issue-1996-02-14•Federal Register final rules — 1996-02-14
Federal Register final rules — 1996-02-14
issue-1996-02-14Federal Register final rules — 1996-02-14Regulation
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. 96-3330 Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Correction of Designation of Nonclassified Ozone Nonattainment Areas; State of Michigan
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5707-5711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3330]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[MI39-03-7248; FRL-5421-9]
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes;
Correction of Designation of Nonclassified Ozone Nonattainment Areas;
State of Michigan
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 8, 1995 the USEPA simultaneously published a direct
final notice of rulemaking and notice of proposed rulemaking in which
USEPA published its decision to correct erroneous ozone designations
made in 1980 for the Allegan County, Barry County, Battle Creek
(Calhoun County), Benton Harbor (Berrien County), Branch County, Cass
County, Gratiot County, Hillsdale County, Huron County, Ionia County,
Jackson (Jackson County), Kalamazoo (Kalamazoo County), Lapeer County,
Lenawee County, Montcalm (Montcalm County), Sanilac County, Shiawassee
County, St. Joseph County, Tuscola County, and Van Buren County
nonattainment nonclassified/incomplete data areas and the Lansing-East
Lansing (Clinton County, Eaton County, and Ingham County) nonattainment
nonclassified/transitional area. Pursuant to section 110(k)(6) of the
Act, the USEPA published the designation correction of these areas to
attainment/unclassifiable for ozone. The 30-day comment period
concluded on September 7, 1995. During this comment period, the USEPA
received two comment letters in response to the August 8, 1995,
rulemaking. This final rule summarizes comments and USEPA's responses,
and finalizes the USEPA's decision to correct the designations of 20 of
these areas to attainment/unclassifiable for ozone. The USEPA will
respond to comments relevant to Allegan County, Michigan and publish a
final rulemaking on this area in a separate rulemaking action in a
future Federal Register.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will be effective March 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for inspection at the following address: (It is recommended
that you telephone Jacqueline Nwia at (312) 886-6081 before visiting
the Region 5 Office.) United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Nwia, Regulation
Development Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation
Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone Number (312)
886-6081.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background Information
On August 8, 1995, the USEPA published a direct final rulemaking
(60 FR 40297) correcting the designation for 21 of 23 ozone
nonattainment nonclassified incomplete/no data and transitional areas
in Michigan to attainment/unclassifiable due to the lack of in-county
ozone monitoring data showing violations of the 0.12 parts per million
(ppm) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).
At the same time that the USEPA published the direct final rule, a
separate notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal
Register (60 FR 40338). This proposed rulemaking specified that USEPA
would withdraw the direct final rule if adverse or critical comments
were filed on the rulemaking. The USEPA received two letters containing
adverse comments regarding the direct final rule within 30 days of
publication of the proposed rule and withdrew the direct final rule on
October 2, 1995 (60 FR 51360).
The specific rationale the USEPA used to correct certain ozone
nonattainment nonclassified areas to attainment is explained in the
direct final rule and will not be restated here.
This final rule contained in this Federal Register addresses the
comments which were received during the public comment period and
announces USEPA's final action regarding these determinations, with the
exception of comments relevant to and a final determination regarding
Allegan County.
II. Public Comments and USEPA Responses
Two letters were received in response to the August 8, 1995, direct
final rulemaking. One was a letter from the Citizens Commission for
Clean Air in the Lake Michigan Basin (Citizens Commission) and the
other from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC). The following discussion summarizes and responds to the
comments received, with the exception of those relevant to Allegan
County. Comments received relevant to and a final action on Allegan
County will be published in a future rulemaking action.
Citizens Commission Comment
The commenter states that the rulemaking is improper and an abuse
of the Administrator's authority to correct errors in designation of
areas pursuant to Clean Air Act (Act) section 110(k)(6). The commenter
restates section 110(k)(6) emphasizing the provision that
determinations pursuant to 110(k)(6) and their basis must be provided
to the State and public. The commenter further states that the basis of
the direct final rule, the lack of air quality data in the affected
areas during the 1970s and 1980s, is insufficient grounds for changing
the designation of the affected areas under the Act.
USEPA Response
The USEPA disagrees with the commentor's contention that the
rulemaking is an improper use and/or abuse of section 110(k)(6). The
commenter doesn't provide information or a rationale for this comment.
Consistent with section 110(k)(6), the USEPA determined that the
designations of these 21 nonattainment nonclassified areas were in
error based on the lack of in county monitoring data and, consequently,
acted to correct the designation in the same manner as the original
designation 1 without requiring any further submission from the
State. The determination and its basis were provided to the State and
the public through the publication of the direct final and proposed
rulemaking actions in the Federal Register.
\1\ The original designations were processed in a proposal and
subsequent final Federal Register document. The direct final process
used in this instance requires a simultaneous proposal and thus,
affords the public the opportunity to comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter does not explain why they believe that the basis of
the correction is insufficient grounds for changing the designation of
the affected
[[Page 5708]]
areas under the Act. These areas were designated nonattainment based on
their proximity to nonattainment areas and the regional nature of the
ozone problem (45 FR 25092, April 14, 1980). This could imply that, if
the areas had monitored elevated ozone levels, the elevated levels
likely could have been a result of ozone and precursors transported
from adjacent nonattainment areas. It would be unreasonable to impose
the rigorous redesignation requirements of the Act amendments to these
areas where an ozone problem, which could be due to transport from
other areas, was not monitored but assumed.
Furthermore, the USEPA believes that this basis is appropriate
particularly in light of the 1990 Act which significantly relies on
ambient monitoring data to classify areas and establish control
requirements.
Citizens Commission Comment
The commenter states that the direct final rule is inconsistent
with prior agency policy established in the General Preamble (General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title 1, 57 FR 13501, April 16,
1992) regarding transitional and incomplete data areas. The General
Preamble establishes that incomplete data or no data areas are subject
to section 172(b) requirements and requires States to submit a
redesignation request and maintenance plan as defined in section
107(d)(3)(E) for such areas. (The commenter cited section 107(d)(1)(E).
USEPA believes that this was a typographical error since this section
of the Act does not address redesignation requirements.) According to
the General Preamble designation of such areas may be changed by
individual redesignation requests and not by a correction.
USEPA Response
Since this rulemaking is not based on the redesignation criteria of
section 107(d)(3)(E), USEPA redesignation policy or the general
preamble redesignation criteria and requirements are irrelevant to this
rulemaking. The rulemaking is consistent with section 110(k)(6) of the
Act.
Citizens Commission Comment
The commenter states the USEPA is deliberately ignoring the Lake
Michigan Ozone Study (LMOS) modeling results, which indicate that many
of these areas are not in attainment of the standard, and is,
therefore, countering efforts of neighboring nonattainment areas
struggling to satisfy the Title I requirements. The commenter states
that the current LMOS modeling, which USEPA has accepted and approved
for purposes of demonstrating attainment, predicts continued
exceedances for many of these Michigan counties in the future. The
commenter refers to Episode 4 which shows that exceedances of the NAAQS
observed in northwest Indiana can be attributed to emissions
originating from many of the Michigan counties proposed for
redesignation. The commenter maintains that this finding is verified by
recently completed back trajectories for Episode 4. (Trajectories
provided by the commenter). The commenter believes that this
redesignation is particularly outrageous, given the 6 exceedances
recorded in Michigan City, Indiana in the summer of 1995. The commenter
further suggests that USEPA use the ambient monitoring data collected
during the 1991 LMOS field study to designate Delta, Benzie, and Mason
Counties to nonattainment.
USEPA Response
The USEPA is not ignoring the LMOS. The USEPA recognizes that the
Lake Michigan States of Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana are
conducting urban airshed modeling (UAM) which is being coordinated by
LADCO that will be used for purposes of demonstrating attainment
throughout the Lake Michigan region. The modeling is currently being
refined. The USEPA also recognizes the importance of the modeling
effort and subsequent results. The USEPA has determined that the model
performance evaluation for UAM, Version V, submitted by LADCO on behalf
of the Lake Michigan States on October 1, 1994, could be used for
regulatory purposes. This means, however, that the method of showing
attainment has been approved, rather than that actual attainment
demonstrations have been approved.
UAM has been submitted to the USEPA on three occasions; November
14, 1994, with an attainment date extension request for the Western
Michigan moderate ozone nonattainment areas, on November 15, 1994, with
an attainment date extension request for Sheboygan, Manitowoc, and
Kewaunee Counties in Wisconsin, and on July 13, 1994, with a section
182(f) NOx exemption request for areas in Michigan, Wisconsin,
Illinois and Indiana. The UAM submitted to the USEPA to date does not
and was not intended to demonstrate attainment. The USEPA has reviewed
this modeling and cannot conclusively determine that the 20
nonclassified areas in Michigan subject to this correction are not
attaining the standard, will not be attaining the standard in the
future, or may contribute to ozone concentrations in downwind areas.
Although, a few Episode 2 modeling runs indicate that portions of
Berrien and Van Buren Counties fall between 120 ppb and 130 ppb
isopleths 2 and, in two modeling runs, possibly between the 120
ppb and 140 ppb isopleths, the actual predicted ozone concentrations in
these areas cannot be determined.
\2\ Isopleths are the lines generated by the results of the
urban airshed model indicating ozone concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The USEPA does not agree that Episode 4 (June 21-21, 1991) shows
that exceedances of the NAAQS observed in northwest Indiana can be
attributed to emissions originating from these areas and it is unclear
how the trajectories provided by the commenter support this conclusion.
Episode 4 illustrates the scenario of north-northeasterly winds.
Although, Episode 4 modeling runs show that Michigan emissions may
impact downwind areas, the modeling does not clearly demonstrate that
the ozone precursor emissions from these counties are the cause of
exceedances in the downwind areas. Similarly, although the trajectories
may indicate north-northeasterly wind patterns and therefore, airflow
from Michigan to Indiana, the extent to which the ozone precursor
emissions from these counties contribute to ozone concentrations cannot
be determined conclusively.
The USEPA is aware of monitored ozone exceedances in Michigan City,
Indiana, during the 1995 ozone season. The USEPA does not expect this
rulemaking to have an impact on the likelihood of Michigan City being
designated to nonattainment.
Ozone monitoring data collected during the 1990 and 1991 field
studies in Delta, Benzie and Mason counties are not relevant to this
rulemaking action.
Finally, the USEPA would also note that the Lake Michigan States
are participating in the Phase I/Phase II process as provided for
within the March 2, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, entitled Ozone Attainment
Demonstrations. Phase II of the analysis would assess the need for
regional control strategies and refine the local control strategies.
Phase II would also provide the States and USEPA the opportunity to
determine appropriate regional strategies to resolve transport issues
including any impacts these areas may have on ozone concentrations in
their downwind areas. The USEPA has the authority under sections
110(a)(2)(A) and 110(a)(2)(D) of the Act to ensure that the required
and necessary reductions are achieved in
[[Page 5709]]
these areas should subsequent modeling become available, such as the
modeling that will be available through completion of the Phase II
analysis, or any other subsequent modeling data. USEPA has authority,
and the state has an obligation, under section 110(a)(2)(A) (in the
case of intrastate areas) and section 110(a)(2)(D) (in the case of
interstate areas), to address transported emissions from upwind areas
that significantly contribute to air quality problems in downwind
areas. This action, therefore, does not preclude the USEPA from
requiring control measures in these areas in the future.
Citizens Commission Comment
The commenter believes that the State and USEPA were correct when
they concluded in 1980 (the commenter cites 1989. However, USEPA
believes this was a typographical error and that the commenter intended
to cite 1980) that these Michigan counties should be designated as
nonattainment and reevaluated once appropriate monitoring data become
available. Appropriate monitoring data can only be obtained if the
State establishes a comprehensive monitoring network and contributes to
a comprehensive, regional attainment strategy.
USEPA Response
Michigan's November 8, 1979 analysis concluded that in light of the
new 0.12 ppm standard, changes to the March 3, 1978 designations were
not warranted and that the designations would be reevaluated as more
data on rural ozone levels became available. The USEPA approved this
submittal on June 2, 1980. Since 1979, the State of Michigan expanded
the ozone monitoring network to Branch, Cass, Clinton, Eaton, Ingham
(relocated), and Tuscola Counties and later to Benzie, Berrien, Huron,
Kalamazoo, Lenawee, Montcalm, and Van Buren Counties. Exceedances of
the 0.12 ppm NAAQS were recorded in a number of counties and violations
were recorded in Huron County in 1980 (2 exceedances in 1980 at two
separate monitors),3 and Cass County in 1980 (3 exceedances in 2
years, 1979-1980) 4 and Tuscola County in 1988 (1 exceedances in
1988).5 Subsequently, Cass, Huron and Tuscola Counties have
monitored attainment.
\3\ The monitor was established in 1980.
\4\ This monitor was established in 1979.
\5\ Poor data capture in 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the State's contribution to a comprehensive, regional
attainment strategy, as noted previously, the Lake Michigan States are
participating in the Phase I/Phase II process. This process will
provide the States and USEPA with information to determine appropriate
regional strategies to resolve transport issues including any impacts
these Michigan areas may have on ozone concentrations in their downwind
areas. The USEPA has the authority to ensure that the required and
necessary reductions are achieved in these areas should subsequent
modeling become available.
Citizens Commission Comment
The commenter states that the direct final rule does not explain
why the June 2, 1980 designation does not remain in effect pursuant to
the general savings clause, section 193 of the Act. The general savings
clause requires that ``no control requirement in effect * * * may be
modified after such enactment in any manner unless the modification
insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air
pollutant.'' The commenter states that if these areas are designated to
attainment/unclassifiable, they would not achieve equivalent or greater
emission reductions in ozone precursor emissions.
USEPA Response
Section 193 of the Act states that each rule promulgated by the
Administrator, in effect before November 15, 1990, must remain in
effect, unless revised by the Administrator. This action is a
correction to a designation, it is not a revision to any control
requirement, so that section 193 is not applicable. In any event,
section 193 also stipulates that no control requirement may be modified
in any manner unless the modification insures equivalent or greater
emission reductions. This component of section 193 was intended to
preserve the control programs and measures already implemented in the
area. Since programs and measures already implemented in the area that
achieved emission reductions are not being removed, replacement
reductions are not necessary.
NYSDEC Comment
The NYSDEC disagrees that an error was made in determining the
ozone designations for the nonclassified areas in southern Michigan.
The air monitoring network used by Michigan to designate these areas
nonattainment in 1978 and uphold them in 1980, complied with the
federal Act citing criteria and provisions for establishing air quality
control regions. The NYSDEC also questions the rationale for correcting
the ozone designation fifteen years later and believes that even if an
error was made that it does not warrant a direct final rulemaking.
USEPA Response
The USEPA is not implying that the ambient monitoring network
established by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) at
that time was inadequate. The USEPA believes, however, that the
monitoring network that operated during the mid-1970s was not
appropriate for purposes of designating all of these areas to
nonattainment. There was no data available demonstrating that these
areas were in violation of the ozone NAAQS to warrant a nonattainment
designation. However, the State of Michigan chose this designation for
these areas based on their proximity to nonattainment areas and the
regional nature of the ozone problem (45 FR 25092, April 14, 1980). The
basis of the original designations and rationale implies that if the
areas had monitored elevated ozone levels, the elevated levels likely
would have been a result of ozone and precursors transported from
adjacent nonattainment areas. It would be unreasonable to impose the
rigorous redesignation requirements of the Act amendments to these
areas if an ozone problem, likely due to transport from other areas,
was not monitored but assumed. Furthermore, as previously noted, the
USEPA believes that this basis is appropriate, particularly in light of
the 1990 Act, which significantly relies on ambient monitoring data to
classify areas and establish control requirements.
NYSDEC Comment
The commenter cites elevated ozone levels observed in southern
Michigan and notes that the August 8, 1995, direct final rule states a
violation in Lenawee County has probably occurred in the period 1993-
1995.
USEPA Response
The correction is based on the ambient monitoring data available at
the time the original designations were promulgated. The preliminary
data which indicated that a violation may have occurred in Lenawee
County were subsequently invalidated due to a malfunctioning ambient
monitor which was replaced by the MDNR.
NYSDEC Comment
NYSDEC also requested additional time to review the AIRS data and
documentation used in the USEPA's analysis of which they recently
obtained copies.
USEPA Response
The public was afforded 30 days to comment on this rulemaking
action. The USEPA does not believe that any
[[Page 5710]]
extension of time is necessary as an adequate comment period has
already been provided.
III. Final Rulemaking Action
In this action the USEPA is promulgating a correction to correct
the ozone designation status of the Barry County, Battle Creek (Calhoun
County), Benton Harbor (Berrien County), Branch County, Cass County,
Gratiot County, Hillsdale County, Huron County, Ionia County, Jackson
(Jackson County), Kalamazoo (Kalamazoo County), Lapeer County, Lenawee
County, Montcalm (Montcalm County), Sanilac County, Shiawassee County,
St. Joseph County, Tuscola County, and Van Buren County nonattainment
nonclassified/incomplete data and the Lansing-East Lansing (Clinton
County, Eaton County, Ingham County) nonattainment nonclassified/
transitional area to attainment/unclassifiable for ozone pursuant to
section 110(k)(6).
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000. Today's determination does not create any new
requirements, but suspends the indicated requirements. Therefore,
because this notice does not impose any new requirements, I certify
that it does not have a significant impact on small entities affected.
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the
USEPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any
proposed or final rulemaking that includes a Federal mandate that may
result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Section
203 requires the USEPA to establish a plan for informing and advising
any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by
the rule. Under section 205, the USEPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements.
The USEPA has determined that today's final action does not include
a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to either State, local or tribal governments in the aggregate, or
to the private sector. This Federal action imposes no new Federal
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this final action must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 15, 1996. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control.
Dated: February 7, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
40 CFR Part 81 is amended as follows:
PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PURPOSES
1. The authority citation of part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 - 7671q.
2. In Sec. 81.323 the ozone table is amended by revising the
entries for Barry County Area, Battle Creek Area, Benton Harbor Area,
Branch County Area, Cass County Area, Gratiot County Area, Hillsdale
County Area, Huron County Area, Ionia County Area, Jackson Area,
Kalamazoo Area, Lapeer County Area, Lenawee County Area, Montcalm Area,
Sanilac County Area, Shiawassee County Area, St. Joseph County Area,
Tuscola County Area, Van Buren County Area and Lansing-East Lansing
Area to read as follows:
Sec. 81.323 Michigan.
* * * * *
Michigan--Ozone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated areas ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \1\ Type Date Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Barry County Area, Barry County... Mar. 15, 1996.................. Unclassifiable/Attainment.............
Battle Creek Area, Calhoun County. Mar. 15, 1996.................. Unclassifiable/Attainment.............
Benton Harbor Area, Berrien County Mar. 15, 1996.................. Unclassifiable/Attainment.............
Branch County Area, Branch County. Mar. 15, 1996.................. Unclassifiable/Attainment.............
Cass County Area, Cass County..... Mar. 15, 1996.................. Unclassifiable/Attainment.............
* * * * * * *
Gratiot County Area, Gratiot Mar. 15, 1996.................. Unclassifiable/Attainment.............
County.
Hillsdale County Area, Hillsdale Mar. 15, 1996.................. Unclassifiable/Attainment.............
County.
Huron County Area, Huron County... Mar. 15, 1996.................. Unclassifiable/Attainment.............
Ionia County Area, Ionia County... Mar. 15, 1996.................. Unclassifiable/Attainment.............
Jackson Area, Jackson County...... Mar. 15, 1996.................. Unclassifiable/Attainment.............
Kalamazoo Area, Kalamazoo County.. Mar. 15, 1996.................. Unclassifiable/Attainment.............
Lansing-East Lansing Area:
Clinton County................ Mar. 15, 1996.................. Unclassifiable/Attainment.............
Eaton County.................. Mar. 15, 1996.................. Unclassifiable/Attainment.............
Ingham County................. Mar. 15, 1996.................. Unclassifiable/Attainment.............
Lapeer County Area, Lapeer County. Mar. 15, 1996.................. Unclassifiable/Attainment.............
Lenawee County Area, Lenawee Mar. 15, 1996.................. Unclassifiable/Attainment.............
County.
[[Page 5711]]
Montcalm Area, Montcalm County.... Mar. 15, 1996.................. Unclassifiable/Attainment.............
* * * * * * *
Sanilac County Area, Sanilac Mar. 15, 1996.................. Unclassifiable/Attainment.............
County.
Shiwassee County Area, Shiwassee Mar. 15, 1996.................. Unclassifiable/Attainment.............
County.
St. Joseph County Area, St. Joseph Mar. 15, 1996.................. Unclassifiable/Attainment.............
County.
Tuscola County Area, Tuscola Mar. 15, 1996.................. Unclassifiable/Attainment.............
County.
Van Buren County Area, Van Buren Mar. 15, 1996.................. Unclassifiable/Attainment.............
County.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.
[FR Doc. 96-3330 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3328 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Michigan
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5694-5696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3328]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MI40-01-6998a; FRL-5418-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Michigan
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice approves a revision to the Michigan State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet the requirements of the USEPA
transportation conformity rule set forth at 40 CFR part 51, subpart T--
Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation
Plans, Programs, and Projects Developed, Funded or Approved Under Title
23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act. The transportation conformity SIP
revision will enable the State of Michigan to implement and enforce the
Federal transportation conformity requirements at the State or local
level in accordance with 40 CFR 51.396(b). This notice of approval is
limited only to 40 CFR part 51, subpart T (transportation conformity).
SIP revisions submitted under 40 CFR part 51, subpart W, relating to
conformity of general Federal actions, will be addressed in a separate
USEPA notice. This notice provides the rationale for this approval and
other information.
DATES: This ``direct final'' is effective April 15, 1996, unless USEPA
receives adverse or critical comments by March 15, 1996. If the
effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision, public comments and USEPA's
responses are available for inspection at the following address: United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is
recommended that you telephone Michael Leslie at (312) 353-6680 before
visiting the Region 5 Office.)
A copy of this SIP revision is available for inspection at the
following location: Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Docket and
Information Center (Air Docket 6102), room M1500, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, D.C.
20460, (202) 260-7548.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael G. Leslie, Regulation
Development Section (AT-18J), Air Toxics and Radiation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone
Number (312) 353-6680.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7506(c),
provides that no Federal department, agency, or instrumentality shall
engage in, support in any way or provide financial assistance for,
license or permit, or approve any activity which does not conform to a
SIP which has been approved or promulgated pursuant to the CAA.
Conformity is defined as conformity to the SIP's purpose of eliminating
or reducing the severity and number of violations of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards and achieving expeditious attainment of
such standards, and that such activities will not: (1) Cause or
contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area, (2)
increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any
standard in any area, or (3) delay timely attainment of any standard or
any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any
area.
Section 176(c)(4)(A) of the CAA requires USEPA to promulgate
criteria and procedures for determining conformity of all Federal
actions (transportation and general) to applicable SIPs. The USEPA
published the final transportation conformity rules in the November 24,
1993, Federal Register and codified them at 40 CFR part 51, subpart T--
Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation
Plans, Programs, and Projects Developed, Funded or Approved Under Title
23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act. The conformity
[[Page 5695]]
rules require States and local agencies to adopt and submit to the
USEPA a transportation conformity SIP revision not later than November
24, 1994. This notice does not address the conformity requirements
applicable to general Federal actions which are set forth at 40 CFR
part 51, subpart W. The USEPA will take action on SIP revisions
relating to those requirements in a separate notice.
II. Evaluation of the State's Submittal
Pursuant to the requirements under section 176(c)(4)(C) of the CAA,
the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) submitted a SIP
revision to the USEPA on November 24, 1994. The USEPA found this
submittal was complete on April 13, 1995. In its submittal, the State
included provisions required by the USEPA transportation conformity
rule (40 CFR part 51, subpart T), Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between
the affected agencies, and Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
resolutions.
Transportation conformity is required for all areas which are
designated nonattainment or maintenance for any transportation related
criteria pollutants. The State of Michigan currently has 25 areas
designated ozone nonattainment, and one ozone maintenance area. The
areas for which transportation conformity determinations are required
and which are included as part of Michigan's submittal include the
following nonurbanized counties: Allegan, Barry, Branch, Cass, Gratiot,
Hillsdale, Huron, Ionia, Lenawee, Lapeer, Montcalm, Saint Joseph,
Sanilac, Shiwassee, Tuscola, Van Buren. Urbanized areas include: Battle
Creek Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) (Calhoun County), Benton
Harbor MSA (Berrien County), Detroit-Ann Arbor Consolidated MSA
(Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne
Counties which are ozone maintenance), Flint MSA (Genesee County),
Grand Rapids MSA (Kent and Ottawa Counties), Jackson MSA (Jackson
County), Kalamazoo MSA (Kalamazoo County), Lansing-East Lansing MSA
(Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties), Muskegon MSA (Muskegon County),
and Saginaw-Bay City-Midland MSA (Bay, Midland, and Saginaw Counties).
In addition to the ozone nonattainment and maintenance areas, portions
of three counties (Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb) are designated carbon
monoxide nonattainment.
The MDNR held a public hearing on its transportation conformity
submittal on October 21, 1994. One comment was received by MDNR and
that comment was addressed in the submittal.
The consultation section of the USEPA transportation conformity
rule (40 CFR 51.402) requires that the SIP revision include procedures
for interagency consultation among the Federal, State, and local
agencies and for resolution of conflicts in accordance with the
criteria set forth in 40 CFR 51.402. Specifically, the SIP revision
must include processes and procedures to be undertaken by Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPO), State departments of transportation, and
the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) with State and
local air quality agencies and USEPA before making a conformity
determination, and by State and local air quality agencies and USEPA
with MPOs, State departments of transportation, and USDOT in developing
applicable SIPs.
In order to satisfy these requirements, the MDNR developed an ad
hoc multi-agency committee, the Inter-agency Work Group (IAWG), which
included representatives from the MDNR, Michigan Department of
Transportation (MDOT), USDOT, and MPOs. The IAWG developed the final
consultation rule by integrating the requirements of 40 CFR 51.402 and
23 CFR 450 with the local procedures and processes. Michigan's final
consultation rule outlines the roles and responsibilities of each of
the affected agencies for the process for determining conformity. The
consultation rule further outline the procedures for conflict
resolution in the transportation conformity process, for implementation
of the public participation process, and for the submission of
documentation relating to a conformity determination. The conformity
SIP revision submitted by Michigan has adequately addressed all
provisions of 40 CFR 51.402 and thus meets the USEPA SIP requirements.
Section 51.396 of the transportation conformity rule states that to
be approvable by the USEPA, the SIP revision submitted to USEPA must
address all requirements of the transportation conformity rule in a
manner which gives them full legal effect. In particular, the revision
must incorporate the provisions of the following sections of the rule
in verbatim form, except insofar as needed to give effect to a stated
intent in the revision to establish criteria and procedure more
stringent than the requirements stated in these sections: 51.392,
51.394, 51.398, 51.400, 51.404, 51.410, 51.412, 51.414, 51.416, 51.418,
51.420, 51.422, 51.424, 51.426, 51.428, 51.430, 51.432, 51.434, 51.436,
51.438, 51.440, 51.442, 51.444, 51.446, 51.448, 51.450, 51.460, and
51.462. The State of Michigan incorporated into the SIP revision
submittal all of the above sections in verbatim form.
On August 7, 1995, USEPA finalized an amendment to section 51.448.
It should be noted that additional sections of the conformity rule are
scheduled to be amended. The USEPA can not approve sections into the
SIP where inconsistencies exist between the submittal and the final
rule. Following these rule changes, the State of Michigan will be
required to update the SIP to address the rule changes.
The MDNR, after consulting with the Michigan Attorney General,
correctly concluded that this SIP revision will be enforceable pursuant
to Michigan statutory law. Section 336.15 of the Michigan Compiled Laws
(MCL), MSA Sec. 14.58(5)(1965 Mich. Pub. Acts 348), authorizes MDNR: to
promulgate rules to establish standards for ambient air quality and for
emissions (including SIPs); to institute a civil action to compel
compliance with such rules; to cooperate with USEPA with respect to the
control of air pollution; and to take other actions necessary to
enforce such rules. Section 336.26d of MCL, MSA Sec. 14.58(16d)(1965
Mich. Pub. Acts 348), provides for the assessment of penalties by MDNR
for SIP violations and Section 336.26e of MCL, MSA Sec. 14.58(16e)(1965
Mich. Pub. Acts 348), authorizes the attorney general to seek both
penalties and injunctive relief for such violations.
Additional enforcement authority is found in MCL Sec. 691.1202, MSA
Sec. 14.528(202)(1970 PA 127), which authorizes the attorney general,
any political subdivision of the State, any instrumentality or agency
of the State, or any person or legal entity to bring a civil action for
declaratory and equitable relief for the protection of the air from
pollution, impairment or destruction. In determining whether a
violation has occurred or is likely to occur, the court may adopt
standards set forth in a SIP or may adopt another standard.
In addition, the MOA, which is the binding agreement among all of
the affected agencies and which outlines each agency's roles and
responsibilities in the transportation conformity process, contains an
agreement by each agency to comply with the requirements of the federal
transportation conformity rule. A total of 13 MOAs were included in the
SIP revision: 12 MOAs between the local MPO, MDOT and MDNR for the 10
metropolitan areas, and one MOA between MDOT and MDNR for the remaining
rural areas.
[[Page 5696]]
III. USEPA Action
The USEPA is approving the transportation conformity SIP revision
for the State of Michigan. The USEPA has evaluated this SIP revision
and has determined that the State has fully adopted the provisions of
the Federal transportation conformity rules in accordance with 40 CFR
part 51 subpart T. The appropriate public participation and
comprehensive interagency consultations have been undertaken during
development and adoption of this SIP revision. Because USEPA considers
this action to be noncontroversial and routine, USEPA is approving it
without prior proposal. This action will become effective on April 15,
1996. However, if we receive adverse comments by March 15, 1996, USEPA
will publish a notice that withdraws this action.
IV. Miscellaneous
A. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. The USEPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in
light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
B. Executive Order 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted
this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
C. Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).
Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
This approval does not create any new requirements. Therefore, I
certify that this action does not have a significant impact on any
small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-
State relationship under the Act, preparation of the regulatory
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of the State action. The Act forbids USEPA to base its
actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.
E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976).
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the
USEPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any
proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result
in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under
section 205, the USEPA must select the most cost-effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is
consistent with statutory requirements. section 203 requires the USEPA
to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments
that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
The USEPA has determined that the approval action promulgated today
does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs
of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments
in the aggregate, or to the private sector.
This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State
or local law, and imposes no new Federal requirements. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or the private
sector, result from this action.
D. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 15, 1996. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review, nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Transportation
conformity, Transportation-air quality planning, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: January 23, 1996.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
Subpart X--Michigan
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C 7401-7671q.
2. Section 52.1174 is amended by adding paragraph (m) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1174 Control strategy: Ozone.
* * * * *
(m) Approval--On November 24, 1994, the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources submitted a revision to the ozone State
Implementation Plan. The submittal pertained to a plan for the
implementation and enforcement of the Federal transportation conformity
requirements at the State or local level in accordance with 40 CFR part
51 subpart T--Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of
Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects Developed, Funded or
Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act.
3. Section 52.1185 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1185 Control strategy: Carbon Monoxide.
(a) Approval--On November 24, 1994, the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources submitted a revision to the carbon monoxide State
Implementation Plan. The submittal pertained to a plan for the
implementation and enforcement of the Federal transportation conformity
requirements at the State or local level in accordance with 40 CFR part
51, subpart T--Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of
Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects Developed, Funded or
Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act.
(b) (reserved).
[FR Doc. 96-3328 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3326 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, North Carolina: Approval of Revisions to the North Carolina State Implementation Plan
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5689-5690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3326]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[NC-049-1-7197a; FRL-5336-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, North
Carolina: Approval of Revisions to the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 15, 1991, the State of North Carolina, through the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
submitted revisions to the North Carolina State Implementation Plan
(SIP) to EPA. These revisions include the correcting of an address; the
limiting of emissions of particulates from fuel burning indirect heat
exchangers; the elimination of a conflicting statement on updating
referenced regulations; the addition of compounds whose emissions will
not be considered in nonattainment areas; the changing of the allowable
emission limits for several boilers; and the clarification of the
permit requirements for replacement of existing equipment and for
sources subject to NSPS, NESHAPS and PSD requirements.
DATES: This action is effective April 15, 1996, unless notice is
received by March 15, 1996, that someone wishes to submit adverse or
critical comments. If the effective date is delayed, timely notice will
be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Randy Terry,
Regulatory Planning and Development Section, Air Programs Branch, Air,
Pesticides & Toxics Management Division, Region 4 Environmental
Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
Copies of the material submitted by the NCDEHNR may be examined
during normal business hours at the following locations:
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV Air Programs Branch, 345
Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Terry, Regulatory Planning and
Development Section, Air Programs Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics
Management Division, Region 4 Environmental Protection Agency, 345
Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365. The telephone number is
404/347-3555 ext. 4212.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 15, 1991, the Environmental
Management Commission submitted, to EPA, several amendments concerning
North Carolina's air quality regulations. The submitted revisions
include the limiting of emissions of particulates from fuel burning
indirect heat exchangers; the elimination of a conflicting statement on
updating referenced regulations; the addition of compounds whose
emissions will not be considered in nonattainment areas; the changing
of the allowable emission limits for several boilers; and several
smaller administrative changes.
On August 23, 1991, EPA notified the State of corrections needing
to be made prior to the approval of amendment 15A NCAC 2D .0501.
Subsequently, North Carolina, in a December 19, 1991, letter, requested
to have that amendment withdrawn. In a September 20, 1991, letter,
North Carolina submitted a revised version of Rule 2D .0536 Particulate
Emissions From Electric Utility Boilers to replace the version that was
contained in the hearing record on this Rule. The original version
submitted on May 15, 1991, contained changes made in the North Carolina
Rule of which parts are not contained in the Federally approved SIP.
The amended version is discussed later in this document. North Carolina
also submitted, in a September 24, 1992, package, revisions to 15A NCAC
2D .1002 Applicability. These revisions are also being addressed in
this rulemaking.
Revisions to rule 15A NCAC 2D .0531 Sources in Nonattainment Areas
were addressed in the October 31, 1994 Federal Register Notice (59 FR
54388-54389.)
EPA is approving the following revisions to the North Carolina SIP,
because they are consistent with the requirements set forth in the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
15A NCAC 2D .0103 Copies of Referenced Federal Regulations
North Carolina amended this rule to update the location at which
referenced material is available for public inspection.
[[Page 5690]]
15A NCAC 2D .0503 Particulates From Fuel Burning Indirect Heat
Exchangers
North Carolina amended this rule to clarify the emissions of
particulates from fuel burning indirect heat exchangers. This revision
in no way changes the interpretation of the previous rule.
15A NCAC 2D .0530 Prevention of Significant Deterioration
North Carolina amended this rule to eliminate a conflicting
statement on updating referenced federal regulations.
15A NCAC 2D .0536 Particulate Emissions From Electric Utility Boilers
North Carolina amended this rule to change the maximum allowable
emissions rates from electric utility boilers at several utility
facilities.
15A NCAC 2H .0601 Purpose and Scope
North Carolina amended this rule to clarify the types of sources
for which construction or operating permits are required or not
required.
15A NCAC 2H .0607 Copies of Referenced Documents
North Carolina amended this rule to update the location at which
referenced materials are available for public inspection.
Final Action
EPA is approving the above referenced revision to the North
Carolina SIP. This action is being taken without prior proposal because
the EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be
effective April 15, 1996, unless, by March 15, 1996, adverse or
critical comments are received.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is
advised that this action will be effective April 15, 1996.
Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607 (b)(1),
petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the
United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 15,
1996. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for purposes
of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See Section
307(b)(2) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607 (b)(2).)
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
Nothing in this action shall be construed as permitting or allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for a revision to
any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to the state
implementation plan shall be considered separately in light of specific
technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to
relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not
create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that the
State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP-approval
does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does not have a
significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the
nature of the federal-state relationship under the CAA, preparation of
a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute federal inquiry into
the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA to
base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v.
U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
Reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate Matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 6, 1995.
Patrick M. Tobin,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart II--North Carolina
2. Section 52.1770, is amended by adding paragraph (c)(78) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1770 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(78) Miscellaneous revisions to the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan which were submitted on May 15, 1991.
(i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Amendments to North Carolina
regulations 15A NCAC 2D.0103, 2D.0503, 2D.0530, 2D.0536, 2H.0601, and
2H.0607, of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan submitted on
May 15, 1991, which were state effective on August 1, 1991.
(ii) Other material. None
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-3326 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3305 Control of Drug Use and Alcohol Misuse in Natural Gas, Liquefied Natural Gas, and Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Operations Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 5722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3305]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Part 199
[Docket No. PS-102, Notice No.1]
Control of Drug Use and Alcohol Misuse in Natural Gas, Liquefied
Natural Gas, and Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Operations Alcohol Misuse
Prevention Program
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Availability of guidelines and interpretations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice provides information on how to obtain copies of
guidance and interpretation documents RSPA has issued to assist
operators in complying with part 199.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents referenced in this notice may be
obtained by writing or telephoning the Transportation Safety Institute,
Research and Special Programs Administration, DTI-60, 6500 South
MacArthur Boulevard, Oklahoma City, OK 73169; (405) 954-4643.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Catrina Pavlik, Drug/Alcohol
Program Analyst, Office of Pipeline Safety, Research and Special
Programs Administration, Department of Transportation, Room 2335, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 366-6199.
TEXT SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 21, 1988, RSPA published a
final rule (53 FR 47084) entitled ``Control of Drug Use in Natural Gas,
Liquefied Natural Gas, and Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Operations.'' On
February 15, 1994, RSPA published a final rule (59 FR 7430) entitled
``Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program.'' The rules require pipeline
operators to have an anti-drug program and alcohol misuse prevention
program. The anti-drug program includes pre-employment, post-accident,
random, and reasonable cause drug testing, and an Employee Assistance
Program (EAP) for education and training regarding the effects and
consequences of drug use. The alcohol misuse prevention program
includes post-accident, reasonable suspicion alcohol testing, and the
provision of resources for evaluating, resolving problems, and
education associated with the misuse of alcohol.
Since publication of the November 1988 and February 1994 final
rules, RSPA has received numerous requests for interpretations of 49
CFR part 199 subpart A and subpart B. In September 1989, RSPA issued
``Guidelines for Implementing an Anti-Drug Program For Pipeline
Personnel'' (correction issued June 13, 1990), and in April 1990,
issued ``Additional Guidelines For Implementing An Anti-Drug Program
For Pipeline Personnel.'' In September 1994, RSPA issued
``Implementation Guidelines for the Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program
in the Pipeline Industry.'' Also in April 1990, a compilation of
questions and answers was issued entitled, ``Most Frequently Asked
Questions Concerning the Implementation of 49 CFR 199''
(``Questions''). Although these documents have been widely distributed,
RSPA believes it is important to publish a notice in the Federal
Register of their availability from the Office of Pipeline Safety at
the address noted above under ADDRESSES.
Issued in Washington, DC on February 9, 1996.
Richard B. Felder,
Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 96-3305 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3301 Sale and Disposal of National Forest System Timber; Appraisal Procedures for Determining Fair Market Value
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5684-5685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3301]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Part 223
RIN 0596-AA26
Sale and Disposal of National Forest System Timber; Appraisal
Procedures for Determining Fair Market Value
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This technical amendment clarifies the appraisal procedures
for determining fair market value when appraising timber on National
Forest System lands for timber sale contracts. Currently, Forest
Service regulations at 36 CFR 223.60 indicate an analytical or residual
value appraisal procedure as the primary method for determining the
fair market value of timber sold on national forests. This technical
amendment removes the residual value appraisal procedure as the primary
method for determining fair market value. The intended effect of this
change is to clarify that the Chief of the Forest Service has the
flexibility to select appropriate appraisal methods for determining
fair market value of timber to be sold.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rex Baumback, Timber Management Staff, (202) 205-0855.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 472a(a)) directs that
all timber sold from the national forests be sold at not less than its
appraised, or fair market, value. Under the current rule at 36 CFR
223.60, the basic procedure for determining fair market value is the
analytical or residual value appraisal method. However, the regulation
also
[[Page 5685]]
authorizes the use of other valid appraisal methods, as approved by the
Chief, including the transaction evidence method. The analytical or
residual value appraisal method determines fair market value by
subtracting all manufacturing and harvesting costs and an allowance for
profit and risk from the value received for the end products produced.
The transaction evidence appraisal method determines fair market value
based on the prices received for comparable sales of standing timber.
An Office of Inspector General audit (08627-3-SF, January 1986)
recommended implementation of transaction evidence appraisals in the
West. The audit found that implementing transaction evidence appraisals
would bring bid values closer to advertised values, increase stumpage
receipts, and reduce personnel costs. In response to this audit and
pursuant to the existing rule, the Chief has approved the transaction
evidence method for use in all Forest Service regions, except for
Alaska (Region 10).
The current regulation was developed when the residual value
appraisal method was the primary appraisal method used by all Forest
Service regions. This rule does not prohibit or suspend use of the
residual value appraisal method; it merely removes this method as the
preferred method for determining fair market value for all timber sale
contracts. Because of the narrow scope of this amendment, the Chief's
authorization of the use of the transaction evidence appraisal method,
and the growing use of that method of appraisal on timber sale
contracts, the agency finds that this amendment is a technical
amendment for which notice and comment pursuant to the Administrative
Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553) is not necessary. National Forest System
purchasers are aware of the agency's intention to use the transaction
evidence appraisal method as the preferred method. Moreover, purchasers
are familiar with other appraisal methods.
Regulatory Impact
This technical rule has been reviewed under USDA procedures and
Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. It has been
determined that this is not a significant rule. This rule will not have
any effect on the economy nor adversely affect productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, nor State
or local governments. This rule will not interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency nor raise new legal or policy issues.
Finally, this action will not alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients of such programs. Accordingly, this rule is
not subject to OMB review under Executive Order 12866.
Moreover, this rule has been considered in light of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and it has been determined that
this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities as defined by this act.
Environmental Impact
This action falls within a category of actions excluded from
documentation in an Environmental Impact Statement and an Environmental
Assessment. Section 31.1b of Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (57 FR
43180; September 18, 1992) excludes from documentation in an
environmental assessment or impact statement ``rules, regulations, or
policies to establish Service-wide administrative procedures, program
processes, or instructions.'' The agency's assessment is that this rule
falls within this category of actions and that no extraordinary
circumstances exist which would require preparation of an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement.
Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public
This rule does not require any recordkeeping or reporting
requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in
5 CFR 1320 not already approved for use and, therefore, impose no
additional paperwork burden on the public. Accordingly, the review
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3507) and
implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 223
Exports, Government contracts, National forests, Reporting
requirements, Timber sales.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 223 of
title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations is hereby amended as
follows:
PART 223--SALE AND DISPOSAL OF NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM TIMBER
1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:
Authority: 90 Stat. 2958, 16 U.S.C. 472a; 98 Stat. 2213, 16
U.S.C. 618; 104 Stat. 714-726, 16 U.S.C. 620-620h, unless otherwise
noted.
Section 223.60 is revised as follows:
Sec. 223.60 Determining fair market value.
The objective of Forest Service timber appraisals is to determine
fair market value. Fair market value is estimated by such methods as
are authorized by the Chief, Forest Service, through issuance of agency
directives (36 CFR 200.4). Valid methods to determine fair market value
include, but are not limited to, transaction evidence appraisals,
analytical appraisals, comparison appraisals, and independent estimates
based on average investments. Pertinent factors affecting market value
also considered include, but are not limited to, prices paid and
valuations established for comparable timber, selling value of products
produced, estimated operating costs, operating difficulties, and
quality of timber. Considerations and valuations may recognize and
adjust for factors which are not normal market influences.
Mark A. Reimers,
Acting Chief.
[FR Doc. 96-3301 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3286 Airworthiness Directives; Fairchild Aircraft SA226 and SA227 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5675-5677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3286]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 93-CE-21-AD; Amendment 39-9516; AD 94-07-10 R1]
Airworthiness Directives; Fairchild Aircraft SA226 and SA227
Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment revises AD 94-07-10, which currently requires
the following on Fairchild Aircraft SA226 and SA227 series airplanes:
Repetitively inspecting (visually) the wing skin for cracks; dye
penetrant inspecting the rib straps if the wing skin is found cracked;
and, if any crack is found in the rib straps, repairing the rib straps
and modifying the wing skin. That AD references an incorrect dye
penetrant inspection when the wing skin is found cracked. This action
maintains the requirements of AD 94-07-10, but incorporates reference
to the correct dye penetrant inspection for when the wing skin is found
cracked. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent
failure of the wing skin at the top aft outboard corner of the battery
box, which could result in structural damage to the wing.
DATES: Effective March 25, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations was previously approved by the Director of the Federal
Register as of May 27, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Service information that applies to this AD may be obtained
from Fairchild Aircraft, P.O. Box 790490, San Antonio, Texas 78279-
0490; telephone (210) 824-9421. This information may also be examined
at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of
the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket 93-CE-21-AD, Room
1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the Office
of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Hung Viet Nguyen, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Airplane Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Boulevard,
Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0150; telephone (817) 222-5155; facsimile (817)
222-5960.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply
to Fairchild Aircraft SA226 and SA227 series airplanes was published in
the Federal Register on June 23, 1995 (60 FR 32628). The action
proposed to revise AD 94-07-10 to retain the requirement of
repetitively inspecting the wing skin for cracks, and would maintain
the dye penetrant inspection requirement but require it in accordance
with the correct portion of the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS section of
the applicable service bulletin. This action also proposed to maintain
the option of modifying the wing skin as terminating action for the
repetitive inspections. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would be
in accordance with one of the following, as applicable:
--Fairchild Service Bulletin (SB) 226-57-018, Issued: January 28, 1993,
Revised: June 3, 1993 (pages 4 through 11 and 13 through 15), Revised:
July 1, 1993 (page 12) and Revised: October 25, 1993 (pages 1 through
3);
[[Page 5676]]
--Fairchild SB 227-57-005, Issued: December 21, 1992, Revised: June 3,
1993 (pages 2 through 11 and 13 through 15), and Revised: July 1, 1993
(pages 1 and 12); or
--Fairchild Aircraft SB CC7-57-002, Issued: January 28, 1993, Revised:
June 3, 1993 (pages 2 through 11 and 13 through 15), and Revised: July
1, 1993 (pages 1 and 12).
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. One comment was received in favor of
the proposal and no comments were received regarding the FAA's
determination of the cost to the public.
After careful review of all available information related to the
subject presented above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the
public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for
minor editorial corrections. The FAA has determined that these minor
corrections will not change the meaning of the AD and will not add any
additional burden upon the public than was already proposed.
The FAA estimates that 776 airplanes in the U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 workhour per
airplane to accomplish the required visual inspection of the upper wing
skin on both wings, and that the average labor rate is approximately
$60 an hour. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on
U.S. operators is estimated to be $46,560. This figure does not include
the cost of any dye penetrant inspections of the rib strap that will be
required if the wing skin is found cracked, and it does not include the
cost of the repetitive inspections or the optional modification.
Incorporating the optional modification terminates the need for the
repetitive inspection requirement. The figure above is based upon the
assumption that no affected airplane owner/operator has accomplished
this inspection-terminating modification.
In addition, the actions required by this AD impose the same cost
impact upon U.S. operators as is already required by AD 94-07-10.
The regulations adopted herein will 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 final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) 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 final 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, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13, is amended by removing Airworthiness Directive
(AD) 94-07-10, Amendment 39-8868 (59 FR 15329; April 1, 1994), and by
adding a new AD to read as follows:
94-07-10 R1 Fairchild Aircraft: Amendment 39-9516; Docket No. 93-CE-
21-AD. Revises AD 94-07-10, Amendment 39-8868.
Applicability: The following model and serial number airplanes,
certificated in any category:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Serial Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SA226-T............................... T201 through T275, and T277
through T291.
SA226-T(B)............................ T(B)276, and T(B)292 through
T(B)417.
SA226-AT.............................. AT001 through AT074.
SA226-TC.............................. TC201 through TC419.
SA227-TT.............................. TT421 through TT541.
SA227-AT.............................. AT423 through AT631, and AT695.
SA227-AC.............................. AC406, AC415, AC416, and AC420
through AC789.
SA227-BC.............................. BC420 through BC789.
SA227-CC.............................. CC784, and CC790 through CC822.
SA227-DC.............................. DC784, and DC790 through DC822.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (e) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it. Compliance: Required initially upon the accumulation of
2,500 hours time-in-service (TIS) or within the next 100 hours TIS
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, unless
already accomplished (compliance with AD 94-07-10), and thereafter
as indicated in the body of the AD.
To prevent failure of the wing skin at the top aft outboard
corner of the battery box, which could result in structural damage
to the wing, accomplish the following:
Note 2: The paragraph structure of this AD is as follows:
Level 1: (a), (b), (c), etc.
Level 2: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Level 3: (i), (ii), (iii), etc.
Level 2 and Level 3 structures are designations of the Level 1
paragraph they immediately follow.
(a) Visually inspect the right and left upper wing skin by the
top aft outboard corner of the battery box for cracks in accordance
with Figure 1 and the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS, A. Inspection,
section of whichever of the following is applicable:
(1) Fairchild Service Bulletin (SB) 226-57-018, Issued: January
28, 1993, Revised: June 3, 1993 (pages 4 through 11 and 13 through
15), Revised: July 1, 1993 (page 12) and Revised: October 25, 1993
(pages 1 through 3);
(2) Fairchild SB 227-57-005, Issued: December 21, 1992, Revised:
June 3, 1993 (pages 2 through 11 and 13 through 15), and Revised:
July 1, 1993 (pages 1 and 12); or
(3) Fairchild Aircraft SB CC7-57-002, Issued: January 28, 1993,
Revised: June 3, 1993 (pages 2 through 11 and 13 through 15), and
Revised: July 1, 1993 (pages 1 and 12).
(b) If cracks are not found during the visual inspection
required by paragraph (a) of this AD, within 500 hours TIS after
this initial visual inspection, accomplish one of the following:
(1) Reinspect the right and left upper wing skin by the top aft
outboard corner of the battery box for cracks in accordance with
Figure 1 and the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS, A. Inspection, section
of the applicable service information presented in paragraphs
(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of this AD, and reinspect thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS; or
(2) Modify the upper wing skin in accordance with the
ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS, B. Removal and C. Installation, section
of the service information referenced in paragraphs (a)(1),
[[Page 5677]]
(a)(2), or (a)(3) of this AD, as applicable. Accomplishing this
modification terminates the repetitive visual inspections that are
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this AD, and the modification may
be accomplished at any time to eliminate this repetitive inspection
requirement.
(c) If cracks are found during the inspection required by
paragraph (a) of this AD, prior to further flight, dye penetrant
inspect the 27-31130 straps in the wheel wells as specified in the
ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS, A. Inspection section, paragraph
(1)(b), of the service information referenced in paragraphs (a)(1),
(a)(2), or (a)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) If cracks are found in either of the 27-31130 straps during
the inspection required by paragraph (c) of this AD, prior to
further flight, accomplish the following:
(i) Repair the 27-31130 strap in accordance with a scheme
obtained from the manufacturer through the Fort Worth Airplane
Certification Office (ACO) at the address specified in paragraph (e)
of this AD; and
(ii) Modify the upper wing skin in accordance with the
ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS, B. Removal and C. Installation, section
of the service information referenced in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2),
or (a)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(2) If no cracks are found in either of the 27-31130 straps,
within 150 hours TIS after the initial dye penetrant inspection
required by paragraph (c) of this AD, accomplish one of the
following:
(i) Reinspect (dye penetrant) the 27-31130 straps in the wheel
well for cracks as specified in the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS, A.
Inspection section, paragraph (1)(b), of the service information
referenced in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this AD, as
applicable. Continue to reinspect at intervals not to exceed 150
hours TIS provided no cracks are found, and repair and modify as
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD if any cracks
are found.
(ii) Modify the upper wing skin in accordance with the
ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS, B. Removal and C. Installation, section
of the service information referenced in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2),
or (a)(3) of this AD, as applicable. Accomplishing this modification
terminates the repetitive dye penetrant inspections that are
specified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this AD, and the modification
may be accomplished at any time to eliminate this repetitive
inspection requirement.
Note 3: Certain Limited Approved Repair (LAR) and Approved
Repair Procedure (ARP) documents issued by Fairchild Aircraft
specify procedures for accomplishing the same modification
referenced in paragraphs (b)(2), (c)(1)(ii), and (c)(2)(ii) of this
AD. Check with the Fort Worth ACO at the address presented in
paragraph (e) of this AD to find out which LAR's and ARP's are
considered ``unless already accomplished'' as they relate to this
AD.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(e) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
initial or repetitive compliance times that provides an equivalent
level of safety may be approved by the Manager, Fort Worth ACO, FAA,
2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76137-0150. The request
shall be forwarded through an appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Fort Worth
ACO.
Note 4: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Fort Worth ACO.
(f) Alternative methods of compliance approved in accordance
with AD 94-07-10 (revised by this action) are considered approved as
alternative methods of compliance with this AD.
(g) The inspections, possible repair, and optional modification
required by this AD shall be done in accordance with Fairchild
Service Bulletin 226-57-018, Issued: January 28, 1993, Revised: June
3, 1993 (pages 4 through 11 and 13 through 15), Revised: July 1,
1993 (page 12) and Revised: October 25, 1993 (pages 1 through 3);
Fairchild Service Bulletin 227-57-005, Issued: December 21, 1992,
Revised: June 3, 1993 (pages 2 through 11 and 13 through 15), and
Revised: July 1, 1993 (pages 1 and 12); or Fairchild Aircraft
Service Bulletin CC7-57-002, Issued: January 28, 1993, Revised: June
3, 1993 (pages 2 through 11 and 13 through 15), and Revised: July 1,
1993 (pages 1 and 12), as applicable. This incorporation by
reference was previously approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Copies may be obtained from Fairchild Aircraft, P.O. Box 790490, San
Antonio, Texas 78279-0490. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,
Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558,
601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri, or at the Office of the
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., 7th Floor, suite
700, Washington, DC.
(h) This amendment (39-9516) revises AD 94-07-10, Amendment 39-
8868.
(i) This amendment (39-9516) becomes effective on March 25,
1996.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 7, 1996.
Michael Gallagher,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 96-3286 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3283 Clean Air Act Final Full Approval of Operating Permits Program; Metropolitan Health Department, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, TN
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5705-5707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3283]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70
[TN-NASH-96-01; FRL-5422-4]
Clean Air Act Final Full Approval of Operating Permits Program;
Metropolitan Health Department, Metropolitan Government of Nashville
and Davidson County, TN
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final full approval.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating full approval of the Operating Permits
Program submitted by the State of Tennessee on behalf of the
Metropolitan Health Department (``Nashville-Davidson County'' or ``the
County''), located in the geographic area of Nashville-Davidson County.
The County's program was submitted for the purpose of complying with
Federal requirements which mandate that states or local authorities
develop, and submit to EPA, programs for issuing operating permits to
all major stationary sources, and to certain other sources.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Nashville-Davidson County submittal and other
supporting information used in developing the final full approval are
available for inspection during normal business hours at the following
location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 345 Courtland
Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365, on the 3rd floor of the Tower
Building. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents,
contained in EPA docket number TN-NASH-96-01, should make an
appointment at least 24 hours before the visiting day.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gracy R. Danois, Title V Program
Development Team, Air Programs Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4,
345 Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30365, (404) 347-3555, Ext.
4150.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Purpose
A. Introduction
Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (sections 501-507 of
the Clean Air Act (``the Act'')), and implementing regulations at 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70 require that states or
authorized local agencies develop and submit operating permits programs
to EPA by November 15, 1993, and that EPA act to approve or disapprove
each program within one
[[Page 5706]]
year after receiving the submittal. EPA's program review occurs
pursuant to section 502 of the Act and the part 70 regulations, which
together outline criteria for approval or disapproval. Where a program
substantially, but not fully, meets the requirements of part 70, EPA
may grant the program interim approval for a period of up to two years.
If EPA has not fully approved a program by November 15, 1995, or by the
end of an interim program, it must establish and implement a Federal
program.
On October 11, 1995, EPA proposed full approval, or in the
alternative, interim approval of the operating permits program for
Nashville-Davidson County. See 60 FR 52890. The October 11, 1995,
notice also proposed approval of the County's interim mechanism for
implementing section 112(g) and for delegation of section 112 standards
as promulgated. EPA did not receive any comments on the proposal. On
December 28, 1995, the State of Tennessee submitted on behalf of
Nashville-Davidson County a package containing revisions to the
operating permits program, which addressed the deficiency discussed in
the full/interim approval notice. As required by 40 CFR 70.5(c), the
County adopted revisions to M.C.L. section 10.56.050 to ensure that
information needed to determine the applicability of, or to impose, any
applicable requirement, or to collect any permit fees is not excluded
from the application. Specifically the new provision, M.C.L. section
10.56.050(F), reads as follows: ``Notwithstanding any exemptions in
this Section, any application submitted in accordance with Section
10.56.020 and Section 10.50.040 of this Chapter shall include all
emission sources and quantify emissions if needed to determine major
source status, to determine compliance with an applicable requirement
and/or the applicability of any applicable requirement such as a NSPS,
NESHAPS, or MACT standard, etc., or in [the] calculation [of] permit
fees in accordance with Section 10.56.080.'' This change became locally
effective on December 14, 1995.
In this action, EPA is promulgating full approval of the Nashville-
Davidson County operating permits program, and approving the section
112(g) and section 112(l) mechanisms noted above.
II. Final Action and Implications
A. Title V Operating Permits Program
The EPA is promulgating full approval of the operating permits
program submitted by the State of Tennessee, on behalf of Nashville-
Davidson County, on November 13, 1993, and supplemented on April 19,
1994; September 27, 1994; December 28, 1994; and December 28, 1995. The
October 11, 1995, notice established that the County would receive full
approval of its program if changes to M.C.L. section 10.56.050 were
adopted prior to final promulgation. Such changes became locally
effective on December 14, 1995. Nashville-Davidson County has
demonstrated that the program will be adequate to meet the minimum
elements of a state or local operating permits program as specified in
40 CFR part 70.
The scope of the County's part 70 program approved in this notice
applies to all part 70 sources (as defined in the approved program)
within Nashville-Davidson County, except any sources of air pollution
over which an Indian Tribe has jurisdiction. See, e.g., 59 FR 55813,
55815-18 (Nov. 9, 1994). The term ``Indian Tribe'' is defined under the
Act as ``any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or
community, including any Alaska Native village, which is Federally
recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided
by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.''
See section 302(r) of the CAA; see also 59 FR 43956, 43962 (Aug. 25,
1994); 58 FR 54364 (Oct. 21, 1993).
B. Preconstruction Permit Program Implementing Section 112(g)
EPA is approving the use of Nashville-Davidson County's
preconstruction review program found in M.C.L. section 10.56.020 as a
mechanism to implement section 112(g) during the transition period
between promulgation of EPA's section 112(g) rule and the County's
adoption of rules specifically designed to implement section 112(g).
This approval is limited to the implementation of the 112(g) rule and
is effective only during any transition time between the effective date
of the 112(g) rule and the adoption of specific rules by Nashville-
Davidson County to implement section 112(g). The duration of this
approval is limited to 18 months following promulgation by EPA of
section 112(g) regulations, to provide the County with adequate time to
adopt regulations consistent with Federal requirements.
C. Program for Delegation of Section 112 Standards as Promulgated
Requirements for approval, specified in 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass
section 112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a program for delegation
of section 112 standards as promulgated by EPA as they apply to part 70
sources. Section 112(l)(5) requires that the County's program contain
adequate authorities, adequate resources for implementation, and an
expeditious compliance schedule, which are also requirements under part
70. Therefore, the EPA is also promulgating approval under section
112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of Nashville-Davidson County's program for
receiving delegation of section 112 standards and programs that are
unchanged from Federal rules as promulgated. In addition, EPA is
approving the delegation of all existing standards and programs under
40 CFR parts 61 and 63. This program for delegation applies to both
part 70 sources and non-part 70 sources.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
Copies of the Nashville-Davidson County submittal and other
information relied upon for the final full approval are contained in
docket number TN-NASH-96-01 maintained at the EPA Regional Office. The
docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
submitted to, or otherwise considered by, EPA in the development of
this final full approval. The docket is available for public inspection
at the location listed under the ADDRESSES section of this document.
B. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from
Executive Order 12866 review.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The EPA's actions under section 502 of the Act do not create any
new requirements, but simply address operating permits programs
submitted to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR part 70. Because this
action does not impose any new requirements, it does not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 1, 1996.
Phyllis P. Harris,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Part 70, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 70--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
[[Page 5707]]
2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by adding the entry for
Tennessee in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permits Programs
* * * * *
Tennessee
(a) (Reserved)
(b) The Metropolitan Health Department, Metropolitan Govenment
of Nashville-Davidson County; submitted on November 13, 1993, and
supplemented on April 19, 1994; September 27, 1994; December 28,
1994; and December 28, 1995; full approval effective on March 15,
1996.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-3283 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3280 Imidacloprid; Pesticide Tolerance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5714-5716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3280]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP PP 5F4534/R2199; FRL-4995-2]
RIN 2070-AC18
Imidacloprid; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule establishes a tolerance for residues of the
insecticide 1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-
imidazolidinimine) (proposed common name ``imidacloprid'') and its
metabolites in or on canola seed. Gustafson, Inc. requested this
regulation to establish maximum permissible levels for residues of the
insecticide.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation became effective February 7, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
docket control number, [PP 5F4534/R2199], may be submitted to: Hearing
Clerk (A-110), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St.,
SW., Washington, DC 20460. A copy of any objections and hearing
requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be identified by the
docket control number and submitted to: Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring copy of objections and hearing
requests to Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.
Fees accompanying objections shall be labeled ``Tolerance Petition
Fees'' and forwarded to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch,
OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251.
An electronic copy of objections and hearing requests filed with
the Hearing Clerk may be submitted to OPP by sending electronic mail
(e-mail) to:
[email protected]
Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests must be
submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and
any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing
requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format
or ASCII file format. All copies of electronic objections and hearing
requests must be identified by the docket number [PP 5F4534/R2199]. No
Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be submitted through e-
mail. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests on this rule
may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. Additional
information on electronic submissions can be found below in this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Dennis H. Edwards, Jr.,
Product Manager (PM 19), Registration Division (7505C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Office location, telephone number, and e-mail
address: Rm. 207, CM #2 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA,
(703) 305-6386; e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA issued a notice published in the Federal
Register of August 17, 1995 (60 FR 42884), which announced that
Gustafson, Inc., P.O. Box 660065, Dallas, TX 75266-0065, had submitted
to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a regulation to permit
residues of the insecticide (1-[6-chloro-3-pyridinyl) methyl]-N-nitro-
2-imidazolidinime, in or on the raw agricultural commodity canola seed
at 0.05 parts per million (ppm).
[[Page 5715]]
The Agency is currently issuing a 2-year conditional registration
for use of ``imidacloprid'' on canola seed. Additional residue trials
are needed. On June 2, 1994, the Agency issued a guidance document on
crop residue trials. Among other things, this document provided
guidance on the number and location of domestice crop field trials for
establishment of pesticide residue trials. Based on this guidance
document, the Agency determined that additional field trials are needed
for canola. However, the Agency does not believe that this data will
significantly change its risk assessment.
The scientific data submitted in the petition and other relevant
material have been evaluated. The toxicological data considered in
support of the tolerance include:
1. A three-generation rat reproduction study with no-observed-
effect level (NOEL) of 100 ppm (8 mg/kg/bwt); rat and rabbit
developmental toxicity studies were negative at doses up to 30 mg/kg/
bwt, respectively.
2. A 2-year rat feeding/carcinogenicity study that was negative for
carcinogenic effects under the conditions of the study and had a NOEL
of 100 ppm (5.7 mg/kg/bwt in male and 7.6 mg/kg/bwt female) for
noncarcinogenic effects that included decrease body weight gain in
females at 300 ppm and increased thyroid lesions in males at 300 ppm
and females at 900 ppm.
3. A 1-year dog feeding study with a NOEL of 1,250 ppm (41/mg/kg/
bwt).
4. A 2-year mouse carcinoginicity study that was negative for
carcinogenic effects under conditions of the study and that had a NOEL
of 1,000 ppm (208/mg/kg/day).
There is no cancer risk associated with exposure to this chemical.
Imidacloprid has been classified under ``Group E'' (no evidence of
carcinogenicity) by EPA's OPP/HED's Reference Dose (RFD) Committee.
The reference dose (RfD) based on the 2-year rat feeding/
carcinogenic study with a NOEL of 5.7 mg/kg/bwt and 100-fold
uncertainity factor, is calculated to be 0.057 mg/kg/bwt. The
theoretical maximum residue contribution (TMRC) for published uses is
0.008189 mg/kg/bwt/day utilizing 14.4% of the RFD. The proposed
tolerance will increase the TMRC by .000077 mg/kg/day representing an
increase in the ADI of 1.5%. The TMRC will be .008266 mg/kg/day
utilizing 15.9% of the RFD. For exposure of subgroups in the
population, children (1-6), the TMRC for the published and proposed
tolerances is 0.016934 mg/kg/day. This is equal to 29.7% of the RFD.
Dietary exposure from the existing uses and proposed use will not
exceed the reference dose for any subpopulation (including infants and
children) based on the information available from EPA's Dietary Risk
Evaluation System.
The nature of the imidacloprid residue in plants and livestock is
adequately understood. The residues of concern are combined residues of
imidacloprid and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl
moiety, all calculated as imidacloprid. The analytical method is a
common moiety method for imidacloprid and its metabolites containing
the 6-chloropyridinyl moiety using a permanganate oxidation, silyl
derivatization, and capillary GC-MS selective ion monitoring.
Imidacloprid and its metabolites are stable in the commodities when
frozen for at least 24 months. There are adequate amounts of
geographically representative crop field trial data to show that
combined residues of imidacloprid and its metabolites, all calculated
as imidacloprid will not exceed the proposed tolerance when used as
directed. Canola meal is a livestock feedstuff ruminant, and poultry
feeding studies show transfer of imidacloprid from feedstuff to meat,
milk, poultry, and eggs. The secondary tolerances in meat, milk,
poutry, eggs are adequate to cover the additional use on canola.
There are presently no actions pending against the continued
registration of this chemical.
This pesticide is considered useful for the purposes for which the
tolerance is sought and capable of achieving the intended physical or
technical effect. Based on the information and data considered, the
Agency has determined that the tolerance established by amending 40 CFR
part 180 will protect the public health. Therefore, the tolerance is
established as set forth below.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections to the regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed with
the Hearing Clerk, at the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy
of the objections and/or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk
should be submitted to the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The
objections submitted must specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). Each objection must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40
CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a
statement of the factual issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the
requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence
relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing
will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material
submitted shows the following: There is genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence
identified by the requestor would, if established, resolve one or more
of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the
factual issue(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be
adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 5F4535/R2199] (including any comments and data submitted
electronically). A public version of this record, including printed,
paper versions of electronic comments, which does not include any
information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public
record is located in Room 1132 of the Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer any copies of objections and hearing requests
received electronically into printed, paper form as they are received
and will place the paper copies in the official rulemaking record which
will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The
official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the
address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order
(i.e., Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines
``significant'' as those actions likely to lead to a rule: (1) Having
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely
and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or
[[Page 5716]]
State, local or tribal governments or communities (also known as
``economically significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 9-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator has
determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 7, 1996.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.472, by amending paragraph (a) in the table therein
by adding and alphabetically inserting the following commodity to read
as follows:
Sec. 180.472 1-[(6-Chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-
imidazolidinimine; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodities Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Canola......................................... 0.05
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residues in these commodities not in excess of the established
tolerances resulting from the use described in this paragraph remaining
after expiration of the conditional registration will not be considered
to be actionable if the insecticide is applied during the term of and
in accordance with the provisions of the above regulation.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-3280 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3278 Pelargonic Acid; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance on Apples and Pears
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5716-5718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3278]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 4F4396/R2202; FRL-5348-9]
RIN 2070-AC78
Pelargonic Acid; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance on
Apples and Pears
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of pelargonic acid when used as a blossom
thinning agent on apples and pears. A request for an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance was submitted by Mycogen Corporation. This
regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of this plant regulator on apples and pears.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective on February 14, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified bythe
docket number [PP 4F4396/R2202] may be submitted to: Hearing Clerk
(1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. A copy of any objections and hearing requests
filed with the Hearing Clerk should be identified by the document
control number and submitted to: Public Response and Program Branch,
Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St. SW., Washington, DC 20460.
In person, bring copy of objections and hearing requests to: Rm. 1132,
CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. 22202. Fees
accompanying objections shall be labeled ``tolerance Petition Fees''
and forwarded to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, OPP
(tolerance Fees) P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Mike Mendelsohn,
Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: 5th Floor
CS, 2800 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202, (Telephone No. (703)-308-
8715), e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA issued a notice, published in the
Federal Register of February 8, 1995 (60 FR 7539), which announced that
Mycogen Corporation, 4980 Carroll Canyon Rd., San Diego, CA 92121 had
submitted a pesticide petition (PP) 4F4396 to EPA requesting that the
Administrator, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), establish an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for the plant growth regulator
pelargonic acid on apples and pears.
There were no adverse comments, or requests for referral to an
advisory committee received in response to the notice of filing of the
PP 4F4396.
I. Existing Food Clearances
Pelargonic acid is an approved secondary direct food additive under
21 CFR 173.315 for use in the lye peeling of fruits and vegetables. An
aliphatic acid mixture of valeric, caproic, enanthoic, caprylic and
pelargonic acids may be used at a level not to exceed 1 percent in a
lye peeling solution. The conditions for use include a stipulation that
following the use of chemicals cleared under 21 CFR 173.315 the fruit
[[Page 5717]]
and vegetables must be rinsed with potable water to remove, to the
extent possible, residues of the chemical.
Pelargonic acid is listed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
under the USDA List of Authorized Substances, 1990, section 5.14, Fruit
and Vegetable Washing Compounds.
Pelargonic acid is approved as part of a sanitizing solution for
use on food-processing equipment and utensils, and dairyprocessing
equipment. Its use must be in combination with decanoic acid,
phosphoric acid, propionic acid, and sodium 1octanesulfonate. The
pelargonic acid-containing sanitizing solution must be drained from the
treated equipment and utensils before contact with food. (21 CFR
178.1010(b)(42))
Pelargonic acid also is approved as a synthetic food flavoring
agent (21 CFR 172.515) provided the minimum quantity required to
produce its intended effect is used in accordance with the principles
of good manufacturing practice.
II. Pelargonic Acid Natural Occurrence and Treated Apple Residue
Data
Pelargonic acid is naturally present at levels up to 224 parts per
billion (ppb) in apples, 385 parts per million (ppm) in the skin of
grapes, and 143 ppm in grape pulp. It has been determined to be present
in a number of other foods as well. The highest residues of pelargonic
acid reported in apples subsequent to blossom treatment were less than
360 ppb.
A. Toxicology Assessment; Supporting Data
1. Acute toxicology of a 60% pelargonic acid emulsifiable
concentrate.
Acute Oral LD50 > 5,000 mg/kg
Acute Dermal LD50 > 2,000 mg/kg
Acute Inhalation LC50 = 5.29 mg/L
Primary Dermal Irritation - Moderate Irritant
Primary Eye Irritation - Severe Irritant
Dermal Sensitization - Non-sensitizer
2. Mammalian cells in culture gene mutation assay in mouse lymphoma
cells (L5178Y TK ). Pelargonic acid was considered weakly
positive for inducing mutations at the TK locus of culture mouse L5178Y
TK cells in the presence of S9-induced metabolic
activation. Mutations were induced at levels greater than or equal to
50 g/ml. However, this occurred in the presence of increasing
moderate-to-severe cytotoxicity and small colony development and may
reflect gross chromosomal changes or damage rather than actual
mutational changes within the TK gene locus.
3. In vivo mammalian cytogenetics - mouse micronucleus assay. In an
-in vivo mouse micronucleus assay, groups of ICR mice (15/sex/dose)
were administered single oral doses of 1,250, 2,500, and 5,000 mg/kg n-
pelargonic acid. The bone marrow cells were harvested 24, 48, and 72
hours post-treatment. No significant increases in the frequency of
micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes (PCEs) were observed in
either sex at any dose; thus, n-pelargonic acid was negative in the
micronucleus assay.
4. Reverse gene mutation assay (Ames Test). Pelargonic acid was not
mutagenic under the conditions of the study.
5. Metabolism. Pelargonic acid is a naturally occurring, nine-
carbon saturated fatty acid. The oxidative degradation of fatty acids
is a central metabolic pathway in both animals and plants. Fatty acids
of varying chain lengths are metabolized into two-carbon fragments
through a sequence of enzyme-catalyzed reactions. The metabolic
products are then incorporated into fats, carbohydrates and amino
acids.
6. Carcinogenicity. A summary of the results of a dermal
carcinogenicity study in mice with pelargonic acid was submitted. Fifty
mice were treated twice-weekly with 50 mg doses of undiluted pelargonic
acid for 80 weeks. No evidence of severe dermal or systemic toxicity
was seen. Histopathology revealed no tumors of the skin or the internal
organs.
7. Developmental toxicity. The results of a developmental toxicity
study in rats with pelargonic acid was submitted. Groups of 22 pregnant
CD rats were given oral administration of 0 mg (corn oil) or 1,500 mg/
kg pelargonic acid during days 6 through 15 of gestation. No evidence
of maternal toxicity was seen. Maternal body weights and weight gain
were comparable to that of the controls. No treatment-related effects
were seen at C-section. No developmental toxicity was seen. Based on
the above information, EPA concludes that the quantity of pelargonic
acid that is proposed for use will not be harmful to humans since:
(1) The lowest level shown to weakly induce mutations in an in
vitro test system in the presence of cytotoxicity was at the 50,000
parts per million level and the highest residues seen in treated apples
were less than 360 parts per billion (ppb).
(2) Other than weak mutation at high levels in an in vitro test
system and eye irritation, the data on pelargonic acid show no other
adverse effects.
(3) The maximum application rate of pelargonic acid for blossom-
thinning is 4.2 pounds per acre in a spray solution containing up to
0.31% pelargonic acid.
(4) Pelargonic acid is applied before fruit set.
B. Analytical Enforcement Method
This rule establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance; therefore, the Agency has concluded that a analytical method
is not required for enforcement purposes for pelargonic acid.
III. Conclusion
Based on the low toxicity of pelargonic acid and the low residue
levels expected in apples and pears, the Agency concludes that
establishment of a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public
health for blossom thinning uses. Therefore, the exemption from
tolerance is established as set forth below.
IV. Filing of Objections
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections to the regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed with
the Hearing Clerk, at the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy
of the objections and/or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk
should be submitted to the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The
objections submitted must specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). Each objection must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40
CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a
statement of the factual issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the
requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence
relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing
will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material
submitted shows the following: There is genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence
identified by the requestor would, if established, resolve one or more
of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the
factual issue(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be
adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
[[Page 5718]]
V. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order
(i.e., Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines
``significant'' as those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and
materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local or tribal governments or communities (also known as
``economically significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 6, 1996.
Daniel1 M. Barolo,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
PART 180--[AMENDED]
Therefore, 40 CFR Part 180 is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In subpart D, by adding Sec. 180.1159, to read as follows:
Sec. 180.1159 Pelargonic acid.
Pelargonic acid is exempt from the requirement of a tolerance on
apples and pears provided it is used as a blossom thinner only and is
in a dilution of 100 gallons of water applied to blooms at a rate not
to exceed 4.2 lbs/acre with the maximum number of applications not
exceeding two per year.
[FR Doc. 96-3278 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3275 Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program for Homeless Individuals; Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5850-5852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3275]
[[Page 5849]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Housing and Urban Development
_______________________________________________________________________
24 CFR Part 882
Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program for
Homeless Individuals; Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5850]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and
Development
24 CFR Part 882
[Docket No. FR-3929-I-01]
RIN 2506-AB75
Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program
for Homeless Individuals; Amendments
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and
Development, HUD.
ACTION: Interim rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim rule amends HUD's regulations for the Section 8
Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program for Homeless
Individuals at 24 CFR part 882, subpart H. These amendments conform the
program regulations with statutory and regulatory changes. The
amendments will clarify and update the regulations according to current
requirements.
DATES: Effective date: March 15, 1996. Comments due date: April 15,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding
this interim rule to the Office of General Counsel, Rules Docket Clerk,
Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh
Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications should refer to
the above docket number and title. A copy of each communication
submitted will be available for public inspection and copying on
weekdays between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. at the above address. Comments
sent by FAX are not acceptable.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maggie H. Taylor, Director, Office of
Special Needs Assistance Programs, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410; (202) 708-
4300; TTY for persons who are deaf, hard-of-hearing, or who have speech
impairments (202) 708-2565. (Telephone numbers are not toll-free.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This interim rule makes several changes to conform the Section 8
Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy (SRO) program regulations
with statutory and regulatory changes. First, this interim rule
eliminates the remaining provisions on the required use of housing
authority (HA) waiting lists. In an interim rule published on March 15,
1993 (58 FR 13828), HUD conformed the process for selecting homeless
persons for participation in the SRO program with the process used in
HUD's other homeless programs. In place of the HA waiting list process,
the interim rule required that HAs and/or Owners engage in outreach
efforts to bring homeless individuals into the program, and that vacant
units be rented directly to homeless individuals located through these
outreach efforts. This interim rule deletes the remaining references to
HA waiting lists that HUD inadvertently overlooked. This interim rule
also clarifies the role of HAs in helping to identify homeless
individuals during the outreach process (Sec. 882.808(a)(1)).
Second, this interim rule conforms the program regulations with
section 1405 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (Pub.
L. 102-550, approved October 28, 1992), which amended the Stewart B.
McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11401). This statutory
amendment includes a requirement for the participation of homeless
individuals in considering and making policies and decisions regarding
rehabilitation of structures receiving assistance under this program,
and for the involvement of homeless individuals in the rehabilitation
and operation of these structures. This interim rule implements the
requirement at Sec. 882.808(q).
The statutory amendment also requires a formal process for
terminating assistance to individuals who violate program requirements.
HUD has determined that the existing requirements for the termination
of tenancy at Sec. 882.808(l) sufficiently protect the rights of
homeless individuals and should serve to prevent abuses such as lack of
notice. Therefore, no change to the regulations is necessary to
implement the requirement. (Note: This interim rule does not change the
lawful grounds for terminating assistance. Termination of assistance
due to unwillingness to accept supportive services or other activities
that do not of themselves constitute a violation of the housing lease
are not allowed.)
The statutory amendment further provides that private nonprofit
organizations can apply directly for SRO assistance. Prior to the
amendments, the only eligible applicants under the program were public
housing agencies and Indian housing authorities. To implement this
change, the interim rule adds definitions of ``applicant'' and
``private nonprofit organization'' at Sec. 882.802. This revised
section further provides that HUD will require private nonprofit
applicants to subcontract with public housing agencies to administer
their rental assistance.
Third, this interim rule conforms the program regulations with the
environmental review procedures in 24 CFR part 58. The Multifamily
Housing Property Disposition Reform Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-233,
approved April 11, 1994) made these procedures applicable to the
Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation SRO program, and HUD published
implementing regulations in the Federal Register on March 13, 1995 (60
FR 13518). Under part 58, it is the HA's responsibility to obtain an
agreement with the responsible entity designated under part 58 for the
performance of environmental reviews.
Fourth, this interim rule revises the provision on project
eligibility at Sec. 882.803(a)(2). This interim rule will provide that
housing is ineligible for assistance under this program if it is
receiving Federal funding for rental assistance or operating costs
under other HUD programs. The current regulation provides that housing
is not eligible for assistance if it is, or has been within 12 months
before the Owner submits a proposal, subsidized under any Federal
housing program. A number of nonprofit organizations and PHAs have
requested clarification of the term ``subsidized,'' and have indicated
that the 12-month restriction eliminates a number of otherwise
excellent facilities from consideration for SRO assistance. In response
to these comments, HUD is revising this provision by adopting the
clearer, less restrictive standard used in its Shelter Plus Care
program. Under the revised standard, there is no restriction on the use
of other Federal funding for acquisition and rehabilitation costs.
Fifth, this interim rule eliminates an obsolete date reference in
the provisions for determining the maximum amount of rehabilitation
allowable in the program. Although Sec. 882.805(g)(1)(ii)(A) provides
that the rehabilitation cost calculation should use the HUD-approved
High Cost Percentage for Base Cities in use before April 1988, HUD
recalculates this percentage periodically. Therefore, this interim rule
will eliminate the date reference so that a more recent percentage can
be used.
Finally, this interim rule corrects an error in a final rule
published in the Federal Register on June 6, 1994 (59 FR 29326). That
rule, which conformed HUD's regulations with the requirements of the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970, as amended, and its implementing regulations at 49 CFR
part 24, added
[[Page 5851]]
Sec. 882.810 and intended to remove much of Sec. 882.803(d). However,
the most recent codification of part 882 (April 1, 1995) included both
Sec. 882.810 and Sec. 882.803(d) in its entirety. Therefore, in order
to correct the error, this rule removes much of Sec. 882.803(d).
Justification for Interim Rulemaking
HUD generally publishes a rule for public comment before issuing a
rule for effect, in accordance with its regulations on rulemaking at 24
CFR part 10. However, part 10 provides that prior public procedure will
be omitted if HUD determines that it is ``impracticable, unnecessary,
or contrary to the public interest'' (24 CFR 10.1). With this interim
rule, HUD is merely correcting several minor oversights and conforming
the SRO regulations to statutory or regulatory provisions that are
already effective. Therefore, HUD finds that prior public procedure
would be unnecessary. However, HUD is inviting public comments for 60
days, after which it will consider the relevant issues raised by the
commenters in developing a final rule.
Other Matters
Environmental Impact
A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment
has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50,
which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332). The finding is available for public
inspection between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays in the Office of
the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of the General Counsel, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Room 10276, 451 Seventh Street SW,
Washington, DC 20410.
Executive Order 12606, The Family
The General Counsel, as the designated official under Executive
Order 12606, The Family, has determined that this interim rule does not
have potential for significant impact on family formation, maintenance,
and general well-being. To the extent that this interim rule benefits
homeless individuals, it would benefit the families of such
individuals. Since any effect of the interim rule would be beneficial,
this interim rule is not subject to review under the Order.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under section 6(a)
of Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has determined that the policies
in this interim rule will not have substantial direct effects on States
or their political subdivisions, or the relationship between the
Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. This interim
rule is limited to conforming the regulations with statutory and
regulatory requirements. Therefore the interim rule is not subject to
review under the Order.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this interim rule before publication and
by approving it certifies that this interim rule does not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Specifically, the interim rule is limited to making conforming changes
to the program regulations.
List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 882
Grant programs--housing and community development, Homeless, Lead
poisoning, Manufactured homes, Rent subsidies, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 24 CFR part 882 is amended as follows:
PART 882--SECTION 8 CERTIFICATE AND MODERATE REHABILITATION
PROGRAMS
1. The authority citation for part 882 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437f and 3535(d).
2. Section 882.802 is amended by adding definitions for the terms
``applicant'' and ``private nonprofit organization'' in alphabetical
order, to read as follows:
Sec. 882.802 Definitions.
* * * * *
Applicant. A public housing agency or Indian housing authority
(collectively referred to as housing agencies or HAs), or a private
nonprofit organization that applies for assistance under this program.
HUD will require private nonprofit applicants to subcontract with
public housing agencies to administer their rental assistance.
* * * * *
Private nonprofit organization. An organization, no part of the net
earnings of which inures to the benefit of any member, founder,
contributor, or individual. The organization must:
(1) Have a voluntary board;
(2) Have a functioning accounting system that is operated in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, or designate
an entity that will maintain a functioning accounting system for the
organization in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles; and
(3) Practice nondiscrimination in the provision of assistance.
* * * * *
3. Section 882.803 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (d)
to read as follows:
Sec. 882.803 Project eligibility and other requirements.
(a) * * *
(2) Housing is not eligible for assistance under this program if it
is receiving Federal funding for rental assistance or operating costs
under other HUD programs.
* * * * *
(d) Relocation. A project assisted under this subpart H is subject
to the requirements of Sec. 882.810.
* * * * *
4. Section 882.804 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 882.804 Other Federal requirements.
* * * * *
(d) The environmental review requirements of 24 CFR part 58,
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and related
environmental laws and authorities listed in 24 CFR 58.5, are
applicable to this program.
5. Section 882.805 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(d), and by revising paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(A) to read as follows:
Sec. 882.805 PHA application process, HUD review and selection, ACC
execution, and pre-rehabilitation activities.
* * * * *
(d) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) HUD may approve a higher per unit amount up to, but not to
exceed, an amount computed by multiplying the HUD-approved High Cost
Percentage for Base Cities (used for computing FHA high cost area
adjustments) for the area, by the current published cost limitation
plus the cost of the required fire and safety improvements.
* * * * *
6. Section 882.808 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
b. Removing paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(2), and (b)(4);
c. Redesignating paragraph (a)(4) as paragraph (a)(3) and revising
it;
d. Redesignating paragraph (b)(3) as paragraph (b)(2);
e. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(5) through (b)(7) as paragraphs
(b)(3) through (b)(5), respectively; and
[[Page 5852]]
f. Adding a new paragraph (q), to read as follows:
Sec. 882.808 Management.
(a) Outreach to homeless individuals and appropriate organizations.
(1) The HA or the Owner shall undertake outreach efforts to homeless
individuals so that they may be brought into the program. The outreach
effort should include notification to emergency shelter providers and
other organizations that could provide referrals of homeless
individuals. In cases where the owner conducts the outreach effort, the
HA shall be notified so that it may provide referrals of homeless
individuals.
* * * * *
(3) First priority for homeless individuals. Homeless individuals
shall have a first priority for occupancy of housing rehabilitated
under this program.
* * * * *
(q) Participation of homeless individuals. (1) Each approved
applicant receiving assistance under this program, except HAs, shall
provide for the participation of not less than one homeless individual
or formerly homeless individual on the board of directors or other
equivalent policymaking entity of such applicant, to the extent that
the entity considers and makes policies and decisions regarding the
rehabilitation of any housing with assistance under this subpart. This
requirement is waived if the applicant is unable to meet this
requirement and presents a plan that HUD approves to consult with
homeless or formerly homeless individuals in considering and making
such policies and decisions.
(2) To the maximum extent practicable, each approved applicant must
involve homeless individuals and families, through employment,
volunteer services, or otherwise, in rehabilitating and operating
facilities assisted under this subpart, and in providing services for
occupants of such facilities.
Dated: January 18, 1996.
Andrew M. Cuomo,
Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
[FR Doc. 96-3275 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-29-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3274 Foreign Banks
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5671-5675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3274]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 5671]]
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
12 CFR Part 346
RIN 3064-AB62
Foreign Banks
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Corporation).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 107 of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and
Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (Riegle-Neal Act) amended section 6 of
the International Banking Act of 1978 (IBA) to provide that the FDIC
shall amend its regulation concerning domestic retail deposit
activities by state-licensed branches of foreign banks. The final rule
amends the FDIC's regulations to restrict the amount and types of
initial deposits of less than $100,000 which can be accepted by an
uninsured state-licensed branch of a foreign bank. The final rule is
intended to afford equal competitive opportunities to foreign and
domestic banks.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The final rule is effective on April 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles V. Collier, Assistant
Director, Division of Supervision, (202) 898-6850; Jeffrey M. Kopchik,
Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 898-3872, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, 550 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20429.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 107 of the Riegle-Neal Act (Pub. L. 103-328, 108 Stat.
2358) amended section 6 of the IBA (12 U.S.C. 3104) to provide that the
FDIC shall amend its regulation concerning domestic retail deposit
activity by state-licensed branches of foreign banks (state-licensed
branches).1 Section 6 of the IBA, 12 U.S.C. 3104, concerns the
insurance of deposits maintained at domestic branches and subsidiaries
of foreign banks. Generally, section 6 provides that United States
branches of foreign banks may not accept domestic retail deposits
unless the branch is insured by the FDIC. Section 6 goes on to state
that, after December 19, 1991, foreign banks may not establish any de
novo insured branches in the United States. Section 107 of the Riegle-
Neal Act added a new subsection (a) to section 6 of the IBA. This new
subsection provides that:
\1\ The Riegle-Neal Act requires the FDIC to consult with the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) in the process of
making these amendments in order to assure uniformity. The FDIC has
worked in close consultation with the OCC in order to achieve
substantive uniformity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In implementing this section, the Comptroller and the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation shall each, by affording equal
competitive opportunities to foreign and United States banking
organizations in their United States operations, ensure that foreign
banking organizations do not receive an unfair competitive advantage
over United States banking organizations.
12 U.S.C. 3104(a).
In revising section 6 of the IBA, Congress made it clear that
foreign banks operating in the United States should not have an unfair
competitive advantage over domestically chartered banks. Thus, Congress
directed the FDIC and the OCC to revise their respective regulations
implementing IBA section 6 to ensure that foreign banks do not receive
an unfair competitive advantage over United States banks by affording
equal competitive opportunities to both.
The Current Regulatory Scheme
Section 346.4 of the FDIC's regulations (12 CFR 346.4) requires
that any state-licensed branch which is engaged in ``domestic retail
deposit activity'' shall be an insured branch. Section 346.6 provides
that a state-licensed branch will not be deemed to be engaged in
domestic retail deposit activity which requires the branch to be
insured if initial deposits of less than $100,000 are derived solely
from certain enumerated sources. The acceptance of initial deposits of
$100,000 or more is not considered to be retail deposit activity and,
thus, deposit insurance is not required for a state-licensed branch
which accepts only these types of initial deposits.
Section 346.6 delineates five categories of depositors from which a
state-licensed branch may accept initial deposits of less than $100,000
without triggering the insurance requirement. The five categories of
depositors are:
(1) Any business entity, including any corporation, partnership,
sole proprietorship, association or trust, which engages in commercial
activity for profit;
(2) Any governmental unit, including the United States government,
any state government, any foreign government and any political
subdivision or agency of the foregoing;
(3) Any international organization which is comprised of two or
more nations;
(4) Funds received in connection with any draft, check, or similar
instrument issued by the branch for the transmission of funds; and
(5) Any depositor who is not a citizen of the United States and who
is not a resident of the United States at the time of the initial
deposit.
This section of the regulation also includes a general exception
(commonly referred to as the ``de minimis exception'') which provides
that an uninsured state-licensed branch may accept initial deposits of
less than $100,000 from any depositor if the amount of such deposits
does not exceed on an average daily basis five percent of the average
of the branch's deposits for the last 30 days of the most recent
calendar quarter.
The Riegle-Neal Act
In directing the FDIC to amend its regulation to ensure that
foreign banking organizations do not have an unfair competitive
advantage over United States banking organizations, Congress directed
the FDIC to ``consider whether to permit'' an uninsured state-licensed
branch of a foreign bank to accept initial deposits of less than
$100,000 from a smaller class of depositors than is currently
delineated in Sec. 346.6. This suggested smaller class is limited to:
(1) Individuals who are not citizens or residents of the United
States at the time of the initial deposit;
(2) Individuals who:
(i) Are not citizens of the United States;
(ii) Are residents of the United States; and
[[Page 5672]]
(iii) Are employed by a foreign bank, foreign business, foreign
government, or recognized international organization;
(3) Persons to whom the branch or foreign bank has extended credit
or provided other nondeposit banking services;
(4) Foreign businesses and large United States businesses;
(5) Foreign governmental units and recognized international
organizations; and
(6) Persons who are depositing funds in connection with the
issuance of a financial instrument by the branch for the transmission
of funds.
Moreover, section 107(b)(3) of the Riegle-Neal Act provides that
any de minimis exception shall not exceed one percent of the average
deposits at the branch, as opposed to the current five percent. The
FDIC may establish a reasonable transition rule to facilitate any
termination of deposit taking activities. See section 107(b)(5)(B) of
the Riegle-Neal Act.
As pointed out in the preamble to the proposed regulation, if
Congress had intended the FDIC to adopt these suggested criteria
verbatim, it could have so required. See 60 FR 36075. However, the
statute explicitly provides that the FDIC ``shall consider whether to
permit'' an uninsured state-licensed branch to accept initial deposits
of less than $100,000 from the enumerated sources. By requiring only
that the FDIC consider the statutory criteria, Congress explicitly
recognized that the ultimate decision should be made by the FDIC,
consistent with the statutory objective set forth in IBA section 6(a),
in the exercise of its regulatory discretion and expertise.
The Proposal
On July 13, 1995, the FDIC published for public comment a notice of
proposed rulemaking seeking to implement section 107 of the Riegle-Neal
Act. 60 FR 36074 (July 13, 1995).2 The proposal provided that
uninsured state-licensed branches of foreign banks would be permitted
to accept initial deposits of less than $100,000 from the six
categories of depositors specified in sections 107(b)(2) (A) through
(F) of the Riegle-Neal Act. In addition, the proposal expanded and
added certain exceptions, consistent with Congressional intent. The
comment period closed on September 11, 1995. In response to the notice,
the FDIC received a total of four comment letters, three from industry
trade associations and one from an association representing state bank
regulators. One commenter fully supported the FDIC's proposal with no
suggested revisions. The remaining three commenters supported the
proposal, but suggested certain revisions. Of the three commenters who
suggested revisions, two urged the FDIC to expand the Sec. 346.6
exceptions to permit uninsured state-licensed branches to accept more
types of initial deposits of less than $100,000. Conversely, one
commenter urged the FDIC to restrict one of the proposed exceptions in
order to lessen the number of initial deposits of less than $100,000
that may be accepted by an uninsured branch. The commenters' specific
suggestions and the FDIC's responses thereto are discussed in detail
below.
\2\ The OCC's notice of proposed rulemaking was published at 60
FR 34907 (July 5, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deposit Taking Activities of Uninsured Foreign Branches
The objective set forth by Congress in section 6(a) of the IBA is
to afford equal competitive opportunities to foreign and United States
banking organizations by ensuring that foreign banks do not receive an
unfair competitive advantage. The preamble to the proposed regulation
set forth in great detail the information and data which the FDIC
reviewed in considering this question. 60 FR 36075. The FDIC concluded
that ``uninsured state-licensed branches of foreign banks do not have
an overall unfair competitive advantage over domestic banking
organizations.'' Id. All of the comment letters agreed with this
conclusion.
The Comments and Final Rule
Two commenters suggested that the proposed Sec. 346.6(a)(3)
exception, the so-called ``nondeposit banking services exception'', be
expanded to include affiliates of the person to whom the branch or
foreign bank has extended credit or provided some other nondeposit
banking service as well as persons who have received such services from
an affiliate of the branch or foreign bank. The commenters urged this
change by pointing out that, in today's complex business world,
depositors often operate through affiliates. Similarly, foreign banks
which operate uninsured branches in the United States often offer
certain financial services through affiliates of the bank. The
commenters urged the FDIC to recognize this characteristic of the
contemporary business environment in the final regulation.
Significantly, one commenter pointed out that since the definition of
``foreign bank'' in the IBA, 12 U.S.C. 3101(7), explicitly includes any
affiliate of the foreign bank, Sec. 346.6(a)(3) of the final regulation
should include these affiliates as well.
The FDIC has carefully considered this comment and agrees that the
Sec. 346.6(a)(3) exception should be expanded to include persons who
have received a loan or other nondeposit banking service from an
affiliate of the branch or foreign bank. This revision recognizes that
the IBA definition of ``foreign bank'' includes affiliates. However,
this exception does not include a person who has dealt with any
affiliate of a foreign bank in any capacity. In crafting this
regulation, the FDIC is required to interpret and harmonize section 107
of the Riegle-Neal Act, the IBA and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act
(FDI Act). Despite the fact that the IBA definition of ``foreign bank''
includes any subsidiary or affiliate, the Sec. 346.1(a) definition of
``foreign bank'' includes only the bank itself. This difference
recognizes that Sec. 346 of the FDIC's rules regulates the deposit
taking activities of foreign banks operating branches in the United
States. It is not intended to regulate or somehow sanction the
activities of affiliates or subsidiaries of the foreign bank which may
desire to operate in this country. Section 107(b)(2)(C) of the Riegle-
Neal Act is limited to ``persons to whom the branch or foreign bank has
extended credit or provided other nondeposit banking services.''
[Emphasis added]. It does not cover persons who have dealt with any
affiliate of the foreign bank in any capacity. The FDIC interprets this
qualifying phrase to indicate Congress' intent that, despite the broad
definition of ``foreign bank'' contained in the IBA, the only
affiliates of a foreign bank which should be included in the
Sec. 346.6(a)(3) exception are those which are capable of extending
credit or providing some other nondeposit banking service to a
prospective depositor. For example, if a depositor desiring to make an
initial deposit of less than $100,000 in an uninsured branch has leased
a safe deposit box from an affiliate of the foreign bank within the
past twelve months, that deposit would qualify under the
Sec. 346.6(a)(3) exception since the prospective depositor would be the
recipient of a nondeposit banking service. Any state-licensed branch
that is unsure whether a deposit of less than $100,000 could be
accepted pursuant to the Sec. 346.6(a)(3) exception should contact the
FDIC for guidance.
With regard to affiliates of the depositor, the arguments are not
as compelling. First, and most persuasively, the IBA does not define
the term ``depositor'', ``customer'' or
[[Page 5673]]
``person''. Thus, there is no indication that Congress intended to
include affiliates of persons to whom the branch or foreign bank has
extended credit or provided some other nondeposit banking service.
Second, while depositors may operate through affiliates in a fashion
similar to the foreign branch or bank, the inclusion of affiliates in
this context may very well conflict with the section 107(b)(2)(D)
exception which limits retail deposit taking to ``large United States
businesses''. That is, the inclusion of affiliates of a depositor who
has received some nondeposit banking service could very well include
small subsidiaries of the depositor. Thus, the FDIC has decided not to
expand this exception to include affiliates of the depositor.
It was also suggested that the proposed Sec. 346.6(a)(3) nondeposit
banking service exception be expanded to apply to situations where the
affiliate has provided depository services to the customer or its
affiliate. The FDIC is of the opinion that this further expansion of
the exception is unwarranted. The key to section 107(b)(2)(C) of the
Riegle-Neal Act is its limitation to ``nondeposit'' banking services.
It would be inappropriate for the FDIC to disregard this limitation
even while recognizing that, except for the mandatory change to the de
minimis rule, Congress provided the Corporation with only suggested
parameters for the types of deposits of less than $100,000 that
uninsured state-licensed branches should be permitted to accept.
One commenter recommended that the FDIC modify the proposal to
permit uninsured state-licensed branches to accept initial deposits of
less than $100,000 from all businesses, including foundations and other
entities which are not engaged in commercial activity for profit.
Section 346.6(a)(1) of the current regulation exempts initial deposits
of less than $100,000 from ``any business entity * * * engaged in
commercial activity for profit''. It is the FDIC's understanding that,
after the de minimis exception, this exception is the one most often
utilized by state-licensed branches. The commenter argued that adopting
this suggestion would make the regulation less burdensome and easier to
administer, as well as promote international trade finance.
The FDIC remains unconvinced that the final regulation should
permit uninsured branches to accept deposits of less than $100,000 from
any business entity, including those not engaged in a commercial
activity for profit, such as foundations. Section 107 of the Riegle-
Neal Act expresses Congress' expectation that the overall scope of
Sec. 346.6 would be reduced. While the ultimate decision concerning
what exceptions should be included in the final regulation is to be
made by the FDIC in the exercise of its regulatory discretion and
expertise, the FDIC cannot ignore Congressional intent.
In the alternative, the commenter who suggested an exception for
all business deposits also suggested that the proposed Sec. 346.6(a)(4)
exception for large United States' businesses should be expanded by
revising the definition of ``large United States business'' that
appears in Sec. 346.1(t) of the proposal. The commenter proposed that
alternate criteria be added to the definition so that any business with
total assets of more than $1 million or 50 or more employees would also
be considered a ``large United States business''. However, the
commenter did not include any support for its use of the $1 million of
assets or 50 or more employees criteria. Another commenter expressed
the opposite concern, that the FDIC's suggested $1 million in gross
revenue figure should be increased to $25 million or possibly $100
million, in order to narrow the exception. In view of these
contradictory suggestions and the absence of data supporting them, the
FDIC has decided not to make any changes to the definition of ``large
United States business'' as set forth in the proposed regulation.
One comment letter requested clarification of the application of
the proposed transition rule which is set forth in Sec. 346.6(c) of the
proposed regulation. That commenter pointed out that, with regard to
time deposits, the proposal could require state-licensed branches to
reclassify or divest some time deposits very shortly after the
effective date of the final regulation if the deposit matures during
this period. This commenter suggested that the proposal be modified to
give state-licensed branches a reasonable period of time to reclassify
or divest time deposits that mature very shortly after the final
regulation's effective date. The FDIC agrees with this suggestion and
has amended Sec. 346.6(c)(2) of the proposal to provide that state-
licensed branches will have at least 90 days after the effective date
of the final regulation to reclassify or divest such time deposits.
This comment letter also recommended that branches should be
required to reclassify or divest only those deposits which were
accepted under the five percent de minimis exception, as opposed to
deposits accepted pursuant to any of the Sec. 346.6(a) exceptions. The
FDIC considered this option at great length, but in order to achieve
the uniformity required by the statute, the agency is adhering to the
transition rule as described in the proposal which requires the
reclassification or divestiture of all deposit accounts which were
originally accepted pursuant to any of the Sec. 346.6(a) exceptions.
This same comment letter expressed some confusion concerning other
aspects of how the FDIC will apply the transition rule. In an effort to
avoid confusion, the FDIC would like to clarify that a deposit
(including a time deposit) may be reclassified at any time during the
transition period. If a time deposit matures prior to the end of the
five year transition period, it must be reclassified or divested at
that time. However, no time deposit need be reclassified or divested
sooner than 90 days after the effective date of the final regulation.
In the preamble to the proposed regulation, 60 FR 36077, the FDIC
noted that it was considering adding a new exception that would permit
an uninsured state-licensed branch to accept initial deposits of less
than $100,000 from immediate family members of individuals who qualify
for any of the exceptions listed in proposed Secs. 346.6(a) (1) through
(6). The one commenter who mentioned this issue supported the idea of
including such an additional exception in the final rule and stated
that such an exception would not create any unfair competitive
advantage for foreign banks. The FDIC has considered this issue at
length and has concluded that such an exception would be overly broad
and inconsistent with Congressional intent. However, the FDIC has
decided to revise Sec. 346.6(a)(3) of the proposal to include immediate
family members of natural persons to whom the branch or foreign bank
(including any affiliate thereof) has extended credit or provided other
nondeposit banking services within the past twelve months or has
entered into a written agreement to provide such services within the
next twelve months.
With regard to Sec. 346.6(b), ``Application for an exemption'', it
was suggested that the FDIC should permit the request to be submitted
by the bank's senior management rather than requiring authorization by
the foreign bank's board of directors. The FDIC agrees that this change
would make the regulation less burdensome. Moreover, in a somewhat
different context, Sec. 346.101(d) of the FDIC's regulations permits an
application evidencing approval by senior management if a board
resolution is not required by the foreign bank's organizational
[[Page 5674]]
documents. Thus, the FDIC has decided to amend Sec. 346.6(b) in the
same fashion.
One commenter requested confirmation of its interpretation of the
preamble to the proposed rule that existing deposits which were not
originally subject to the Sec. 346.6 exceptions, because the initial
deposit establishing the account was $100,000 or more, would not be
subject to the revised regulation even if the first deposit in the
account after the effective date of final regulation is less than
$100,000. This interpretation is correct. The only deposits which must
be reclassified or divested after this final rule becomes effective are
those which were established with less than $100,000 pursuant to one of
the exceptions set forth in current Secs. 346.6(a) (1) through (6).
Calculation of the De Minimis
One commenter expressed some confusion concerning how the de
minimis amount should be calculated and whether this amendment changes
the calculation method currently being used under the existing
regulation. This final amendment to Sec. 346 is not intended to change
how the de minimis amount is calculated. The de minimis amount is
computed as a fraction, the numerator of which consists of the total
amount of deposits which have been accepted pursuant to the de minimis
exception. The FDIC wishes to make it clear that the numerator is
comprised of the total amount of deposits accepted under the de minimis
exception, not just the amount of the initial deposits of less than
$100,000 which were accepted to open the accounts. The denominator of
the fraction consists of the average amount of third party deposits
maintained by the branch during the last thirty calendar days of the
most recent calendar quarter. See 44 FR 40057, 40061 (July 9, 1979);
FDIC Legal Division Staff Advisory Opinion (unpublished) dated December
16, 1985 from Katharine H. Haygood, Esq.
Effective Date
Section 302(b) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory
Improvement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-325, September 29, 1994) provides
that new regulations and amendments to regulations prescribed by the
federal banking agencies shall take effect on the first day of a
calendar quarter which begins on or after the date on which the
regulation is published in final form, unless the agency determines for
good cause that the regulation should become effective at an earlier
date or the regulation is required to become effective at some other
date determined by law. The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551
et seq.) provides that regulations shall become effective thirty days
after their publication in the Federal Register. 5 U.S.C. 553. Thus,
this amendment to Part 346 of its regulations shall become effective on
April 1, 1996.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 346
Bank deposit insurance, Foreign banking, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the FDIC Board of
Directors hereby amends 12 CFR part 346 to read as follows:
PART 346--FOREIGN BANKS
1. The authority citation for part 346 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1813, 1815, 1817, 1819, 1820, 3103, 3104,
3105, 3108.
2. Section 346.1 is amended by adding a sentence to the end of
paragraph (a), revising paragraph (o), and adding paragraphs (s)
through (v) to read as follows:
Sec. 346.1 Definitions.
(a) * * * For purposes of Sec. 346.6, the term foreign bank does
not include any bank organized under the laws of any territory of the
United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or the Virgin Islands
the deposits of which are insured by the Corporation pursuant to the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
* * * * *
(o) Affiliate means any entity that controls, is controlled by, or
is under common control with another entity. An entity shall be deemed
to ``control'' another entity if the entity directly or indirectly
owns, controls, or has the power to vote 25 percent or more of any
class of voting securities of the other entity or controls in any
manner the election of a majority of the directors or trustees of the
other entity.
* * * * *
(s) Foreign business means any entity, including but not limited to
a corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, association,
foundation or trust, which is organized under the laws of a country
other than the United States or any United States entity which is owned
or controlled by an entity which is organized under the laws of a
country other than the United States or a foreign national.
(t) Large United States business means any entity including but not
limited to a corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship,
association, foundation or trust which is organized under the laws of
the United States or any state thereof, and:
(1) Whose securities are registered on a national securities
exchange or quoted on the National Association of Securities Dealers
Automated Quotation System; or
(2) Has annual gross revenues in excess of $1,000,000 for the
fiscal year immediately preceding the initial deposit.
(u) Person means an individual, bank, corporation, partnership,
trust, association, foundation, joint venture, pool, syndicate, sole
proprietorship, unincorporated organization, or any other form of
entity.
(v) Immediate family member of a natural person means the spouse,
father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter of that natural
person.
3. Section 346.6 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 346.6 Exemptions from the insurance requirement.
(a) Deposit activities not requiring insurance. A state branch will
not be deemed to be engaged in a domestic retail deposit activity which
requires the branch to be an insured branch under Sec. 346.4 if initial
deposits in an amount of less than $100,000 are derived solely from the
following:
(1) Individuals who are not citizens or residents of the United
States at the time of the initial deposit;
(2) Individuals who:
(i) Are not citizens of the United States;
(ii) Are residents of the United States; and
(iii) Are employed by a foreign bank, foreign business, foreign
government, or recognized international organization;
(3) Persons (including immediate family members of natural persons)
to whom the branch or foreign bank (including any affiliate thereof)
has extended credit or provided other nondeposit banking services
within the past twelve months or has entered into a written agreement
to provide such services within the next twelve months;
(4) Foreign businesses, large United States businesses, and persons
from whom an Edge Corporation may accept deposits under
Sec. 211.4(e)(1) of Regulation K of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, 12 CFR 211.4(e)(1);
(5) Any governmental unit, including the United States government,
any state government, any foreign government and any political
subdivision or agency of any of the foregoing, and recognized
international organizations;
(6) Persons who are depositing funds in connection with the
issuance of a
[[Page 5675]]
financial instrument by the branch for the transmission of funds or the
transmission of such funds by any electronic means; and
(7) Any other depositor but only if the amount of deposits under
this paragraph (a)(7) does not exceed on an average daily basis one
percent of the average of the branch's deposits for the last 30 days of
the most recent calendar quarter, excluding deposits in the branch of
other offices, branches, agencies or wholly owned subsidiaries of the
bank and the branch does not solicit deposits from the general public
by advertising, display of signs, or similar activity designed to
attract the attention of the general public. A foreign bank which has
more than one state branch in the same state may aggregate deposits in
such branches (excluding deposits of other branches, agencies or wholly
owned subsidiaries of the bank) for the purpose of this paragraph
(a)(7). The average shall be computed by using the sum of the close of
business figures for the last 30 calendar days ending with and
including the last day of the calendar quarter divided by 30. For days
on which the branch is closed, balances from the last previous business
day are to be used.
(b) Application for an exemption. (1) Whenever a foreign bank
proposes to accept at a state branch initial deposits of less than
$100,000 and such deposits are not otherwise excepted under paragraph
(a) of this section, the foreign bank may apply to the FDIC for consent
to operate the branch as a noninsured branch. The Board of Directors
may exempt the branch from the insurance requirement if the branch is
not engaged in domestic retail deposit activities requiring insurance
protection. The Board of Directors will consider the size and nature of
depositors and deposit accounts, the importance of maintaining and
improving the availability of credit to all sectors of the United
States economy, including the international trade finance sector of the
United State economy, whether the exemption would give the foreign bank
an unfair competitive advantage over United States banking
organizations, and any other relevant factors in making this
determination.
(2) Any request for an exemption under this paragraph should be in
writing and authorized by the board of directors of the foreign bank.
If a resolution is not required pursuant to the applicant's
organizational documents, the request shall include evidence of
approval by the bank's senior management. The request should be filed
with the Regional Director of the Division of Supervision for the
region where the state branch is located.
(3) The request should detail the kinds of deposit activities in
which the branch proposes to engage, the expected source of deposits,
the manner in which deposits will be solicited, how this activity will
maintain or improve the availability of credit to all sectors of the
United States economy, including the international trade finance
sector, that the activity will not give the foreign bank an unfair
competitive advantage over United States banking organizations and any
other relevant information.
(c) Transition period. An uninsured state branch may maintain a
retail deposit lawfully accepted pursuant to this section prior to
April 1, 1996:
(1) If the deposit qualifies pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) of
this section; or
(2) If the deposit does not qualify pursuant to paragraph (a) or
(b) of this section, no later than:
(i) In the case of a non-time deposit, five years from April 1,
1996; or
(ii) In the case of a time deposit, the first maturity date of the
time deposit after April 1, 1996 or the date that is 90 days after
April 1, 1996, whichever is later.
By order of the Board of Directors, dated at Washington, D.C.,
this 6th day of February, 1996.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Jerry L. Langley,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-3274 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3263 Rule Concerning Disclosures Regarding Energy Consumption and Water Use of Certain Home Appliances and Other Products Required Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (``Appliance Labeling Rule'')
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5678-5680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3263]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5679]]
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 305
Rule Concerning Disclosures Regarding Energy Consumption and
Water Use of Certain Home Appliances and Other Products Required Under
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (``Appliance Labeling Rule'')
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Final rule revision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission's Appliance Labeling Rule
requires that Table 1, in Sec. 305.9, which sets forth the
representative average unit energy costs for five residential energy
sources, be revised periodically on the basis of updated information
provided by the Department of Energy (``DOE'').
This document revises the table to incorporate the latest figures
for average unit energy costs as published by DOE in the Federal
Register on January 19, 1996.\1\
\1\ 61 FR 1366.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: The revisions to Sec. 305.9(a) and Table 1 are effective March
15, 1996. The mandatory dates for using these revised DOE cost figures
in connection with the Appliance Labeling Rule are detailed in the
Supplementary Information Section, below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Mills, Attorney, 202-326-3035 Division of Enforcement, Federal
Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 19, 1979, the Federal Trade
Commission issued a final rule in response to a directive in section
324 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (``EPCA''), 42 U.S.C.
6201.\2\ The rule requires the disclosure of energy efficiency,
consumption, or cost information on labels and in retail sales catalogs
for eight categories of appliances, and mandates that the energy costs,
consumption, or efficiency ratings be based on standardized test
procedures developed by DOE. The cost information obtained by following
the test procedures is derived by using the representative average unit
energy costs provided by DOE. Table 1 in Sec. 305.9(a) of the rule sets
forth the representative average unit energy costs to be used for all
cost-related requirements of the rule. As stated in Sec. 305.9(b), the
Table is to be revised periodically on the basis of updated information
provided by DOE.
\2\ 44 FR 66466. since its promulgation, the rule has been
amended four times to include new product categories--central air
conditioners (52 FR 46888, Dec. 10, 1987), fluorescent lamp ballasts
(54 FR 1182, Jan. 12, 1989), certain plumbing products (58 FR 54955,
Oct. 25, 1993), and certain lamp products (59 FR 25176, May 13,
1994). Obligations under the rule concerning fluorescent lamp
ballasts, lighting products, and plumbing products are not affected
by the cost figures in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 19, 1996, DOE published the most recent figures for
representative average unit energy costs. Accordingly, Table 1 is
revised to reflect these latest cost figures as set forth below.
The dates when use of the figures in revised Table 1 becomes
mandatory in calculating cost disclosures for use in labeling and
catalog sales of products covered by the Commission's rule and/or EPCA
are as follows:
For 1996 Submissions of Data Under Section 305.8 of the
Commission's Rule: Manufacturers no longer need to use the DOE cost
figures in complying with the data submission requirements of section
305.8 of the rule. Pursuant to amendments to the rule published on July
1, 1994 \3\ (with extended compliance dates published on December 8,
1994),\4\ the estimated annual operating cost is no longer the primary
energy usage descriptor for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers,
freezers, clothes washers, dishwashers, and water heaters. Under the
amendments, the energy usage and the ranges of comparability for those
product categories must be expressed in terms of estimated annual
energy consumption (kilowatt-hour use per year for electricity, therms
per year for natural gas, or gallons per year for propane and oil).
Thus, the 1996 (and all subsequent) data submissions under section
305.8 for these product categories (which are to enable the Commission
to publish ranges of comparability) must be made in terms of estimated
annual energy consumption, for the determination of which the DOE cost
figures are unnecessary. The 1996 (and all subsequent) submissions also
must be made in terms of the new product sub-categories created by the
above-mentioned amendments. The energy efficiency energy usage
descriptors for the other products covered by the rule (room air
conditioners, furnaces, boilers, central air conditioners, heat pumps,
and pool heaters) are unaffected by the amendments mentioned above. The
annual data submission requirements for those products, which are not
based on the DOE cost figures, will continue to be in terms of energy
efficiency (although submissions for room air conditioners, furnaces,
and boilers must be made in terms of the new product sub-categories
created by the amendments). For convenience, the annual dates for data
submission are repeated here:
\3\ 59 FR 34014.
\4\ 59 FR 63688.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluorescent lamp ballasts: March 1
Clothes washers: March 1
Water heaters: May 1
Furnaces: May 1
Room air conditioners: May 1
Pool Heaters: May 1
Dishwashers: June 1
Central air conditioners: July 1
Heat pumps: July 1
Refrigerators: August 1
Refrigerator-freezers: August 1
Freezers: August 1
For Labeling and Catalog Sales of Products Covered by the
Commission's Rule: The July 1, 1994, amendments require that labels for
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, clothes washers,
dishwashers, water heaters, and room air conditioners contain a
secondary energy usage disclosure in terms of an estimated annual
operating cost (labels for clothes washers and dishwashers will show
two such secondary disclosures--one based on operation with water
heated by natural gas, and one on operation with water heated by
electricity). The labels must also disclose, below the secondary
estimated annual operating cost disclosure, the fact that the estimated
annual operating cost is based on the appropriate DOE energy cost
figure and identify the year in which the cost figure was published.\5\
Manufacturers of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers,
clothes washers, dishwashers, and room air conditioners began making
these disclosures on the labels required by the amendments and in
catalogs beginning ninety days after the Commission published new
energy consumption ranges of comparability based on the 1995
submissions required by Sec. 305.8. They must continue to use the 1995
DOE cost figures until the Commission publishes new ranges of
comparability based on future annual submissions of estimated annual
energy consumption data. At that time, these manufacturers must use the
then-current DOE energy cost figures when they prepare new labels in
response to the new energy consumption ranges of comparability. When
such new ranges are published, the effective date for
[[Page 5680]]
labeling new products will be ninety days after the publication of the
ranges in the Federal Register. Similarly, manufacturers of storage-
type water heaters, who began to comply with the amendments in 1994,
used the 1994 DOE cost figures in determining the secondary energy use
disclosures on the labels on their products. They must continue to use
1994 cost figures to calculate these estimated annual operating cost
figures on their labels until the Commission publishes new ranges of
comparability for those products. As in the past, products that have
been properly labeled prior to the effective date of any range
modification need not be relabeled.
\5\ The secondary estimated annual operating cost disclosures on
the initial group of revised labels for storage-type water heaters
are based on the 1994 DOE cost figures that were published by the
Commission on February 8, 1994 (59 FR 5699). The secondary estimated
annual operating cost disclosures on the initial group of revised
labels for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, clothes washers,
dishwashers, and room air conditioners are (or will be) based on the
1995 DOE cost figures that were published by the Commission on
February 17, 1995 (60 FR 9295).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Energy Cost Representations Respecting Products Covered by EPCA
but not by the Commission's Rule: Manufacturers of products covered by
section 323(c) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6293(c), but not by the Appliance
Labeling Rule (clothes dryers, television sets, kitchen ranges and
ovens, and space heaters) must use the 1996 representative average unit
costs for energy in all operating cost representations beginning May
14, 1996.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 305
Advertising, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Labeling,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
PART 305--[AMENDED]
Accordingly, 16 CFR Part 305 is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 305 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6294.
Section 305.9(a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 305.9 Representative average unit energy costs.
(a) Table 1, below, contains the representative unit energy costs
to be utilized for all requirements of this part.
Table 1.--Representative Average Unit Costs of Energy for Five Residential Energy Sources (1996)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars per
Type of energy In commonly used terms As required by DOE test million Btu
procedure \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electricity.............................. 8.6 cents/kWh2 3........... $0.086/kWh................. $25.21
Natural Gas.............................. 62.6 cents/therm \4\ or 0.000006626/Btu............ 6.26
$6.43/MCF 5 6.
No. 2 heating oil........................ .92/gallon \7\............. 0.00000663/Btu............. 6.63
Propane.................................. 0.90/gallon \8\............ 0.00000984/Btu............. 9.84
Kerosene................................. 1.00/gallon \9\............ 0.00000739/Btu............. 7.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Btu stands for British thermal unit.
\2\ kWh stands for kilowatt hour.
\3\ 1 kWh=3,412 Btu.
\4\ 1 therm=100,000 Btu. Natural gas prices include taxes.
\5\ MCF stands for 1,000 cubic feet.
\6\ For the purposes of this table, 1 cubic foot of natural gas has an energy equivalence of 1,027 Btu.
\7\ For the purposes of this table, 1 gallon of No. 2 heating oil has an energy equivalence of 138,690 Btu.
\8\ For the purposes of this table, 1 gallon of liquid propane has an energy equivalence of 91,333 Btu.
\9\ For the purposes of this table, 1 gallon of kerosene has an energy equivalence of 135,000 Btu.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-3263 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3259 Withdrawal of National Forest System Lands to Protect the Elk River Wild and Scenic Corridor; Oregon
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5719-5720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3259]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Public Land Order 7184
[OR-958-1430-01; GP6-0038; OR-50500]
Withdrawal of National Forest System Lands to Protect the Elk
River Wild and Scenic Corridor; Oregon
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Public land order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This order withdraws 4,921 acres of National Forest System
lands in the Siskiyou National Forest from mining for a period of 20
years to protect the recreational and visual resources of the Elk River
Wild and Scenic Corridor. The lands have been and will remain open to
such forms of disposition as may by law be made of National Forest
System lands and to mineral leasing.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 14, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Betty McCarthy, BLM, Oregon/Washington
State Office, P.O. Box 2965, Portland, Oregon 97208-2965, 503-952-6155.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior
by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976,
43 U.S.C. 1714 (1988), it is ordered as follows:
1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described
National Forest System lands are hereby withdrawn from location and
entry under the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2 (1988)), but
not from leasing under the mineral leasing laws, to protect the
significant recreational and visual resources along the Elk River Wild
and Scenic Corridor:
Willamette Meridian
Siskiyou National Forest
Tracts of land located within the following described townships
and sections as more particularly identified and described below:
T. 33 S., R. 13 W.,
Secs. 13 to 24, inclusive, secs. 29 and 30.
T. 33 S., R. 14 W.,
Secs. 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, 17, and secs. 20 to 24, inclusive;
Beginning at the northeast corner of the SW\1/4\NE\1/4\ of sec. 7,
T. 33 S., R. 14 W.; Thence westerly to the northwest corner of the
SW\1/4\NE\1/4\ of sec. 7; Thence southerly to the south quarter
corner of sec. 7; Thence easterly to the southeast corner of sec. 7;
Thence southerly along the west boundary of sec. 17 to the northwest
corner of the SW\1/4\SW\1/4\ of sec. 17; Thence easterly to the
southwest corner of the E\1/2\NW\1/4\SW\1/4\ of sec. 17; Thence
northerly to the northwest corner of the E\1/2\NW\1/4\SW\1/4\ of
sec. 17; Thence easterly to the northeast corner of the W\1/2\NE\1/
4\SW\1/4\ of sec. 17; Thence southerly to the southeast corner of
the W\1/2\SE\1/4\SW\1/4\ of sec. 17; Thence
[[Page 5720]]
easterly along the south boundary of sec.17 to the south quarter corner
of sec. 17; Thence southerly along the north-south centerline of
sec. 20 to the northeasterly right-of-way of Forest Service (FS)
road 5502 020 as described in Curry County Book of Records 1, pages
308 and 429; Thence easterly along said northeasterly right-of-way
line to the east boundary of sec. 20, EXCEPT that portion of land in
the NE\1/4\ and northeast of the road as described in deed to Maude
S. Kohl, et al., recorded June 20, 1969, in Book 11 page 313 of
Curry County; Thence northerly to the northeast corner of the SE\1/
4\NE\1/4\ of sec. 20; Thence southeasterly to the summit of Pearce
Peak; Thence easterly along the ridge to the summit of Purple
Mountain; Thence southeasterly along the ridge to the east-west
centerline of sec. 22; Thence easterly along said centerline to the
northeast corner of the SW\1/4\ of sec. 22; Thence southerly along
the north-south centerline of sec. 22 to the divide between Bald
Mountain Creek and Elk River; Thence southeasterly along said divide
to the northerly most point of Father Mountain; Thence northeasterly
to the east quarter corner of sec. 23; Thence northeasterly to a
point in an unnamed tributary to Elk River at 42 deg.42'15.45'' N.,
124 deg.18'32.56'' W.; Thence northeasterly to a point in a borrow
pit and 50 foot offset from FS Road No. 5325 180 at
42 deg.42'31.08'' N., 124 deg.18'26.24'' W.; Thence easterly and
parallel to said FS road at a 50 foot northerly offset to a point at
42 deg.42'27.22'' N., 124 deg.17'47.98'' W.; Thence northeasterly to
a point at the end of FS Road No. 5325 182 at 42 deg.42'40.41'' N.,
124 deg.17'22.11'' W.; Thence northeasterly to a point on the divide
between Panther Creek and Elk River at 42 deg.42'49.13'' N.,
124 deg.17'07.24'' W.; Thence southerly to 42 deg.42'44.66'' N.,
124 deg.17'04.49'' W.; Thence southerly to 42 deg.42'36.55'' N.,
124 deg.17'04.22'' W.; Thence southwesterly to 42 deg.42'21.93'' N.,
124 deg.17'13.85'' W.; Thence southeasterly to 42 deg.42'15.44'' N.,
124 deg.17'09.72'' W.; Thence southwesterly to 42 deg.42'08.94'' N.,
124 deg.17'11.10'' W.; Thence southerly to the junction of the West
Fork and Main Fork of Panther Creek; Thence southeasterly along the
thread of the Main Fork to the junction of the East Fork of Panther
Creek; Thence northeasterly to the west sixteenth corner of secs. 20
and 29, T. 33 S., R. 13 W.; Thence northeasterly to the north
quarter of sec. 20; Thence northeasterly to a point at the end of a
logging spur on a prominent ridge at 42 deg.43'03.31'' N.,
124 deg.15'52.92'' W.; Thence following said ridge and logging spur,
southeasterly to a point at a 50 foot northerly offset from FS Road
No. 5544; Thence parallel to said road at a 50 foot northerly offset
to a point on the ridge where the road turns southerly at
42 deg.43'19.14'' N., 124 deg.15'35.57'' W.; Thence southeasterly to
a point at the end of FS Road 5544 040 at 42 deg.43'13.04'' N.,
124 deg.14'36.19'' W.; Thence southeasterly to the south quarter of
sec. 15; Thence southeasterly to a point in Blackberry Creek at
42 deg.42'37.34'' N., 124 deg.13'41.38'' W.; Thence southeasterly
following spur ridge to divide between McCurdy Creek and Blackberry
Creek; Thence easterly and northerly along ridge to a 50 foot
southerly offset from FS Road No. 5325 starting at 42 deg.42'07.12''
N., 124 deg.12'48.52'' W. to 42 deg.42'08.54'' N.,
124 deg.12'38.61'' W. to 42 deg.42'16.05'' N., 124 deg.12'19.62'' W.
to 42 deg.42'28.23'' N., 124 deg.12'20.18'' W. to 42 deg.42'36.75'''
N., 124 deg.12'27.34'' W. to 42 deg.42'49.14'' N.,
124 deg.12'26.52'' W.; Thence easterly to a point in the south fork
of Elk River at 42 deg.42'49.75'' N., 124 deg.12'09.18'' W.; Thence
northwesterly along thread of South Fork of Elk River to junction
with the Main and North Forks of Elk River; Thence northwesterly to
42 deg.43'07.00'' N., 124 deg.12'25.16'' W.; Thence northwesterly to
42 deg.43'12.68'' N., 124 deg.12'38.10'' W.; Thence northwesterly
along spur ridge which divides the North Fork and Main Fork of the
Elk River to a prominent point at 42 deg.43'16.33'' N.,
124 deg.12'43.61'' W.; Thence southwesterly along said ridge to a
point at 42 deg.43'04.76'' N., 124 deg.12'59.84'' W.; Thence
northwesterly to the intersection of a tributary to Bungalow Creek
and the west boundary of sec. 14; Thence northerly along said
section line to the northwest corner of sec. 14; Thence westerly
along the south boundary of secs. 10, 9, and 8 to a point on the
Grassy Knob Wilderness Boundary; Thence along the Grassy Knob
Wilderness Boundary line to a point on the east-west centerline of
the NE\1/4\ of sec. 7, T. 33 S., R. 14 W.; Thence west along said
east-west centerline to the point of beginning.
The areas described aggregate approximately 4,921 acres in Curry
County.
2. The withdrawal made by this order does not alter the
applicability of those public land laws governing the use of the
National Forest System lands under lease, license, or permit, or
governing the disposal of the mineral or vegetative resources other
than under the mining laws.
3. This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of
this order unless, as a result of a review conducted before the
expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f) (1988), the Secretary
determines that the withdrawal shall be extended.
Dated: February 7, 1996.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 96-3259 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3254 Special Local Regulations; Great Lakes Annual Marine Events
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5680-5684]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3254]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD 09-95-029]
Special Local Regulations; Great Lakes Annual Marine Events
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is revising its list of annual marine events
which occur within the Ninth Coast Guard District. Publication of this
list in part 100 of the Code of Federal Regulations will establish
permanent special local regulations for marine events within the Ninth
Coast Guard District which recur on an annual basis and which have been
determined by the District Commander to require the issuance of special
local regulations. This action is being taken to ensure the safety of
life, limb and property during each event, while avoiding the necessity
of publishing a separate temporary regulation each year for each event.
The list reflects the approximate dates and locations of each annual
marine event.
DATE: This rule is effective February 14, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marine Science Technician Second Class Jeffrey M. Yunker, Ninth Coast
Guard District, Aids to Navigation Branch, 1240 East Ninth Street,
Cleveland, Ohio, 44199-2060, (216) 522-3990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Drafting Information
The drafters of these regulations are Lieutenant Junior Grade Byron
D. Willeford, Project Officer, Ninth Coast Guard District, Aids to
Navigation Branch and Lieutenant Commander Michael Zack, Project
Attorney, Ninth Coast Guard District Legal Office.
Regulatory History
On November 1, 1995, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking entitled Special Local Regulations; Great Lakes Annual
Marine Events in the Federal Register (60 FR 55511). The deadline for
the submission of comments was December 18, 1995. The Coast Guard
received no letters commenting on the proposal. A public hearing was
not requested and one was not held. The Commander Ninth Coast Guard
District has decided to publish the final rule as proposed.
Background and Purpose
This rulemaking updates an existing list of anticipated annual
events. Each year various public and private organizations sponsor
marine events on the navigable waters of the United States within the
Ninth Coast Guard District. These events include slow moving boat
parades, sailboat races, high speed hydroplane races, fireworks
displays, and other water related events. The listed events are held in
approximately the same location during the same general period of time
each year. Exact times and dates will be published in the Local Notice
to Mariners instead of being published in this final rule. This will
streamline the marine event process for those regattas
[[Page 5681]]
and marine events that have very little annual variation and will
significantly reduce the Coast Guard's administrative burden for
managing these type of events with no reduction in services to the
maritime community. The nature of each event is such that special local
regulations are deemed necessary to ensure the safety of life, limb,
and property on and adjacent to navigable waters during the events.
Group Commanders have consulted and will continue to consult with
parties potentially affected by any significant changes to the nature,
date, time, and location proposed by an event sponsor for any of the
events covered in this rule.
Table 1 gives the approximate dates, times, and locations for the
annual events listed. Each year, one or more Local Notice to Mariners
will be published giving the exact dates, times, and locations for the
annual events. It should be noted that Table 1 in the regulation is not
a complete list of all marine events that will occur in the Ninth Coast
Guard District. It does not include events which do not require special
local regulations for the safety of life, limb, and property on or
adjacent to navigable waters. It also does not include nonannual events
or events which have not been scheduled in time for this publication.
Federalism Implications
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard is simply proposing to revise its list of annual
marine events. The listing itself will not affect the environment. Upon
receipt of applications, the Coast Guard will conduct an environmental
analysis for each event in accordance with section 2.B.2.c of Coast
Guard Commandant Instruction M16475.1B, and the Coast Guard Notice of
final agency procedures and policy for categorical exclusions found at
59 FR 38654 (July 29, 1994).
Economic Assessment and Certification
These regulations are not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and do not require an assessment
of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order.
They have been exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget under that order. They are not significant under the regulatory
policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44
FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic
impact of these regulations to be so minimal that a full Regulatory
Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and
procedures of the DOT is unnecessary.
Collection of Information
These regulations will impose no collection information
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
Final Regulations
In consideration of the foregoing, the Coast Guard is amending Part
100 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; 49 CFR 1.46 and 33 CFR 100.35.
2. Section 100.901 is amended by revising Table 1 to read as
follows:
Sec. 100.901 Great Lakes Annual Marine Events.
* * * * *
Table 1
Group Buffalo, NY:
Fireworks by Grucci
Sponsor: New York Power Authority.
Date: Last weekend of July.
Location: Lake Ontario, Wright's Landing/Oswego Harbor, NY within
an 800 foot radius of the fireworks launching platform located in
approximate position 43 deg.28'10'' N 076 deg.31'04'' W.
Flagship International Kilo Speed Challenge
Sponsor: Presque Isle Powerboat Racing Association.
Date: 3rd or 4th weekend of June.
Location: That portion of Lake Erie, Presque Isle Bay, south of a
line drawn from 42 deg.08'54'' N 080 deg.05'42'' W; to 42 deg.07' N
080 deg.21' W will be a regulated area. That portion of Lake Erie,
Presque Isle bay, north of a line drawn from 42 deg.08'54'' N
080 deg.05'42'' W; to 42 deg.07' N 080 deg.21' W will be a ``caution
area''. All vessels transiting the caution area will be operated at
bare steerageway, keeping the vessel's wake at a minimum, and will
exercise a high degree of caution in the area. The bay entrance will
not be effected.
Flagship International Offshore Challenge
Sponsor: Presque Isle Powerboat Racing Association.
Date: 3rd or 4th weekend of June.
Location: That portion of Lake Erie, Presque Isle Bay, Entrance
Channel, and the enclosed area from Erie Harbor Pier Head Light (LLNR
3430) northeast to 42 deg.12'48'' N 079 deg.57'24'' W, thence south to
shore just east of Shades Beach.
Friendship Festival Airshow
Sponsor: Friendship Festival
Date: 4th of July holiday.
Location: That portion of the Niagara River and Buffalo.
Harbor from:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
42 deg.54.4' N....................... 078 deg.54.1' W, thence to
42 deg.54.4' N....................... 078 deg.54.4' W, thence
along the International Border to
42 deg.52.9' N....................... 078 deg.54.9' W, thence to
42 deg.52.5' N....................... 078 deg.54.3' W, thence to
42 deg.52.7' N....................... 078 deg.53.9' W, thence to
42 deg.52.8' N....................... 078 deg.53.8' W, thence to
42 deg.53.1' N....................... 078 deg.53.6' W, thence to
42 deg.53.2' N....................... 078 deg.53.6' W, thence to
42 deg.53.3' N....................... 078 deg.53.7' W, thence
along the breakwall to
42 deg.54.4' N....................... 078 deg.54.1' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geneva Offshore Grand Prix
Sponsor: Great Lakes Offshore Powerboat Racing Association.
Date: 3rd or 4th weekend of May.
Location: That portion of Lake Erie from:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
41 deg.51.5' N....................... 080 deg.58.2' W, thence to
41 deg.52.4' N....................... 080 deg.53.4' W, thence to
41 deg.53' N......................... 080 deg.53.4' W, thence to
41 deg.52.2' N....................... 080 deg.58.2' W, thence to
41 deg.51.5' N....................... 080 deg.58.2' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NFBRA Red Dog Kilo Time Trials
Sponsor: Niagara Frontier Boat Racing Association.
Date: 4th or 5th weekend of September.
Location: That portion of the Niagara River, Tonawanda Channel,
between Tonawanda Channel Buoy 31 to approximately \1/2\ mile southwest
of Twomile Creek along a line drawn from 43 deg.00'45'' N
078 deg.55'06'' W to 43 deg.00'28'' N 078 deg.54'56'' W (Sipco Oil
Company).
Offshore Series Grand Prix
Sponsor: Great Lakes Offshore Powerboat Racing Assn.
Date: 2nd or 3rd weekend of September.
Location: That portion of Lake Erie from:
[[Page 5682]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
41 deg.51.5' N....................... 080 deg.58.2' W, thence to
41 deg.52.4' N....................... 080 deg.53.4' W, thence to
41 deg.53.0' N....................... 080 deg.53.4' W, thence to
41 deg.52.2' N....................... 080 deg.58.2' W, thence to
41 deg.51.5' N....................... 080 deg.58.2' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sodus Bay 4th of July Fireworks
Sponsor: Sodus Bay Historical Society.
Date: 4th of July holiday.
Location: Lake Ontario, within a 500 foot radius around a barge
anchored in approximate position 43 deg.15.73' N 076 deg.58.23' W, in
Sodus Bay.
Tallship Erie
Sponsor: Erie Maritime Programs, Inc.
Date: 1st or 2nd weekend of July.
Location: That portion of Lake Erie, Presque Isle Bay
Entrance Channel and Presque Isle Bay from:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
42 deg.10' N......................... 080 deg.03' W, thence to
42 deg.08.1' N....................... 080 deg.07' W, thence to
42 deg.07.9' N....................... 080 deg.06.8' W, thence
east along the shoreline and structures to:
42 deg.09.2' N....................... 080 deg.02.6' W, thence to
42 deg.10' N......................... 080 deg.03' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Graves Memorial Fireworks Display
Sponsor: Port Bay Improvement Association.
Date: 1st or 2nd weekend of July.
Location: That portion of Lake Ontario, Port Bay Harbor, NY within
a 500 ft radius surrounding a barge anchored in approximate position
43 deg.17'46'' N 076 deg.50'02'' W.
Thunder Island Offshore Challenge
Sponsor: Thunder on the Water Inc.
Date: 3rd or 4th weekend of June.
Location: That portion of Lake Ontario, Oswego Harbor from the West
Pier Head Light (LLNR 2080) north to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
43 deg.29'02'' N..................... 076 deg.32'04'' W, thence to
43 deg.26'18'' N..................... 076 deg.39'30'' W, thence to
43 deg.24'55'' N..................... 076 deg.37'45'' W, thence
along the shoreline to the West Pier Head Light (LLNR 2080).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We Love Erie Days Fireworks
Sponsor: We Love Erie Days Festival, Inc.
Date: 3rd weekend of August.
Location: That portion of Lake Erie, Erie Harbor, within a 300 foot
radius, surrounding the Erie Sand and Gravel Pier, located in position
42 deg.08'16'' N 080 deg.05'40'' W.
Group Detroit, MI:
Bay City Fireworks Display
Sponsor: Bay City Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 103.
Date: 4th of July holidy.
Location: Saginaw River, from the Veterans Memorial Bridge to
approximately 1000 yards south to the River Walk Pier, near Bay City,
MI.
Detroit APBA Gold Cup Race
Sponsor: Spirit of Detroit Association.
Date: 1st or 2nd weekend of June.
Location: Detroit River, between Belle Isle and the U.S. shoreline,
near Detroit, MI. Bound on the west by the Belle Isle Bridge and on the
east by a north-south line drawn through the Waterworks Intake Crib
Light (LLNR 1022).
Buick Watersports Weekend
Sponsor: Adore Ltd. and APBA.
Date: 3rd or 4th weekend of July.
Location: That portion of the Saginaw River from the Liberty Bridge
on the north to the Veterans Memorial Bridge on the south, near Bay
City, MI
Cleveland Charity Classic
Sponsor: Lake Erie Offshore Racing, Ltd.
Date: 3rd or 4th weekend of July.
Location: That portion of Lake Erie, Cleveland Harbor from the
Cleveland Waterworks Intake Crib Light (LLNR 4030) to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitute Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
41 deg.30.7' N....................... 081 deg.43.1' W (West Pierhead
Light, LLNR 4160), thence along the breakwater to,
41 deg.30.4' N....................... 081 deg.42.9' W (West
Breakwater Light, LLNR 4175), thence to,
41 deg.30.2' N....................... 081 deg.42.8' W (West Pier
Light, LLNR 4185), thence along the shoreline and structures to,
41 deg.32.5' N....................... 081 deg.38.3' W (Disposal
Light B, LLNR 4045). thence to.
41 deg.33' N......................... 081 deg.45' W (Cleveland
Waterwork Intake Crib Light LLNR 4030).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland National Air Show
Sponsor: Cleveland National Air Show.
Date: Labor Day Weekend.
Location: That portion of Lake Erie and Cleveland Harbor (near
Burke Lakefront Airport) from a line running perpendicular from Dock
No. 34 on the west, to 2000 feet north of the breakwater, then parallel
to the breakwater, to a line running perpendicular from the east end of
the Burke Lakefront Airport land fill.
Cleveland Offshore Grand Prix
Sponsor: Great Lakes Offshore Powerboat Racing Assn.
Date: 1st or 2nd weekend of August.
Location: That portion of Lake Erie, Cleveland Harbor from the
Cleveland Waterworks Intake Crib Light to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitute Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
41 deg.30.7' N....................... 081 deg.43.1' W (West Pierhead
Light, LLNR 4160), thence along the breakwater to,
41 deg.30.4' N....................... 081 deg.42.9' W (West
Breakwater Light, LLNR 4175), thence to,
41 deg.30.2' N....................... 081 deg.42.8) W (West Pier
Light, LLNR 4185), thence along the shoreline and structures to,
41 deg.32.5' N....................... 081 deg.38.3' W (Disposal
Light B, LLNR 4045). thence to,
41 deg.33' N......................... 081 deg.45' W (Cleveland
Waterworks Intake Crib Light LLNR 4030).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flatsfest
Sponsor: Flats Riverfest Corporation.
Date: 3rd or 4th weekend of July.
Location: Cuyahoga River, Conrail Railroad Bridge at Mile 0.8 above
the mouth of the river to the Eagle Avenue Bridge, near Cleveland, OH.
International Bay City River Roar
Sponsor: Bay City River Roar, Inc.
Date: 3rd or 4th weekend of June.
Location: That portion of the Saginaw River from the Liberty Bridge
on the north to the Veterans Memorial Bridge on the south, near Bay
City, MI.
International Freedom Festival Fireworks
Sponsor: Detroit Renaissance Foundation.
Date: 3rd or 4th week of June.
Location: The Detroit River between 083 deg.03' W (Cobo Hall) and
083 deg.01'27'' W (Huron Cement).
International Freedom Festival Tug Across the River
Sponsor: Detroit Renaissance Foundation.
Date: 3rd or 4th week of June.
Location: That portion of the Detroit River bounded on the south by
the International Boundary, on the west by 083 deg.03' W, on the east
by 083 deg.02' W, and on the north by the U.S. shoreline.
Port Clinton Offshore Grand Prix
Sponsor: Great Lakes Offshore Powerboat Racing Association.
Date: 1st or 2nd weekend of July.
Location: That portion of western Lake Erie:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitute Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
41 deg.31.2' N....................... 082 deg.56.1' W, thence
along the shoreline and structures to
41 deg.33.3' N....................... 082 deg.51.3' W, thence to
41 deg.33.3' N....................... 082 deg.52.8' W, thence to
41 deg.31.2' N....................... 082 deg.56.1' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5683]]
Port Huron to Mackinac Island Race
Sponsor: Bayview Yacht Club.
Date: 2nd or 3rd weekend of July.
Location: That portion of the Black River, St. Clair River, and
Lower Lake Huron from:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitute Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
42 deg.58.8' N....................... 082 deg.26' W, to
42 deg.58.4' N....................... 082 deg. 24.8' W, thence
northward along the International Boundary to
43 deg. 02.8' N...................... 082 deg.23.8' W, to
43 deg. 02.8' N...................... 082 deg.26.8' W, thence
southward along the U.S. shoreline to
42 deg.58.9' N....................... 082 deg.26' W, thence to
42 deg. 58.8' N...................... 082 deg. 26'W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thunder on the River Hydroplane Race
Sponsor: Toledo Prop Spinners.
Date: 3rd or 4th weekend of August.
Location: Maumee River, between the Martin Luther King and Anthony
Wayne bridges, near Toledo, OH.
Toledo 4th of July Fireworks
Sponsor: City of Toledo.
Date: 4th of July weekend.
Location: Maumee River, between the Martin Luther King and Anthony
Wayne bridges, near Toledo, OH.
Toledo Labor Day Fireworks
Sponsor: Reams Broadcasting Corporation.
Date: Labor Day.
Location: Maumee River, between the Martin Luther King and Anthony
Wayne bridges, near Toledo, OH.
Group Sault Ste. Marie, MI:
Bridgefest Regatta
Sponsor: Bridgefest Committee.
Date: 2nd weekend of June.
Location: Keweenaw Waterway, from the Houghton Hancock Lift Bridge
to 1000 yards west of the bridge, near Houghton, MI.
Duluth Fourth Fest Fireworks
Sponsor: Office of the Mayor, Duluth, MN.
Date: 4th of July weekend.
Location: That portion of the Duluth Harbor Basin Northern Section
bounded on the south by a line drawn on a bearing of 087 deg. true from
the Cargill Pier through Duluth Basin Lighted Buoy #5 (LLNR 15905) to
the opposite shore on the north by the Duluth Aerial Bridge. That
portion of Duluth Harbor Basin Northern Section within 600 yards of
position 46 deg.46'47'' N 092 deg.06'10'' W.
July 4th Fireworks
Sponsor: City of Sault Ste Marie, MI.
Date: 4th of July weekend.
Location: That portion of the St. Marys River, Sault Ste. Marie, MI
within a 1000 foot radius of Brady Park, located on the south shore of
the river. These waters are enclosed by the Locks to the west and to
the east from a line drawn from the pier light of the east center pier
to the U.S. Coast Guard Base to the southeast.
National Cherry Festival Blue Angels Air Demonstration
Sponsor: National Cherry Festival Inc.
Date: 1st week of July.
Location: That portion of the Western arm of the Grand Traverse
Bay, Traverse City, MI, enclosed by straight lines connecting the
following geographic coordinates:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
44 deg.46.8' N....................... 085 deg.38.3' W, to
44 deg.46.5' N....................... 085 deg.35.5' W, to
44 deg.46' N......................... 085 deg.35.8' W, to
44 deg.46.5' N....................... 085 deg.38.5' W, thence to
44 deg.46.8' N....................... 085 deg.38.3' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Venetian Festival Yacht Parade
Sponsor: Charlevoix Chamber of Commerce.
Date: 3rd or 4th weekend of July.
Location: That portion of the upper and lower section of the Pine
River, to include Round Lake, from:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
45 deg.19.3' N....................... 085 deg.15.9' W, (North
Pierhead Light, LLNR 17920) thence to,
45 deg.18.9' N....................... 085 deg.14.7' W, (Pine
River Light 3, LLNR 17945) thence to,
45 deg.18.8' N....................... 085 deg.14.7' W, (Pine
River Channel Lighted Buoy 2, LLNR 17950) thence to,
45 deg.19' N......................... 085 deg.15.9' W, (South
Pierhead Light, LLNR 17925) thence to,
45 deg.19.3' N....................... 085 deg.15.9' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group Grand Haven, MI:
City Fireworks
Sponsor: City of Frankfort, MI.
Date: 4th of July Holiday.
Location: Lake Michigan, Frankfort, MI within a 1000 foot radius of
the fireworks launching site located on Lake Michigan Beach in
approximate position 44 deg.38' N 086 deg.14'50'' W.
Coast Guard Festival Fireworks
Sponsor: Grand Haven Coast Guard Festival, Inc.
Date: 1st weekend of August.
Location: That portion of the Grand River, Grand Haven, MI, from a
north-south line drawn from the North Pierhead Light Number 1 (LLNR
18045) on the north to the South Pierhead Entrance Light (LLNR 18035)
on the south, thence down river to the US 31 Bascule Bridge (mile
2.89).
4th of July Fireworks
Sponsor: WSJM & WIRX RADIO.
Date: 4th of July Holiday.
Location: St. Joseph River, within a 1000 foot radius of the
fireworks launching site, located at the St. Joseph South Pier, in
approximate position 42 deg.06'48'' N 086 deg.29'15'' W.
Grand Haven Area Jaycees Annual 4th of July Fireworks Display
Sponsor: Grand Haven Area Jaycees.
Date: 1st week of July.
Location: That portion of the Grand River, Grand Haven, MI from the
pier heads (mile 0.0) to the US 31 Bascule Bridge (mile 2.89).
Holland Jaycees Fireworks
Sponsor: Holland Jaycees
Date: 4th of July Holiday
Location: The portion of Lake Michigan, Holland, MI within a 1000
foot radius of the fireworks launching site, located in Kollen Park, in
approximate position 42 deg.47'20'' N 086 deg.07'12'' W.
Ludington Area Jaycees Freedom Festival Fireworks
Sponsor: Ludington Area Jaycees.
Date: 4th of July Holiday.
Location: Lake Michigan, Ludington Harbor, MI, within a 1000 foot
radius of the fireworks launching site located at the Loomis Street
Boat Launch, in approximate position 43 deg.57'16'' N 086 deg.27'42''
W.
Muskegon Summer Celebration Fireworks
Sponsor: The Muskegon Summer Celebration.
Date: 4th of July Holiday.
Location: That portion of Muskegon Lake, in the vicinity of
Heritage Landing, within a 1000 foot radius of the fireworks launching
site, located in approximate position 43 deg.13'52'' N 086 deg.15'48''
W.
Impact on Special Anchorage Area regulations: Regulations for that
portion of the Muskegon Lake East Special Anchorage Area, as described
in 33 CFR 110.81(b), which are overlapped by this regulation, are
suspended during this event. The remaining area of the Muskegon Lake
East Special Anchorage Area not impacted by this regulation remains
available for anchoring during this event.
South Haven 4th of July Fireworks
Sponsor: South Haven Jaycees.
Date: 4th of July Holiday.
Location: Lake Michigan, Black River, South Haven, MI within a 1000
foot radius of the fireworks launching site located on the North Pier,
in
[[Page 5684]]
approximate position 42 deg.24'08'' N 086 deg.17'03'' W. Datum: NAD
1902.
Tulip Time Fireworks and Water Ski Show
Sponsor: Holland Tulip Time Festival Inc.
Date: 1st weekend of May.
Location: That portion of Lake Macatawa, Holland Harbor, east of a
north-south line, from shore to shore, at position 086 deg.08' W.
Tulip Time Water Ski Show
Sponsor: Holland Tulip Time Festival Inc.
Date: 2nd weekend of May.
Location: That portion of Lake Macatawa, Holland Harbor, east of a
north-south line, from shore to shore, at position 086 deg.08' W.
Van Andel Fireworks Show
Sponsor: Amway Corporation, Ada, MI.
Date: 4th of July Holiday.
Location: Lake Michigan, Holland Harbor, MI, South Pier, within a
1000 foot radius of the fireworks launching site located in approximate
position 42 deg.46'21'' N 086 deg.12'48'' W.
Venetian Festival Fireworks Display
Sponsor: Venetian Festival on the St. Joseph River Inc.
Date: 3rd weekend of July
Location: St. Joseph River, within a 1,000-foot radius of the
fireworks launching site, located at the St. Joseph South Pier, in
approximate position 42 deg.06'48'' N 086 deg.29'15'' W.
Waves of Thunder Offshore Spectacular
Sponsor: Michigan Offshore Powerboat Racing Association
Date: 3rd weekend of June
Location: That portion of Lake Michigan, from the South Pierhead
Light (LLNR 18520) south along the shoreline to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitute Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
42 deg.19' N......................... 086 deg.19.3' W, thence to
42 deg.19.5' N....................... 086 deg.19.8' W, thence to
42 deg.23.9' N....................... 086 deg.18.7' W, thence to
42 deg.23.9' N....................... 086 deg.17' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Michigan Offshore Powerboat Challenge
Sponsor: Michigan Offshore Powerplant Racing Association
Date: 1st or 2nd weekend of September
Location: That portion of Lake Michigan from:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
43 deg.03.4' N....................... 086 deg.15.3' W (Grand Haven
South Pierhead Entrance Light,
LLNR 18965), thence along the
breakwater and shoreline to
42 deg.54.8' N....................... 086 deg.13' W, thence to
42 deg.54.8' N....................... 086 deg.15.7' W, thence to
43 deg.03.4' N....................... 086 deg.15.7' W, thence to
43 deg.03.4' N....................... 086 deg.15.3' W (Grand Haven
South Pierhead Entrance Light,
LLNR 18965).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group Milwaukee, WI:
Chicago Air and Water Show
Sponsor: Chicago Park District
Date: 3rd or 4th weekend of August
Location: That portion of Lake Michigan from 41 deg.55'54'' N at
the shoreline, then east to a point at 41 deg.55'54'' N 87 deg.37'12''
W, thence southeast to a point at 41 deg.54' N 87 deg.36' W, then a
line drawn southwestward to the northeast corner of the Central
District Filtration Plant Breakwall, thence due west to shore.
Festa Italiana
Sponsor: The Italian Community Center
Date: 3rd weekend of July
Location: The uncharted lagoon or basin in Milwaukee Harbor north
of the mouth of the Milwaukee River and directly adjacent to the
Summerfest grounds, enclosed by shore on the west and a ``comma''
shaped man-made rock wall on the east. The construction of the lagoon
is such that a small ``basin'' has been created with one entrance
located at the northwest end, thus, there is no ``thru traffic''.
Milwaukee Summerfest
Sponsor: Milwaukee World Festival, Inc.
Date: Last week of June through 2nd weekend of July
Location: the unchartered lagoon or basin in Milwaukee Harbor north
of the mouth of the Milwaukee River and directly adjacent to the
Summerfest grounds, enclosed by shore on the west and a ``comma''
shaped man-made rock wall on the east. The construction of the lagoon
is such that a small ``basin'' has been created with one entrance
located at the northwest end, thus, there is no ``thru traffic''. Four
special buoys will be set by the sponsor to delineate the entrance to
the lagoon.
Racine on the Lakefront Airshow
Sponsor: Rotary Club of Racine
Date: 2nd weekend of June
Location: That portion of Racine Harbor, Lake Michigan bounded by
the following corner points:
Southeast Corner--42 deg.41.95' N 87 deg.45.5' W
Southwest Corner--42 deg.41.95' N 87 deg.47.2' W
Northwest Corner--42 deg.45.6' N 87 deg.46.2' W
Northeast Corner--42 deg.45.6' N 87 deg.45.5' W
* * * * *
Dated: January 25, 1996.
G.F. Woolever,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 96-3254 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3253 Organization and Delegation of Powers and Duties Great Lakes Pilotage Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5720-5721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3253]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
46 CFR Ch. III
46 CFR Parts 401 and 402
Organization and Delegation of Powers and Duties Great Lakes
Pilotage Regulations
AGENCY: United States Coast Guard; Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard's responsibility for administering the
Secretary's functions under the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960, as
amended, (the Act) was transferred from the Coast Guard to the Saint
Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) on December 11, 1995.
This rule revises those portions of the Coast Guard's Great Lakes
Pilotage Regulations and Great Lakes Pilotage Rules and Orders that are
necessary for SLSDC to carry out its responsibilities under the Act.
This rule is necessary to reflect the changed responsibilities.
DATES: This rule is effective on February 14, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marc C. Owen, Chief Counsel, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation, United States Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street
SW., Washington, DC 20590, room 5424, (202) 366-6823, or Pamela M.
Pelcovitz, Chief, Regulations and Administrative Law Division, United
States Coast Guard, United States Department of Transportation, 400 7th
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (202) 267-1534.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By final rule published in the Federal
Register on December 11, 1995 (60 FR 63444), the Coast Guard's
responsibility for administering the Secretary's functions under the
Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960, as amended, (the Act) was transferred
to the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC), effective
on the date of publication. This final rule makes changes to those
portions of the Coast Guard's Great Lakes Pilotage Regulations and
Great Lakes Pilotage Rules and Orders that are necessary for SLSDC to
carry out its responsibilities under the Act.
This rule revises the references in the Great Lakes Pilotage
Regulations (46 CFR part 401) and the Great Lakes
[[Page 5721]]
Pilotage Rules and Orders (46 CFR part 402) from the Coast Guard to the
SLSDC. It also changes the title of 46 CFR chapter III, in which parts
401 and 402 are contained, from ``COAST GUARD (GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE),
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'' to ``SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION (GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE), DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.'' If
any revisions are needed in the remainder of Chapter III, specifically
the Great Lakes Pilotage Uniform Accounting System (46 CFR part 403)
and Great Lakes Pilotage Ratemaking (46 CFR part 404), they will be
made in a Great Lakes Pilotage Rate Methodology rulemaking, which will
be published in the Federal Register shortly.
Since this rule relates to departmental management, organization,
procedure, and practice, notice and public comment are unnecessary. For
the same reason, good cause exists for not publishing this rule at
least 30 days before its effective date, as is ordinarily required by 5
U.S.C. 553(d). Because the transfer of Great Lakes Pilotage
responsibility has already occurred, it is necessary to reflect the
redesignation in the Code of Federal Regulations immediately.
Accordingly, this rule is effective on the date of its publication in
the Federal Register.
46 CFR Part 401
Administration practice and procedure, Coast Guard, Great Lakes,
Navigation (water).
46 CFR Part 402
Coast Guard, Great Lakes, Navigation (water).
Accordingly, 46 CFR chapter III is amended as follows:
CHAPTER III--[AMENDED]
1. The heading of chapter III is revised to read as follows:
CHAPTER III--SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (GREAT LAKES
PILOTAGE), DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
2. Sections 401.110 (a)(2) and (a)(9) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 401.110 [Amended]
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) Administrator means Administrator, St. Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590 or
180 Andrews St., Massena, NY 13662-1763.
* * * * *
(9) Director, means Director, Great Lakes Pilotage, on the staff of
the Administrator, St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.
* * * * *
3. In 46 CFR parts 401 and 402, remove the word ``Commandant'' and
add, in its place, the word ``Director'' in the following places:
(a) Section 401.210(a)(4);
(b) Section 401.210(a)(7);
(c) Section 401.220(b);
(d) Section 401.240(d);
(e) Section 401.320(d)(2);
(f) Section 401.320(d)(3);
(g) Section 401.510(b)(3), introductory text;
(h) Section 401.710(g); and
(i) Section 402.100.
4. In 46 CFR parts 401 and 402, remove the words ``Coast Guard'',
``United States Coast Guard'', and ``U.S. Coast Guard'' and add, in
their place, the words ``Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation'' in the following places:
(a) Section 401.211(e);
(b) Section 401.230(c);
(c) Section 401.230(d);
(d) Section 401.240(a);
(e) Section 401.250(c);
(f) Section 401.320(d)(4);
(g) Section 401.425;
(h) Section 401.510(b)(2);
(i) Section 401.510(b)(3);
(j) Section 401.600(a);
(k) Section 401.615(b); and
(l) Section 401.620(a).
Sec. 401.230 [Amended]
5. In the second sentence of 46 CFR 401.230(b) add the words ``or
other official of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation''
after the word ``Director''.
Sec. 401.431 [Amended]
6. In 46 CFR 401.431(e) remove the word ``Administration'' and add,
in its place, the words ``Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation''.
Sec. 401.510 [Amended]
7. In 46 CFR 401.510(b)(5) add the words ``or the Director'' after
the words ``local Coast Guard unit having jurisdiction'' and ``Coast
Guard officer to whom the violation was reported''.
8. In 46 CFR part 401 remove the word ``Commandant'' and add, in
its place, the word ``Administrator'' in the following places:
(a) Section 401.615(b); and
(b) Section 401.650.
9. Section 401.250(d) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 401.250 [Amended]
* * * * *
(d) Every U.S. Registered Pilot shall, whenever his license is
revoked or suspended under the provisions of Part 5 of Title 46,
deliver his Certificate of Registration to the Director. If the license
is suspended, the Certificate of Registration will be held and returned
to the holder upon expiration of the suspension period.
Issued at Washington, DC, this 7th day of February 1996.
A.E. Henn,
Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commandant.
Gail C. McDonald,
Administrator, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.
[FR Doc. 96-3253 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3237 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Massachusetts; Automotive Refinishing
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5696-5699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3237]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MA42-1-7174a; A-1-FRL-5329-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts; Automotive Refinishing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
[[Page 5697]]
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This revision
establishes VOC emission standards for automotive refinishing. The
intended effect of this action is to approve a revision to
Massachusetts SIP which reduces VOC emissions from automotive
refinishing. This action is being taken in accordance with Section
183(e) of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This action is effective April 15, 1996, unless notice is
received by March 15, 1996 that adverse or critical comments will be
submitted. If the effective date is delayed, timely notice will be
published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Susan Studlien, Deputy, Office of
Ecosystems Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I,
JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203. Copies of the documents
relevant to this action are available for public inspection during
normal business hours, by appointment at the Office of Ecosystems
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, One
Congress Street, 10th floor, Boston, MA; Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street
SW. (LE-131), Washington, D.C. 20460; and the Division of Air Quality
Control, Department of Environmental Protection, One Winter Street, 8th
Floor, Boston, MA 02108.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanne Cosgrove, (617) 565-3246.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 183(a) of the Clean Air Act,
EPA was required to issue a control techniques guideline (CTG) for the
category of autobody refinishing. However, EPA has instead issued
guidance for this category in the form of an Alternative Control
Technology (ACT) guideline. While the ACT does not define reasonably
available control technology (RACT) standards for autobody refinishing,
it does include three control options with estimates of costs and
emission reductions for each option. In addition to the section 183(a)
requirements, Section 183(e) of the CAA, requires EPA to issue national
VOC emissions standards for consumer and commercial products, which
include automotive refinishing coatings. EPA expects to propose the
national rule for automotive refinishing coatings in the fall of 1995.
Massachusetts decided to adopt rules for autobody refinishing in
advance of a federal rule, to get credit for reductions from this
category in its 15% plan.
Massachusetts was required to submit, by November 15, 1993, a SIP
revision for Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) for 15% reduction of
VOCs as necessary for moderate areas and above. The entire state of
Massachusetts is classified as serious nonattainment area, therefore
the 15% plan must cover the entire state.
On August 18, 1994, the Massachusetts DEP submitted to EPA for
comment, proposed amendments to the SIP to address the RFP requirements
including new air pollution control regulations 7.18(28) ``autobody
refinishing.'' Massachusetts held public hearings during May 6-13, 1994
and on September 22 and 23, 1994 throughout the State for its proposed
automotive refinishing rule. EPA submitted written comments regarding
the proposed regulations on September 22, 1994. The rule was effective
on December 16, 1994, upon publication in the Massachusetts Register.
On January 9, 1995, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts submitted a
formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP
revision amends 310 CMR 7.00 by adding Section 310 CMR 7.18(28)
autobody refinishing.
The adopted regulation 310 CMR 7.18(28), ``autobody refinishing,''
regulates the VOC content of automotive refinishing products. The
regulation applies to any person who sells, offers for sale, or
manufactures autobody refinishing coatings for sale within
Massachusetts or who owns, leases, operates or controls an automotive
refinishing facility.
Summary of SIP Revision
The adopted air pollution control regulation , 310 CMR 7.18(28)
``autobody refinishing'', establishes Reasonably Available Control
Technology for all automobile refinishing facilities. Automotive
Refinishing facility'' is defined by Massachusetts as ``any facility at
which the interior or exterior bodies of automobiles, motorcycles,
light/medium-duty trucks, or vans are painted. Refinishing of
aftermarket vehicles and new vehicles damaged in transit before their
initial sale are included under this definition.'' The rule established
the following RACT emission limits, expressed as pounds of VOC per
gallon of coating and grams of VOC per liter of coating, excluding
water and exempt solvents:
Table 7.18(28)(c).--RACT Emission Limitations for Automotive Refinishing
Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Emission
limitation
Coating type -------------------
grams/
liter lbs/gal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretreatment Wash Primer............................ 780 6.5
Primer/primer Surfacer.............................. 575 4.8
Primer Sealer....................................... 550 4.6
Topcoat............................................. 600 5.0
Three or Four-Stage Topcoat......................... 620 5.2
Specialty Coating................................... 840 7.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rule gives facilities the option of complying through the use
of compliant coatings, or by installing emission control systems that
result in VOC emissions less than or equal to the limits specified in
Table 7.18(28)(c). The rule also contains the following provisions:
1. Good housekeeping Requirements to minimize solvent evaporation);
2. Equipment Requirements that specify the use of High volume Low
Pressure spray equipment and require spray gun cleaning and solvent
storage in a manner that limit solvent evaporation; and
3. Training, recordkeeping, reporting, biennial compliance
certification requirements.
Facilities are required to comply with the regulation by August 1,
1995.
EPA's evaluation is detailed in a memorandum, entitled ``Technical
Support Document for Massachusetts Air Pollution Control Regulation,
310 CMR 7.18(28), Automotive Refinishing.''
EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be
effective April 15, 1996 unless adverse or critical comments are
received by March 15, 1996.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by simultaneously publishing a subsequent
notice that will withdraw the final action. All public comments
received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this action serving as a proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a
second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time. If no such
comments are
[[Page 5698]]
received, the public is advised that this action will be effective on
April 15, 1996.
Final Action
EPA is approving Section 310 CMR 7.18(28) Automotive refinishing.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22,
1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed
or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of this state implementation plan or plan
revision, the State and any affected local or tribal governments have
elected to adopt the program provided for under Section 183(e) of the
Clean Air Act. These rules may bind State, local and tribal governments
to perform certain actions and also require the private sector to
perform certain duties. To the extent that the rules being approved by
this action will impose no new requirements; such sources are already
subject to these regulations under State law. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action. EPA has also determined that
this final action does not include a mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate or to the private sector.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993,
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. A future document will inform the general public of
these tables.
The OMB has exempted this action from review under Executive Order
12866.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the CAA
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP-
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under the CAA,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410 (a)(2).
On January 6, 1989, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
waived Table 2 and Table 3 revisions (54 FR 2222) from the requirements
of Section 3 of Executive Order 12291 for a period of two years. EPA
has submitted a request for a permanent waiver for Table 2 and Table 3
SIP revisions. OMB has agreed to continue the temporary waiver until
such time as it rules on EPA's request.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any State implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the State implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 15, 1996. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation
Plan for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was approved by the
Director of the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: October 6, 1995.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart W--Massachusetts
2. Section 52.1120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(109) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(109) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection on January 9,
1995.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection, dated January 9, 1995, submitting a revision to the
Massachusetts State Implementation Plan.
(B) The following portions of the Rules Governing the Control of
Air Pollution for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts effective on
December 16, 1994: 310 Code of Massachusetts Regulations Section
7.18(28) Automotive Refinishing.
3. In Sec. 52.1167 Table 52.1167 is amended by adding and new entry
(28) to the end of entry 310 CMR 718 to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1167 EPA--approved Massachusetts State regulations.
* * * * *
[[Page 5699]]
Table 52.1167.--EPA--Approved Massachusetts Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
State citation Title/subject submitted Date approved by EPA Federal Register 52.1120(c) Comments/unapproved
by State citation sections
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.18(28).................. Automotive 01/09/95 February 14, 1996.... Supply Page.......... 109 Reasonably Available
Refinishing. Control Technology
Requirement (RACT)
for automotive
refinishing.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-3237 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3235 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maine: Revisions to the Requirements and Procedures for NSR/PSD License Applications
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5690-5694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3235]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[ME-20-01-6906a; A-1-FRL-5339-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maine: Revisions to the Requirements and Procedures for NSR/PSD License
Applications
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Maine. This revision establishes and requires
the implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 with
regard to New Source Review (NSR) in
[[Page 5691]]
areas which have not attained the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). In addition, the revision contains minor changes to
Maine's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. The
intended effect of this action is to approve the State's request to
amend its SIP to satisfy the Federal requirements. This action is being
taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This action is effective April 15, 1996, unless notice is
received within 30 days that adverse or critical comments will be
submitted. If the effective date is delayed, timely notice will be
published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Susan Studlien, Acting Director,
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203.
Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment, at the
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, 10th floor, Boston,
MA; Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW. (LE-131), Washington, DC 20460; and
the Bureau of Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental
Protection, 71 Hospital Street, Augusta, ME 04333.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brendan McCahill, (617) 565-3262.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 12, 1994, the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) submitted revisions to its SIP
pertaining to the requirements and procedures for the processing and
approval of license applications for new or modified stationary sources
of air pollution. The revisions consist of modifications to Chapter
100, ``Definitions Regulations,'' Chapter 113, ``Growth Offset
Regulation,'' and Chapter 115, ``Emission License Regulation'' and
primarily affects major source licensing in nonattainment areas
including the ozone nonattainment areas.
This notice is divided into four sections for clarity. Section I
discusses the procedural background concerning Maine's SIP submittal.
Section II discusses the revisions to the general requirements for
nonattainment NSR. Section III discusses the revisions to the specific
requirements for NSR in the ozone nonattainment areas. Section IV
discusses revisions to Maine's PSD program. Section V discusses the
EPA's final action.
EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be
effective April 15, 1996, unless, by March 15, 1996, adverse or
critical comments are received.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by simultaneously publishing a subsequent
notice that will withdraw the final action. All public comments
received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this action serving as a proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a
second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time. If no such
comments are received, the public is advised that this action will be
effective on April 15, 1996.
I. Procedural Background
Section 110(k) of the CAA sets out provisions governing EPA's
review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566, April 16, 1992). The
CAA requires States to observe certain procedural requirements in
developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation
plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and
public hearing.\1\ Section 110(l) of the Act similarly provides that
each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the
Act must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public
hearing.
\1\ Section 172(c)(7) of the Act provides that plan provisions
for nonattainment areas shall meet the applicable provisions of
section 110(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete and
therefore warrants further EPA review and action (see CAA section
110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565, April 16, 1992). The EPA's completeness
criteria for SIP submittals are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V
(1991), as amended by 57 FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). The EPA attempts
to make completeness determinations within 60 days of receiving a
submission. However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation of law
under section 110(k)(1)(B) if a completeness determination is not made
by EPA within 6 months after receipt of the submission.
The State of Maine held a public hearing on May 25, 1994, to
entertain public comment on the NSR implementation plan. Following the
public hearing, the plan was adopted by Maine's Board of Environmental
Protection on June 22, 1994. The plan was filed with the Secretary of
State on July 5, 1994, and became effective on July 11, 1994. The plan
was submitted to EPA on July 12, 1994 as a proposed revision to the
SIP.
The SIP revision was reviewed by EPA to determine completeness
shortly after its submittal, in accordance with the completeness
criteria referenced above. The submittal was found to be complete on
July 14, 1994 and a letter dated July 14, 1994 was forwarded to Debrah
Richard, Acting Commissioner, Department of Environmental Protection,
indicating the completeness of the submittal and the next steps to be
taken in the review process.
II. General Requirements for Nonattainment NSR
A. Background
The air quality planning requirements for nonattainment NSR are set
out in part D of subchapter I of the Act. The EPA has issued a
``General Preamble'' describing EPA's preliminary views on how EPA
intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under part D,
including those State submittals containing nonattainment area NSR SIP
requirements (see 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April
28, 1992)). Because EPA is describing its interpretations here only in
broad terms, the reader should refer to the General Preamble for a more
detailed discussion of the interpretations of part D advanced in
today's proposal and the supporting rationale.
B. Summary of Maine's Regulation
The general nonattainment NSR requirements are found in sections
172 and 173 of part D of subchapter I of the Act and must be met by all
nonattainment areas. The following paragraphs reference the
nonattainment NSR requirements that were required to be submitted to
EPA by November 15, 1992 and explain how Maine's rules meet those
requirements. Some of these provisions were already contained in
Maine's existing SIP while others are being approved today.
1. Chapter 113(2)(A) of Maine's regulations establishes provisions
in accordance with section 173(a)(1)(A) of the CAA to assure that
calculations of emissions offsets are based on the same
[[Page 5692]]
emissions baseline used in the demonstration of Reasonable Further
Progress (RFP).
2. Chapter 113(2)(C)(3) (a) and (b) of Maine's regulations
establishes provisions in accordance with section 173(c)(1) of the CAA
to allow offsets to be obtained in another nonattainment area if: (i)
The area has an equal or higher nonattainment classification; and, (ii)
emissions from the other nonattainment area contribute to a NAAQS
violation in the area in which the source would construct.
3. Chapter 113(2)(E)(3) of Maine's regulations establishes
provisions in accordance with section 173(c)(1) of the CAA that any
license to a new or modified source must be in effect and enforceable
by the time the new or modified source commences operation.
4. Chapter 113(2)(E)(3) of Maine's regulations establishes
provisions in accordance with section 173(c)(1) of the CAA to assure
that emissions increases from new or modified sources are offset by
real reductions in actual emissions.
5. Chapter 113(2)(D) (1), (2) and (3) of Maine's regulations
establishes provisions in accordance with section 173(c)(2) of the CAA
to prevent emissions reductions otherwise required by the Act from
being credited for purposes of satisfying part D offset requirements.
6. The 1990 CAAA modified the Act's provisions on growth allowances
in nonattainment areas by (1) eliminating existing growth allowances in
the nonattainment area that received a notice prior or subsequent to
the Amendments that the SIP was substantially inadequate, and (2)
restricting growth allowances to only those portions of nonattainment
areas formally targeted as special zones for economic growth. Sections
173(b) and 173(a)(1)(B) of the CAA. Maine's regulations do not contain
provisions for growth allowances and are consequently consistent with
the Act. 9
7. Chapter 115(V)(B)(2)(C) of Maine's regulations establishes
provisions in accordance with section 173(a)(5) of the CAA that, as a
prerequisite to issuing any part D license, require an analysis of
alternative sites, sizes, production processes, and analysis of
alternative sites, sizes, production processes, and environmental
control techniques for proposed sources that demonstrates that the
benefits of the proposed source significantly outweigh the
environmental and social costs imposed as a result of its location,
construction, or modification.
8. Maine and the EPA-New England office, have established a
mechanism through the Regional grants program to supply information
from nonattainment NSR licenses to EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse
in accordance with section 173(d) of the CAA.
9. Chapter 115(V)(B)(2)(a) of Maine's regulations establishes
provisions, in accordance with section 173(a)(3) of the CAA, to assure
that owners or operators of each proposed new or modified major
stationary source demonstrate, as a condition of license issuance, that
all other major stationary sources under the same ownership in the
State are in compliance with the CAA.
III. General Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment NSR
A. Background
The general nonattainment NSR requirements are found in sections
172 and 173 of part D of subchapter I of the Act and must be met by all
nonattainment areas. The requirements for ozone that supplement or
supersede these requirements are found in subpart 2 of part D. In
addition to requirements for ozone nonattainment areas, subpart 2
includes section 182(f), which states that requirements for major
stationary sources of VOC shall apply to major stationary sources of
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) unless the Administrator makes certain
determinations related to the benefits or contribution of NOX
control to air quality, ozone attainment, or ozone air quality. States
were required under section 182(a)(2)(C) to adopt new NSR rules for
ozone nonattainment areas by November 15, 1992.
B. Summary of Maine's Submittal
Pursuant to section 172(c)(5) of the CAA, State implementation
plans must require permits for the construction and operation of new or
modified major stationary sources in nonattainment areas. The federal
statutory permit requirements for ozone nonattainment areas are
generally contained in revised section 173, and in subpart 2 of
Subchapter I, part D of the CAA. These are the minimum requirements
that States must include in an approvable implementation plan. For all
classifications of ozone nonattainment areas and for ozone transport
regions (OTRs), States must adopt the appropriate major source
thresholds and offset ratios, and must adopt provisions to ensure that
any new or modified major stationary source of NOX satisfies the
requirements applicable to any major source of VOC, unless a special
NOX exemption is granted by the Administrator under the provision
of section 182(f). For serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas,
State plans must implement sections 182(c) (6), (7) and (8) with regard
to modifications of major sources. The State of Maine currently
contains moderate, marginal and nonclassified nonattainment areas, as
well as areas classified as attainment. However, the entire State is
contained within the OTR (see section 184 of the CAA). The CAA
provisions that apply to the OTR provide equal or more stringent
requirements than those provisions applicable to the marginal and
moderate nonattainment areas and under the CAA are applicable
throughout the State. Therefore, Maine must adopt, as a minimum, the
provisions of the CAA applicable to the OTR into its plans.
The following paragraphs reference the ozone nonattainment and OTR
NSR requirements which Maine was required to submit to EPA by November
15, 1992 and how Maine has met those requirements.
1. Chapters 100(58) and 100(101) of Maine's regulations establish a
major source threshold level for the OTR of 40 tons per year (tpy) for
VOC. Because the major source threshold level for the OTR as required
under section 184(b)(2) of the CAA is 50 tpy for VOC, Maine has met
this requirement.
2. Chapters 100(58) and 100(101) of Maine's regulations establish,
in accordance with sections 184(b)(2), 182(f) and 302(j) of the CAA, a
major source threshold level for the OTR of 100 tpy for NOX.
3. Chapter 113(2)(C) (1) and (2) of Maine's regulation establish,
in accordance with sections 184(b)(2), 182(b)(5) and 182(f) of the CAA,
an offset ratio of 1.15 to 1 for major sources or major modifications
to major sources of VOC and NOX in the OTR.
IV. Revisions to PSD and Other NSR Programs
Summary of Maine's Submittal
Permitting requirements for the construction of major new sources
and major modifications to major sources in attainment/unclassifiable
areas are set out in part C of Subchapter I of the CAA and in 40 CFR
51.166, and must be met by all State PSD program SIPs. Maine has
revised various provisions in its PSD program to make them consistent
with the Federal rules.
A brief description of the revisions is as follows:
(a) In Chapter 100(101) of Maine's regulation, the threshold level
for new major sources of NOX in NOX attainment areas was
changed from 40 to 100 tpy. This is consistent with the requirements at
40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(i)(a).
(b) In Chapter 100(101) of Maine's regulations, the definition of
[[Page 5693]]
``significant'' was revised to include the significance levels for
municipal waste combustor pollutants. The threshold levels are
consistent with the requirements at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i).
(c) Chapter 115(II)(D) of Maine's regulations establishes
provisions to exempt pollution control projects from Maine's air
emissions license requirements to the extent allowed under the CAA. To
be exempt, a project must meet all requirements of applicable State and
EPA rules, policies and guidelines which specifically address
exemptions from the NSR and PSD programs for pollution control
projects.
V. Final Action
EPA is approving the revisions to the following parts of the State
of Maine's regulations: Chapter 100, ``Definition Regulations,''
Chapter 113, ``Growth Offset Regulation'' and Chapter 115, ``Emissions
License Regulation.'' These revisions became effective on the State
level on July 11, 1994. These revisions meet the nonattainment area NSR
provisions of part D of the CAA as well as the requirements of the
General Preamble and other miscellaneous requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Madates Act''), signed into law on March 22,
1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed
or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of this state implementation plan or plan
revision, the State and any affected local or tribal governments have
elected to adopt the program provided for under Section 110 of the
Clean Air Act. These rules may bind State, local and tribal governments
to perform certain actions and also require the private sector to
perform certain duties. To the extent that the rules being approved by
this action will impose no new requirements; such sources are already
subject to these regulations under State law. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action. EPA has also determined that
this final action does not include a mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate or to the private sector.
The OMB has exempted this action from review under Executive Order
12866.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP-
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under the CAA,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from review under Executive Order
12866.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any State implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the State implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 15, 1996. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation
Plan for the State of Maine was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: September 25, 1995.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, Region I.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart U--Maine
2. Section 52.1020 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(37) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1020 Identification of plan
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(37) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the
Maine Department of Environmental Protection on July 12, 1994.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection
dated July 5, 1994 submitting a revision to the Maine State
Implementation Plan.
(B) Maine's Chapter 100 entitled, ``Definition Regulations.'' This
regulation was effective in the State of Maine on July 11, 1994.
(C) Maine's Chapter 113 entitled, ``Growth Offset Regulation.''
This regulation was effective in the State of Maine on July 11, 1994.
(D) Maine's Chapter 115 entitled, ``Emission License Regulation,''
except for Section 115(VII)(E) of this Chapter and all references to
this Section. This regulation was effective in the State of Maine on
July 11, 1994.
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Nonregulatory portions of the State submittal.
3. In Sec. 52.1031 Table 52.1031 is amended by adding new entries
to the end of existing state citations for Chapters 100, 113 and 115 to
read as follows:
[[Page 5694]]
Sec. 52.1031 EPA-approved Maine regulations.
* * * * *
Table 52.1031--EPA-Approved Rules and Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Date
State citation Title/subject adopted by approved by Federal Register citation 52.1020
State EPA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
100.............. Definitions Regulation........ 6/22/94 2/14/96 [Insert FR citation from (c)(37).......... Addition of 1990 Part D
published date]. NSR and other CAAA
requirements.
* * * * * * *
113.............. Growth Offset Regulation...... 6/22/94 2/14/96 [Insert FR citation from (c)(37).......... Addition of 1990 Part D
published date]. NSR requirements.
* * * * * * *
115.............. Emission License Regulation... 6/22/94 2/14/96 [Insert FR citation from (c)(37).......... Addition of 1990 Part D
published date]. NSR and other CAAA
requirements.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 52.1026 [Amended]
4. Sec. 52.1026 is amended by adding the words ``as amended by the
CAAA of 1990.'' to the last sentence.
[FR Doc. 96-3235 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3233 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Approval of 112(l) Authority; Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department (LLCHD) and City of Omaha (Nebraska)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5699-5701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3233]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[NE-9-1-7220a; FRL-5409-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Approval of
112(l) Authority; Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department (LLCHD)
and City of Omaha (Nebraska)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final action approves the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the state of Nebraska on behalf of the two local air
pollution control agencies. The state has an approved program
(published in the Federal Register on January 4, 1995), and the local
agencies have adopted the same regulatory framework in order to issue
Federally enforceable Class II permits. This request is sound, since
the local agencies will administer independent Title V programs and
should also offer relevant sources the alternative Class II permits.
Furthermore, all applicable sources in the state (and in the local
agencies' jurisdiction) are already subject to the requirements of the
Class II operating permit program. Therefore, the only practical change
created by this SIP revision for sources in Omaha or Lincoln-Lancaster
County is that these Class II permits will be issued by the local
agencies instead of the state.
This revision includes the creation of a Class II operating permit
program and adopts the state's Part D (nonattainment) new source review
rule changes, SO2 rule corrections, and provisions for compliance
and enforcement information. These revisions are identical to those
adopted by the state and have been approved by EPA in the January 4,
1995 Federal Register. The EPA's rationale for that approval is
contained in the cited Federal Register document and in the ``Technical
Support Document (TSD) for a Revision to the Nebraska SIP and Request
for Approval under Section 112(l)'' dated August 12, 1994, which is
also part of the rationale for this approval.
The creation of a Class II operating permit program enables the
local agencies, like the state, to have a Federally enforceable program
for sources not covered by the requirements for Title V sources under
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and part 70 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), and for sources not subject to Title V because they
are able to obtain a Class II permit.
DATES: This action is effective April 15, 1996 unless by March 15, 1996
adverse or critical comments are received.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the:
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch,
726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; and EPA Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher D. Hess at (913) 551-7213.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In February 1994, the state of Nebraska
submitted an SIP revision to create a Class II operating permit program
for sources not otherwise subject to Title V which became effective on
March 6, 1995. Thereafter, the two local agencies adopted the state's
regulations in order to create Class II operating permit programs in
their respective jurisdictions as well.
Specifically, the LLCHD has used Title 129 (Nebraska's Air Quality
Regulations) to create the ``Lincoln-Lancaster County Air Pollution
Control Program'' (adopted May 16, 1995), but uses a different
reference system (article and section) instead of Title 129's system of
chapter and section. Nevertheless, the content of the local program
rules as it applies to operating permits is identical to Title 129. The
city of Omaha has incorporated the state's regulation by reference
(adopted March 23, 1995).
Following the adoption of these rules, the state submitted a
request on May 31, 1995, on behalf of LLCHD to completely replace the
LLCHD portion of the SIP with the regulations cited above to create a
Federally enforceable Class II program. On June 2, 1995, the state
submitted a similar request on behalf of the city of Omaha for the same
purpose. The state has also requested approval of these programs
pursuant to section 112(l) of the Act, which governs state programs for
regulation of hazardous air pollutants (HAP).
Since the local agencies use the same regulatory basis as the
state's, and this revision merely enables the local agencies to
administer the requirements that sources in their jurisdictions are
already subject to, this notice does not duplicate the topics addressed
at 60 FR 372-375 published in the Federal Register on January 4, 1995.
The reader may consult that notice for a review of the provisions for
which the EPA has already provided analysis and determined
approvability. In summary, EPA reviewed the state, and subsequently the
local, Class II programs to determine if they are consistent with the
guidance for approval of Federally enforceable state operating permit
programs (54 FR 27281, June 28, 1989). EPA determined that the state
program is consistent with that guidance, and has now determined that
the local programs meet the guidance as well.
Furthermore, the reader may request the TSD for a revision to the
Nebraska SIP and request for approval under section 112(l) dated August
12, 1994, for a complete and thorough discussion of the revision as it
relates to the state Class II program. The reader may also request the
TSD for a revision to the Nebraska SIP creating a Class II Operating
Permit Program for the city of Omaha and LLCHD dated September 1, 1995.
These documents are available at
[[Page 5700]]
the locations stated in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
Approval of 112(l) Authority
The state has also requested that the local agencies' operating
permits program be approved pursuant to section 112(l) of the Act. By
approving the program under this provision, the local agencies may
impose requirements for HAPs which are subject to EPA enforcement under
the Clean Air Act (CAA). One effect of this rule is that limitations on
potential-to-emit hazardous pollutants, issued in accordance with the
approved program will be recognized as Federally enforceable by EPA.
Thus, sources may voluntarily restrict their potential emissions of
HAPs and be issued a Class II permit to avoid the more extensive
requirements of Title V.
In order to receive approval, the programs must meet specific
criteria for approval under 112(l) which include:
1. Adequate authority within the program to ensure compliance by
all sources with each applicable standard, regulation, or requirement
established by the Administrator. As part of the state's submittal to
create the Class II program, an Attorney General's statement was
provided which ensures necessary legal authority and compliance by all
sources within the state. The local agencies have also provided
statements of adequate authority from their legal counsels.
2. Adequate authority to implement the program. As part of the
state's SIP revision, appropriate copies of state statutes,
regulations, and other requirements which contain the relevant
provisions demonstrating authority to implement and enforce the state
rule upon approval have been submitted to the EPA and deemed
approvable. The local agencies have also submitted provisions which
demonstrate adequate authority to implement the program.
3. Adequate resources to implement the program. Both local agencies
have committed to provide adequate resources in resource demonstrations
that comprehensively address requirements of the Title V and SIP-based
operating permit programs which is inclusive of 112(l) requirements.
4. An expeditious schedule for implementing the program and
ensuring compliance by the affected sources. Class II permit
applications are due within 12 months of the effective date of the
regulations (May 1995).
Based on the review described above, the EPA is approving the Class
II operating permit program for the control of air toxics that allow
sources to limit their potential to emit of HAPs under section 112(l)
of the Act.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
Although the local agencies' adoption of the state's rules include
PSD regulations, the EPA herein notes that only the state program
includes an approved part 51 program to issue PSD permits. As part of
the Class II program, the local agencies will act as agents of the
state to administer and enforce requirements applicable under PSD,
although only the state will actually issue these permits.
Variances
Both local agencies have the authority to issue a variance from
requirements imposed by state or local law based on Nebraska Revised
Statute Sec. 81-1513.
However, the EPA has no authority to approve provisions of state
and local authority, such as the variance provisions, which are
inconsistent with the Act. Thus, any proposed variance must be
submitted as a request for a revision to the SIP.
Furthermore, the EPA reserves the right to enforce provisions of
the Act where the permitting authority purports to grant relief in a
manner inconsistent with the requirements of the Act.
EPA Action
EPA is taking final action to approve revisions submitted May 31
and June 2, 1995, for the LLCHD and city of Omaha, respectively. All
revisions discussed in this notice are considered approvable by the
EPA. This action also approves the revisions under section 112(l) of
the Act for these local programs.
This action does not include several requirements unique to the
local programs, such as the regulation of odors, which do not address
CAA requirements. These excluded portions are specified in the TSD for
this action, dated September 1, 1995.
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in the Federal
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be filed.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule, based on this action serving as a
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should
do so at this time.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for a revision shall be considered
separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental
factors, and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory
requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the CAA
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the state is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP
approval does not impose any new requirements, EPA certifies that it
does not have a significant impact on any small entities affected.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under the
CAA, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds
(Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory
action from E.O. 12866 review.
Unfunded Mandates
Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22,
1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed
or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to
state,
[[Page 5701]]
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of this SIP revision, the state has elected to
adopt the program provided for under section 110 of the CAA. These
rules may bind state and local governments to perform certain actions,
and also require the private sector to perform certain duties. To the
extent that the rules being finalized for approval by this action will
impose new requirements, sources are already subject to these
regulations under state law.
Accordingly, no additional costs to state or local governments, or
to the private sector, result from this final action. EPA has also
determined that this final action does not include a mandate that may
result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to state or local
governments in the aggregate or to the private sector.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 15, 1996. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review, nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: December 7, 1995.
William Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart CC--Nebraska
2. Section 52.1420 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(44) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1420 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(44) On May 31 and June 2, 1995, the Director of the Nebraska
Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) submitted revisions to the
SIP to update the local ordinances of the Lincoln-Lancaster County
Health Department and city of Omaha, respectively, and to create
Federally enforceable Class II operating permit programs for these
agencies.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) 1993 Lincoln-Lancaster County Air Pollution Control Program,
Version March 1995, effective May 16, 1995. This includes the following
citations: Article I (except Section 6); Article II, Sections 1-12, 14-
17, 19-20, 22, 24-25, 32-38; and Appendix I.
(B) Ordinance No. 33102 dated November 2, 1993, which adopts
Chapter 41, Article I, Sections 41-4 through 41-6; 41-9; 41-10; Article
II, Sections 41-23; 41-27; 41-38; and 41-40 and Article IV of the Omaha
Municipal Code. Ordinance No. 33506 dated March 21, 1995, amends
Chapter 41, Article I, Sections 41-2 and 41-9 of the Omaha Municipal
Code and adopts Title 129, Nebraska Air Quality Regulations, approved
December 2, 1994.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) Letter from the city of Omaha dated September 13, 1995,
regarding adequate authority to implement section 112(l).
(B) Letter from the NDEQ dated November 9, 1995, regarding rule
omissions and PSD.
3. Section 52.1427 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1427 Operating permits.
Emission limitations and related provisions which are established
in the city of Omaha and Lincoln-Lancaster operating permits as
Federally enforceable conditions shall be enforceable by EPA. The EPA
reserves the right to deem permit conditions not Federally enforceable.
Such a determination will be made according to appropriate procedures
and be based upon the permit, permit approval procedures, or permit
requirement which do not conform with the operating permit program
requirements or the requirements of EPA underlying regulations.
[FR Doc. 96-3233 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3231 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5701-5704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3231]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 95-9-7273a; FRL-5411-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California
State Implementation Plan Revision, San Diego County Air Pollution
Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action granting limited approval
and limited disapproval of revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions concern a rule from the San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD). The revised rule
controls VOC emissions from kelp processing and bio-polymer
manufacturing operations. This final action will incorporate this rule
into the federally approved SIP. The intended effect of finalizing this
action is to regulate emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in
1990 (CAA or the Act). Thus, EPA is finalizing a simultaneous limited
approval and limited disapproval of the revised rule under CAA
provisions regarding EPA action on SIP submittals and general
rulemaking authority because the rule, while strengthening the SIP,
also does not fully meet the CAA provisions regarding plan submissions
and plan requirements for nonattainment areas. As a result of the
limited disapproval portion of this action, EPA will be required to
impose highway funding or emission offset sanctions under the CAA
unless the State submits and EPA approves corrections to the identified
deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of this
disapproval. Moreover, EPA will be required to promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) unless the deficiencies are corrected within
24 months of the effective date of this disapproval.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective on April 15, 1996, unless
adverse or critical comments are received by March 15, 1996. If the
effective date is delayed, a timely notice will be published in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the rule and EPA's evaluation report for the rule
are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX office during
normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rule are also available
for inspection at the following locations:
[[Page 5702]]
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M''
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, 9150 Chesapeake
Drive, San Diego, CA 92123-1096
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia A. Bowlin, Rulemaking Section
(A-5-3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901,
Telephone: (415) 744-1188.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicability
The rule being incorporated into the California SIP is SDCAPCD Rule
67.10, Kelp Processing and Bio-Polymer Manufacturing Operations. This
rule was submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to EPA
on July 13, 1994.
Background
On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment
areas under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977
(1977 Act or pre-amended Act), that included the San Diego Area. 43 FR
8964, 40 CFR 81.305. On May 26, 1988, EPA notified the Governor of
California, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the 1977 Act, that the
SDCAPCD's portion of the California SIP was inadequate to attain and
maintain the ozone standard and requested that deficiencies in the
existing SIP be corrected (EPA's SIP-Call). On November 15, 1990, the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Public Law 101-549, 104
Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. In amended section
182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, Congress statutorily adopted the requirement
that nonattainment areas fix their deficient reasonably available
control technology (RACT) rules for ozone and established a deadline of
May 15, 1991 for states to submit corrections of those deficiencies.
Section 182(a)(2)(A) applies to areas designated as nonattainment
prior to enactment of the amendments and classified as marginal or
above as of the date of enactment. It requires such areas to adopt and
correct RACT rules pursuant to pre-amended section 172(b) as
interpreted in pre-amendment guidance.1 EPA's SIP-Call used that
guidance to indicate the necessary corrections for specific
nonattainment areas. San Diego Area is classified as Serious; 2
therefore, this area was subject to the RACT fix-up requirement and the
May 15, 1991 deadline.
\1\ Among other things, the pre-amendment guidance consists of
those portions of the proposed Post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987); ``Issues
Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,
Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register
Notice'' (Blue Book) (notice of availability was published in the
Federal Register on May 25, 1988); and the existing control
technique guidelines (CTGs).
\2\ The San Diego Area retained its designation of nonattainment
and was classified by operation of law pursuant to sections 107(d)
and 181(a) upon the date of enactment of the CAA. See 55 FR 56694
(November 6, 1991). The San Diego Area was reclassified from Severe-
15 to Serious on January 19, 1995, 60 FR 3771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of California submitted many revised RACT rules for
incorporation into its SIP on July 13, 1994, including the rule being
acted on in this notice. This notice addresses EPA's direct-final
action for SDCAPCD Rule 67.10, Kelp Processing and Bio-Polymer
Manufacturing Operations. SDCAPCD adopted Rule 67.10 on June 15, 1994.
This submitted rule was found to be complete on September 12, 1994
pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR
part 51, appendix V 3 and is being finalized for limited approval
and limited disapproval into the SIP.
\3\ EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990
(55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA,
revised the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 67.10 controls the emissions of VOCs from kelp processing and
bio-polymer manufacturing operations. VOCs contribute to the production
of ground level ozone and smog. This rule was originally adopted as
part of SDCAPCD's effort to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for ozone and has been revised in response to EPA's
SIP-Call and the section 182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement. The following is
EPA's evaluation and final action for this rule.
EPA Evaluation and Action
In determining the approvability of a VOC rule, EPA must evaluate
the rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and EPA
regulations, as found in section 110 and part D of the CAA and 40 CFR
part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans). The EPA interpretation of these requirements,
which forms the basis for today's action, appears in the various EPA
policy guidance documents listed in footnote 1. Among those provisions
is the requirement that a VOC rule must, at a minimum, provide for the
implementation of RACT for stationary sources of VOC emissions. This
requirement was carried forth from the pre-amended Act.
For the purpose of assisting state and local agencies in developing
RACT rules, EPA prepared a series of Control Technique Guideline (CTG)
documents. The CTGs are based on the underlying requirements of the Act
and specify the presumptive norms for what is RACT for specific source
categories. Under the CAA, Congress ratified EPA's use of these
documents, as well as other Agency policy, for requiring States to
``fix-up'' their RACT rules. See section 182(a)(2)(A). For source
categories that do not have an applicable CTG (such as kelp processing
and bio-polymer manufacturing operations), state and local agencies may
determine what controls are required by reviewing the operation of
facilities subject to the regulation and evaluating regulations for
similar sources in other areas. Within the SDCAPCD there is only one
facility that performs kelp processing and bio-polymer manufacturing
operations. For this source category, the RACT determination required
an evaluation of the manufacturing processes and the emissions specific
to this facility. The evaluation also considered the technological and
economic feasibility of proposed controls at individual emission
points.
Further interpretations of EPA policy are found in the Blue Book,
referred to in footnote 1. In general, the EPA policy guidance
documents have been set forth to ensure that VOC rules are fully
enforceable and strengthen or maintain the SIP.
SDCAPCD's submitted Rule 67.10, Kelp Processing and Bio-Polymer
Manufacturing Operations, includes the following revisions from the
current SIP:
Expansion of rule applicability to include pilot plant
facilities
More stringent recordkeeping requirements for claiming
exemptions
Addition of an exemption for any VOC with normal boiling
point of 185 deg.C or greater
Addition of an exemption for temporary equipment in pilot
plants
Addition of new definitions
Revision of the VOC definition to eliminate the vapor
pressure exemption
Revision of the fugitive liquid leak definition to three
drops per minute, or a visible mist, with greater than 10% by weight
VOC
Deletion of the exemption of presses from fugitive liquid
leak provisions
Revisions to the add-on control efficiency requirements
for manufacturing lines and pilot plants
[[Page 5703]]
Revision to the compliance determination period for add-on
control devices
Deletion of the provision allowing source to appeal
conditional approval/disapproval of an operation and maintenance
program
Deletion of the provision allowing the Air Pollution
Control Officer to recommend relaxations of the VOC control efficiency
requirements for driers and reactors
Addition of equipment and operational standards to
minimize fugitive emissions
Addition of capture and control requirements for presses
and spent pots
Specification of recordkeeping requirements and test
methods for compliance determinations
EPA has evaluated the submitted rule for consistency with the CAA,
EPA regulations, and EPA policy and has found that the revisions
address and correct many deficiencies previously identified by EPA.
These corrected deficiencies have resulted in a clearer, more
enforceable rule. Furthermore, the addition of more stringent standards
in submitted Rule 67.10 should lead to more emission reductions.
Although SDCAPCD Rule 67.10 will strengthen the SIP, the rule still
contains deficiencies which were required to be corrected pursuant to
the section 182(a)(2)(A) requirement of Part D of the CAA. The
remaining deficiencies include the following:
Fifty percent by weight VOC fugitive liquid leak standard
for incorporators
No provisions for frequency of monitoring or inspection
for fugitive liquid leaks
No capture efficiency protocol provision
Determinations of compliance based on shorter test periods
than allowed for determinations of non-compliance
Moreover, the submitted rule adds another significant deficiency: an
exemption of VOCs based on boiling point. A detailed discussion of rule
deficiencies can be found in the Technical Support Document for Rule
67.10 (1/96), which is available from the U.S. EPA's Region IX office.
Because of these deficiencies, the rule is not approvable pursuant to
section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA because it is not consistent with the
interpretation of section 172 of the 1977 CAA as found in the Blue Book
and may lead to rule enforceability problems.
Because of the above deficiencies, EPA cannot grant full approval
of this rule under section 110(k)(3) and Part D. Also, because the
submitted rule is not composed of separable parts which meet all the
applicable requirements of the CAA, EPA cannot grant partial approval
of the rule under section 110(k)(3). However, EPA may grant a limited
approval of the submitted rule under section 110(k)(3) in light of
EPA's authority pursuant to section 301(a) to adopt regulations
necessary to further air quality by strengthening the SIP. The approval
is limited because EPA's action also contains a simultaneous limited
disapproval. In order to strengthen the SIP, EPA is finalizing a
limited approval of SDCAPCD's submitted rule 67.10 under sections
110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA.
At the same time, EPA is also finalizing a limited disapproval of
this rule because it contains deficiencies that have not been corrected
as required by section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and, as such, the rule
does not fully meet the requirements of Part D of the Act. Under
section 179(a)(2), if the Administrator disapproves a submission under
section 110(k) for an area designated nonattainment, based on the
submission's failure to meet one or more of the elements required by
the Act, the Administrator must apply one of the sanctions set forth in
section 179(b) unless the deficiency has been corrected within 18
months of such disapproval. Section 179(b) provides two sanctions
available to the Administrator: highway funding and offsets. The 18
month period referred to in section 179(a) will begin on the effective
date of this final limited disapproval. Moreover, this final limited
disapproval triggers the Federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement
under section 110(c). It should be noted that the rule covered by this
direct final rulemaking has been adopted by the SDCAPCD and is
currently in effect in the District. EPA's final limited disapproval
action will not prevent the District or EPA from enforcing this rule.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future implementation
plan. Each request for revision to the state implementation plan shall
be considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
EPA is publishing this document without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, the EPA is proposing a limited approval and
limited disapproval of the SIP revision should adverse or critical
comments be filed. This action will be effective April 15, 1996, unless
by March 15, 1996, adverse or critical comments are received.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is
advised that this action will be effective April 15, 1996.
Regulatory Process
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises and
government entities with jurisdiction over population of less than
50,000.
Limited approvals under sections 110 and 301(a) and subchapter I,
Part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements, but simply
approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore,
because the Federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements,
I certify that it does not have a significant impact on any small
entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-state
relationship under the CAA, preparation of a regulatory flexibility
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of state action. Under the CAA, EPA may not base its
actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.
E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
EPA's limited disapproval of the State request under sections 110
and 301 and subchapter I, Part D of the CAA does not affect any
existing requirements applicable to small entities. Federal disapproval
of the state submittal does not affect its state enforceability.
Moreover, EPA's limited disapproval of the submittal does not impose
any new Federal requirements. Therefore, EPA certifies that this
limited disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it does not remove
[[Page 5704]]
existing requirements nor does it impose any new Federal requirements.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 15, 1996. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
Unfunded Mandates
Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22,
1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed
or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector or to
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of this state implementation plan or plan
revision, the State and any affected local or tribal governments have
elected to adopt the program provided for under Part D of the Clean Air
Act. This rule may bind State, local, and tribal governments to perform
certain actions and also require the private sector to perform certain
duties. The rule being incorporated into the SIP by this action will
impose no new requirements because affected sources are already subject
to these regulations under State law. Therefore, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments or to the private sector result
from this action. EPA has also determined that this final action does
not include a mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate
or to the private sector.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation
Plan for the State of California was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: January 16, 1996.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
Subpart F of part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Subpart F--California
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(198)(i)(I) to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(198) * * *
(i) * * *
(I) San Diego County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Rule 67.10, adopted on June 15, 1994.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-3231 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-W
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3230 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Washington and Alaska
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5704-5705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3230]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[WA40-1-7099; WA42-1-7115; AK11-1-6944; FRL-5337-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Washington and
Alaska
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to procedures described at 54 FR 2214 (January 19,
1989), EPA has recently approved a number of minor State implementation
plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Washington Department of Ecology
(WDOE) and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC).
These revisions included local air pollution control regulations
submitted by WDOE from the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
(PSAPCA) which are at least as stringent as the WDOE statewide rules.
The revisions also included the carbon monoxide (CO) contingency
measure for Fairbanks, AK., submitted by ADEC. ADEC's SIP revision,
identified as the repair technician training and certification program,
was previously approved by EPA on April 5, 1995 (60 FR 17232) as part
of the State's inspection and maintenance program in the Fairbanks
North Star Borough, but no credit had been taken by the State for the
program at that time. Therefore, the CO contingency measure in
Fairbanks was submitted as a separate element to meet the requirements
of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (the ``Act''). This document
lists the revisions EPA has approved and incorporates the relevant
material into the Code of Federal Regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 14, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Washington's and Alaska's State SIP revision
requests and EPA's letter notices of approval are available for public
inspection during normal business hours at the following locations:
EPA, Region 10, Office of Air, Docket # WA-40-1-7099, WA-42-1-7115, AK-
11-1-6944, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA. 98101; WDOE, Mail Stop PV-
11, Olympia, WA. 98504-8711; and ADEC, 410 Willoughby Ave., Suite 105,
Juneau, AK. 99801-1795.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Montel Livingston, Office of Air (AT-
082), EPA, Seattle, WA. 98101, (206) 553-0180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA Region 10 has approved the following
minor SIP revision requests under section 110(a) of the Act:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Date of
State Subject matter submission approval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA.................. Amendment to SIP affecting 5-17-95 6-19-95
PSAPCA's regulation I.
Clarifies intent of
requirement, repeals
redundancies.
[[Page 5705]]
WA.................. Amendment to SIP 9-7-95 10-23-95
incorporating guidelines
for evaluating toxic air
contaminant emissions into
the regulations.
AK.................. Amendment to SIP adding a 7-12-95 9-7-95
carbon monoxide
contingency measure for
Fairbanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has determined that each of these SIP revisions complies with
all applicable requirements of the Act and EPA policy and regulations
concerning such revisions. Due to the minor nature of these revisions,
EPA concluded that conducting notice-and-comment rulemaking prior to
approving the revisions would have been ``unnecessary and contrary to
the public interest,'' and hence, was not required by the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Each of these SIP
approvals became final and effective on the date of EPA approval as
listed in the chart above.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted all SIP approvals
from the requirements of section 3 of Executive Order 12866.
Under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I certify that these SIP revisions will not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
See 46 FR 8709.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, as amended, judicial review of
this action is available only by filing a petition for review in the
United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 15,
1996. These actions may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce their requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the Implementation Plans for
the States of Washington and Alaska were approved by the Director of
the Office of Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: November 14, 1995.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart C--Alaska
2. Section 52.70 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(26) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.70 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(26) Submittal to EPA from the ADEC of CO contingency measure for
Fairbanks, AK.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter dated July 12, 1995 from the Commissioner of the ADEC to
the EPA Regional Administrator submitting its repair technician and
certification program element found in State regulation 18 AAC 52.400-
410, effective June 24, 1994.
Subpart WW--Washington
3. Section 52.2470 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(59) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2470 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(59) Various minor revisions consisting of amended regulations
affecting a local air agency, PSAPCA, were submitted to EPA from the
WDOE for inclusion into the Washington SIP.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letters dated May 17, and September 7, 1995 from the Director
of the WDOE to the EPA Regional Administrator submitting minor
revisions to PSAPCA's regulations for inclusion into the SIP: PSAPCA,
Regulation I adopted on May 22, 1995; PSAPCA, Regulation III adopted on
September 11, 1995.
[FR Doc. 96-3230 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3211 Radio Broadcasting Services; Walterboro and Ridgeville, SC
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 5722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3211]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 93-169; RM-8246]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Walterboro and Ridgeville, SC
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Gresham Communications,
Inc., reallots Channel 265C3 from Walterboro to Ridgeville, South
Carolina, and modifies Station WPAL-FM's construction permit
accordingly. See 58 FR 34556, June 28, 1993. Channel 265C3 can be
reallotted to Ridgeville in compliance with the Commission's minimum
distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 2.7
kilometers (1.7 miles) west at petitioner's requested site. The
coordinates for Channel 265C3 at Ridgeville are North Latitude 33-06-00
and West Longitude 80-20-30. With this action, this proceeding is
terminated.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 25, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 93-169, adopted January 24, 1996, and
released February 7, 1996. The full text of this Commission decision is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Service,
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC
20037.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 73--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C.
154, as amended.
Sec. 73.202 [Amended]
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under South
Carolina, is amended by removing Channel 265C3 at Walterboro and adding
Ridgeville, Channel 265C3.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-3211 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3210 Radio Broadcasting Services; Big Sky, MT
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5721-5722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3210]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 95-148; RM-8693]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Big Sky, MT
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document allots Channel 283A to Big Sky, Montana, in
response to a petition filed by George Russell & Associates, Inc. See
60 FR 49242, September 22, 1995. Channel 283A can be allotted to Big
Sky without a site restriction at coordinates 45-16-03 and 111-18-04.
With this action, this proceeding is terminated.
DATES: Effective March 25, 1996. The window period for filing
applications will open on March 25, 1996, and close on April 25, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order, MM Docket No. 95-148, adopted January 26, 1996, and released
February 7, 1996. The full text of this Commission decision is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,
Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
[[Page 5722]]
Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 73--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C. 154,
as amended.
Sec. 73.202 [Amended]
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Montana, is
amended by adding Big Sky, Channel 283A.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-3210 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3201 Expansion of General License GFW; Editorial Corrections to the Export Administration Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5677-5678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3201]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Export Administration
15 CFR Parts 771, 776, and 799
[Docket No. 960205023-6023-01]
RIN 0694-AA38
Expansion of General License GFW; Editorial Corrections to the
Export Administration Regulations
AGENCY: Bureau of Export Administration, Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule revises the Export Administration Regulations
(EAR) by expanding General License GFW eligibility to include certain
semiconductor manufacturing equipment controlled under ECCN 3B01A,
except a.2., a.3., e. and f. The expansion of General License GFW to
include these items is expected to result in a decrease in the number
of license applications submitted, thereby reducing the paperwork
burden on exporters.
This final rule also makes three editorial corrections to the EAR
to correct inconsistencies which appeared in an interim rule titled
``Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations: Reform of
Computer Export Controls; Establishment of General License G-CTP'',
which was published in the Federal Register on January 25, 1996.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective February 14, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions of a general nature,
call Nancy Crowe, Bureau of Export Administration, Regulatory Policy
Division, Telephone: (202) 482-2440.
For questions of a technical nature call Jerry Beiter, Bureau of
Export Administration, Telephone: (202) 482-6105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This rule expands GFW eligibility to include semiconductor
manufacturing equipment controlled under ECCN 3B01A, except a.2. (metal
organic chemical vapour deposition reactors), a.3. (molecular beam
epitaxial growth equipment using gas sources), e. (automatic loading
multi-chamber central wafer handling systems only if connected to
equipment controlled by a.2., a.3., and f.), and f. (lithography
equipment).
General License GFW is eligible for exports of certain commodities
subject to national security controls. Shipments of eligible
commodities may be made to
[[Page 5678]]
any destination in Country Groups T or V, except the People's Republic
of China (PRC), Iran and Syria, subject to the provisions of
Sec. 771.23 of the EAR and the prohibitions on General License
shipments contained in Sec. 771.2(c) of the EAR.
This final rule also makes three editorial corrections to the EAR
to correct inconsistencies that appeared in an interim rule titled
``Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations: Reform of
Computer Export Controls; Establishment of General License G-CTP'',
which was published in the Federal Register on January 25, 1996 (61 FR
2099). This final rule revises Sec. 771.28(a) by revising the phrase
``equipment performing analog-to-digital or digital-to-analog
conversions'' to read ``equipment performing analog-to-digital
conversions''. This change will conform Sec. 771.28(a) with the
controls under ECCN 4A03.e on the CCL. This rule revises
Secs. 771.28(d)(1) and 776.19(f)(1) by removing ``Laos'' from the list
of countries in Tier 3. Laos appeared in both Tier 2 and Tier 3 in the
January 25 rule. With the changes in this rule, Laos will correctly be
retained in Tier 2.
Although the Export Administration Act (EAA) expired on August 20,
1994, the President invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers
Act and continued in effect, to the extent permitted by law, the
provisions of the EAA and the EAR in Executive Order 12924 of August
19, 1994, and notice of August 15, 1995 (60 FR 42676).
Rulemaking Requirements
1. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. This rule
involves collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These collections have been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers
0694-0005, 0694-0007, 0694-0010, 0694-0013, and 0694-0073.
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under
Executive Order 12612.
4. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for
public comment are not required to be given for this rule by the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or by any other law, under
sections 3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603(a) and
604(a)) no initial or final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has to be
or will be prepared.
5. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for
public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable
because this regulation involves a military and foreign affairs
function of the United States. Further, no other law requires that a
notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be
given for this rule.
List of Subjects in 15 CFR Parts 771, 776, and 799
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, Parts 771, 776, and 799 of the Export Administration
Regulations (15 CFR Parts 730-799) are amended as follows:
1. The authority citations for 15 CFR Parts 771 and 799 continue to
read as follows:
Authority: 50 U.S.C. App. 5, as amended; Pub. L. 264, 59 Stat.
619 (22 U.S.C. 287c), as amended; Pub. L. 90-351, 82 Stat. 197 (18
U.S.C. 2510 et seq.), as amended; sec. 101, Pub. L. 93-153, 87 Stat.
576 (30 U.S.C. 185), as amended; sec. 103, Pub. L. 94-163, 89 Stat.
877 (42 U.S.C. 6212), as amended; secs. 201 and 201(11)(e), Pub. L.
94-258, 90 Stat. 309 (10 U.S.C. 7420 and 7430(e)), as amended; Pub.
L. 95-223, 91 Stat. 1626 (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); Pub. L. 95-242,
92 Stat. 120 (22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq. and 42 U.S.C. 2139a); sec. 208,
Pub. L. 95-372, 92 Stat. 668 (43 U.S.C. 1354); Pub. L. 96-72, 93
Stat. 503 (50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et seq.), as amended; sec. 125, Pub.
L. 99-64, 99 Stat. 156 (46 U.S.C. 466c); Pub. L. 102-484, 106 Stat.
2575 (22 U.S.C. 6004); E.O. 11912 of April 13, 1976 (41 FR 15825,
April 15, 1976); E.O. 12002 of July 7, 1977 (42 FR 35623, July 7,
1977), as amended; E.O. 12058 of May 11, 1978 (43 FR 20947, May 16,
1978); E.O. 12214 of May 2, 1980 (45 FR 29783, May 6, 1980); E.O.
12851 of June 11, 1993 (58 FR 33181, June 15, 1993); E.O. 12867 of
September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51747, October 4, 1993); E.O 12918 of May
26, 1994 (59 FR 28205, May 31, 1994); E.O. 12924 of August 19, 1994
(59 FR 43437 of August 23, 1994); notice of August 15, 1995 (60 FR
42767); and E.O. 12938 of November 14, 1994 (59 FR 59099 of November
16, 1994).
2. The authority citation for 15 CFR Part 776 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 90-351, 82 Stat. 197 (18 U.S.C. 2510 et
seq.), as amended; Pub. L. 95-223, 91 Stat. 1626 (50 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.); Pub. L. 95-242, 92 Stat. 120 (22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq. and 42
U.S.C. 2139a); Pub. L. 96-72, 93 Stat. 503 (50 U.S.C. App. 2401 et
seq.), as amended; sec. 125, Pub. L. 99-64, 99 Stat. 156 (46 U.S.C.
466c); E.O. 12002 of July 7, 1977 (42 FR 35623, July 7, 1977), as
amended; E.O. 12058 of May 11, 1978 (43 FR 20947, May 16, 1978);
E.O. 12214 of May 2, 1980 (45 FR 29783, May 6, 1980); E.O. 12867 of
September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51747 of October 4, 1993); E.O. 12924 of
August 19, 1994 (59 FR 43437, August 23, 1994); notice of August 15,
1995 (60 FR 42767); and E.O. 12938 of November 14, 1994 (59 FR 59099
of November 16, 1994).
PART 771--[AMENDED]
Sec. 771.28 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 771.28(a), the second sentence is amended by revising
the phrase ``equipment performing analog-to-digital or digital-to-
analog conversions'' to read ``equipment performing analog-to-digital
conversions''.
4. Section 771.28(d)(1) is amended by removing ``Laos,'' from the
list of countries.
PART 776--[AMENDED]
Sec. 776.10 [Amended]
5. Section 776.10(f)(1) is amended by removing ``Laos,'' from the
list of countries.
PART 799--[AMENDED]
Supplement No. 1 to Sec. 799.1 [Amended]
6. In Supplement No. 1 to Sec. 799.1, Category 3 (Electronics
Design, Development and Production), ECCN 3B01A is amended by revising
the heading and the Requirements section to read as follows:
3B01A Equipment for the manufacture or testing of semiconductor
devices or materials, as follows, and specially designed components
and accessories therefor.
Requirements
Validated License Required: QSTVWYZ
Unit: Number
Reason for Control: NS
GLV: $500
GCT: Yes
GFW: Yes, except a.2, a.3, e. (only if connected to equipment
controlled by a.2., a.3., and f.), and f.
* * * * *
Dated: February 8, 1996.
Sue E. Eckert,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-3201 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3186 Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, Subpart C & Subpart D1995-1996 Subsistence Taking of Fish and Wildlife Regulations; Correcting Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5685-5689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3186]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Part 242
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 100
RIN 1018-AC82
Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska,
Subpart C & Subpart D--1995-1996 Subsistence Taking of Fish and
Wildlife Regulations; Correcting Amendments
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA, Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Correcting amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: These corrections amend the Subsistence Management Regulations
for Public Lands in Alaska (published in the Federal Register on June
15, 1995) implementing the subsistence priority for rural residents of
Alaska under Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act of 1980.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These corrections are effective July 1, 1995 through
June 30, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas H. Boyd, Office of Subsistence Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503;
telephone (907) 786-3864. For questions specific to National Forest
System lands, contact Ken Thompson, Regional Subsistence Program
Manager, USDA--Forest
[[Page 5686]]
Service, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, Alaska 99802-1628;
telephone (907) 586-7921.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111-3126) requires that the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) implement a
joint program to grant a preference for subsistence uses of fish and
wildlife resources on public lands, unless the State of Alaska enacts
and implements laws of general applicability which are consistent with
ANILCA, and which provide for the subsistence definition, preference,
and participation specified in Sections 803, 804, and 805 of ANILCA.
The State implemented a program that the Department of the Interior
previously found to be consistent with ANILCA. However, in December
1989, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in McDowell v. State of Alaska
that the rural preference in the State subsistence statute violated the
Alaska Constitution. The court's ruling in McDowell required the State
to delete the rural preference from the subsistence statute, and
therefore, negated State compliance with ANILCA. The Court stayed the
effect of the decision until July 1, 1990.
As a result of the McDowell decision, the Department of the
Interior and the Department of Agriculture (Departments) assumed, on
July 1, 1990, responsibility for implementation of Title VIII of ANILCA
on public lands. On June 29, 1990, the Temporary Subsistence Management
Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska were published in the Federal
Register (55 FR 27114-27170). Consistent with Subparts A, B, and C of
these regulations, a Federal Subsistence Board (Board) was established
to administer the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The Board's
composition includes a Chair appointed by the Secretary of the Interior
with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture; the Alaska Regional
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Alaska Regional Director,
U.S. National Park Service, the Alaska State Director, U.S. Bureau of
Land Management; the Alaska Area Director, U.S. Bureau of Indian
Affairs; and the Alaska Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service. Through
the Board, these agencies have participated in development of
regulations for Subparts A, B, and C, and the annual Subpart D
regulations. All Board members have reviewed these corrections and
agree with their substance. Because Subparts C and D relate to public
lands managed by an agency or agencies in both the Departments of
Agriculture and the Interior, identical correcting text will be
incorporated into 36 CFR Part 242 and 50 CFR Part 100.
Proposed Subpart C regulations for customary and traditional use
determinations and Subpart D regulations for the 1995-1996 seasons and
bag limits, and methods and means were published on September 2, 1994,
in the Federal Register (59 FR 45924-45961). A 60-day comment period
providing for public review of the proposed rule was advertised by
mail, radio, and newspaper. Subsequent to that 60-day review period,
the Board prepared a booklet describing all proposals for change. The
public then had an additional 30 days in which to comment on the
proposals for changes to the regulations. The Federal Subsistence
Regional Advisory Councils met in regional centers, received public
comments, and formulated recommendations to the Board on proposals for
their respective regions. The final regulations, published on June 15,
1995 (60 FR 31542-31594) reflect Board review and consideration of
Regional Council recommendations and public comments submitted to the
Board during their April meeting. The Board heard public testimony and
deliberated Requests for Reconsideration and Special Action in public
forum on September 26 and November 9, 1995.
These correcting amendments are a result of Requests for
Reconsideration of some of the Board's decisions in April and some
requests for Special Action as a result of resource concerns. Below are
summaries of each action.
Subpart D
Units 11, 12, 13, 20, and 25(C)--Lynx--The Board acted on a request
from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to lengthen the
season in 25(C) and parts of Unit 20, and shorten the season in Units
11, 12, 13, and parts of Unit 20. This follows the Board's previous
agreement to follow a harvest tracking strategy where possible. The
strategy calls for shortening or closing trapping seasons when lynx
numbers are low and lengthening or opening seasons when lynx are
abundant. The Regional Councils for the affected areas supported this
action to protect the viability of the lynx populations in those Units.
Unit 13--Caribou--Upon receipt of a request for Special Action the
Board, at its November 9, 1995, meeting deliberated the issue of
opening Unit 13 to caribou hunting. The caribou herd had increased by
about 6,000 animals and remained in an accessible area. The Board
opened a season to coincide with the State season to provide
subsistence users an opportunity to harvest caribou.
Unit 17(A)--Caribou (Mulchatna Herd)--Upon receipt of a request for
Special Action the Board, as its September 26, 1995, meeting
deliberated the issue of opening Unit 17(A) to caribou hunting. The
Mulchatna caribou herd which numbers about 160,000 animals is moving
into the western portion of Unit 17(A). The Board established a season
to be announced when enough caribou have moved into the area to allow a
harvest without jeopardizing smaller resident herds.
Unit 17 (A) and (C)--Caribou--Upon receipt of request for Special
Action the Board, at its September 26, 1995, meeting deliberated the
issue of opening Unit 17 (A) and (C) to caribou hunting one month
earlier. The past year's harvest was lower than anticipated due to poor
travel conditions. Because this is a quota hunt the opening of the
season one month earlier will not cause any additional harvest other
than what is planned.
Unit 22(A)--Moose--Upon receipt of a Request for Reconsideration of
an action taken at the April meeting, the Board deliberated the issue
of the health of the moose population in Unit 22(A). As a result, the
Board closed public lands to non-subsistence moose hunting from
December 1, 1995, through January 31, 1996.
Only the items described above are being changed; but for clarity,
the entire table section for the pertinent species in each Unit is
reproduced.
The above actions were supported by the Regional Councils in the
affected areas. Notice of the Board meeting and the subjects to be
considered were widely circulated and the public had an opportunity to
comment and participate.
The Board finds that additional public notice and comment
requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for this
extension are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public
interest. A lapse in regulatory control could seriously affect the
continued viability of wildlife populations, adversely impact future
subsistence opportunities for rural Alaskans and would generally fail
to serve the overall public interest. Therefore, the Board finds good
cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the public notice and
comment procedures prior to publication of this rule correction. The
Board also finds
[[Page 5687]]
good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule correction
effective July 1, 1995, the effective date of the Subsistence
Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska.
Conformance With Statutory and Regulatory Authorities
National Environmental Policy Act Compliance
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that described four
alternatives for developing a Federal Subsistence Management Program
was distributed for public comment on October 7, 1991. That document
described the major issues associated with Federal subsistence
management as identified through public meetings, written comments and
staff analysis and examined the environmental consequences of the four
alternatives. Proposed regulations (Subparts A, B, and C) that would
implement the preferred alternative were included in the DEIS as an
appendix. The DEIS and the proposed administrative regulations
presented a framework for an annual regulatory cycle regarding
subsistence hunting and fishing regulations (Subpart D). The Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published on February 28,
1992.
Based on the public comment period, the analysis contained in the
FEIS, and the recommendations of the Federal Subsistence Board and the
Department of the Interior's Subsistence Policy Group, it was the
decision of the Secretary of the Interior, with the concurrence of the
Secretary of Agriculture, through the U.S. Department of Agriculture--
Forest Service, to implement a modified Alternative IV as identified in
the DEIS and FEIS (Record of Decision on Subsistence Management for
Federal Public Lands in Alaska (ROD), signed April 6, 1992). The DEIS
and the selected alternative in the FEIS defined the administrative
framework of an annual regulatory cycle for subsistence hunting and
fishing regulations. The final rule for Subsistence Management
Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, Subparts A, B, and C, published
May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22940-22964) implements the Federal Subsistence
Management Program and includes a framework for an annual cycle for
subsistence hunting and fishing regulations.
Compliance With Section 810 of ANILCA
The intent of all Federal subsistence regulations is to accord
subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on public lands a priority over
the taking of fish and wildlife on such lands for other purposes,
unless restriction is necessary to conserve healthy fish and wildlife
populations. A Section 810 analysis was completed as part of the FEIS
process. The final Section 810 analysis determination appears in the
April 6, 1992, ROD which found that the Federal Subsistence Management
Program, under a modified Alternative IV with an annual process for
setting hunting and fishing regulations, had no significant possibility
of a significant restriction of subsistence uses.
Paperwork Reduction Act
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has received approval for
this collection of information, with approval number 1018-0075, with
the expiration date of July 31, 1996.
The collection of information will be achieved through the use of
the Federal Subsistence Hunt Permit Application. This collection of
information will establish whether the applicant qualifies to
participate in a Federal subsistence hunt on public land in Alaska and
will provide a report of harvest and location of harvest.
The likely respondents to this collection of information are rural
Alaska residents who wish to participate in specific subsistence hunts
on Federal land. The collected information is necessary to determine
harvest success and harvest location in order to make management
decisions relative to the conservation of healthy wildlife populations.
The annual burden of reporting and recordkeeping is estimated to
average 0.25 hours per response, including time for reviewing
instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and
reviewing the form. The estimated number of likely respondents under
these correcting amendments is less than 200, yielding a total annual
reporting and recordkeeping burden of fifty hours or less. Direct
comments on the burden estimate or any other aspect of this form to:
Information Collection Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1849 C
Street NW., MS 224 ARLSQ, Washington, DC 20240; and the Office of
Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1018-0075),
Washington, DC 20503. Additional information collection requirements
may be imposed if Local Advisory Committees subject to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act are established under Subpart B. Such
requirements will be submitted to OMB for approval prior to their
implementation.
This rule was not subject to OMB review under Executive Order
12866.
Economic Effects
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires preparation of flexibility analyses for rules that will have a
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, which
include small businesses, organizations or governmental jurisdictions.
The Departments have determined that this rulemaking will not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities
within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This rulemaking will impose no significant costs on small entities;
the exact number of businesses and the amount of trade that will result
from this Federal land-related activity is unknown. The aggregate
effect is an insignificant positive economic effect on a number of
small entities. The number of small entities affected is unknown; but,
the fact that the positive effects will be seasonal in nature and will,
in most cases, merely continue preexisting uses of public lands
indicates that they will not be significant.
These regulations do not meet the threshold criteria of
``Federalism Effects'' as set forth in Executive Order 12612. Title
VIII of ANILCA requires the Secretaries to administer a subsistence
preference on public lands. The scope of this program is limited by
definition to certain public lands. Likewise, these regulations have no
significant takings implication relating to any property rights as
outlined by Executive Order 12630.
Drafting Information
These regulations were drafted under the guidance of Thomas H.
Boyd, of the Office of Subsistence Management, Alaska Regional Office,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Additional guidance
was provided by Peggy Fox, Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land
Management; Sandy Rabinowitch, Alaska Regional Office, National Park
Service; John Borbridge, Alaska Area Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs;
and Ken Thompson, USDA-Forest Service.
List of Subjects
36 CFR Part 242
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National
Forests, Public Lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Wildlife.
50 CFR Part 100
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, Public Lands,
[[Page 5688]]
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Subsistence, Wildlife.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 36, Part 242, and
Title 50, Part 100, of the Code of Federal Regulations, are amended as
set forth below.
PART ____--SUBSISTENCE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC LANDS IN
ALASKA
1. The authority citation for both 36 CFR Part 242 and 50 CFR Part
100 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd, 3101-3126; 18 U.S.C.
3551-3586; 43 U.S.C. 1733.
2. Section ____.25(k)(11) is amended in the table under
``Trapping'' by revising the entry for Lynx to read as follows:
Sec. ____.25 Subsistence taking of wildlife.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(11) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvest limits Open season
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Trapping:
* * * * *
Lynx: No limit............................ Dec. 15-Jan. 15.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
3. Section ____.25(k)(12) is amended in the table under
``Trapping'' by revising the entry for Lynx to read as follows:
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(12) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvest limits Open season
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Trapping:
* * * * *
Lynx: No limit............................ Dec. 15-Jan. 15.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
4. Section ____.25(k)(13)(iii) is amended in the table under
``Hunting'' by revising the entry for Caribou to read as follows:
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(13) * * *
(iii) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvest limits Open season
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hunting:
* * * * *
Caribou: 2 caribou by Federal Aug. 10-Sept. 30, Nov. 15-Dec.
registration permit only. Hunting 31, Jan. 5-Mar. 31.
within the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline
right-of-way is prohibited. The
right-of-way is identified by an
area occupied by the pipeline
(buried or above ground) and the
cleared area 25 feet on either side
of the pipeline..
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
5. Section ____.25(k)(13)(iii) is amended in the table under
``Trapping'' by revising the entry for Lynx to read as follows:
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(13) * * *
(iii) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvest limits Open season
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Trapping:
* * * * *
Lynx: No limit............................ Dec. 15--Jan. 15.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
6. Section ____.25(k)(17)(iii) is amended in the table under
``Hunting'' by revising the entry for Caribou to read as follows:
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(17) * * *
(iii) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvest limits Open season
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hunting:
* * * * *
Caribou:
Unit 17(A)--that portion west of Season to be announced.
the Togiak River, south to Cape
Newenham--2 caribou. Season to be
opened by announcement sometime
between Aug. 1-April 15.
Unit 17 (A) and (C)--that portion Dec. 1-Mar. 31.
of 17 (A) and (C) consisting of
the Nushagak Peninsula south of
the Igushik River, Tuklung River
and Tuklung Hills, west to
Tvativak Bay--1 caribou by Federal
registration permit. Public lands
are closed to the taking of
caribou except by the residents of
Togiak, Twin HIlls, Manokotak,
Aleknagik, Dillingham, Clark's
Point, and Ekuk during seasons
identified above.
Unit 17 (B) and (C)--that portion Aug. 1-Apr. 15
of 17 (C) east of the Nushagak
River--5 caribou; however, no more
than 2 caribou may be bulls..
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
7. Section ____.25(k)(20)(iii)(C) is amended in the table under
``Trapping'' by revising the entry for Lynx to read as follows:
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(20) * * *
(iii) * * *
(C) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvest limits Open season
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Trapping:
* * * * *
Lynx:
Unit 20 (A), (B), (D), (E), and (C) Dec. 15-Jan. 15.
East of the Teklanika River--No
limit.
Unit 20(F) and the remainder of Dec. 1-Jan. 31.
20(C)--No limit.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
8. Section ____.25(k)(22)(ii)(C) is amended in the table under
``Hunting'' by revising the entry for Moose to read as follows:
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(22) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) * * *
[[Page 5689]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvest limits Open season
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hunting
* * * * *
Moose:
Unit 22(A)--1 antlered bull; Aug. 1-Sept. 30, Dec. 1-Jan. 31.
however the period of Dec. 1-Jan.
31 is restricted to residents of
Unit 22(A) only.
Unit 22(B)--1 moose; however, Aug. 1-Jan. 31.
antlerless moose may be taken only
from Dec. 1-Dec. 31; no person may
take a cow accompanied by a calf.
Unit 22(C)--1 antlered bull........ Sept. 1-Sept. 14.
Unit 22(D)--1 moose; however, Aug. 1-Jan. 31.
antlerless moose may be taken only
from Dec. 1-Dec. 31; no person may
take a cow accompanied by a calf.
Unit 22(E)--1 moose; no person may Aug. 1-Mar. 31.
take a cow accompanied by a calf.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
9. Section ____.25(k)(25)(iii)(B) is amended in the table under
``Trapping'' by revising the entry for Lynx to read as follows:
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(25) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvest limits Open season
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trapping:
* * * * *
Lynx:
Unit 25(C)--No limit............... Dec. 1-Jan. 31.
Remainder of Unit 25--No limit..... Nov. 1-Feb. 28.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: January 19, 1996.
Mitch Demientieff,
Chair, Federal Subsistence Board.
Dated: January 18, 1996.
Phil Janik,
Regional Forester, USDA--Forest Service.
[FR Doc. 96-3186 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODES 3410-11-M, 4310-55-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3026 Alabama; Final Authorization of a Revision to State Hazardous Waste Management Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5718-5719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3026]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[FRL-5420-5]
Alabama; Final Authorization of a Revision to State Hazardous
Waste Management Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Immediate final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Alabama has applied for final authorization of a revision to
its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Alabama's revision consists of the Corrective
Action provision contained in HSWA Cluster I. This requirement is
listed in Section B of this document. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has reviewed Alabama's application and has made a
decision, subject to public review and comment, that Alabama's
hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements
necessary to qualify for final authorization. Thus, EPA intends to
approve Alabama's hazardous waste program revision. Alabama's
application for program revision is available for public review and
comment.
DATES: Final authorization for Alabama's program revision shall be
effective April 15, 1996, unless EPA publishes a prior Federal Register
action withdrawing this immediate final rule. All comments on Alabama's
program revision application must be received by the close of business,
March 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Alabama's program revision application are
available during 8:00 am to 4:30 pm at the following addresses for
inspection and copying: Alabama Department of Environmental Management,
1751 Congressman W.L. Dickinson Drive, Montgomery, Alabama 36109-2608,
(334) 271-7700; U.S. EPA, Region 4, Library, 345 Courtland Street, NE,
Atlanta, Georgia 30365; (404) 347-4216. Written comments should be sent
to Al Hanke at the address listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Hanke, Chief, State Programs
Section, Waste Programs Branch, Waste Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta,
Georgia 30365; (404) 347-2234 vmx 2018.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
States with final authorization under Section 3006(b) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (``RCRA'' or ``the Act''), 42
U.S.C. 6926(b), have a continuing obligation to maintain a hazardous
waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less
stringent than the Federal hazardous waste program. In addition, as an
interim measure, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (Pub.
L. 98-616, November 8, 1984, hereinafter ``HSWA'') allows States to
revise their programs to become substantially equivalent instead of
equivalent to RCRA requirements promulgated under HSWA authority.
States exercising the latter option receive ``interim
authorization'' for the HSWA requirements under Section 3006(g) of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g), and later apply for final authorization for
the HSWA requirements. Revisions to State hazardous waste programs are
necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is
modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, State
program revisions are necessitated by changes to EPA's regulations in
40 CFR Parts 124, 260-268 and 270.
B. Alabama
Alabama initially received final authorization for its base RCRA
program effective on December 22, 1987. Alabama received authorization
for revisions to its program on January 28, 1992, July 12, 1992,
December 21, 1992, May 17, 1993, November 23, 1993, April 4, 1994,
January 13, 1995 and October 13, 1995. On March 1, 1990, Alabama
submitted a program revision application for additional program
approvals. Today, Alabama is seeking approval of its program revision
in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21(b)(3).
EPA has reviewed Alabama's application and has made an immediate
final decision that Alabama's hazardous waste program revision
satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final
authorization. Consequently,
[[Page 5719]]
EPA intends to grant final authorization for the additional program
modification to Alabama. The public may submit written comments on
EPA's immediate final decision up until March 15, 1996.
Copies of Alabama's application for this program revision are
available for inspection and copying at the locations indicated in the
Addresses section of this notice. Approval of Alabama's program
revisions shall become effective April 15, 1996, unless an adverse
comment pertaining to the State's revision discussed in this notice is
received by the end of the comment period.
If an adverse comment is received EPA will publish either (1) a
withdrawal of the immediate final decision or (2) a notice containing a
response to comments which either affirms that the immediate final
decision takes effect or reverses the decision.
EPA shall administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits, or portions
of permits that contain conditions based upon the Federal program
provisions for which the State is applying for authorization and which
were issued by EPA prior to the effective date of this authorization.
EPA will suspend issuance of any further permits under the provisions
for which the State is being authorized on the effective date of this
authorization.
Alabama is today seeking authority to administer the following
Federal requirement promulgated on July 15, 1985, for Corrective
Action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR
Federal requirement FR reference promulgation State authority
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checklist 17L HSWA Codification 50 FR 28702................. 7/15/85 335-14-5-.06(1)(a).
Rule; Corrective Action.
335-14-5-.06(12)(a)(b).
335-14-8-.06.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama's application for this program revision meets all of the
statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Accordingly,
Alabama is granted final authorization to operate its hazardous waste
program as revised.
Alabama now has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities within its borders and carrying out other
aspects of the RCRA program, subject to the limitations of its program
revision application and previously approved authorities. Alabama also
has primary enforcement responsibilities, although EPA retains the
right to conduct inspections under Section 3007 of RCRA and to take
enforcement actions under Sections 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA.
Compliance With Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 6 of Executive Order 12866.
Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify
that this authorization will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. This authorization effectively
suspends the applicability of certain Federal regulations in favor of
Alabama's program, thereby eliminating duplicative requirements for
handlers of hazardous waste in the State. It does not impose any new
burdens on small entities. This rule, therefore, does not require a
regulatory flexibility analysis.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control,
Water supply.
Authority: This notice is issued under the authority of Sections
2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b)).
Dated: January 31, 1996.
Phyllis P. Harris,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-3026 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3024 Imidacloprid; Pesticide Tolerance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5711-5712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3024]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 5E4598/R2197; FRL-4994-9]
RIN 2070-AB78
Imidacloprid; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document establishes a time-limited tolerance for
indirect or inadvertent combined residues of the insecticide (1-[6-
chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-imidazolidinimine) (referred to in
this document as imidacloprid) and its metabolites resulting from crop
rotational practices in or on the raw agricultural commodities in the
cucurbit vegetables crop group. The Interregional Research Project No.
4 (IR-4) requested the regulation to establish a maximum permissible
level for residues of the insecticide pursuant to the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective February 14, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
docket control number, [PP 5E4598/R2197], may be submitted to: Hearing
Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St.,
SW., Washington, DC 20460. Fees accompanying objections and hearing
requests shall be labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees'' and forwarded to:
EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees),
P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy of any objections and
hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be identified by
the docket control number and submitted to: Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring copy of objections and hearing
requests to Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway., Arlington,
VA.
A copy of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing
Clerk may also be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail
(e-mail) to: [email protected]. Copies of objections and
hearing requests must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of
special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of objections and
hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file
format or ASCII file format. All copies of objections and hearing
requests in electronic form must be identified by the docket number [PP
5E4598/R2197]. No Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be
submitted through e-mail. Electronic copies of objections and hearing
requests on this rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository
Libraries. Additional information on electronic submissions can be
found below in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Hoyt L. Jamerson,
Registration Division (7505W), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location, telephone number, and
e-mail address: Sixth Floor, Crystal Station #1, 2800 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA, (703) 308-8783, e-
mail:[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of December 13, 1995
(60 FR 64006), EPA issued a proposed rule that gave notice that the
Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), New Jersey Agricultural
Experiment Station, P.O. Box 231, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, had
submitted pesticide petition 5E4598 to EPA on behalf of the
Agricultural Experiment Stations of California, Florida, Georgia, South
Carolina, and Texas. This petition requests that the Administrator,
pursuant to section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) amend 40 CFR 180.472 by establishing a time-
limited tolerance for indirect or inadvertent, combined residues of the
insecticide imidacloprid (1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-
imidazolidinimine) and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl
moiety, all expressed as 1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)-methyl]-N-nitro-2-
imidazolidinimine, resulting from crop rotational practices in or on
the raw agricultural commodities in the cucurbit vegetables crop group
at 0.2 part per million (ppm). There were no comments or requests for
referral to an advisory committee received in response to the proposed
rule.
The data submitted with the proposal and other relevant material
have been evaluated and discussed in the proposed rule. Based on the
data and information considered, the Agency concludes that the
tolerance will protect the public health. Therefore, the tolerance is
established as set forth below.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections to the regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed with
the Hearing Clerk, at the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A
[[Page 5712]]
copy of the objections and/or hearing requests filed with the Hearing
Clerk should be submitted to the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The
objections submitted must specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). Each objection must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40
CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a
statement of the factual issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the
requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence
relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing
will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material
submitted shows the following: There is genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence
identified by the requestor would, if established, resolve one or more
of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the
factual issue(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be
adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 5E4598/R2197] (including any objections and hearing requests
submitted electronically as described below). A public version of this
record, including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which
does not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for
inspection from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer any copies of objections and hearing requests
received electronically into printed, paper form as they are received
and will place the paper copies in the official rulemaking record which
will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The
official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the
address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. Under section 3(f),
the order defines ``a significant regulatory action'' as an action that
is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities (also referred to as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations thereof; or (4)
raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive
Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 30, 1996.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.472, by adding new paragraph (f), to read as
follows:
Sec. 180.472 1-[(6-Chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl-N-nitro-2-
imidazolidinimine; tolerances for residues.
* * * * *
(f) Time-limited indirect or inadvertent tolerance: A time-limited
tolerance, to expire on December 31, 1996, is established for indirect
or inadvertent combined residues of the insecticide 1-[(6-chloro-3-
pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-imidazolidinimine and its metabolites
containing the 6-chloropyridinyl moiety, all expressed as 1-[(6-chloro-
3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-imidazolidinimine, when present therein
as a result of the application of the pesticide to growing crops listed
in this section and other nonfood crops as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodities Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vegetables, cucurbit...................... 0.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-3024 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-3021 Octadecanoic Acid, 12-Hydroxy-, Homopolymer, Octadecanoate; Tolerance Exemption
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5712-5714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-3021]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-300399A; FRL-4987-7
RIN 2070-AB78
Octadecanoic Acid, 12-Hydroxy-, Homopolymer, Octadecanoate;
Tolerance Exemption
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer,
octadecanoate (CAS Reg. No. 58128-22-6) when used as an inert
ingredient (surfactant and dispersing agent) in pesticide formulations
applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after
harvest, under 40 CFR 180.1001(c). ICI Americas, Inc., requested this
regulation pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective February 14, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
document control number, [OPP-300399A], may be submitted to: Hearing
Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St.,
SW., Washington, DC 20460. A copy of any objections and hearing
requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be identified by the
document control number and submitted to: Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
[[Page 5713]]
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring copy of
objections and hearing requests to Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson
Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202. Fees accompanying objections shall be
labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees'' and forwarded to: EPA Headquarters
Accounting Operations Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M,
Pittsburgh, PA 15251.
An electronic copy of objections and hearing requests filed with
the Hearing Clerk may be submitted to OPP by sending electronic mail
(e-mail) to:
[email protected]
Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests must be
submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and
any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing
requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format
or ASCII file format. All copies of electronic objections and hearing
requests must be identified by the docket number [OPP-300399A] . No
Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be submitted through e-
mail. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests on this rule
may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. Additional
information on electronic submissions can be found below in this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:By mail: Rita Kumar, Registration
Support Branch, Registration Division (7505W), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and
telephone number: 2800 Crystal Drive, North Tower, 6th Floor,
Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-308-8811; e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA issued a proposed rule, published in the
Federal Register of October 25, 1995 (60 FR 54641), which announced
that ICI Americas, Inc., Concord Plaza, 3411 Silverside Rd., P.O. Box
15391, Wilmington, DE 19850, had submitted pesticide petition (PP)
5E04506 to EPA requesting that the Administrator, pursuant to section
408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C.
346a(e)), amend 40 CFR 180.1001(c) by exempting octadecanoic acid, 12-
hydroxy-, homopolymer, octadecanoate from the requirement of a
tolerance when used as an inert ingredient (surfactant and dispersing
agent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or to raw
agricultural commodiites after harvest, under 40 CFR 180.1001(c). The
inert ingredient meets the definition of a polymer under 40 CFR
723.250(b) and the criteria listed in 40 CFR 723.250(e) that define a
chemical substance that poses no unreasonable risk under section 5 of
the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA).
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): solvents such as alcohol and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceouse earth; thickeners such
as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and
dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers;
microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not
intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be
chemically active.
The data submitted on the proposal and other relevant material have
been evaluated and discussed in the proposed rule. Based on the data
and information considered, the Agency concludes that the tolerance
exemption will protect the public health. Therefore, tolerance
exemption is established as set forth below.
In response to the proposed rule for this inert tolerance
exemption action, the Agency received a comment from ICI Surfactants
requesting the expansion of its uses to include suspending agent and
related adjuvant of surfactant as well as surfactant and dispersing
agent. The Agency has decided to make this expansion, accordingly, on
the judgement that it poses no additional risk to humans or the
environment.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections to the regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed with
the Hearing Clerk, at the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy
of the objections and/or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk
should be submitted to the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The
objections submitted must specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). Each objection must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40
CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a
statement of the factual issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the
requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence
relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing
will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material
submitted shows the following: There is genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence
identified by the requestor would, if established, resolve one or more
of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the
factual issue(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be
adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
EPA has established a record for this rulemaking under docket
number [OPP-300399A] (including any comments and data submitted
electronically). A public version of this record, including printed,
paper versions of electronic comments, which does not include any
information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public
record is located in Room 1132 of the Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal Mall 1B2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments may be sent directly to EPA at:
[email protected].
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer any copies of objections and hearing requests
received electronically into printed, paper form as they are received
and will place the paper copies in the official rulemaking record which
will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The
official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the
address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order
(i.e., Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines
``significant'' as those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and
materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the
[[Page 5714]]
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities (also known as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user
fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the
principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 1, 1996.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.1001(c) is amended in the table therein by adding
and alphabetically inserting the inert ingredient, to read as follows:
Sec. 180.1001 Exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert ingredient Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy- .............. dispersing agent,
, homopolymer, octadecanoate related adjuvant of
(CAS Reg. No. 58128-22-6), surfactants,
minimum number-average surfactant, suspending
molecular weight 1,370.. agent.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-3021 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-2915 Air Pollution Control: Amendments to Regulations Governing the Importation of Nonconforming Vehicles
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5840-5843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2915]
[[Page 5839]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 85
Air Pollution Control: Amendments to Regulations Governing the
Importation of Nonconforming Vehicles; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 14, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 5840]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 85
[FRL-5419-8]
RIN 2060-AC58
Air Pollution Control: Amendments to Regulations Governing the
Importation of Nonconforming Vehicles
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: With this action, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 85, subpart P to
modify the emissions standards applicable to imported nonconforming
light duty vehicles and light duty trucks. Such vehicles will now have
to meet emission standards that were in effect in the year the vehicle
was originally produced, using currently applicable testing methods.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for this rule proposed a
number of other changes to the imported nonconforming vehicle program.
EPA will address these additional issues in a subsequent final
rulemaking.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on February 1, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rule are contained in the EPA Air
Docket LE-131, Attention: Docket No. A-89-20, located at the Air Docket
Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room M-1500, 401 M
Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460. Telephone (202) 260-7548. The docket
may be reviewed on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for
copying services.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Leonard D. Lazarus, Vehicle
Programs and Compliance Division (6405J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone (202) 233-
9240.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction and Background
The imports program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ensures that imported motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines comply
with U.S. emission requirements to protect air quality and public
health. In a Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
published on March 24, 1994 (57 FR 13912), EPA proposed a number of
amendments to the imports program regulations. These proposed changes
were intended to respond to new information about imports of
nonconforming vehicles and changes in the Part 86 motor vehicle
certification standards, which necessitate compensating adjustments in
the imports program. EPA proposed additional amendments to clarify the
imports program requirements and to ensure that the regulations clearly
reflect current program implementation policies.
EPA intends to address the bulk of the proposed amendments to the
imports regulations in a subsequent rulemaking, as the Agency is not
ready at this time to take the final action on these aspects of the
NPRM. However, EPA is finalizing one portion of the proposal today
because the standards for imports of nonconforming light duty vehicles
and light duty trucks need to be modified without delay, in order to
avoid detrimental effects on independent commercial importers' (ICI)
ability to continue to import such vehicles. The Administrator has
determined that this is a Sec. 307(d)(1) rulemaking.
Sections 203(a)(1) and 203(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the
Act) provide the statutory authority for regulations relating to the
importation of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines that are
not covered by a certificate of conformity. Section 203(a)(1) prohibits
any person from importing vehicles not covered by a certificate of
conformity, except as provided by regulation of the Administrator. The
exception for regulations of the Administrator in section 203(a)(1)
refers to the grant of authority in section 203(b)(2). Section
203(b)(2) states that a vehicle not covered by a certificate of
conformity and offered for importation shall be refused admission into
the United States unless the Administrator, by regulation, provides for
deferring final determination regarding admission and authorizing
delivery of the vehicle upon such terms and conditions as may appear
appropriate to insure that any imported vehicle will be brought into
conformity with applicable standards, requirements and limitations.
Additional detail regarding the authority for this regulatory action is
provided in the NPRM. See 57 FR 13912 (March 24, 1994).
A. Emission Standards
As proposed, EPA is eliminating the requirement that nonconforming
light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks imported pursuant to 40 CFR
85.1505 or 85.1509 meet the part 86 emission standards in effect at the
time of modification. These vehicles, with a few exceptions, will
instead be required to meet emission standards (with applicable
deterioration factors applied) that were in effect at the time of
original vehicle production, using currently applicable testing
procedures.
The specific standards applicable to these vehicles are contained
in a new Sec. 85.1515. Vehicles originally produced prior to the 1975
model year shall meet the 1975 model year exhaust emission standards.
Vehicles produced in model year 1975 or subsequent model years shall
meet the exhaust emission standards in effect during the corresponding
production year. Gasoline-fueled vehicles produced prior to the 1978
model year must also meet the 1978 model year evaporative emission
standard. Finally, every vehicle originally produced in the 1978 model
year or subsequent model years shall meet all applicable emission
standards that were in effect for that model year as specified in part
86. For vehicles with original production years up through 1993, the
full set of applicable emissions standards is laid out in the tables in
Sec. 85.1515. For vehicles with original production years of 1994 and
later, all emissions standards specified in Part 86 effective in that
production year will apply, including standards for any requirements
not listed in the section 85.1515 tables, such as standards for cold CO
and the certification short test. The vehicles must meet all applicable
current model year fuel economy requirements. Vehicles greater than 20
original production (OP) years old will continue to be exempted from
the emission requirements and do not have to be tested.
As discussed in the proposal (Supplementary Document pp. 27-28,
Docket No. A-89-20), when EPA promulgated the prior requirement to meet
standards applicable at the time of modification, the Agency had no
data or evidence suggesting that older vehicles could not be modified
to meet current year emission standards. Since that rulemaking, EPA has
obtained evidence indicating that many older vehicles cannot be
modified to meet current year emission standards without extraordinary
cost, which makes the conversion financially unfeasible for many owners
of such vehicles. Today's rule would give owners of older vehicles a
way to import their vehicles. In addition, it would have been
significantly more difficult and costly for importers to modify
vehicles to comply with the current model year standards beginning in
January, 1996, when the standards applicable to small volume
manufacturers became substantially more stringent. EPA agrees with the
statements submitted by ICIs
[[Page 5841]]
after the close of the comment period that the expense of such
modifications would have a serious deleterious effect on their
businesses and would not justify the costs.\1\
\1\ See comments in docket, category III. D. Number IV-D-4
through IV-D-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain commenters appear to request that EPA change the testing
requirements as well as the standards to apply the testing procedures
and requirements in effect in the year of original production.\2\
However, these commenters provided no analysis of the effects of
retaining the current testing requirements or justification for the
change. EPA disagrees with the suggestion because applying the test
procedures applicable in the year of original production would impose
an obligation for EPA to maintain a separate certification facility in
order to validate ICI testing using obsolete hardware and outdated
procedures. Moreover, EPA does not believe that the existing
requirement to use currently applicable testing requirements and
procedures imposes costs on the ICIs that they are unable to meet or
that outweigh the benefits in terms of practical ability to conduct the
tests and improved accuracy of test results.
\2\ See letter from Les Weaver, December 4, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has determined that the new emission standards in this rule
will not have a substantial adverse impact on air quality. This
determination is made, in large part, due to the relatively small
number of vehicles subject to these requirements, which is not expected
to increase significantly, if at all. For example, the numbers of
vehicles imported pursuant to 40 CFR 85.1505 and 85.1509 have ranged
from approximately 400 vehicles in 1989 to less than 200 vehicles in
1991. More importantly, only a small percentage of these vehicles would
be affected by this change in the standards. Most of these vehicles
were less than three years old at the time of importation, and the
standards for most original production years would not have changed as
of three years later.
B. Definition of FCT
EPA is also finalizing the proposed definition of Federal
Compliance Testing (FCT), which is defined as the testing sequence that
incorporates all of the testing requirements of part 86 applicable at
the time of an emissions test conducted pursuant to subpart P. EPA has
added this definition solely to make the imports regulations easier to
read and understand. The reference to the FCT in section 85.1515 does
not change any of the substantive requirements on importers. Prior to
this final rule, ICIs had to meet Part 86 motor vehicle emissions
standards and testing requirements applicable at the time of import.
While this rule amends the emissions standards applicable to importers,
it has no effect on the testing requirements. Thus, importers will
still have to conduct any testing according to the currently applicable
testing requirements. The imports regulations will refer to these
applicable testing requirements under the concise term FCT. This rule
incorporates the term ``FCT'' only in section 85.1515. The subsequent
rulemaking will update and clarify the remaining references to testing
in the imports regulations by substituting the term FCT where
applicable.
C. Additional Information on the Effective Date
This rule will be effective upon signature, and EPA will make the
rule available to interested parties at that time. Although EPA
generally makes rules effective 30 days after the date of publication,
it is not bound to do so. See section 307(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act,
42 U.S.C. 7607(d), and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(d).
EPA believes that there is good cause not to delay the effective
date until 30 days after publication. This rule relieves regulatory
burden, and hence affected parties will have no need of prior notice to
allow them time to comply. In addition, as explained above, importers
need this rule to become effective without delay, to avoid a
substantial increase in the difficulty of meeting standards for
imported nonconforming vehicles after that date. Any delay in the
effectiveness of the rule could impose significant costs on these small
businesses.
II. Public Participation and Discussion of Comments
No public hearing was requested on the proposed changes, and no
hearing was held. During the comment period EPA received no comments
relating to the narrow issues addressed in this final rule. After the
close of the comment period, EPA received a number of comments
supportive of this rulemaking as discussed above. EPA will address all
of the other comments on the NPRM in the subsequent final rule.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule have been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq, and have been assigned
control number 2060-0095 (ICR No. 10.07). This rule does not add any
additional information collection requirements to those approved by
OMB.
B. Economic Impact
Little or no effect on the national economy will result from this
rulemaking as the only effect of the amendments is to relieve the
compliance burden on automobile importers. Additionally, imported
nonconforming vehicles subject to these regulations represent only a
very small number of the total number of vehicles sold in the United
States.
C. Administrative Designation and Regulatory Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, [58 F.R. 51,735 (October 4, 1993)] the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
D. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires federal agencies to
identify potentially adverse impacts of federal regulations upon small
entities. In instances where significant impacts are possible on a
substantial number of these entities, agencies are required to perform
a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
There will not be a significant impact on a substantial number of
small business entities because the proposed
[[Page 5842]]
rule benefits the small businesses that import nonconforming vehicles
into the United States, by reducing the stringency of the applicable
standards for importing these vehicles and thereby reducing importers'
costs.
Therefore, as required under section 605 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., the Administrator certifies that
this regulation does not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. This rule reduces the stringency of applicable
standards for importation of nonconforming vehicles and thereby reduces
costs to automobile importers. This rule will have no effect on State,
local and tribal governments. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, because small governments are not ordinarily involved in
importations covered by this rule.
IV. Statutory Authority
Sec. 203, Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7522).
V. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b) of the Clean Air Act, EPA hereby finds that
these regulations are of national applicability. Accordingly, judicial
review of this action is available only by filing a petition for review
in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit within 60 days of publication. Under section 307(b)(2) of the
Act, the requirements that are the subject of today's notice may not be
challenged later in judicial proceedings brought by EPA to enforce
these requirements.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 85
Environmental protection, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Research.
Dated: February 1, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble part 85, subpart P, of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is revised to read as
follows:
PART 85--[AMENDED]
Subpart P--[Amended]
1. The authority citation for subpart P is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: (42 U.S.C. 7522, 7525, 7541, 7542(a) and 7601(a).
2. Section 85.1502 is amended by designating the introductory text
as paragraph (a), by redesignating paragraphs (a)(5) through (15) as
(a)(6) through (16) and adding a new paragraph (a)(5) to read as set
forth below. Paragraph (b) is reserved.
Sec. 85.1502 Definitions.
(a) * * *
(5) The Federal Compliance Testing sequence (FCT). The testing
sequence that incorporates all of the testing requirements of part 86
applicable at the time of an emissions test conducted pursuant to this
subpart.
* * * * *
3. Section 85.1515 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 85.1515 Emission standards and test procedures applicable to
imported nonconforming motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines.
(a) Notwithstanding any other requirements of this subpart, any
motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine conditionally imported pursuant
to Sec. 85.1505 or Sec. 85.1509 and required to be emission tested
shall be tested using the FCT at 40 CFR part 86 applicable to current
model year motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines at the time of
testing.
(b) The emission standards applicable to nonconforming light-duty
vehicles and light-duty trucks imported pursuant to this subpart are
outlined in Tables 1 and 2 of this section, respectively. The useful
life as specified in Tables 1 and 2 of this section is applicable to
imported light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, respectively.
(c) Nonconforming motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines of 1994
OP model year and later conditionally imported pursuant to Sec. 85.1505
or Sec. 85.1509 shall meet all of the emission standards specified in
part 86 for the model year in which the motor vehicle or motor vehicle
engine is modified. The useful life specified in part 86 for the model
year in which the motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine is modified is
applicable where useful life is not designated in this subpart.
(d) ICIs may not participate in emission-related programs for
emissions averaging, banking and trading, or noncompliance penalties.
Table 1 to Sec. 85.1515.--Emission Standards Applicable to Imported Light-Duty Motor Vehicles 1 2 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaporative (years/
OP Year Hydrocarbon Carbon monoxide Oxides of nitrogen Particulate Diesel hydrocarbon miles) Useful life
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1968-76.......................... 1.5 gpm 15 gpm 3.1 gpm ..................... 6.0 g/test 5/50,000 ....................
[[Page 5843]]
1977-79.......................... 1.5 gpm 15 gpm 2.0 gpm ..................... 6.0 g/test 5/50,000 ....................
1980............................. 0.41 gpm 7.0 gpm 2.0 gpm ..................... 6.0 g/test 5/50,000 ....................
1981............................. 0.41 gpm 3.4 gpm 1.0 gpm ..................... 2.0 g/test 5/50,000 ....................
1982-86.......................... 0.41 gpm 3.4 gpm 1.0 gpm 0.60 gpm 2.0 g/test 5/50,000 ....................
1987-93.......................... 0.41 gpm 3.4 gpm 1.0 gpm 0.20 gpm 2.0 g/test 5/50,000 ....................
1994 and later................... (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) (\4\) ....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Diesel particulate standards apply only to diesel fueled light-duty vehicles. Evaporative hydrocarbon standards apply only to non-diesel fueled light-duty vehicles. For alternative fueled
light-duty vehicles, the evaporative hydrocarbon standard is interpreted as organic material hydrocarbon equivalent grams carbon per test, as applicable.
2 No crankcase emissions shall be discharged into the ambient atmosphere from any non-diesel fueled light-duty vehicle.
3 All light-duty vehicles shall meet the applicable emission standards at both low and high-altitudes according to the procedures specified in 40 CFR part 86 for current model year motor
vehicles at the time of testing.
4 Specified in 40 CFR part 86 for the OP year of the vehicle, per 85.1515(c).
Table 2.--Emission Standards Applicable to Imported Light-Duty Trucks \1\ \2\ \3\ \4\ \5\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaporative (years/
OP year Hydrocarbon Carbon monoxide Oxides of nitrogen Particulate Diesel hydrocarbon miles) Useful life
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1968-78.......................... 2.0 gpm 20 gpm 3.1 gpm ..................... 6.0 g/test 5/50,000 ....................
1979-80.......................... 1.7 gpm 18 gpm 2.3 gpm ..................... 6.0 g/test 5/50,000 ....................
1981............................. 1.7 gpm 18 gpm 2.3 gpm ..................... 2.0 g/test 5/50,000 ....................
1982-83.......................... 1.7 gpm 18 gpm 2.3 gpm 0.60 gpm 2.0 g/test 5/50,000 ....................
(2.0) (26) (2.3) (0.60) (2.6)
1984............................. 0.80 gpm 10 gpm 2.3 gpm 0.60 gpm 2.0 g/test 5/50,000 ....................
(1.0) (14) (2.3) (0.60) (2.6)
1985-86.......................... 0.80 gpm 10 gpm 2.3 gpm 0.60 gpm 2.0 g/test 11/120,000 ....................
(1.0) (14) (2.3) (0.60) (2.6)
1987............................. 0.80 gpm 10 gpm 2.3 gpm 0.26 gpm 2.0 g/test 11/120,000 ....................
(1.0) (14) (2.3) (0.26) (2.6)
1988-89.......................... 0.80 gpm 10 gpm 1.2 gpm\6\ 0.26 gpm\7\ 2.0 g/test 11/120,000 ....................
(1.0) (14) (1.2) (2.0) (2.6)
0.80 gpm 10 gpm 1.7 gpm\6\ 0.45 gpm\7\ 2.0 g/test 11/120,000 ....................
(1.0) (14) (1.7) (0.26) (2.6)
0.80 gpm 10 gpm 2.3 gpm\6\ 0.45 gpm\7\ 2.0 g/test 11/120,000 ....................
(1.0) (14) (2.3) (0.26) (2.6)
1990-93.......................... 0.80 gpm 10 gpm 1.2 gpm\8\ 0.26 gpm\7\ 2.0 g/test 11/120,000 ....................
(1.0) (14) (1.2) (0.26) (2.6)
0.80 gpm 10 gpm 1.7 gpm\8\ 0.45 gpm\7\ 2.0 g/test 11/120,000 ....................
(1.0) (14) (1.7) (0.26) (2.6)
1994 and later................... (\9\) (\9\) (\9\) (\9\) (\9\) (\9\) ....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Diesel particulate standards apply only to diesel fueled light-duty trucks. Evaporative hydrocarbon standards apply only to non-diesel fueled light-duty trucks. For alternative fueled
light-duty trucks, the evaporative hydrocarbon standard is interpreted as organic material hydrocarbon equivalent grams carbon per test, as applicable.
\2\ No crankcase emissions shall be discharged into the ambient atmosphere from any non-diesel fueled light-duty truck.
\3\ A carbon monoxide standard of 0.50% of exhaust flow at curb idle is applicable to all 1984 and later model year light-duty trucks sold to, or owned by, an importer for principal use at
other than a designated high-altitude location. This requirement is effective for light-duty trucks sold to, or owned by an importer for principal use at a designated high-altitude location
beginning with the 1988 model year.
\4\ All 1982 OP year and later light-duty trucks sold to, or owned by, an importer for principal use at a designated high-altitude location shall meet high-altitude emission standards
according to the requirements specified in 40 CFR part 86 for current model year light-duty trucks at the time of testing.
\5\ Standards in parentheses apply to motor vehicles sold to, or owned by, an importer for principal use at a designated high-altitude location. These standards must be met at high-altitude
according to the procedures specified in 40 CFR part 86 for current model year motor vehicles at the time of testing.
\6\ The oxides of nitrogen standard of 1.2 gpm applies to light-duty trucks up to and including 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight and 6,000 pounds or less gross vehicle weight the 1.7 gpm
standard applies to light-duty trucks greater than 3,750 pound loaded vehicle weight and 6,000 pounds or less gross vehicle weight; the 2.3 gpm standard applies to light-duty trucks 6,001
pounds gross vehicle weight and greater.
\7\ The diesel particulate standard of 0.26 gpm applies to light-duty trucks up to and including 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight; the 0.45 gpm standard applies to light-duty trucks 3,751
pounds and greater loaded vehicle weight.
\8\ The oxides of nitrogen standard of 1.2 gpm applies to light-duty trucks up to and including 3,750 pounds loaded vehicle weight; the 1.7 gpm standard applies to light-duty trucks 3,751
pounds and greater loaded vehicle weight.
\9\ Specified in 40 CFR part 86 for the OP year of the vehicle, per 85.1515(c).
[FR Doc. 96-2915 Filed 2-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.