1, 1993) (hereinafter
referred to as ``the RDI/DRV final rule'').
However, on October 6, 1992, before FDA issued a final rule in
response to the July 1990 and the supplemental proposals, Congress
passed the Dietary Supplement Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-571)
(hereinafter referred to as the ``DS act''). Section 202(a)(1) of the
DS act established a moratorium on the implementation of the 1990
amendments with respect to dietary supplements of vitamins, minerals,
herbs, or other similar nutritional substances (hereinafter referred to
as ``dietary supplements'') until December 15, 1993. Section 203 of the
DS act prohibited FDA from promulgating before November 8, 1993,
regulations that require the use of, or that are based upon,
recommended daily allowances of vitamins or minerals, other than
regulations establishing the United States recommended daily allowances
specified in Sec. 101.9(c)(7)(iv) as in effect on October 6, 1992. The
label values in Sec. 101.9(c)(7)(iv) were based, to a large extent, on
the 1968 RDA's and thus were almost 25 years old. Nonetheless, with its
discretion constrained by section 203 of the DS act but faced with a
need to establish a labeling scheme that manufacturers could implement
as quickly as possible, FDA simply adopted the values in
Sec. 101.9(c)(7)(iv) as in effect in 1992 in its new regulations (see
the RDI/DRV final rule).
However, this solution created a new set of problems. Section
101.9(c)(7)(iv) as in effect in 1992, and the 1968 RDA's that it was
based on (Ref. 1), did not contain reference values for a number of
nutrients that were included in the 1989 RDA's (Ref. 2). Thus, there is
no provision in the RDI's for a number of nutrients whose importance
for good nutrition has been generally accepted. To remedy this
situation, FDA is proposing to establish RDI's for these nutrients.
FDA is not proposing to change the RDI levels for those nutrients
for which it has already established RDI's. FDA recognizes that there
is active debate within the scientific community as to the basis on
which such levels should be established, and therefore, the agency
considers it premature to modify its current levels. However, FDA
believes that at least the list of nutrients for which it has RDI's, if
not the RDI levels themselves, should reflect scientific consensus.
Therefore, FDA is proposing to establish RDI's for seven additional
nutrients.
II. Authority for Additional Label Reference Values
Section (2)(b)(1)(A) of the 1990 amendments states that nutrition
label information shall be conveyed in a manner that, among other
things, enables the public to understand its relative significance in
the context of a total daily diet. In the legislative history of this
provision, Congress stated that this provision requires the Secretary
to specify requirements that would permit the consumer to understand
the nutrition information pertaining to a particular food in relation
to recommended dietary information (H. Rept. 101-538, 101st Cong., 2d
sess. 18 (1990)). Thus, FDA has required that a presentation of the
percent of the daily value of the nutrients listed in the nutrition
label be a fundamental part of the nutrition label format (see 58 FR
2079 at 2123 through 2135). Given the approach that FDA has taken, it
is clear that the more nutrients for which RDI's or DRV's are clearly
established, the easier it will be for consumers to understand
information about that nutrient in the context of the total daily diet.
In the RDI/DRV final rule, FDA stated that over the last 20 years,
there have been significant advances in scientific knowledge with
respect to essential nutrient requirements (58 FR 2206). In 1980, NAS
established ESADDI values for vitamin K, biotin, pantothenic acid,
copper, manganese, fluoride, chromium, selenium, molybdenum, sodium,
potassium, and chloride for the first time (Ref. 3). These suggested
intake values were based on less complete scientific data than the RDA
values and were regarded as more tentative and evolutionary (Ref. 3).
In 1989, NAS updated the values for vitamin K and selenium, making them
RDA's rather than EASDDI's (Ref. 2). At that time, NAS continued to
provide ESADDI values for manganese, fluoride, chromium, and molybdenum
but dropped the suggested values for sodium, potassium, and chloride,
giving instead estimated minimum requirements for healthy persons at
various ages.
Thus, given the usefulness of RDI values in conveying the
information that Congress has said should be conveyed by nutrition
labeling, and given the fact that NAS has developed the basis for RDI's
that are not included on the current list, FDA tentatively concludes
that it is appropriate to establish reference values for these seven
nutrients.
III. The Need for Change
Under Sec. 101.9(c)(8) that becomes effective May 8, 1994, only
those vitamins and minerals for which FDA has established label
reference values may be listed in the nutrition labels of food in
conventional food form. FDA proposed to take a similar position with
respect to nutrition labeling of dietary supplements of vitamins and
minerals (58 FR 33715, June 18, 1993). Several comments on the dietary
supplement proposal argued, however, that because RDA's or ESADDI's
have been established by NAS for vitamin K, selenium, manganese,
fluoride, chromium, molybdenum, and chloride, manufacturers of dietary
supplements of vitamins or minerals should be allowed to declare these
nutrients in products' nutrition labels with an asterisk in the
``Percent Daily Value'' column. The comments suggested that the
asterisk refer to a footnote stating ``No Daily Value has been
established.''
Based on its consideration of these comments and because the format
that FDA proposed for dietary supplements of vitamins and minerals
provides for the listing of quantitative amounts for vitamins and
minerals (in contrast to the format for the nutrition labeling of foods
in conventional food form, which provides for only a listing of the
percent of the daily value for each vitamin and mineral provided by the
food), FDA provided for the listing of these nutrients in the manner
that was suggested by these comments in the final rule entitled ``Food
Labeling; Requirement for Nutrient Content Claims for Dietary
Supplements of Vitamins, Minerals, Herbs, and Other Similar Nutritional
Substances,'' published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register. However, as an ultimate matter, FDA considers this solution
to be deficient in two respects. First, even on dietary supplements of
vitamins and minerals, this solution provides no basis for a
declaration of the percent of the daily value for these nutrients,
information that is, as stated above, important for consumers in
putting the information presented in the nutrition label in the context
of the total daily diet. Second, the agency's action with respect to
dietary supplements of vitamins and minerals does nothing to provide
information on the levels of these nutrients in foods whose labeling is
subject to Sec. 101.9.
Moreover, the comments on the proposed rule on nutrient content
claims for dietary supplements (58 FR 33715 at 33731) pointed to a
third type of problem created by the lack of reference values for the
nutrients in question. Several of those comments requested that
nutrient content claims be allowed for all vitamins or minerals for
which NAS has established RDA's or ESADDI's. These comments could not
be readily accommodated, however, because, as explained in the final
rule on nutrient content claims for dietary supplements published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA's regulations
define terms such as ``high'' and ``good source'' based on the RDI or
DRV for the nutrient that is the subject of the claim. This approach
has the advantage of linking nutrient content claims to established
reference values that provide a consistent, quantitative basis for the
claims. However, because the agency's current list of RDI's and DRV's
does not reflect the entire list of nutrients for which dietary
recommendations have been established, no claims can be made about
nutrients whose essentiality is generally recognized unless the list of
nutrients with RDI's is updated as quickly as possible.
Thus, FDA is proposing to establish RDI's for vitamin K, selenium,
chloride, manganese, fluoride, chromium, and molybdenum for three
reasons. First, it will permit the declaration of these nutrients in
the nutrition labeling of all foods. Second, it will permit consumers
of dietary supplements of vitamins and minerals, as well as other foods
that contain these nutrients in significant amounts, to understand the
amount of these nutrients present in these products in the context of
the total daily diet. Third, it will permit nutrient content claims to
be made for these nutrients on all foods.
IV. The Proposed Rule
A. Basis for RDI's for Vitamin K, Selenium, Chloride, Manganese,
Fluoride, Chromium, and Molybdenum
FDA has determined that NAS RDA's are an appropriate basis for
label reference values. Strong and uniform support was provided for the
use of NAS RDA's during the initial development of label reference
values in 1972 as well as in response to the July 1990 proposal and the
supplementary proposal. The agency continues to believe that these
established nutrient allowances are the most widely accepted and
respected source of information on human nutrient requirements and
recommended intakes.
In proposing RDI's for these seven nutrients, the agency recognizes
that if it adopts this proposal, some label reference values will be
based on the 1968 NAS RDA's, while others will be based on the 1980 and
1989 NAS RDA's. The agency believes, however, that providing label
information regarding the seven additional nutrients covered by the
proposal would be useful to consumers in making healthy dietary
choices. As discussed in the previous section, without RDI's, there can
be no percent Daily Values expressed for these nutrients on the
nutrition label, and nutrient content claims cannot be made for them.
Therefore, FDA tentatively concludes that the advantages of having a
reference value for all nutrients that NAS has found to be essential
outweighs any disadvantages that derive from the fact that some of
these values are more reflective of current scientific thinking than
others.
As stated above, NAS is in the process of reevaluating the basis on
which RDA's are determined. NAS is considering whether values should be
selected to prevent deficiencies or to promote optimal wellness. The
agency believes that any action to establish a set of RDI's with
consistent derivation should await completion of the NAS process. FDA
is committed to working with NAS to help resolve this issue.
B. Determination of Reference Amounts for Vitamin K, Selenium,
Chloride, Manganese, Fluoride, Chromium, and Molybdenum
Based on its consideration of comments on the 1990 proposal and on
the supplementary proposal, FDA determined in the RDI/DRV final rule
that there is considerable support for the general approach of
establishing label reference values for vitamins and minerals by
selecting the highest NAS RDA value from among those for persons 4 or
more years of age (excluding pregnant and lactating females) (58 FR
2206 at 2211). The comments stated that vulnerable or at-risk groups
would be sufficiently covered by selecting the highest value.
Therefore, in the RDI/DRV final rule, FDA tentatively determined that
in establishing label reference values from NAS' RDA values, it would
be appropriate to select the highest value from among those for adults
and children 4 or more years of age, excluding values for pregnant
females and lactating females (58 FR 2206 at 2211). FDA referred to
this approach as the ``population coverage approach.''
FDA is proposing to use this approach in adopting RDI's for vitamin
K, selenium, chloride, manganese, fluoride, chromium, and molybdenum.
In doing so, the agency is setting forth a quantitative amount as well
as a unit of measure for each nutrient.
In regard to vitamin K, a review of the 1989 RDA values shows a
range of recommended levels from 20 micrograms (g) for
children 4 to 6 years of age to 80 g for adult males from 25
to 51+ years of age (Ref. 2). Accordingly, using the population
coverage approach, FDA is proposing to adopt 80 g as the RDI
for vitamin K.
A review of the 1989 RDA values for selenium shows a range of
recommended levels from 20 g for children 4 to 6 years of age
to 70 g for adult males from 19 to 51+ years of age (Ref. 2).
Using the population coverage approach, FDA is proposing to adopt 70
g as the RDI for selenium.
A review of the 1980 ESADDI values for chloride shows a range from
700 to 2,100 milligrams (mg) for children 4 to 6 years of age to 1,700
to 5,100 mg for adults (Ref. 3). To be consistent with the population
coverage approach being used for vitamins and minerals with RDA's, FDA
said in the RDI/DRV final rule that when nutrients had ESADDI values,
it would select the highest ESADDI within the specified age groups to
serve as the label reference value. When the ESADDI value is presented
as a range, FDA said it would use the midpoint of that range as the
RDI. No comments were received that objected to this approach (58 FR
2206 at 2212). Therefore, in accordance with this procedure, FDA is
proposing to adopt 3,400 mg (the midpoint between 1,700 to 5,100 mg) as
the RDI for chloride.
A review of the 1989 ESADDI values for manganese shows a range from
1.5 to 2.0 mg for children 4 to 6 years of age to 2.0 to 5.0 mg for
adults (Ref. 2). Consistent with the procedure discussed above, FDA is
proposing to adopt 3.5 mg (the midpoint between 2.0 to 5.0 mg) as the
RDI for manganese.
For fluoride, a review of the 1989 ESADDI values shows a range from
1.0 to 2.5 mg for children 4 to 6 years of age to 1.5 to 4.0 mg for
adults. Consistent with the procedure discussed above, FDA is proposing
to adopt 3.0 mg (rounding the midpoint between 1.5 to 4.0 mg, 2.75 mg,
to 3.0 mg) as the RDI for fluoride.
For chromium, a review of the 1989 ESADDI values shows a range from
30 to 120 g for children 4 to 6 years of age to 50 to 200
g for adults and children 7 or more years of age. In
accordance with the population coverage approach, FDA is proposing to
adopt 130 g (rounding the midpoint between 50 to 200
g, 125 g, to 130 g) as the RDI for chromium.
Lastly, a review of the 1989 ESADDI values for molybdenum shows a
range from 30 to 75 g for children 4 to 6 years of age to 75
to 250 g for adults and children 11 or more years of age. In
accordance with the population coverage approach, FDA is proposing to
adopt 160 g (rounding the midpoint between 75 to 250
g, 162.5 g, to 160 g) as the RDI for
molybdenum.
In summary, FDA is proposing to amend Sec. 101.9(c)(8)(iv) to
include the following values:
Vitamin K, 80 micrograms
Selenium, 70 micrograms
Chloride, 3,400 milligrams
Manganese, 3.5 milligrams
Fluoride, 3.0 milligrams
Chromium, 130 micrograms
Molybdenum, 160 micrograms
One comment to the proposal on nutrition labeling for dietary
supplements recommended that biotin and folate be declared in terms of
micrograms, not milligrams, and that calcium and phosphorus be declared
in terms of milligrams instead of grams. The comment stated that
consumers are more familiar with these nutrients being expressed in
this manner.
FDA proposed in 1990 (56 FR 29476) to use the units suggested by
this comment. However, section 203 of the DS act limited the values
that FDA could use in establishing RDI's to those contained in
Sec. 101.9(c)(7)(iv) until after November 8, 1993. Accordingly, as
stated above, FDA adopted the current U.S. RDA values as the RDI's,
with biotin and folate expressed in terms of milligrams, and calcium
and phosphorus expressed in terms of grams. Public health guidelines
and nutrition education efforts typically use the same units of measure
as those found in the 10th Edition of NAS' RDA and repeated in the 1990
proposal. Therefore, the agency agrees with the comment that changing
the current units of measure of biotin, folate, calcium, and phosphorus
to those units specified in the 1990 proposal will facilitate consumer
comprehension of quantitative nutrient information.
Therefore, FDA is proposing to amend Sec. 101.9(c)(8)(iv) by
changing the units of measure for biotin, folate, calcium, and
phosphorus to the following:
biotin-micrograms
folate-micrograms
calcium-milligrams
phosphorus-milligrams
FDA points out that in following the provisions of the DS act and
retaining the label reference values in current Sec. 101.9(c)(7)(iv),
it did not adopt label reference values in the RDI/DRV final rule for
use on foods purported to be or represented for use by infants,
children under 4 years of age, or pregnant or lactating women. Given
the continuing questions about how to arrive at such values, FDA is
deferring action on this issue with respect to the issue of updating
the RDI's. FDA intends to propose RDI's for all nutrients, including
vitamin K, selenium, chloride, manganese, fluoride, chromium, and
molybdenum, for infants, children under 4 years of age, and pregnant
and lactating women in a future rulemaking.
As a result of the lack of reference values for infants, children
under 4 years of age, and pregnant and lactating women, labels of
dietary supplements of vitamins or minerals that are intended for these
specific groups and that are regulated under Sec. 101.36 (21 CFR
101.36) may continue to specify the milligram or microgram amounts of
these nutrients with an asterisk in the percent Daily Value column. The
asterisk would refer to a footnote stating ``Daily Value not
established.'' However, since milligram and microgram amounts are not
listed for vitamins and minerals on labels of foods in conventional
food form, until such time as RDA's are established for infants,
children less than 4 years of age, and pregnant and lactating women,
and barring a significant change in agency position in the final rule
in this proceeding, the seven subject nutrients may not be declared on
labels of foods in conventional food form that are represented or
purported to be for use by these groups. FDA requests comment on
whether or not this position is appropriate.
One possible alternative would be to allow foods in conventional
food form that are represented or purported to be for use by infants,
children less than 4 years of age, or pregnant and lactating women to
list vitamin K, selenium, chloride, manganese, fluoride, chromium, and
molybdenum when they are present in the food in more than insignificant
amounts but without milligram or microgram amounts, only an asterisk
that refers to a footnote stating that a Daily Value has not been
established. This alternative would alert consumers to the presence of
these nutrients in the food, although it would not give any indication
of the amount present. FDA solicits comment on this and other
alternative approaches.
C. Issues Concerning Specific Nutrients
1. GRAS Status of Selenium, Fluoride, and Chromium
In the RDI/DRV final rule, FDA reviewed several comments expressing
concern about the GRAS status of selenium, fluoride, and chromium (58
FR 2206 at 2215). These comments centered primarily around issues of
their use in supplements.
As the agency stated in the final rule on mandatory nutrition
labeling (58 FR 2079 at 2170), decisions with regard to whether the use
of sources of these nutrients is GRAS are outside the scope of this
rulemaking. Any direct addition of these trace minerals to a food is
based on the manufacturer's judgment that use of the nutrient sources
is GRAS.
2. Alternative Products
The RDI/DRV final rule also addressed the effect of the label
reference values on alternative products (e.g., reduced fat foods). One
comment suggested that with a larger number of vitamins and minerals
listed in Sec. 101.9(c)(8), selected vitamins and minerals should be
removed from the list of nutrients that, under Sec. 101.3(e)(4)(ii) (21
CFR 101.3(e)(4)(ii)), must be present at the same level in a substitute
food if that food is to be considered not nutritionally inferior to the
food for which it substitutes and resembles (58 FR 2206 at 2225). The
agency acknowledged that an increase in the number of nutrients for
which label reference values (RDI's) are established would mean that
efforts to obtain nutritional equivalency may require the addition of
nutrients to substitute foods (58 FR 2206 at 2225).
In considering this comment, FDA acknowledged that there were no
FDA-approved sources of selenium, fluoride, chromium or molybdenum for
direct addition to foods (58 FR 2206 at 2225). Since there are no
listed sources for these four nutrients, the agency stated in the RDI/
DRV final rule that if RDI's had been established for these nutrients,
FDA would have amended Sec. 101.3(e)(4)(ii) to state that these
nutrients are not required for nutritional equivalency (58 FR 2206 at
2225).
Having received no objections to this statement, FDA is proposing
to amend Sec. 101.3(e)(4)(ii) to state that selenium, molybdenum,
fluoride, and chromium need not be considered in determining
nutritional inferiority. If adopted, this amendment will mean that a
product that substitutes for another food that contains at least 2
percent more of the RDI for selenium, molybdenum, fluoride, or chromium
will not have to be fortified with these nutrients to avoid being an
``imitation.''
The agency feels compelled, however, to point out that there are
circumstances in which adequate amounts of selenium, chromium, and
molybdenum need to be supplied by particular foods because those foods
may well be the sole item of the diet. These foods include infant
formulas, medical foods, or total diet replacement formulas. The agency
notes that selenium, molybdenum, and chromium have been used for
several years in some infant formulas, medical foods, and total diet
replacement product without apparent problems. Although the agency has
not determined whether the use of certain compounds used by
manufacturers of such products as sources of these nutrients is GRAS,
FDA has not objected to these additions at levels that result in daily
intakes that do not exceed the upper limits of the NAS' ESADDI's.
V. Conforming Amendments
The proposed revision of the nutrition labeling regulations in
Sec. 101.9 to provide RDI's for vitamin K, selenium, chloride,
manganese, fluoride, chromium, and molybdenum necessitates that FDA
revise Sec. 101.36(b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(4)(vi) as finalized in the
document entitled ``Food Labeling; General Requirements for Nutrition
Labeling for Dietary Supplements of Vitamins, Minerals, Herbs, or Other
Similar Nutritional Substances'' published elsewhere in this issue of
the Federal Register. Section 101.36(b)(3) specifically provides for
vitamin K, chloride, chromium, fluoride, manganese, molybdenum, and
selenium to be listed in the nutrition label of dietary supplements of
vitamins and minerals when present and for quantitative amounts of the
nutrients to be declared. Section 101.36(b)(4) states that no percent
of Daily Value shall be given for these seven nutrients in the
nutrition label, and Sec. 101.36(b)(4)(vi) states that when no percent
is given, an asterisk shall be placed in the ``Percent Daily Value''
column in the nutrition label that refers to another asterisk that is
placed at the bottom of the nutrition label that is followed by the
statement ``Daily Value not established.'' FDA is proposing to amend
Sec. 101.36(b)(3) to remove all references to vitamin K, chloride,
chromium, fluoride, manganese, molybdenum, and selenium. Because these
nutrients are proposed to be included in Sec. 101.9(c)(8)(iv), they
will be permitted to be listed in nutrition labeling without specific
provision.
With regard to Sec. 101.36(b)(4) and (b)(4)(vi), once RDI's are
established for vitamin K, chloride, chromium, fluoride, manganese,
molybdenum, and selenium for adults and children 4 or more years of
age, the percent Daily Value of these nutrients will be able to be
calculated for this group. However, because RDI's are not being
proposed for infants, children less than 4 years of age, and for
pregnant or lactating women (as discussed in section IV.C.1. of this
document), labels of products represented or purported to be for use by
those groups will not be able to declare the percent Daily Value for
these nutrients. Therefore, FDA is proposing to amend Sec. 101.36(b)(4)
and (b)(4)(vi) to provide for the use of an asterisk that will refer to
the statement ``Daily Value not established'' for the seven subject
nutrients on products represented or purported to be for use by
infants, children less than 4 years of age, and pregnant or lactating
women.
VI. Comments
Interested persons may, on or before July 7, 1994, submit to the
Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments regarding
this proposal. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except
that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified
with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this
document. Received comments may be seen in the office above between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
VII. Environmental Impact
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.24(a)(11) that this
action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
VIII. Economic Impact
FDA has examined the economic implications of the proposed rule
amending 21 CFR as required by Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354). Executive Order 12866 directs
agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory
approaches which maximize net benefits (including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety effects; distributive impacts;
and equity). The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies
analyze options for regulatory relief for small businesses. FDA finds
that this proposed rule is not a significant rule as defined by
Executive Order 12866. In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, the agency certifies that the proposed rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
This proposed regulation allows manufacturers of foods in
conventional food form and dietary supplements to declare certain
nutrients within the nutrition panel and to make content claims about
those nutrients. The proposal provides flexibility for those
manufacturers who wish to disclose information about these seven
nutrients without imposing requirements on those firms producing
products without these nutrients. Manufacturers of food in conventional
food form must change food labels if any of the nutrients are added to
the product or if any claims are made. FDA is unsure of the extent to
which this will occur. FDA believes that the costs of this regulation
are minimal. This regulation will create benefits to the extent that
the additional information allowed in nutrition labeling will help
consumers make healthy dietary choices.
IX. References
The following references have been placed on display in the Dockets
Management Branch (address above) and may be seen by interested persons
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
1. Food and Nutrition Board, Division of Biology and
Agriculture, National Research Council, ``Recommended Dietary
Allowances, 7th ed., 1968,'' Publication 1694, Printing and
Publishing Office, NAS, Washington, DC, 1968.
2. Subcommittee on the 10th Edition of the RDA's, Food and
Nutrition Board, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research
Council, ``Recommended Dietary Allowances, 10th Edition,''
Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1989.
3. Committee on Dietary Allowances, Food and Nutrition Board,
Assembly of Life Sciences, National Research Council, ``Recommended
Dietary Allowances, 9th Revised ed., 1980,'' Washington, DC,
National Academy Press, 1980.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 101
Food labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is
proposed that 21 CFR part 101 be amended as follows:
PART 101--FOOD LABELING
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 101 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 5, 6 of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act
(15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, 1455); secs. 201, 301, 402, 403, 409, 701 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 342,
343, 348, 371).
2. Section 101.3, effective May 8, 1994, is amended by revising
paragraph (e)(4)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 101.3 Identity labeling of food in packaged form.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) For the purpose of this section, a measurable amount of an
essential nutrient in a food shall be considered to be 2 percent or
more of the Daily Reference Value (DRV) of protein listed under
Sec. 101.9(c)(7)(iii), of potassium listed under Sec. 101.9(c)(9), and
of the Reference Daily Intake (RDI) of any vitamin or mineral listed
under Sec. 101.9(c)(8)(iv), except that selenium, molybdenum, fluoride,
and chromium need not be considered.
* * * * *
3. Section 101.9, effective May 8, 1994, is amended by revising
paragraph (c)(8)(iv) to read as follows:
Sec. 101.9 Nutrition Labeling of foods.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(8) * * *
(iv) The following RDI's and nomenclature are established for the
following vitamins and minerals which are essential in human nutrition:
Vitamin A, 5,000 International Units.
Vitamin C, 60 milligrams.
Calcium, 1000 milligrams.
Iron, 18 milligrams.
Vitamin D, 400 International Units.
Vitamin E, 30 International Units.
Vitamin K, 80 micrograms.
Thiamin, 1.5 milligrams.
Riboflavin, 1.7 milligrams.
Niacin, 20 milligrams.
Vitamin B6, 2.0 milligrams.
Folate, 400 micrograms.
Vitamin B12, 6 micrograms.
Biotin, 300 micrograms.
Pantothenic Acid, 10 milligrams.
Phosphorus, 1000 milligrams.
Iodine, 150 micrograms.
Magnesium, 400 milligrams.
Zinc, 15 milligrams.
Selenium, 70 micrograms.
Copper, 2.0 milligrams.
Manganese, 3.5 milligrams.
Fluoride, 3.0 milligrams.
Chromium, 130 micrograms.
Molybdenum, 160 micrograms.
Chloride, 3,400 milligrams.
* * * * *
4. Section 101.36 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3), (b)(4)
introductory text, and (b)(4)(vi) to read as follows:
Sec. 101.36 Nutrition labeling of dietary supplements of vitamins or
minerals.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) A listing of all nutrients required in Sec. 101.9(c) that are
present in the dietary supplement in quantitative amounts by weight
that exceed the amount that can be declared as zero in Sec. 101.9(c).
Those nutrients that are not present, or that are present in amounts
that would be declared as zero, shall not be declared. In addition,
potassium shall be declared except when present in quantitative amounts
by weight that allow a declaration of zero. The name of each nutrient
listed shall be immediately followed by the quantitative amount by
weight of the nutrient. Nutrient names and quantitative amounts shall
be presented in a column under the heading ``Amount Per Serving'' and
aligned on the left side of the nutrition label. The heading ``Amount
Per Serving'' shall be separated from other information on the label by
a bar above and beneath it, except that when calories are listed, the
bar shall be placed beneath the calorie declaration. When the serving
size of the product is one unit (e.g., 1 tablet), a heading consistent
with the declaration of serving size, such as ``Amount per Tablet'' or
``Each Tablet Contains,'' may be used in place of the heading ``Amount
per Serving.'' Other appropriate terms, such as capsule, packet, or
teaspoonful, may be used in place of the term ``Serving.''
(4) A listing of the percent of the Daily Value (i.e., the percent
of the RDI as established in Sec. 101.9(c)(8)(iv) or DRV as established
in Sec. 101.9(c)(9)), where appropriate, of all nutrients listed in the
nutrition label, except that the percent for protein may be omitted as
provided in Sec. 101.9(c)(7), no percent shall be given for sugars,
and, for labels of dietary supplements of vitamins and minerals that
are represented or purported to be for use by infants, children less
than 4 years of age, or pregnant or lactating women, no percent shall
be given for vitamin K, chloride, chromium, fluoride, manganese,
molybdenum, or selenium. This information shall be presented in one
column aligned under the heading of ``% Daily Value'' and to the right
of the column of nutrient names and amounts. The headings ``% Daily
Value (DV),'' ``% DV,'' ``Percent Daily Value,'' or ``Percent DV'' may
be substituted for ``% Daily Value.'' The heading ``% Daily Value''
shall be placed on the same line as the heading ``Amount Per Serving''
or placed beneath this heading and the bar underneath it, except that
``% Daily Value'' shall be placed beneath this bar when calorie
information is required to be declared. Calorie information shall be
placed beneath ``Amount Per Serving'' and above the bar.
* * * * *
(vi) When no percent is given for sugars, or, on labels of dietary
supplements of vitamins and minerals that are represented or purported
to be for use by infants, children less than 4 years of age, or
pregnant or lactating women, when no percent is given for vitamin K,
chloride, chromium, fluoride, manganese, molybdenum, or selenium, an
asterisk shall be placed in the ``% Daily Value'' column that shall
refer to another asterisk that is placed at the bottom of the nutrition
label and followed by the statement ``Daily Value not established.''
* * * * *
Dated: December 23, 1993.
David A. Kessler,
Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 93-31816 Filed 12-29-93; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.