issue-1996-03-18•Federal Register final rules — 1996-03-18
Federal Register final rules — 1996-03-18
issue-1996-03-18Federal Register final rules — 1996-03-18Regulation
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. 96-6450 Airworthiness Directives; AlliedSignal Inc. TFE731 Series Turbofan Engines
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10881-10884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6450]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-ANE-53; Amendment 39-9529; AD 96-05-03]
Airworthiness Directives; AlliedSignal Inc. TFE731 Series
Turbofan Engines
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), applicable to AlliedSignal Inc. (formerly Garrett Engine
Division) TFE731 Series
[[Page 10882]]
Turbofan Engines, that currently requires inspection of fan rotor disks
within certain schedules. This amendment requires initial and
repetitive eddy current inspections using an improved, more definitive
procedure for detecting fan rotor disk dovetail slot cracks. Also, this
amendment adds additional engine models and fan rotor disk part numbers
and disallows fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) as an alternative
inspection method for detecting fan rotor disk dovetail slot cracks.
This amendment is prompted after additional analyses revealed that
stress levels in the fan rotor disk dovetail slots for the applicable
engine models are higher than initially calculated. The actions
specified by this AD are intended to prevent uncontained failure of fan
rotor disks due to fatigue cracking in the dovetail slots, which can
result in inflight engine shutdowns, severe secondary damage, and fan
rotor assembly separation from the engine.
DATES: Effective April 2, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of April 2, 1996.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before May 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-ANE-53, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from
AlliedSignal Aerospace, Attn: Data Distribution, M/S 64-3/2101-201,
P.O. Box 29003, Phoenix, AZ 85038-9003; telephone (602) 365-2493, fax
(602) 365-5577. This information may be examined at the FAA, New
England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Burlington, MA;
or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW.,
suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; telephone
(310) 627-5246; fax (310) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 15, 1993, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) issued airworthiness directive (AD) 91-08-13,
Amendment 39-8611 (58 FR 40732, July 30, 1993), to require inspection
of fan rotor disks within certain schedules installed on AlliedSignal
Inc. (formerly Garrett Engine Division) Model TFE731-2, -3, and -3R
turbofan engines. That action was prompted by a report of an in-service
uncontained failure of the first stage fan rotor disk in which a
segment of the fan rotor disk rim and five fan blades departed the
engine. Metallurgical examination of the fractured fan rotor disk
determined that a fatigue crack had initiated in the area of the aft
acute corner of one of the dovetail slots in the fan rotor disk.
Failure of this fan rotor disk occurred at 3,300 cycles which was less
than the then FAA-approved life limit of 4,100 cycles. That condition,
if not corrected, could result in uncontained failure of fan rotor
disks due to fatigue cracking in the dovetail slots, which can result
in inflight engine shutdowns, severe secondary damage, and fan rotor
assembly separation from the engine.
Since the issuance of that AD, the FAA has determined from
additional analyses that stress levels in the fan rotor disk dovetail
slots for the applicable engine models are higher than initially
calculated. Also, additional TFE731 series engine models have similar
stress levels. From fan rotor disk dovetail slot eddy-current
inspection data, the FAA has determined that 8 (or 1%) of those TFE731-
3A, -3AR, -3B, -3BR, -3C, -3CR, and -4R fan rotor disks inspected
exhibited fatigue cracking and were removed from service. Moreover,
similar eddy-current inspection data from the TFE731-2, -3, and -4
series engines has indicated that crack detectability from a one-time
eddy-current inspection is between 80-90 percent, which is not as high
as previously evaluated. Therefore, the FAA has determined that initial
and repetitive eddy-current inspections must be performed using an
improved, more definitive procedure. Furthermore, the FAA has
determined that fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) is not adequate
to detect fan rotor disk dovetail slot cracks. Accordingly, this AD
disallows FPI as an alternative inspection method for detecting fan
rotor disk dovetail slot cracks.
The FAA has reviewed and approved the technical contents of
AlliedSignal Inc. Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. TFE731-A72-3432,
dated April 11, 1991; AlliedSignal Inc. ASB No. TFE731-A72-3432,
Revision 1, dated April 30, 1991; AlliedSignal Inc. ASB No. TFE731-A72-
3432, Revision 2, dated June 3, 1991; AlliedSignal Inc. ASB No. TFE731-
A72-3432, Revision 3, dated October 17, 1991; AlliedSignal Inc. ASB No.
TFE731-A72-3432, Revision 4, dated August 6, 1993; AlliedSignal Inc.
ASB No. TFE731-A72-3432, Revision 5, dated May 31, 1995, and
AlliedSignal Inc. ASB No. TFE731-A72-3445, Revision 2, dated May 31,
1995. These ASB's describe procedures for initial and repetitive eddy
current inspections of fan rotor disks for cracks.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other engines of this same type design, this AD
supersedes AD 91-08-13 to require initial and repetitive eddy current
inspections using an improved, more definitive procedure for detecting
fan rotor disk dovetail slot cracks. In addition, this amendment adds:
the TFE731-2A, -3A, -3AR, -3B, -3BR, -3C, -3CR, -3D, -3DR, and -4R
engines models to the Applicability section; adds fan rotor disk part
numbers 3072161-5, 3073436-5, 3072816-1, -2, and -3, 3073539-(All), and
3074529-(All), where (All) denotes any dash number, to the Compliance
section; and disallows FPI as an alternative inspection method for
detecting fan rotor disk dovetail slot cracks. These actions are
required to be accomplished in accordance with the ASB's described
previously.
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for
making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Comments Invited
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves
requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by
notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on
this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire.
Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted
in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments will
be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments
received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and
suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the
AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be
needed.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments
[[Page 10883]]
submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for
comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A
report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the
substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-ANE-53.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
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.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency
regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe
condition in aircraft, and is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this
action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined
that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will
be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may
be obtained from 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 Amendment 39-8611, (58 FR
40732, July 30, 1993), and by adding a new airworthiness directive,
Amendment 39-9529, to read as follows:
96-05-03 AlliedSignal Inc.: Amendment 39-9529. Docket 95-ANE-53.
Supersedes AD 91-08-13, Amendment 39-8611.
Applicability: AlliedSignal Inc. (formerly Garrett Engine
Division) TFE731-2, -2A, -3, -3A, -3AR, -3B, -3BR, -3C, -3CR, -3D, -
3DR, -3R, and -4R series turbofan engines with fan rotor disk part
numbers (P/N's) 3072162-1 through -5, 3072816-1, -2, and -3,
3073436-1 through -5, 3073539-(All), and 3074529-(All), where (All)
denotes any dash number, installed on but not limited to the
following aircraft: Avions Marcel Dassault Falcon 10, 50, 100
series; Learjet 31, 35, 36, and 55 series; Lockheed-Georgia 1329-23
and -25 series; Israel Aircraft Industries 1124 and 1125 series;
Cessna 650, Citations III, VI, and VII; Raytheon British Aerospace
HS-125 series; and Sabreliner NA-265-65.
Note: This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to each engine
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 engines that have been
modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the
requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the
authority provided in paragraph (b) to request approval from the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This approval may address
either no action, if the current configuration eliminates the unsafe
condition, or different actions necessary to address the unsafe
condition described in this AD. Such a request should include an
assessment of the effect of the changed configuration on the unsafe
condition addressed by this AD. In no case does the presence of any
modification, alteration, or repair remove any engine from the
applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent uncontained failure of fan rotor disks due to fatigue
cracking in the dovetail slots, which can result in inflight engine
shutdowns, severe secondary damage, and fan rotor assembly
separation from the engine, accomplish the following:
(a) Remove and conduct initial and repetitive eddy current
inspections for cracks on affected fan rotor disks, and, if
necessary, replace cracked fan rotor disks with a serviceable disk,
as follows:
(1) Fan rotor disks whose dovetail slots have never been eddy-
current inspected must comply with the initial inspection described
in paragraphs (3), (4), (5), or (6) of this AD, as applicable.
Additionally, all fan rotor disks whose dovetail slots have been
previously eddy-current inspected must comply with the repetitive
inspections in accordance with paragraphs (7), (8), or (9) of this
AD, as applicable.
(2) For paragraphs (3) and (7) of this AD, incorporate new eddy
current inspection procedures in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions (AI) of AlliedSignal Inc. Alert Service Bulletin (ASB)
No. TFE731-A72-3432, Revision 5, dated May 31, 1995, within 30 days
after the effective date of this AD. Those fan rotor disks requiring
eddy current inspection, prior to the incorporation of the new eddy
current procedure, may be inspected in accordance with the AI 's of
Allied-Signal Inc. ASB No. TFE731-A72-3432, dated April 11, 1991;
Allied-Signal Inc. ASB No. TFE731-A72-3432, Revision 1, dated April
30, 1991; Allied-Signal Inc. ASB No. TFE731-A72-3432, Revision 2,
dated June 3, 1991; Allied-Signal Inc. ASB No. TFE731-A72-3432,
Revision 3, dated October 17, 1991; or AlliedSignal Inc. ASB No.
TFE731-A72-3432, Revision 4, dated August 6, 1993.
(3) For engines with Part Number (P/N) 3072162-1 through -4, and
P/N 3073436-1 through -4, inspect in accordance with the AI of
AlliedSignal Inc. ASB No. TFE731-A72-3432, Revision 5, dated May 31,
1995, as required by Schedule A, using fan rotor disks cycles since
new (CSN) on August 16, 1993 (effective date of AD 91-08-13).
Schedule A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fan rotor disk (CSN) Initial inspection schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than 2,800.................... Within the next 50 cycles in
service (CIS) after August 16,
1993 (effective date of AD 91-
08-13).
2,301 through 2,800................... Within the next 100 CIS after
August 16, 1993 (effective date
of AD 91-08-13), or prior to
2,850 CSN, whichever occurs
first.
1,601 through 2,300................... Within the next 200 CIS after
August 16, 1993 (effective date
of AD 91-08-13) or prior to
2,400 CSN, whichever occurs
first.
1,600 or less......................... Prior to accumulating 1,800 CSN.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) For engines with P/N's 3072162-5, 3073436-5, 3073539-1, and
3074529-1, inspect in accordance with the AI of AlliedSignal Inc.
ASB No. TFE731-A72-3432, Revision 5, dated May 31, 1995, as required
by Schedule B, using fan rotor disk CSN on the effective date of
this AD.
Schedule B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fan rotor disk CSN Initial inspection schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than 1,600.................... Within the next 200 CIS after
the effective date of this AD.
1,600 or less......................... Prior to accumulating 1,800 CSN.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) For engines with P/N's 3072816-1 and -2, inspect in accordance
with the AI of AlliedSignal Inc. ASB No. TFE731-A72-3445, Revision 2,
dated
[[Page 10884]]
May 31, 1995, as required by Schedule C, using fan rotor disk CSN on
the effective date of this AD.
Schedule C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fan rotor disk CSN Initial inspection schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than 2,800.................... Within 50 CIS after the
effective date of this AD.
2,301 to 2,800........................ Within 100 CIS after the
effective date of this AD, or
prior to 2,850 CSN, whichever
occurs first.
2,300 or less......................... Prior to accumulating 2,400 CSN.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) For engines with P/N 3072816-3, inspect in accordance with
the AI of AlliedSignal Inc. ASB No. TFE731-A72-3445, Revision 2,
dated May 31, 1995, as required by Schedule D, using fan rotor disk
CSN on the effective date of this AD.
Schedule D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fan rotor disk CSN Initial inspection schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than 2,200.................... Within 200 CIS after the
effective date of this AD.
2,200 or less......................... Prior to accumulating 2,400 CSN.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7) For engines with P/N 3072162-1, -2, -3, and -4, P/N 3073436-
1, -2, -3, and -4, thereafter inspect in accordance with the AI of
AlliedSignal Inc. ASB No. TFE731-A72-3432, Revision 5, dated May 31,
1995, at every Major Periodic Inspection (MPI), as defined in the
applicable engine maintenance manual, or prior to accumulating 1,300
CIS since last eddy current inspection, whichever occurs first.
(8) For engines with P/N's 3072162-5, 3073436-5, 3073539-(All),
and 3074529-(All), where (All) denotes any dash number, thereafter
inspect in accordance with the AI of AlliedSignal Inc. ASB No.
TFE731-A72-3432, Revision 5, dated May 31, 1995, as required by
Schedule E.
Schedule E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fan rotor disk CIS since previous eddy
current inspection Repetitive inspection schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than 1,100.................... Within 200 CIS after the
effective date of this AD.
1,100 or less......................... Every engine MPI or prior to
accumulating 1,300 CIS since
last eddy current inspection,
whichever occurs first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(9) For engines with P/N 3072816-1, -2, and -3, thereafter
inspect in accordance with the AI of AlliedSignal Inc. ASB No.
TFE731-A72-3445, Revision 2, dated May 31, 1995, as required by
Schedule F.
Schedule F
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fan rotor disk CIS since previous eddy
current inspection Repetitive inspection schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater than 1,100.................... Within 200 CIS after the
effective date of this AD.
1,100 or less......................... Every engine MPI or prior to
accumulating 1,300 CIS since
last eddy current inspection,
whichever occurs first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office. The request should be forwarded through an appropriate FAA
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send
it to the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office.
Note: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive,
if any, may be obtained from the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office.
(c) 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 aircraft to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) The actions required by this AD shall be done in accordance
with the following service documents:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document No. Pages Revision Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allied-Signal Inc., ASB No. TFE731- 1-16 Original................ April 11, 1991.
A72-3432.
Total pages: 16.
Allied-Signal Inc., ASB No. TFE731- 1-22 1....................... April 30, 1991.
A72-3432.
Total pages: 22.
Allied-Signal Inc., ASB No. TFE731- 1-20 2....................... June 3, 1991.
A72-3432.
Total pages: 20.
Allied-Signal Inc., ASB No. TFE731- 1-22 3....................... October 17, 1991.
A72-3432.
Total pages: 22.
Allied-Signal Inc., ASB No. TFE731- 1-16 4....................... August 6, 1993.
A72-3432.
Total pages: 16.
Allied-Signal Inc., ASB No. TFE731- 1-14 5....................... May 31, 1995.
A72-3432.
Total Pages: 14.
Allied-Signal Inc., ASB No. TFE731- 1-14 2....................... May 31, 1995.
A72-3445.
Total Pages: 14.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This incorporation by reference was 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 Allied-Signal Aerospace, Attn:
Data Distribution, M/S 64-3/2101-201, P.O. Box 29003, Phoenix, AZ
85038-9003; telephone (602) 365-2493, fax (602) 365-5577. Copies may
be inspected at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at
the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,
suite 700, Washington, DC.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on April 2, 1996.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 26, 1996.
Jay J. Pardee,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-6450 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6449 Hazardous Waste: Technical Revision for the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992 Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11090-11093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6449]
[[Page 11089]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 22
Hazardous Waste: Technical Revision for the Federal Facility Compliance
Act of 1992 Amendments; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 11090]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 22
[FRL-5426-7]
Hazardous Waste: Technical Revision for the Federal Facility
Compliance Act of 1992 Amendments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is today
promulgating a rule in response to a requirement established by section
6001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended
by the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992 (FFCA). The FFCA
includes explicit authority to the Administrator of the EPA to commence
administrative enforcement actions against any department, agency, or
instrumentality of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of
the Federal Government that is in violation of requirements under RCRA.
The FFCA further provides that no administrative enforcement order
issued to a department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal
Government becomes final until the department, agency, or
instrumentality has an opportunity to confer with the EPA
Administrator. Today's rule is a technical revision of the Agency's
administrative rules of practice to provide a federal department,
agency, or instrumentality which is the subject of an administrative
enforcement order, with the opportunity to confer with the
Administrator, as provided under the FFCA.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on March 18, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this rule is in room M2616, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460. Call 202-260-9327 for an appointment to review docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact the
RCRA/CERCLA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346 or in the Washington Metropolitan
Area at 703-412-9810. For information on specific aspects of this rule,
contact Sally Dalzell or Melanie Garvey, Federal Facilities Enforcement
Office (2261A), Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC
20460, 202-564-2510.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is today finalizing a rule that revises
the supplemental practice rules for RCRA administrative orders, 40 CFR
22.37, by adding a new paragraph (g) in the nature of a technical
amendment. Specifically, under new paragraph (g), an order issued by
the Environmental Appeals Board to a federal agency for RCRA violations
would not be a final order, if the recipient federal agency made a
timely request for a conference with the Administrator. In that event,
the decision by the Administrator would be the final order. New
paragraph (g) also establishes the timing and procedure that a federal
agency must follow to preserve its right to confer with the
Administrator prior to an administrative enforcement order becoming
final.
The contents of today's preamble are listed in the following
outline:
Table of Contents
I. Statutory Authority
II. Effective Date
III. Background
IV. Final Rule
V. Response to Comments
VI. Regulatory Analysis
I. Statutory Authority
This regulation is issued under the authority of sections 2002 and
6001(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Federal
Facility Compliance Act (FFCA), Pub. L. 102-386, 42 U.S.C. 6912 and
6961(b).
II. Effective Date
This rule will be effective on March 18, 1996.
III. Background
The FFCA clarified that EPA has explicit authority to issue
administrative enforcement orders to other federal agencies that are in
violation of RCRA. In the past, where EPA found RCRA violations at a
federal facility, it primarily relied on a negotiated Federal Facility
Compliance Agreement to bring the federal facility into compliance. The
FFCA amended RCRA to expressly authorize the EPA Administrator to
commence an administrative enforcement action against federal
facilities pursuant to the Agency's RCRA enforcement authorities. RCRA
section 6001(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6961(b)(1). Moreover, the FFCA requires
the Administrator to initiate administrative enforcement actions
against federal facilities ``. . . in the same manner and under the
same circumstances as an action would be initiated against another
person.'' Id. The legislative history makes it clear that Congress
intends that the Agency issue administrative complaints pursuant to
RCRA section 3008(a) to federal facilities to address violations that
are of the same types that are found at private companies or
municipalities. H.R. No. 102-886, 102nd Cong. 2nd Sess. at 19 (1992).
Finally, the FFCA provides that before any such administrative
enforcement order issued to a federal facility becomes final, the
recipient department, agency, or instrumentality must have the
opportunity to confer with the Administrator. RCRA section 6001(b)(2),
42 U.S.C. 6961(b)(2).
The adjudication process for all administrative enforcement
complaints issued pursuant to RCRA section 3008(a) is governed by the
Agency's Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative
Assessment of Civil Penalties and the Revocation or Suspension of
Permits, 40 CFR Part 22, and the Supplemental Rules of Practice
governing the administrative assessment of civil penalties under the
Solid Waste Disposal Act, 40 CFR 22.37. Under current regulations, the
initial decision of a Presiding Officer shall become the final order of
the Environmental Appeals Board within 45 days after its service upon
the parties and without further proceedings unless an appeal is taken
to the Environmental Appeals Board or the Environmental Appeals Board
elects, sua sponte, to review the initial decision. 40 CFR 22.27(c). If
the Presiding Officer's initial decision is appealed to the
Environmental Appeals Board or if the Environmental Appeals Board
elects, sua sponte, to review the initial decision, then the
Environmental Appeals Board issues a final order as soon as practicable
after receiving the appellate briefs or oral argument, whichever is
later. 40 CFR 22.31.
These rules currently have no provisions which accommodate the
statutory requirement that no such administrative enforcement order
issued to a federal facility shall become final until the recipient
agency has had an opportunity to confer with the Administrator. The
purpose of today's rule is to revise 40 CFR Part 22 to reflect a
federal agency's right to an opportunity to confer with the
Administrator before an administrative enforcement order issued to that
agency becomes a final order.
IV. Final Rule
The rule revises the supplemental practice rules for RCRA
administrative orders, 40 CFR 22.37, by adding a new paragraph (g) in
the nature of a technical amendment. Specifically, under new paragraph
(g), an order issued by the Environmental Appeals Board to a federal
agency for RCRA violations
[[Page 11091]]
would not be a final order, if the recipient federal agency made a
timely request for a conference with the Administrator. In that event,
the decision by the Administrator would be the final order. New
paragraph (g) would also establish the timing and procedure that a
federal agency must follow to preserve its right to confer with the
Administrator prior to an administrative enforcement order becoming
final. The head of the recipient federal agency would have 30 days from
the Environmental Appeal Board's service of an order or decision to
request a conference with the Administrator in writing. The request
must also be served upon all parties of record. Finally, new paragraph
(g) states that a motion for reconsideration filed under 40 CFR 22.32
does not toll the 30-day period for filing a request for a conference
with the Administrator.
The Agency believes that placing the conference at the end of the
administrative enforcement process will enable the Agency to proceed
with an enforcement case against a Federal agency in the same manner as
it would against a private party. This procedure also best assures that
the Administrator will have a complete factual and legal record on
which to base a decision. The Agency further believes that the 30-day
request period, and the requirement that the request for a conference
be in writing and served upon the parties of record, are fair and
reasonable requirements necessary for the orderly administration of
administrative enforcement actions against federal agencies.
The Agency also believes that not tolling the period for requesting
a conference for the filing of motions for reconsideration with the
Environmental Appeals Board is consistent with 40 CFR 22.32. That
section provides that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does
not stay the effective date of an Environmental Appeals Board final
order. Moreover, the Agency sees no reason to build additional delay
into the administrative enforcement process by automatically tolling
the request period during the pendency of a motion for reconsideration
before the Environmental Appeals Board. Under the rule, the
Environmental Appeals Board can grant a request to toll the time period
for filing a request for a conference; in addition, the Administrator
can always take into account a motion for reconsideration filed with
the Environmental Appeals Board, when scheduling a requested
conference.
Finally, the rule is consistent with previously published Agency
guidance issued by the Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement
entitled: Federal Facility Compliance Act: Enforcement Authorities
Implementation, dated July 6, 1993 (58 FR 49044, September 12, 1993).
This guidance remains in effect for matters not covered by the rule.
V. Response to Comments
EPA received three sets of comments on the March 22, 1995 proposed
rule. First, one commenter suggested that regarding to the conference
with the Administrator, ``there is no indication that such a conference
will be put on hold pending action on a request for reconsideration
submitted within the 10 day time frame to the Board.'' EPA believes it
has addressed this concern in the preamble to the proposed rule. In the
proposal, EPA stated that ``the Administrator can always take into
account a motion for reconsideration filed with the Environmental
Appeals Board (EAB), when scheduling a requested conference.'' 60 FR
15209. Moreover, if the Administrator feels a conference would be
useful prior to the EAB's ruling, the conference should be able to
proceed. EPA suggests, however, that a request for a conference should
note that a motion for reconsideration has been filed and indicate a
preference as to the timing of the conference either prior to or after
the EAB's ruling on the motion for reconsideration. We believe this
approach preserves the Administrator's discretion while at the same
time minimizing the possibility that a conference is held prematurely.
Therefore, the Agency has decided not to make the suggested change in
the final rule.
Another commenter suggested that ``in instances where a dispute
involves a policy concern, the litigation-oriented procedures of Part
22 are at best inappropriate, and may in fact prevent both EPA and
other federal agencies from addressing in a timely manner the real
issues in dispute.'' To solve this issue, the commenter suggests that
the informal settlement provisions of 40 CFR 22.18(a) be amended to
provide timely access to the Administrator to resolve policy questions.
EPA does not believe that such an amendment is warranted or
appropriate. It is often difficult to separate a policy dispute from a
question of law or fact. EPA envisions that the Part 22 hearing will
clearly define the issues in dispute such that, if a conference is
necessary, the issues potentially before the Administrator will be
fully ripe for her participation. Otherwise, issues may reach her
prematurely. In addition, adopting the commenter's approach would
inevitably lead to disagreements over whether a dispute presents a
policy issue which undoubtedly would cause delays in resolving the
dispute. Therefore, the Agency has decided not to adopt the commenter's
approach.
Two commenters suggested that the rule prohibit the Administrator
from delegating the duty to confer to any other EPA employee. One of
the two commenters would allow such delegation with the express consent
of the affected agency. EPA does not interpret the statute as
prohibiting the Administration from delegating the duty to confer to
any other EPA employee. However, in EPA's July 1993 ``Final Enforcement
Guidance on Implementation of The Federal Facility Compliance Act,''
EPA determined that, as a matter of policy, the conference should be at
the Administrator's level. This policy is further reflected in the
rule.
Another comment received suggested that EPA measure the time period
by when a Federal agency must request a conference with the
Administrator from the date the Federal respondent receives service as
evidenced by the receipt from certified mail. 40 CFR 22.06 indicates
that copies of all Environmental Appeals Board rulings, decisions, or
orders ``shall be served personally or by certified mail, return
receipt requested upon all parties. * * *'' EPA believes the current
time period provisions are sufficient and need not be changed.
Therefore, EPA will begin the clock depending on the method of service.
If the service shall be certified mail, return receipt requested, EPA
will begin counting the thirty days 5 days from the date of mailing as
provided in 40 CFR 22.07. However, if the ruling, decision, or order is
served personally, EPA will begin counting the thirty days from the
date of service.
Another comment suggested that contractor operators be given the
same opportunity to confer with the Administrator as is given to a
Federal agency. The opportunity to confer is given to a Federal agency
in order to preserve the President's ability to resolve disputes within
the Executive Branch. There is no similar concern with contractor
operators. EPA issued on January 7, 1994 its ``EPA Enforcement Policy
for GOCO Facilities.'' In that guidance EPA considers contractors that
meet the statutory definition of operators to be separate from the
Federal government. As a result, EPA may pursue an enforcement action
against the Federal agency, the contractor operator, or both.
One comment suggested that EPA address the impact of the rule and
the Federal Facility Compliance Act
[[Page 11092]]
enforcement process on state authorized programs. Neither EPA's
issuance of orders to Federal agencies nor the opportunity to confer
apply to anyone other than to other Federal agencies. Again, the
purpose of the conference is to preserve the President's ability to
resolve disputes within the Executive Branch. Disputes between states
and Federal agencies do not present this concern.
Finally, a commenter suggested that the Administrator consult with
OMB and her counterpart in the Federal agency as part of the
conference. As the conference is with the Administrator's counterpart
in the affected agency, a change to the rule requiring consultation is
not necessary. In addition, the Administrator is not prohibited from
consulting with anyone of her choosing in making her decision. To
mandate consultation with OMB on all issues is overly restrictive and
may cause delays unnecessarily. Therefore, EPA will not amend the rule
to require the Administrator's inclusion of OMB in the conference.
VI. Regulatory Analysis
A. Executive Order No. 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51,735 (October 4, 1993)] the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (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.
Because the rule is merely a technical amendment to the Part 22
procedures and adds no economic burdens, 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.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354)
requires Federal regulatory agencies to consider the impact of
rulemaking on ``small entities.'' If a rulemaking will have a
significant impact on small entities, agencies must consider regulatory
alternatives that minimize economic impact.
Today's decision does not affect any small entity. Rather, it is
merely a technical amendment to the Part 22 procedures ensuring
consistency between the regulatory procedures and the Federal Facility
Compliance Act. Accordingly, this action will not add any economic
burdens to any affected entities, small or large. Therefore, a
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Pursuant to Section
605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant impact on small entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements
subject to review of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.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. When a written statement is needed for an EPA rule, 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, giving
them meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising them on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable
duties on any of these governmental entities or the private sector.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 22
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste,
Penalties, Pesticides and pests, Poison prevention, Water pollution
control, Federal facilities.
Dated: March 12, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 22 is amended
as follows:
PART 22--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 22 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6961.
2. Section 22.37 is amended by adding a new paragraph (g) to read
as follows:
Sec. 22.37 Supplemental rules of practice governing the administrative
assessment of civil penalties under the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
* * * * *
(g) Final Orders to Federal Agencies on Appeal. (1) In the case of
an administrative order or decision issued to a department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States, such order or decision shall
become the final order for purposes of the Federal Facility Compliance
Act, 42 U.S.C. 6961(b), in accordance with Secs. 22.27(c) and 22.31
except as provided in paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
(2) In the case of an administrative order or decision issued by
the Environmental Appeals Board, if the head of the affected
department, agency, or instrumentality requests a conference
[[Page 11093]]
with the Administrator in writing and serves a copy of the request on
the parties of record within thirty days of the Environmental Appeals
Board's service of the order or decision, a decision by the
Administrator (rather than the Environmental Appeals Board) shall be
the final order for the purposes of the Federal Facility Compliance
Act.
(3) In the event the department, agency, or instrumentality of the
United States files a motion for reconsideration with the Environmental
Appeals Board in accordance with Sec. 22.32, filing such motion for
reconsideration shall not toll the thirty-day period for filing the
request with the Administrator for a conference unless specifically so
ordered by the Environmental Appeals Board.
[FR Doc. 96-6449 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6448 Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Import for Disposal
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11096-11109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6448]
[[Page 11095]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Parts 9 and 761
Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Import for Disposal; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 11096]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9 and 761
[OPPTS-66009B; FRL-5354-8]
RIN 2070-AC01
Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Import for Disposal
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 6, 1994, EPA proposed to allow the import and
export of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) for disposal at
concentrations of 50 parts per million (ppm) or greater under certain
circumstances. This final rule promulgates regulations at 40 CFR part
761, subpart F to permit the import of PCBs for disposal at
concentrations of 50 ppm or greater. Today's rule continues to allow
the import and export of PCBs for disposal at concentrations less than
50 ppm. Those portions of the December 6, 1994, proposed rule
addressing other issues, including export of PCBs for disposal at
concentrations of 50 ppm or greater and other transboundary shipments
of PCB waste, will be addressed in a separate Federal Register notice
at a later date. This rule will provide for the sensible management of
PCB waste imports, consistent with hazardous waste import regulations,
and the United States' obligations under international agreements. This
rule will benefit the United States by facilitating the safe removal of
PCBs from areas near the United States' borders, as well as the world
environment in general, and this rule will produce economic benefits
for the United States.
DATES: In accordance with 40 CFR 23.5, this rule is promulgated for
purposes of judicial review at 1 p.m. eastern standard time on March
18, 1996. Because this final rule relieves a regulatory restriction,
under section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), this
final rule is also effective on March 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan B. Hazen, Director,
Environmental Assistance Division (7408), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Rm. E-543B, Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 554-1404, TDD: (202) 554-0551,
FAX: (202) 554-5603 (document requests only), e-mail: TSCA-
H[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview of Rulemaking
A. Purpose of this Final Rule
In the Federal Register of December 6, 1994 (59 FR 62788), EPA
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB) rules at 40 CFR part 761, promulgated under section 6(e)
of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Comprehensive changes were
proposed for the PCB regulations which included, among other things,
the requirements for determining PCB concentration; marking, storage
and disposal; decontamination levels and procedures; reporting and
recordkeeping requirements; and use authorizations. In addition, EPA
proposed to allow the import and export of PCBs for disposal at
concentrations of 50 ppm or greater under certain circumstances.
Comments were specifically solicited on retaining the prohibitions on
transboundary shipments of PCB waste for purposes of disposal, on
removing the prohibitions, and on specific regulatory language proposed
at Sec. 761.20(b) and (c) that would allow import and export of PCB
waste under certain circumstances with appropriate administrative
controls (see 59 FR 62816-62818).
On June 6 and 7, 1995, EPA held a public hearing on the proposed
PCB Disposal Amendments, including the proposed import provision, in
Arlington, Virginia. A transcript of that hearing was placed in the
public record.
In response to considerable public interest in the proposal to
allow importation of PCBs for disposal, EPA has expedited its final
action on the portion of the PCB Disposal Amendments addressing import,
and is promulgating these provisions in today's final rule. The other
regulatory changes proposed in the PCB Disposal Amendments, including
those relating to export for disposal at concentrations of 50 ppm or
greater and other transboundary shipments of PCB waste, will be
addressed in a separate Federal Register notice at a later date.
B. Statutory Authority
This final rule is issued pursuant to section 6(e)(1) of TSCA.
Section 6(e)(1) of TSCA gives EPA the authority to promulgate rules to
prescribe methods for the disposal of PCBs (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(1)).
When EPA adopted a year-long open border policy in 1979, it
explained that, while the Agency has concurrent authority to regulate
import of PCB waste for disposal under both section 6(e)(1) and section
6(e)(3), it was doing so under the authority of section 6(e)(1):
In [establishing the open border policy], EPA has reviewed
whether the regulation of imported and exported PCB wastes for
disposal should be accomplished under section 6(e)(1) of TSCA or
under section 6(e)(3). While section 6(e)(3)(A)(i) could be read to
allow regulation of the import of PCB wastes for disposal, section
6(e) treats PCB disposal as a separate matter under section 6(e)(1),
which allows comprehensive regulation of the disposal of PCBs.
Accordingly, EPA has elected to regulate import and export of PCB
waste for disposal under section 6(e)(1). (44 FR 31514-31516; May
31, 1979.)
After the border was closed in 1980, EPA relied on its authority
under section 6(e)(3) in accepting and considering exemption petitions
for specific transboundary shipments of PCB waste at concentrations of
50 ppm or greater. Such exemptions were rarely granted.
Under its section 6(e)(1) authority, EPA is implementing in this
rule a broad-based approach to import for disposal that EPA believes
carries out Congress' intent that EPA take action to prevent
unreasonable risks of injury to health and the environment in the
United States from PCBs.
Under section 6(e)(1) EPA has promulgated a series of disposal
regulations which support a consistent course of action to promptly
dispose of regulated PCBs in a manner which limits releases to the
environment to the best levels achievable by technology at the time the
regulations were promulgated. Section 761.65 requires disposal of PCBs
within 1 year of the time the PCBs are designated a waste. Part 761,
subpart D prescribes standards which are used for issuing disposal
approvals. EPA believes that PCB wastes which are not disposed of for
extended periods of time or which are not disposed of in facilities
providing equivalent protection from release to the environment may
pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment.
Therefore, EPA believes today's rule which allows foreign generated PCB
wastes to be disposed of in a prompt and safe manner in the United
States is consistent with the requirements it has promulgated for
storage and disposal of domestically generated PCB wastes. Under TSCA
section 6(e), EPA makes decisions using the concept of ``unreasonable
risk.'' This includes the consideration of the risks of harm to health
or the environment in the United States and of the costs of regulation
in the United States. EPA does not consider risks that occur outside
the United States except to the extent those risks may result in risks
in the United States, and EPA does not consider costs of regulation to
parties
[[Page 11097]]
outside the United States. Thus EPA's analysis for this rulemaking does
not consider impacts of the rule that take place outside the United
States.
Because EPA is promulgating this rule to allow import for disposal
under its section 6(e)(1) authority, it is no longer necessary for
persons who wish to import PCBs for disposal in accordance with this
rule to apply for case-by-case exemptions under section 6(e)(3).
However, to the extent that persons wish to engage in import activity
outside the scope of this rule (i.e., an activity other than importing
PCB waste for disposal), section 6(e)(3) petitions may still be filed
with the Agency.
C. Coordination with International Agreements
On May 5, 1992, the Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (Basel
Convention) entered into force. The Basel Convention imposes a series
of obligations on Parties regarding transboundary shipments of
hazardous waste. One provision of the Convention of significance to the
implementation of today's rule is that Basel Parties are prohibited
from exporting or importing wastes that fall within the scope of the
Convention to or from non-Parties unless a separate agreement or
arrangement exists with non-Parties regarding transboundary shipments
of such wastes. (For a more detailed explanation of the Basel
Convention, the content and role of these separate agreements and the
text of the Convention, please see the Federal Register of May 13, 1992
(57 FR 20602).)
On March 21, 1990, the United States signed the Basel Convention.
Signature indicates that the United States will not take action that
would defeat the object and purpose of the Basel Convention. However,
the United States has not yet ratified the Basel Convention. Since the
United States is not a Party to the Convention, Parties to the
Convention may not trade in Basel-covered wastes with the United States
absent a separate bi- or multi-lateral agreement or arrangement between
the concerned governments covering such wastes (e.g., PCB waste) that
meets the conditions specified in Article 11 of the Basel Convention.
The lack of such an agreement or arrangement could prevent the export
of PCB waste from a Basel Party to the United States for disposal.
Nothing in today's rule alters the existing authority of the United
States to prohibit an import where the import is not in compliance with
an agreement or arrangement that the United States has entered into
regarding PCB waste imports; or where the import is not in compliance
with other international obligations of the United States.
D. Coordination with Other EPA Regulations
Section 9(b) of TSCA mandates EPA to ``. . .coordinate actions
taken under this Act with actions taken under other Federal laws. . .
.'' EPA believes that today's final rule has the advantage over the
proposed rule and the current ``Closed Border Policy'' of making the
regulation of importation of PCBs for disposal more consistent with the
regulations on the importation of hazardous wastes under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 40 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. Currently,
under RCRA, EPA generally does not restrict the importation of
hazardous wastes from abroad for disposal at permitted facilities in
the United States, apart from certain controls adopted pursuant to
relevant international instruments, such as the U.S.-Canadian Agreement
Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste. EPA believes
that without appropriate controls, the importation of PCBs for disposal
could pose unreasonable risks to human health and the environment in
the United States. Therefore, EPA believes that it is in the public
interest to regulate the importation of PCBs for disposal.
The need to make a determination of no unreasonable risk under TSCA
mitigates against an unrestricted open border policy for PCBs.
Therefore, today's rule will allow for importation of PCB wastes with
minimal disruption, including PCB-containing hazardous wastes that
formerly were barred from entry into the United States. For the reasons
explained below in Unit I.E., EPA determines that, with proper control,
including prior notification, tracking, and storage and disposal in
approved facilities, a less restrictive policy concerning the import of
PCBs for disposal, which is more consistent with the program for
hazardous wastes under RCRA, will not present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment.
In addition to compliance with the TSCA PCB regulations at 40 CFR
part 761, importers should be aware that other requirements may also
apply to imports of PCBs. For instance, importers must provide a TSCA
Section 13 Importer's Certification to U.S. Customs in accordance with
40 CFR part 707, subpart B. Further, all parties should be aware that
imported PCB waste may be subject to regulation under RCRA Subtitle C
as a hazardous waste, unless it satisfies the RCRA exemption set forth
in 40 CFR 261.8 or another applicable exemption. Section 261.8 exempts
generally from RCRA Subtitle C regulations the disposal of certain PCB-
containing dielectric fluid and electrical equipment containing such
fluid authorized for use under 40 CFR part 761. EPA believes this RCRA
exemption should apply to the disposal of PCB waste that meets the
criteria of Sec. 261.8 regardless of whether the dielectric fluid or
electrical equipment containing this fluid originated domestically or
abroad. (These fluids and equipment may not be imported for use, but
may be imported for disposal.) There is no reason to treat these
imported fluids and equipment differently from their domestic
counterparts for purposes of this disposal exemption and Sec. 261.8 was
not intended to result in different treatment of the same type of
materials. However, if imported PCB waste meets the RCRA definition of
a hazardous waste and fails to meet the Sec. 261.8 exemption, then it
will have to be handled in compliance with all applicable RCRA
regulations (as is the case with domestic PCB waste).
Nothing in this rule affects or obviates obligations affecting PCBs
under other laws or regulations. The importer, and the owner or
operator of each storage and disposal facility managing imported PCBs
for disposal are responsible for determining and complying with all
other applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations
pertaining to the management of this material.
E. Unreasonable Risk Finding
In this final rule, EPA is not implementing the proposed import
notice provision that would have required importers to justify, on an
individual shipment basis, how importing PCB waste for disposal would
be in the interests of the United States. Based on additional data
supplied by commenters, in particular comments demonstrating the very
low risks associated with regulated transportation, EPA has determined
that the risk associated with the import for disposal of PCBs would be
insignificant under the circumstances outlined in this rule, and these
insignificant risks are outweighed by significant benefits. Provided
import of PCBs for disposal is conducted under the circumstances
outlined in this final rule, including notification of the Agency, EPA
finds that such import will not present an unreasonable risk of injury
to health or the environment in the United States. This is because in
the United States all PCBs imported for disposal are subject to U.S.
Department of Transportation regulations for hazardous materials during
transport, and must be
[[Page 11098]]
manifested, stored, and disposed of only in facilities with PCB storage
and disposal approvals, or laboratories handling limited quantities.
The United States will realize significant benefits from this rule,
including the amelioration of the risks posed to the United States by
the presence of PCBs in the world environment. United States industry
stands to gain an economic benefit of $50 - $100 million annually from
PCB waste imports, and additional jobs may be created.
EPA received substantial written and oral comments in response to
the proposed PCB Disposal Amendments and the proposed PCB Exemptions
Rule (59 FR 62875, December 6, 1994) on the risk of transportation for
disposal. Most commenters addressing the transportation issue argued
that the risks involved in transportation for disposal are negligible.
The American Trucking Association's (ATA) comments included a review of
the Department of Transportation's (DOT) statistics, and found that
only one ``serious incident'' involving PCB transport occurred in the
period from January 1, 1990 to November 15, 1994. (During that period,
a ``serious incident'' was defined by DOT to be an accident or
derailment, an evacuation, a death, an injury requiring hospitalization
or lost work time, or a road closing. (comment C1-047).) For
comparison, 1,923 serious incidents involving hazardous wastes occurred
from January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1995, and during that same period,
16,074 serious incidents involving all hazardous materials (including
wastes) occurred. Also, during that time, 14 serious incidents
involving Class 7 radioactive material occurred. ATA estimates that
upwards of 500,000 shipments of hazardous materials and 5,000 shipments
of hazardous wastes are made daily.
The Environmental Technology Council (ETC) noted in its comments
that over 200,000 tons of RCRA hazardous waste per year move across the
U.S.- Canadian border, including pesticides and other chlorinated
hydrocarbons with hazard profiles similar to PCBs. Comments supporting
the safe shipment of PCBs for disposal were also provided by S.D.
Myers, Inc. EPA Region IV, in a 1986 study, concluded that the risk
associated with a PCB transportation spill would be slight (Ref. 5).
Based on this data and analysis, EPA finds that the transportation of
PCBs imported into the United States for disposal presents little risk
of injury to health or the environment.
EPA also finds that the storage and disposal of imported PCBs at
facilities approved under TSCA, as required by this rule, presents
little risk of injury to health or the environment. In developing the
disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 761, subpart D, EPA determined that
the benefits of disposal (be that destruction, decontamination, or
long-term containment) outweighed the risks associated with these
processes, especially since EPA regulations require the use of the best
available technology standards for destruction and long-term
containment at approved facilities. As part of its approval process for
PCB waste management facilities, EPA evaluates the technology and
procedures of each facility to ensure its ability to meet these
standards. These assessments presume a conservative scenario with
regard to concentration of constituents and feed-rate. The operating
conditions of the approval are set so that they do not exceed the
values established in the technical assessment and during the
demonstration test. Therefore, since each disposal approval establishes
operating conditions based on waste characteristics demonstrated to the
Agency as part of the approval process, disposing of foreign-generated
PCB waste in U.S. disposal facilities will not increase the risks of
disposal over and above the risks calculated at the time the PCB
disposal approval was issued. In approving facilities under 40 CFR part
761, subpart D, EPA ensures that disposal facilities are designed and
operated in accordance with the regulatory standards. While PCBs
currently in storage or in the environment outside the United States
pose less immediate risk of injury to health and the environment in the
United States than PCBs in the United States today, they do pose some
risk. EPA believes that the benefits of the removal of these PCBs
outside the United States outweighs any risks associated with their
disposal in TSCA-approved facilities.
The importation of PCBs for disposal could theoretically cause
situations posing risks of injury by creating a shortage of disposal
capacity for domestic PCB disposers, especially in the initial period
of this change in policy. Theoretically, such a shortage could raise
disposal prices enough to slow the removal of PCBs from service in the
United States, or to encourage the improper disposal of PCBs, either of
which might result in increased exposure to PCBs. While the import of
PCB wastes may cause minor increases in disposal prices over the short-
term, EPA does not believe that import will cause a shortage of storage
or disposal capacity. With certain exceptions, comments on this rule
confirm that the U.S. PCB disposal companies have generally experienced
an excess of capacity in recent years.
Furthermore, EPA believes the amounts of PCBs available for import
are small in comparison to domestic generation, and pose little threat
of swamping domestic disposal capacity. For instance, a recent report
estimates there are 172,722 metric tons of PCB materials in Canada
(Ref. 3). Mexico reportedly has 60,000 metric tons of PCB materials
(Ref. 1). EPA believes all of this waste is unlikely to be imported
into the United States, particularly not within a single year. For
comparison, 842,050 tons of domestic PCB waste were disposed of at U.S.
commercial facilities in 1993. Paradoxically, allowing import of PCBs
could even stabilize disposal prices for U.S. PCB waste generators in
the future, by ensuring that U.S. PCB disposal facilities continue to
have an economically viable market, and continue to remain in the PCB
waste disposal business.
Despite EPA confidence that import will not hinder United States
generators from disposing of PCBs, as a safety measure, today's rule
will provide a storage capacity cushion for domestic PCB waste. EPA is
requiring owners of storage and disposal facilities accepting imported
PCB waste to certify that no more than 70% of their facilities'
approved and operating storage capacity is being used at any one time
for imported PCB waste from all sources. This will ensure disposal
firms handling imported waste cannot use all their resources for
imported waste to the exclusion of domestic customers. Such a situation
might increase risk by forcing domestic generators to store their waste
for extended periods of time. The 70% capacity limit will facilitate
compliance with the existing requirements for disposal of PCB waste
within 1 year of removal from service (see Sec. 761.65(b)) by ensuring
adequate access to disposal capacity for domestic generators. This
provision will expire after 3 years. Based on the above cited
inventories of waste in Canada and Mexico, EPA estimates that this 3-
year period will be sufficient to allow for any surge of waste imports
generated by this new opportunity to dispose of PCB waste in the United
States. After that time, EPA believes that the PCB disposal market will
have compensated for any effects of additional foreign waste, and
removal of this capacity provision will not deny domestic
[[Page 11099]]
generators access to disposal capacity or contribute to the need to
store PCBs for more than 1 year.
EPA now concludes that to attempt to regulate individual import
shipments of PCBs based on the risk those PCBs would pose to health or
the environment in the United States if they were to remain in storage
or use outside of the United States is impractical and inequitable.
This conclusion is based on the lack of any established scientific
methods in use to measure the relative risk of one cross-border
exposure scenario with another. This issue is further complicated by
the persistence of PCBs in the environment and their world-wide
dispersal. For instance, research supporting EPA's report to Congress,
Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great Waters (EPA-453A/R-93-055,
May, 1994), indicates that up to 89% of the current PCB loading for
Lake Superior occurs through air deposition, much of it from distant
sources. Figures for the other Great Lakes range from 6% to 63%. Based
on the persistence of PCBs in the global environment and EPA's finding
that any exposure to human beings or the environment may be
significant, EPA believes that the safe disposal of PCBs in approved
U.S. facilities poses less risk of injury to health or the environment
in the United States than the continued presence of PCBs in other
countries, since proper disposal in this country provides protection
against possible hazards from improper disposal elsewhere.
II. Discussion of the Rule and Comments
A. Background
Currently, EPA allows the import for disposal of PCBs only at
concentrations less than 50 ppm. In response to periodic requests from
individuals to import PCBs for disposal at higher concentrations, and
to ensure that the PCB rules are not inconsistent with the conditions
of the Basel Convention, EPA proposed in the PCB Disposal Amendments
(59 FR 62788, December 6, 1994) to allow such imports under certain
circumstances, in the belief that doing so would not pose an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. EPA
specifically proposed to create certain categorical exemptions to the
general ban on import for disposal of PCBs at 50 ppm or greater. For
PCB waste not included in these categorical exemptions, EPA proposed to
establish a petition procedure to allow import on a case-by-case basis.
EPA also proposed to clarify the status of certain transboundary
shipments of PCBs which the Agency does not consider import for
purposes of these regulations. Outside of these excepted activities,
the proposed rule retained the general prohibition on the import of
PCBs for disposal at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater.
EPA also requested comment on the extent to which the U.S. border
should be opened to transboundary shipments of PCBs for disposal,
noting that the choices available for the final rule ranged from
allowing all imports under section 6(e)(1) to maintaining the generally
closed border status, and might include opening the border to PCBs from
a limited geographical area such as the Great Lakes drainage basin (see
59 FR 62816).
B. Summary of Comments
Oral and written comments in response to the proposed import
provisions were submitted by approximately 32 separate parties.
Comments are available for review in the docket to this final rule.
EPA's response to these comments are summarized in a Response to
Comments document, which is also available in the docket to this rule.
In general, comments submitted in writing and presented orally at
the public hearing strongly supported opening the border as broadly as
possible to imports of PCBs for disposal. The general sentiment of
commenters was that the time was appropriate for a relaxation of EPA's
1980 ``Closed border policy'' (May 1, 1980, 45 FR 29115) on PCB wastes
because the United States has the technology, capacity, and ability to
dispose of PCB waste generated in other countries. Commenters generally
supported allowing imports of wastes from foreign countries, with
particular emphasis on PCB wastes coming from United States firms with
foreign operations, and from Mexico and Canada. Many commenters opposed
restricting imports to instances where ``the interests of the United
States'' was narrowly interpreted to apply to PCBs in a narrow
geographical area just outside the country's borders, where
mismanagement of those wastes could pose an immediate risk of exposure
and thus pose a risk of injury to health and the environment in the
United States.
Little support was expressed for the actual process proposed by
EPA. Generally, commenters indicated that the proposed petition and
review mechanism was too burdensome and not likely to provide the
relief intended. One commenter, American Trucking Association (C047),
summarized this belief: ``While such case-by-case review may not be a
shipment-by-shipment review nor subject to notice-and-comment
rulemaking, the policy still provides inadequate relief. . .The
petition process still creates market barriers between similarly
qualified potential importers. . .EPA should. . .allow transborder
movements of PCBs at least on a level no more restrictive than
currently exists for hazardous waste.'' Several commenters suggested
that at a minimum, EPA establish a deadline for response to petitions,
and others recommended EPA grant petitions on a class basis for
specific types of imports (i.e., allow only liquids, or recyclable
metals, or waste from countries with no disposal capacity).
Even greater concern was expressed in comments about the actual
criteria that EPA would use to review and rule on petitions to import
waste as proposed. The absence of a description of the review process
and the potential for inequity in EPA's decision-making process were
noted as uncertainties that could negatively impact the U.S. disposal
industry's planning process and hurt business competitiveness.
Commenters indicated that if EPA retained the review process in the
final rule, it should elaborate on the time frame for a decision and
the actual standards it would use in accepting or rejecting petitions
to import PCB waste (e.g., how EPA intends to determine whether an
import is in the interests of the United States). Preference was
expressed for the replacement of the proposed petition process with a
codified list of conditions on import, allowing unrestricted import for
disposal within the bounds of those conditions, with no notification to
EPA.
Not all commenters supported the general proposal to open the
border to PCB wastes at concentrations of 50 ppm and above. One
commenter expressed concern that allowing imported PCBs to compete for
finite domestic disposal capacity would increase PCB disposal costs for
domestic generators such as itself. Adequate domestic disposal capacity
was one of the concerns which caused EPA to close the borders in 1980
and it remains an issue that is being addressed in this rulemaking. The
1980 border closing was focused almost exclusively on waste disposal
capacity in Canada. Capacity now exists in Canada as indicated in
written and oral comments by Canadian disposal firms (e.g., fixed-site
incinerator at Swan Hills, Alberta; mobile incinerators, etc.).
Comments opposing any extension of the current open border policy
for waste at concentrations less than 50 ppm PCBs, to PCBs at
concentrations of 50 ppm or greater, were submitted by the firm of
Hogan & Hartson and others on behalf of several Canadian disposal
[[Page 11100]]
concerns. The commenters argued that EPA does not have the statutory
authority under TSCA section 6(e)(1) to regulate import for disposal;
rather, all imports must be regulated under the statutory ban on
manufacture at section 6(e)(3). The commenters also maintained that by
this rule EPA was making a significant policy change, and that EPA has
failed to support its action with data or analysis, as required by the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. The commenters
also questioned the appropriateness of the proposed rule under existing
international law governing the shipment of hazardous wastes.
As discussed in Unit I.B. of this preamble under the heading
``Statutory Authority,'' EPA believes it has the authority to regulate
import-for-disposal under TSCA section 6(e)(1).
EPA closed the border in 1980 primarily because of both limited
disposal capacity in the United States and no appropriate disposal
capacity in Canada, the country which presented the greatest potential
for exports to the United States. Today, that situation has changed
dramatically, with excess U.S. disposal capacity at an all time high,
and with the presence of adequate disposal capacity in Canada. EPA
believes that today's rule is more in harmony with the international
obligations of the United States pertaining to the transboundary
shipment and disposal of hazardous wastes than the previous closed
border policy.
EPA received a late comment that any decision by the Agency to
generally open the border to imports (and exports) would not have been
properly announced in the Federal Register and therefore potential
commenters did not have an opportunity to provide comment. EPA
disagrees with this comment. The notice proposing to open the border
clearly requested comments on a broad range of options. The December 6,
1994, Federal Register notice stated: ``EPA is requesting comment on
the circumstances under which the U.S. border should be opened to
transboundary shipments of PCBs for disposal. The options range from
allowing all imports for disposal under section 6(e) to maintaining the
current closed border status, and might include opening the border to
PCBs from a limited geographic area such as the Great Lakes drainage
basin'' (59 FR 62816). Many of those who provided written comments or
oral comments at the public hearing on the issue of opening the border
availed themselves of EPA's request. EPA also notes that the written
comment period on this rule was extended once, and totalled 120 days.
The public hearing was held after the close of the written comment
period, and there was opportunity to file written reply comments after
the public hearing. Therefore, EPA rejects the argument of a lack of
prior notice and opportunity for comment on this issue.
C. Discussion of Today's Final Rule
In response to the general support for an expansion of the current
exception (i.e., the import of PCBs for disposal at concentrations of
less than 50 ppm) to allow import of higher concentration waste under
section 6(e)(1) of TSCA, and because EPA has been able to make a
finding of no unreasonable risk, EPA is allowing imports of PCB waste
at concentrations at 50 ppm or greater, under certain conditions. EPA
is adopting the import for disposal portion of the proposed rule, with
modifications to eliminate EPA review and approval of each import
notice. This final rule eliminates these notice requirements for the
import of limited quantities of PCB waste for laboratory analysis or
for treatability studies. These activities facilitate the disposal
process, and import of these limited quantities will not pose an
unreasonable risk to health or the environment. For clarity, EPA is
finalizing the provisions of today's rule under a new subpart F of the
PCB regulations at 40 CFR part 761, which will include all provisions
pertaining to import, export, and other transboundary shipments of PCB
waste. References to the new subpart F are being included at
Secs. 761.20(b) and (c)(3) and 761.60(h) and definitions are being
added to Sec. 761.3 for ``Basel Convention,'' ``Importer,'' and
``Treatability study.''
1. Import notice. Under this final rule at Sec. 761.93(b),
importers of PCBs and PCB Items are required to submit a PCB waste
import notice to EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
EPA must receive this notice at least 45 days before the first import
enters the United States. The notice must contain specific information,
including the identity of the importer (company name, name of contact
person, address, telephone number, facsimile (fax) number, EPA
identification number), the identity of the foreign generator (company
name, contact name, address -- including country, telephone and fax
numbers), countries of transit (if any), port of entry in the United
States, and methods of transport (e.g., by ship or rail). The notice
must identify the types of PCB waste (e.g., transformers, capacitors,
oil, soil) and PCB concentrations, the number and frequency of
shipments, maximum shipment size, and the maximum total quantity to be
imported during the period covered by the notice. Projected dates of
shipment must be included, as well as the period of time covered by the
import notice (not to exceed 12 months). The notice must identify each
storage and disposal facility which will be managing the PCB waste
covered by the notice (by company name, contact name, address,
telephone and facsimile numbers, and EPA identification number).
Imported PCB waste must be stored and disposed of in TSCA-approved
commercial facilities, unless otherwise noted in Sec. 761.93(b). The
notice must also include written certifications from each storage or
disposal facility identified in the notice, including the importer if
applicable, that the facility has the capacity to store the waste and
that no more than 70% of their facilities' approved and operating
storage capacity is being used at any one time for imported PCB waste
from all sources, the facility agrees to accept the waste, and has the
appropriate TSCA approval(s) to manage the waste. In addition, the
importer must certify that it is a TSCA-approved commercial storer or
disposer of PCBs, and that it agrees to accept full financial liability
for the waste from the time it enters the United States until it has
been completely and finally disposed of. Such liability includes the
costs associated with any spills, cleanups, and additional disposal
that may occur. Finally, the importer must certify the completeness and
accuracy of the information included in the notice, using existing
certification language at 40 CFR 761.185(e).
One commenter stated that EPA should require disposers accepting
imported PCB waste to notify all their customers of such imports, so
those customers could assess their liability. EPA does not believe this
is necessary, in that before it accepts any imported PCB waste, the
importer, which must be a commercial storage or disposal facility, must
accept full financial liability for this waste. Further arrangements
for protection from liability for the mismanagement of imported PCBs
are best dealt with in the contractual arrangement between the facility
and their domestic PCB waste clients.
One notice will be sufficient for all shipments by the importer for
12 months from the date of the first import, so long as all shipments
are accurately described by that notice. A change in import practices
during that year which deviates from the notice, such as exceeding the
quantities identified in the notice, commencement of import
[[Page 11101]]
from a new country, or storage or disposal in a different facility,
requires that a new notice be submitted, and received by EPA 45 days
prior to the change occurring. A notice submitted to report such
changes in import practice should indicate that it is an amendment of
an earlier notice. By requiring an import notice only once every 12
months, rather than before every shipment, EPA believes that today's
final rule will impose a significantly lighter reporting burden and
significantly fewer delays on the regulated community than shipment-by-
shipment notification, while still retaining sufficient EPA oversight.
If a series of import shipments will continue beyond 12 months, the
importer must submit a new import notice to cover the activity which
continues beyond the initial 12-month notice period. Provided an
importer submits subsequent notices punctually so that they are
received by EPA at least 45 days before the annual expiration of the
first import notice, the importer should be able to continue importing
indefinitely without interruption, assuming the notices are properly
filed and complete. EPA believes that 45 days are necessary for it to
review the import notice and investigate any associated issues, such as
disposal capacity at a facility, or U.S. international obligations
pertaining to shipments of waste from specific countries.
EPA recognizes that some of the information required to be
submitted in a PCB waste import notice may also be required to be
submitted to EPA pursuant to certain international agreements. With the
exception of the information and certifications required by
Sec. 761.93(b)(1)(iii)(F), (G), and (H), importers may elect to include
information in the PCB waste import notice in the same format as the
information is submitted under the international agreement. Under all
circumstances, the specific certifications required by
Sec. 761.93(b)(1)(iii)(F), (G), and (H) must be included in each PCB
waste import notice. EPA encourages importers to submit information
using the same form submitted under the international agreement,
provided the form contains the information required by
Sec. 761.93(b)(1)(iii)(A)-(E).
2. Confidential business information. EPA believes that the
information requested in PCB waste import notices will generally not
warrant treatment as confidential business information (CBI) pursuant
to section 14 of TSCA. EPA believes that most, if not all, of the
information requested in the PCB waste import notice, will not meet the
criteria established for TSCA CBI. Also, much of this information would
be accessible to the public through other avenues, such as on manifest
forms, or through notices provided under other statutes, such as RCRA,
or under international agreements. For instance, while some
international agreements, such as the bilateral agreement between the
United States and Canada on hazardous waste, have provisions for CBI,
many others, such as the Basel Convention, contain no provisions for
such information.
EPA strongly recommends that importers not make claims of CBI on
their import notices. Notices containing CBI claims will require an
enhanced level of review by the Agency. If CBI claims are made, such
claims should be accompanied, at the time the claim is made, by a
written justification substantiating each item of the claim pursuant to
40 CFR 2.204(e). In accordance with the procedures set forth in TSCA
and 40 CFR part 2, EPA will routinely request such substantiation from
the importer if it does not accompany the claim of confidentiality. EPA
intends to challenge CBI claims, unless the submitter satisfactorily
demonstrates a valid need to maintain confidentiality, and can
demonstrate that the information is not accessible to the public
through other avenues, such as a government-to-government notification
under the Basel Convention, or through manifesting.
Any claim of confidentiality must accompany the PCB waste import
notice at the time it is submitted to EPA. To make a CBI claim, the
importer must submit two copies of each PCB waste import notice. One
copy of the notice must contain all information required in
Sec. 761.93(b)(1)(iii). In this copy of the notice, the submitter must
clearly highlight or mark the specific items claimed as confidential on
each page, and identify each item with the label ``TSCA Confidential
Business Information.'' This notice must be double wrapped, and the
inner envelope marked ``PCB Waste Import Notice -- CBI Claimed.'' The
outer envelope must be addressed to: TSCA Document Processing Center
(7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460. Substantiation of CBI claims
must be submitted with this copy. The second, ``sanitized,'' copy must
contain all information required in the first copy, with the exception
that all information claimed as confidential in the first copy must be
deleted. This copy must be sent to the address used for non-CBI notices
(Attn: PCB Waste Import Notice, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, Office of Compliance (2222A), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460). EPA will not consider a
PCB waste import notice that contains CBI claims to be complete for
purposes of this rule, nor initiate the 45-day time period, until both
copies and the written substantiation are received by EPA.
3. Review of import notice. EPA will screen incoming PCB import
notices for compliance with the notice conditions required by
Sec. 761.93(b)(1). EPA may refuse entry of individual PCB waste import
shipments in instances where the import notice is incomplete,
inaccurate, or the designated storage or disposal facility is not
approved for the type, concentration, or quantity of waste proposed.
EPA is also reserving the right to refuse entry based on shortage of
the storage or disposal capacity at the designated facility (including
non-compliance with the 70% storage capacity requirement), or non-
compliance with international law or obligations that would result from
a given import. In addition, EPA may always at a later date bring an
enforcement action against a shipment which has already entered the
United States.
4. Regulation of PCBs after import. EPA is also including a
provision at Sec. 761.93(b)(2) in the final rule to address the storage
and disposal of imported PCB wastes in the United States. Imported PCBs
and PCB Items are subject to all applicable marking provisions of
subpart C, and must be stored and disposed of in accordance with
subpart D. All storage container provisions of subpart D apply, as well
as any applicable Department of Transportation (DOT) standards.
In general, all PCB wastes imported into the United States are
regulated under 40 CFR part 761 in the same manner as domestic PCBs
except that imported PCB wastes must be stored and disposed of in a
facility with an appropriate commercial storage or disposal approval
that has been issued under section 6(e) of TSCA. Imported PCB wastes
may not be stored at a facility which is not approved as a commercial
storer of PCB waste, nor may they be disposed of at a facility without
a TSCA disposal approval issued by EPA, such as a municipal solid waste
landfill, boiler, industrial furnace, or high-efficiency boiler. For
instance, intact and non-leaking fluorescent light ballasts and drained
PCB-contaminated electrical equipment from domestic sources are
currently allowed under TSCA to be disposed of as municipal solid
waste. However, if these PCB items are imported for
[[Page 11102]]
disposal, they must be treated as PCB waste. They must be manifested,
stored at a commercial storage facility, and disposed of in a TSCA-
approved disposal facility (e.g., incinerator or TSCA landfill). The
handling of all imported PCBs and PCB Items as PCB waste subject to
subpart D is a necessary condition of EPA's finding of no unreasonable
risk for the import of PCBs for disposal. EPA is mandating the use of
TSCA-approved commercial storage and disposal facilities for the same
reason; such facilities have financial assurance to ensure proper
closure, they must submit annual reports to the Agency, and they have
Agency approved capacity limits at their storage facilities. These
conditions are necessary for the Agency to track imported PCB waste,
and they permit the United States to assure the exporting country that
the imported PCB waste is being managed in an environmentally sound
manner.
Imported PCB waste is subject to the 1 year limit on storage for
disposal at Sec. 761.65(a). For calculation of the 1 year storage for
disposal limitation, EPA will consider storage for disposal to initiate
on the first one of the following three dates, as applicable: (1) The
date the PCB waste enters a State in the 48 contiguous States; (2) the
date the PCB waste enters any State, if the waste is to be disposed of
in that State; (3) the date the waste enters a State outside the
contiguous 48 States, if the waste is stored in that State for more
than 10 consecutive days. The first of these instances will be the
usual situation. The second provision currently is expected to apply to
waste disposed of at the U.S. Army's disposal facility at Johnston
Atoll, as this is currently the only TSCA-approved disposal facility
outside the contiguous 48 States. The third instance is intended to
prevent the indefinite storage of waste in a State. For instance,
shipments of waste in transit from another country to the U.S. mainland
might enter a Hawaiian port for a few days for transfer to another
vessel. EPA does not consider such a transfer to begin the 1 year
storage for disposal time period. However, EPA does not wish to allow
waste to be stored at dockside or in ships for weeks on end. Ten days
is the existing regulatory limit on such transfer storage, because that
is the time limit imposed on storage at a transfer facility without
approval for commercial storage (see Sec. 761.3, definition of a
``transfer facility''). That is, if waste is stored at a port for over
10 days, it must be stored by an approved commercial storer, and the 1
year storage for disposal limit will also commence for that waste.
Importers should be aware that the 1 year limit on storage for disposal
automatically precludes the legal import of PCB wastes that cannot be
disposed of within 1 year, such as some types of mixed PCB-radioactive
wastes for which there are currently no permanent disposal solutions.
5. Recordkeeping and manifesting. For purposes of recordkeeping
under 40 CFR part 761, subpart J, ``General Records and Reports,''
importers, other than those who are the initial commercial storer or
disposer of the waste, are required by Sec. 761.93(b)(3)(i) to keep the
same annual records required of domestic generators. EPA is not
requiring importers to keep these records if the waste is imported
directly upon entry to the importers own facility, because these
records would be duplicative of those maintained by the facility as a
commercial storer or disposer under Sec. 761.180(b). Importers who must
keep the records required of generators, shall keep those records
distinct from those that the importer maintains in its capacity as a
commercial storer and disposer. If the importer also happens to be a
generator of (domestic) PCB waste, and is required to keep annual
records for those wastes, the annual log must clearly distinguish
between the imported and domestic wastes. For instance, the log must
indicate in some manner, such as a code, asterisk, bolding, or separate
subheadings, each item on the log (manifest numbers, PCB Articles, PCB
Containers, etc.) that came from a foreign source. The totals required
at Sec. 761.180(a)(2)(iii) must also include separate subtotals for
imported wastes in those categories. The log need only distinguish
imported waste from domestic waste, and need not identify the country
of origin or subdivide the subtotals by specific country of origin.
Similarly, all disposers and commercial storers who accept imported
waste must identify imported wastes as such in their annual logs, and
provide subtotals for imported wastes in their annual logs and the
annual report they must submit to EPA pursuant to the requirements at
40 CFR 761.180(b). Such denoted records and reports will assist EPA in
monitoring the effect of waste imports on domestic disposal rates and
disposal capacity.
Section 761.93(b)(3)(ii) of today's rule makes the part 761,
subpart K requirements applicable to imported PCB wastes with certain
modifications. In filling out the manifest, identifying information on
both the importer and the foreign generator must be substituted for
information on the generator. The importer must also sign the manifest
in place of the generator, and obtain the signature of the first U.S.
transporter. These provisions conform to the requirements of 40 CFR
part 262, subpart F for the manifesting of imported Hazardous Waste
under RCRA.
In general, the importer shall be considered the generator under
this rule for purposes of compliance with the provisions of subpart K.
Since importers are required by this rule to be TSCA-approved
commercial storers or disposers, they are required to have already
submitted a Form 7710-53 under Sec. 761.205 and received a unique EPA
identification number.
Also, EPA is requiring that all imported PCB waste must be
manifested, even if the importer is also the receiving facility
indicated on the manifest. That is to say, if a commercial disposal
facility is importing waste to its own facility, even with its own
trucks, it must manifest the waste; it cannot claim exemption from the
manifest requirements as a ``generator'' who has not relinquished
control over its own waste. This provision also applies to persons in
the United States importing PCB wastes generated by their own
facilities abroad. At Sec. 761.207(a), EPA exempted domestic generators
from manifesting shipments so long as they retained control, to
encourage consolidation of waste, and because EPA could track the
waste's movement through the generators' annual records. Since neither
the rationale nor the control mechanism applies to waste generated at
foreign sites, EPA is requiring that all PCB waste imported pursuant to
Sec. 761.93(b) be manifested. EPA recognizes that this will create many
instances where an importing company will manifest waste to itself. EPA
is also stipulating that imported PCB wastes always be manifested
separately from domestic PCB wastes, both to insulate domestic waste
generators from liability for imported wastes, and to simplify tracking
of imported wastes for annual records, annual reports, and EPA
compliance monitoring.
6. Analytical samples. Under Sec. 761.93(c), EPA is adding a
provision to today's rule allowing limited quantities of PCB waste to
be imported into the United States by any commercial storer, disposer,
or laboratory to determine physical and chemical properties of the
PCBs. (For purposes of this rule, EPA considers such analysis as a
disposal related activity, and within the scope of today's rule under
section 6(e)(1) of TSCA.) This action is being taken in order to
facilitate storage or disposal,
[[Page 11103]]
and verification of appropriate storage and disposal approval
conditions and sufficient storage capacity. No prior notification or
approval is required under this provision. However, laboratories,
storers, and disposers importing samples should be aware that
notification may nevertheless still be required for these shipments by
other Federal, State, or local laws or international treaties.
Analytical samples are also subject to TSCA section 13 import
certification (40 CFR 707.20). As with all other PCBs of unknown
concentration, samples containing unknown concentrations of PCBs must
be assumed to contain, and treated as if they contain, PCBs at
concentrations of 50 ppm or greater. All unused PCB waste sample
material and residuals from any testing must be stored in compliance
with Sec. 761.65(b) and disposed of in compliance with Sec. 761.60.
Quantities imported by each importing facility are being limited to
annual levels of 25 liters for liquids, and 200 kilograms for non-
liquid PCBs, such as soil or sediment. Individual samples are being
limited in size to 25 milliliters for liquids and 5 kilograms for non-
liquids. In addition, laboratories must comply with existing conditions
at Sec. 761.65(i) for the handling of PCB samples, and in conformity to
the definition of commercial storer, must be approved as a commercial
storer if they store a total of more than 500 gallons of PCBs at any
one time (for computation of non-liquid PCB volume, 500 gallons (U.S.)
equals approximately 1.89 cubic meters).
By eliminating the notification provision for analytical samples,
EPA is allowing U.S. laboratories, storers, and disposers to handle
samples from foreign sources in the same manner that they are permitted
to handle domestic samples. EPA believes that to impose a notification
requirement, and the corresponding 45-day advance notice provision,
would impose an unreasonable burden on U.S. laboratories, storers, and
disposers which could significantly affect their ability to compete for
foreign business. Because of the limited quantities of waste being
imported under this provision, and the controlled environment where
such samples will be handled, EPA finds that allowing such limited
imports will not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or
the environment.
PCBs at concentrations of less than 50 ppm may continue to be
imported without regard to the quantity limits and storage and disposal
requirements imposed by Sec. 761.93(c), since these provisions only
apply to PCBs at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater. The import of
PCBs for disposal at concentrations less than 50 ppm is allowed without
restriction by Sec. 761.93(a)(1)(i).
7. Treatability studies. A similar provision is being added at
Sec. 761.93(d) to allow TSCA-approved disposal facilities to import,
without prior notification, limited quantities of PCB waste for
treatability studies. Such studies are typically performed to determine
the suitability and effectiveness of a disposal method on a specific
sample of PCB waste. EPA is imposing limits on the annual quantity of
waste imported (500 gallons), the maximum concentration of PCBs in
samples (10,000 ppm), and the annual quantity of pure PCBs present in
the material (1 kilogram). These limits conform to those proposed by
EPA (59 FR 62788) for self-implementing Research and Development
studies. Larger quantities may be imported for treatability studies
under Sec. 761.93(b). Appropriate marking, storage, disposal,
manifesting, and recordkeeping provisions apply to PCB waste imported
under Sec. 761.93(d). Also, as with analytical samples, PCB waste
shipped for treatability studies may be subject to notification
requirements under other laws or international treaties. Treatability
study wastes are also subject to TSCA section 13 import certification
(40 CFR 707.20). Treatability waste containing unknown concentrations
of PCBs must be assumed to contain, and treated as if they contain,
PCBs at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater. EPA believes that it is
appropriate to allow such treatability sample shipments to occur
without prior notification, because the delays involved in notification
would place U.S. disposers at a competitive disadvantage with foreign
competitors, and would unfairly penalize foreign waste generators
wishing to do business with U.S. disposers vis-a-vis domestic
generators, who are only required to manifest samples.
8. Other imports and transboundary shipments. The general
exceptions to the import prohibition, proposed at Sec. 761.20(b)(2) are
being included in this final rule at Sec. 761.93(a)(1). Section
761.93(a)(1)(i) allows for the import of PCBs and PCB Items for
disposal at concentrations of less than 50 ppm, as was allowed prior to
this rule by Sec. 761.20(b)(2). PCBs and PCB Items at concentrations
less than 50 ppm are not regulated for disposal under 40 CFR part 761,
subpart D, and are allowed to be imported and exported for disposal
under TSCA section 6(e)(1).
Section 761.93(a)(1)(ii) allows for the shipment of PCBs for
disposal from United States territories and possessions outside the
customs territory of the United States. As explained in detail in the
preamble to the proposed rule (59 FR 62788 at 62816), these shipments
are technically considered ``imports'' under TSCA. This import activity
may be conducted without going through the notice process at
Sec. 761.93(b)(1). EPA does not find a notice necessary to make a
finding of no unreasonable risk, since the PCBs are already in the
United States, and are, and have always been, subject to all use,
distribution in commerce, and disposal requirements of 40 CFR part 761,
but must be ``imported'' into the customs territory of the United
States for ultimate disposal.
EPA is not finalizing the proposed Sec. 761.20(b)(6) in today's
final rule. This section proposed to codify EPA's current policy toward
certain transboundary shipments of PCBs which are not treated as import
or export for purposes of 40 CFR part 761. EPA will address this issue,
along with other issues raised by the December 6, 1994, proposed rule,
including export of PCBs at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater, in a
separate Federal Register notice at a later date.
EPA is adopting the proposed Sec. 761.20(c)(3)(i), now at
Sec. 761.97(a)(1), which allows the export of PCBs for disposal at
concentrations of less than 50 ppm. Such export had up until today's
rule been permitted under Sec. 761.20(b)(2). Although EPA intends to
address the general issue of export at a later date in the final PCB
Disposal Amendments, it is necessary to finalize this one export
provision in today's rule to preserve the status quo on exports.
Otherwise, with the elimination of the language at old
Sec. 761.20(b)(2), delaying promulgation of the proposed
761.20(c)(3)(i) would make the export for disposal of PCBs at
concentrations less than 50 ppm illegal in the interim between the
effective date of this rule and the effective date of the final PCB
Disposal Amendments. EPA is placing the reference to the subpart F
export provisions in Sec. 761.20(c)(3), which addresses export for
disposal. EPA believes this location is more appropriate than
Sec. 761.20(b), which addresses manufacturing and importing
prohibitions. EPA intends to include all subsequent export for disposal
provisions under Sec. 761.97.
III. Official Rulemaking Record
In accordance with the requirements of section 19(a)(3) of TSCA,
EPA established the record of this rulemaking with the proposed rule.
This
[[Page 11104]]
record includes basic information considered by the Agency in
developing the proposal, and now includes information added since the
publication of the proposed rule, including comments on the proposed
rule, a transcript of the public hearing on the rule, and reply
comments on the hearing. The following comments were received on the
proposed PCB Exemptions Rule (Docket number OPPTS-66019) and are also
included: all comments and information received from S.D. Myers, Inc.;
Foley, Hoag & Eliot; and Hogan & Hartson for Chem Securities and Bovar.
All of these materials (Docket number OPPTS-66009B) are available for
inspection and copying in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center,
Monday through Friday (excluding holidays) from 12 noon to 4 p.m., in
Room G-102 (401 M St., SW., Washington, DC). However, any information
claimed as CBI that is a part of the record for this rulemaking is not
available for public review. A public version of the record, from which
information claimed as CBI has been excluded, is available for
inspection.
The following Federal Register Notices are included in the docket:
1. USEPA, 44 FR 31514, May 31, 1979, ``Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs); Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use
Prohibitions: Final Rule.''
2. USEPA, 45 FR 29115, May 1, 1980, ``Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs); Expiration of the Open Border Policy for PCB Disposal:
Notice.''
3. USEPA, 54 FR 52176, December 21, 1989, ``Polychlorinated
Biphenyls; Notification and Manifesting for PCB Waste Activities: Final
Rule.'' OPTS-62059
4. USEPA, 55 FR 26204, June 27, 1990, ``Polychlorinated Biphenyls;
Notification and Manifesting for PCB Waste Activities: Correction to
Final Rule.'' OPTS-62059
5. USEPA, 57 FR 20602, May 13, 1992, ``Hazardous Waste Management
System; Notification Concerning the Basel Convention's Potential
Implications for Hazardous Waste Exports and Imports: Notice.''
6. USEPA, 59 FR 62788, December 6, 1994, ``Disposal of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls: Proposed Rule.'' OPPTS-66009A
7. USEPA, 59 FR 62875, December 6, 1994, ``Polychlorinated
Biphenyls; Manufacturing, Processing, and Distribution in Commerce;
Proposed Decision on Exemption Petitions: Proposed Rule.'' OPPTS-66019
IV. Regulatory Impact
In general, this PCB import rule will bring U.S. regulations
regarding PCB shipments to the United States in closer conformance with
the principles of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal.
The research of the economic impacts of this action focused on
whether import levels will generate an economic impact of $100 million
per year or more for U.S. companies. Contacts were made to: (1) PCB
waste management companies, (2) the Environmental Technology Council, a
trade association representing waste management companies, and (3)
various government organizations in the United States, Canada, and
Mexico.
EPA has found that the expected regulatory impacts will be positive
and consist predominantly of increased revenues for U.S. PCB waste
management companies. No significant negative impacts were identified
for any sector of the U.S. economy.
1. Forecasts of import levels. Industry personnel surveyed by an
EPA contractor during the development of the Economic Assessment for
the Final PCB Import Rule indicated that the majority of PCB waste
imports will originate in Canada, with additional wastes originating in
Mexico. One recent estimate set the quantity of Canadian PCBs in use at
50,000 metric tons and PCB wastes in storage (including electrical
equipment and contaminated soils) at 140,000 metric tons (Ref. 3).
These figures, which total over 400 million pounds of potential PCB
waste imports, do not include light ballast wastes. Assuming that PCB
waste disposal and management will generate revenues of $1 per pound,
this figure represents an overall market of over $400 million. Canada
has an operating PCB disposal facility at Swan Hills, Alberta. Canada
also has some smaller, mobile disposal facilities available which can
handle PCB waste. Therefore, a share of the Canadian wastes will be
disposed of in Canada even if the U.S. border is opened to these
wastes.
Limited data are available on Mexico's PCB waste quantities. A 1995
study by ERM-Mexico, ``Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Mexico'' (Ref. 1),
indicates that Mexico has 10,000 metric tons of liquid PCB waste and
perhaps over 10,000 PCB transformers and capacitors. Combined, these
wastes might approach 100 million pounds. Chemical Waste Management
operates a chemical landfill in Mexico that accepts low-concentration
PCB wastes, but no incinerators are operating in Mexico. As a result,
some Mexican companies are currently shipping PCB wastes to Europe for
disposal.
Other than Canada and Mexico, additional major sources of PCB
wastes are uncertain. PCB disposal industry personnel have indicated to
EPA that they do not believe that large-scale PCB shipments from Japan
or Europe would occur, based on their opinion that transportation costs
would be excessive and that there are likely to be more conveniently
located disposal sites elsewhere (Ref. 10). For example, in Europe, PCB
disposal facilities reportedly exist in Great Britain, the Netherlands,
France, and Finland.
2. Conclusions on import levels. While data on which to base a
forecast are limited, it was judged that revenues from PCB imports will
not exceed $100 million per year. The total potential import market
from Canada and Mexico is estimated to be in the vicinity of 500
million pounds of waste, representing a total market of $500 million.
Only if all wastes from Canada and Mexico were imported within 5 years
could U.S. revenues increase by over $100 million per year. As noted,
however, a share of the Canadian waste will be disposed of in Canada.
Further, while the rate at which importing will occur is unknown, the
lack of regulations mandating swift disposal in the exporting countries
suggests that imports will occur over a longer time period than 5
years.
Given the above observations, it was judged more likely that
revenues from disposal of imported PCB wastes will fall in the range of
$50 million to $100 million per year. Although revenues might increase
further if additional PCB wastes arrive from other countries, the
volume of such imports is not expected to be large.
3. Forecasts of price changes for disposal of PCB wastes. EPA's
analysis in support of this rule also examined the likelihood that
importing of PCB wastes would increase prices for disposal services,
thereby generating economic impacts for domestic PCB waste generators.
The current level of capacity utilization among PCB disposal companies
is the main factor influencing the likelihood of price increases.
The Environmental Technology Council (ETC), Washington, DC., was
contacted by EPA during the preparation of the Economic Assessment, and
reports to EPA a substantial unused capacity at domestic PCB waste
disposal facilities, based on ETC's own research. Two new facilities
have begun operations in the last few years and another is preparing
for commercial operations. ETC estimates
[[Page 11105]]
these facilities represent an increase in U.S. capacity for PCB waste
incineration of nearly 50 percent in the last 3 years. EPA's survey of
the disposal industry in support of this rule also indicates a large
capacity surplus. The existing unused capacity appears sufficient such
that imports could be handled without displacing domestic wastes or
causing U.S. prices to increase significantly. No other notable
domestic economic impacts are forecast.
4. Other economic impacts. The final PCB import rule will have
several positive economic impacts. PCB waste management companies
indicated that the rule will boost their industry and create jobs in
the United States. The final PCB rule will not materially affect
productivity, competition, or Federal, State, or local governments.
V. References
1. ERM-Mexico, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in Mexico, Report
for the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (Draft), August 1995,
48pp.
2. Ross Associates, Status of PCB Management in the United States,
Report for Commission for Environmental Cooperation, August 24, 1995.
3. Procter Redfern, Status of PCB Management in Canada, Report for
Commission for Environmental Cooperation (Draft Final Report),
September 1995, 26pp.
4. Letter from Lynn R. Goldman, M.D. to the Honorable David M.
McIntosh, Status of Import for Disposal Petitions filed by S.D. Myers,
Inc., September 26, 1993, 2pp.
5. USEPA, Region 4, Public Health and Environmental Exposure
Assessment (Draft), Unison PCB Separation Facility Henderson County,
Kentucky, August 1986.
6. USEPA, OAQPS, Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great Waters,
First Report to Congress, May 1994.
7. USEPA, OAQPS, Identification of Sources Contributing to the
Contamination of the Great Waters by Toxic Compounds, March 17, 1993,
145pp.
8. USEPA, OAQPS, Exposure and Effects of Airborne Contamination for
the Great Waters Program Report, December 22, 1992, 201pp.
9. USEPA, OAQPS, Relative Atmospheric Loadings of Toxic
Contaminants and Nitrogen to the Great Waters, March 15, 1993, 142pp.
10. USEPA, OPPT, RIA, Niskam Agarwal, Economic Assessment for the
Final PCB Import Rule, February 23, 1996, 17 pp.
11. USEPA, OPPT, Dr. William H. Sanders, Letter to Dr. D.Sharma,
USDOT, December 18, 1995, 2pp.
12. U.S. Department of Transportation, Letter from Dr. D.K. Sharma
to William H. Sanders, USEPA, February 20, 1996, 2pp.
13. USEPA, OPPT, Response to Comments on Proposal to Import PCBs
for Disposal (Docket 66009B), March 1, 1996.
VI. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), it has
been determined that this regulatory action is not ``significant'' and
therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), the Agency has considered whether this regulatory action will
have an adverse economic impact on small entities. An analysis of the
potential impact on small entities is present in the regulatory
flexibility analysis, which is included as part of the Economic
Assessment that was prepared for this rulemaking. Based on that
analysis, EPA has determined that this regulatory action does not
impose any adverse economic impacts on small entities. Information
relating to this determination has been included in the docket for this
rulemaking.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this rule under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq and
has assigned OMB control number 2070-0149 (EPA ICR No. 1770.01).-
Receipt by the U.S. of internationally-generated PCB wastes under
this rule will increase the volume of PCBs that is distributed in
commerce, stored, and disposed of by the U.S. disposal industry.
Advance knowledge of those activities through the PCB waste import
notice will allow EPA to act on these requests in a manner that will
ensure the national storage capacity for PCB waste is not exceeded and
that facilities receiving such wastes are capable of handling this
material (e.g., the facility has an EPA approval, adequate storage
capacity, and accepts liability for the waste). Prior notice will also
give EPA the opportunity to ensure that such imports are in compliance
with international law and obligations of the United States.
Data that are submitted to the Agency will be used by EPA to ensure
an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment will not
ensue from the respondents' PCB activities. The data will also be made
available to EPA regional inspectors, or their agents, to supplement
their compliance efforts in implementing the requirements/conditions of
the PCB regulations. The prior notice of import requirements in this
rule will allow the Agency to address the special liability concerns
inherent in the transboundary shipment of PCB waste.
The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 134 hours per respondent
annually, at an annual cost of $5,468. EPA estimates that 10
respondents will each file 12 notices annually, at an average burden of
11 hours, $470, per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions, develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
inst
FR Doc. 96-6448 Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls; Import for Disposal
ructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. EPA is
also amending the table of currently approved information collection
request (ICR) control numbers issued by OMB for various regulations,
which appears at 40 CFR part 9. This amendment updates the table to
accurately display OMB approval of the information requirements
contained in this final rule. This display of the OMB control number
and its subsequent codification in the Code of Federal Regulations
satisfies the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.) and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.
The ICR was previously subject to public notice and comment prior
to OMB approval. As a result, EPA finds that there is ``good cause''
under section
[[Page 11106]]
553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)) to
amend this table without prior notice and comment. Due to the technical
nature of the table, further notice and comment would be unnecessary.
D. Environmental Justice
According to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994),
each Federal Agency is required to ``analyze the environmental effects,
including human health, economic and social effects, of Federal
actions, including effects on minority communities and low-income
communities. . . .'' Accordingly, EPA examined the impact of the PCB
import rule on the distribution of PCB management activities relative
to the socioeconomic characteristics of the surrounding communities.
EPA finds that the PCB import rule does not directly affect the
citing of PCB management facilities; imported PCBs will be managed at
existing TSCA-approved facilities. Based on the PCB import rule's lack
of influence on siting of new facilities, EPA concludes that the PCB
import rule does not create environmental injustice.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and Executive Order 12875
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4), EPA has determined that this regulatory action does
not contain any ``unfunded mandates,'' as described by the Act, for
State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. In
addition, EPA has determined that this action does not result in the
expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or tribal
governments, or by anyone in the private sector. The costs associated
with this action are described in the Executive Order 12866 section
above.
Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 9
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761
Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Labeling,
Polychlorinated biphenyls, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 8, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
PART 9 [AMENDED]
1. In part 9:
a. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1321, 1326, 1330, 1344,
1345(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 1971-1975
Comp. p 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-1,
300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2, 300j-3,
300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-
9657, 11023, 11048.
b. Section 9.1 is amended by adding the new entries to the table to
read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR citation OMB control No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
761.93(a)(1)(iii)................................................ 2070-0149
761.93(b)........................................................ 2070-0149
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 761 [AMENDED]
2. In part 761:
a. The authority citation for part 761 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2611, 2614 and 2616.
b. In Sec. 761.3 by adding alphabetically definitions for ``Basel
Convention,'' ``Importer,'' and ``Treatability study'' to read as
follows:
* * * * *
Basel Convention means the Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal as
entered into force on May 5, 1992.
* * * * *
Importer means any person defined as an ``importer'' at
Sec. 720.3(l) of this chapter who imports PCBs or PCB Items and is
under the jurisdiction of the United States.
* * * * *
Treatability Study means a study in which PCB waste is subjected to
a treatment process to determine:
(1) Whether the waste is amenable to the treatment process;
(2) What pretreatment (if any) is required;
(3) The optimal process conditions needed to achieve the desired
treatment;
(4) The efficiency of a treatment process for the specific type of
waste (i.e., soil, sludge, liquid, etc.); or,
(5) The characteristics and volumes of residuals from a particular
treatment process. A ``treatability study'' is not a mechanism to
commercially treat or dispose of PCB waste. Treatment is a form of
disposal under this part.
* * * * *
c. In Sec. 761.20 by revising the first two sentences of the
introductory text, paragraphs (b) and (c)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 761.20 Prohibitions.
Except as authorized in Sec. 761.30, the activities listed in
paragraphs (a) and (d) of this section are prohibited pursuant to
section 6(e)(2) of TSCA. The requirements set forth in paragraph (c) of
this section and subpart F of this part concerning export and import of
PCBs and PCB Items for disposal are established pursuant to section
6(e)(1) of TSCA. * * *
* * * * *
(b) No person may manufacture PCBs for use within the United States
or manufacture PCBs for export from the United States without an
exemption, except that: an exemption is not required for PCBs
manufactured in an excluded manufacturing process as defined in
Sec. 761.3, provided all applicable conditions of Sec. 761.1(f) are
met.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
[[Page 11107]]
(3) PCBs and PCB Items may be exported for disposal in accordance
with the requirements of subpart F of this part. * * * * *
d. In Sec. 761.60 by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 761.60 Disposal requirements.
* * * * *
(h) Requirements for export and import of PCBs and PCB Items for
disposal are found in Subpart F of this part.
* * * * *
e. By adding a new Subpart F to read as follows:
Subpart F--Transboudary Shipments of PCBs for Disposal
Sec.
761.91 Applicability.
761.93 Import for Disposal.
761.97 Export for Disposal.
Subpart F--Transboundary Shipments of PCBs for Disposal
Sec. 761.91 Applicability.
This subpart establishes requirements under section 6 of TSCA
applicable to the transboundary shipments of PCBs and PCB Items into
and out of the United States for disposal. Nothing in this subpart is
intended to obviate or otherwise alter obligations applicable to
imported or exported PCBs and PCB Items under foreign laws,
international agreements or arrangements, other United States statutes
and regulations, other sections of TSCA (e.g., sections 13 and 14), or
laws of the various States of the United States. No provision of this
section shall be construed to affect or limit the applicability of any
requirement applicable to transporters of PCB waste under regulations
issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and set forth at
49 CFR parts 171-180.
Sec. 761.93 Import for disposal.
(a) General provisions. (1) No person may import PCBs or PCB Items
for disposal without an exemption, except that:
(i) PCBs and PCB Items at concentrations less than 50 ppm may be
imported for disposal.
(ii) PCBs and PCB Items at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater may
be imported from United States territories or possessions outside the
customs territory of the United States into the customs territory of
the United States for disposal.
(iii) PCBs and PCB Items at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater,
other than those described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii), may be imported for
disposal pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
(iv) PCBs and PCB Items at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater may
be imported for analysis and disposal pursuant to paragraph (c) of this
section.
(v) PCBs and PCB Items at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater may
be imported for evaluation of disposal technologies for PCB waste
pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, PCBs and PCB
Items of unknown concentrations shall be treated as if they contain 50
ppm or greater.
(3) All imports of PCBs and PCB Items at any concentration under
paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be in compliance with all
international agreements or arrangements that the United States has
entered into applicable to PCB waste imports. The United States retains
the authority to disallow any PCB waste import not in compliance with
these agreements or arrangements, or other international obligations of
the United States.
(b) PCBs and PCB Items. PCBs and PCB Items at concentrations of 50
ppm or greater may be imported for disposal under paragraph (a)(1)(iii)
of this section only by a person who is an approved commercial storer
or disposer under subpart D of this part, and only if a PCB waste
import notice is submitted to EPA pursuant to this paragraph.
(1) PCB waste import notice. (i) PCB waste import notices under
this paragraph must be submitted to EPA in writing. The complete PCB
waste import notice must be received by EPA at the mailing address or
delivery address set forth in this paragraph at least 45 days prior to
the date on which the initial shipment enters the United States. Each
notice shall be clearly marked ``PCB Waste Import Notice'' and shall be
sent by certified mail to: Attn: PCB Waste Import Notice, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Office of Compliance (2222A),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC
20460. Alternately, notices may be delivered by courier to the same
office at the Ariel Rios Building, room 5124, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20004.
(ii) Each PCB waste import notice may cover an individual shipment
or a series of shipments extending over a period up to 12 months
beginning with the date on which the initial shipment enters the United
States. A new notice must be received by EPA every 12 months if import
for disposal will continue. A new notice must also be received by EPA
at any time that import will deviate from the terms described in the
prior notice, at least 45 days before the activity constituting the
deviation begins. Such notices should indicate that the notice is a
revision, and indicate what information has changed.
(iii) Each PCB waste import notice shall contain the following
information:
(A) Company name, name of a contact person, address, telephone
number, facsimile (FAX) number, and EPA identification number of the
importer of PCB waste.
(B) Company name, name of contact person, address (including
country), telephone number, and facsimile (FAX) number of the foreign
generator, countries of transit (if any), port of entry in the United
States, and method of transportation.
(C) Types of PCBs and PCB Items to be imported (e.g., transformers,
capacitors, oil, soil), PCB concentrations of each type of PCB or PCB
Items, number and frequency of shipments, maximum shipment size, and
maximum total quantity to be imported during the designated import
period.
(D) Projected dates of shipments, and period of time intended for
import activities addressed by the notice (not to exceed 12 months).
(E) Name, contact name, address, telephone number, facsimile (FAX)
number, and EPA Identification Number of each TSCA-approved commercial
storage and disposal facility where the PCB waste will be stored and
disposed of.
(F) Written certification from each TSCA-approved commercial
storage or disposal facility identified in paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(E) of
this section, including the importer, indicating that each facility has
agreed to accept the shipments of PCBs or PCB Items; has approval to
store or dispose of PCB waste under subpart D of this part; has
sufficient storage capacity available for imported PCB waste; and until
March 18, 1999, will not exceed the 70% capacity limit imposed on
imported PCB waste under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this paragraph.
(G) Written certification from the importer, stating: ``I certify
that I am a TSCA-approved commercial storer (disposer) of PCB waste,
and that I accept complete financial liability for the transportation,
storage, and disposal of all PCBs and PCB Items imported into the
United States under this notice.''
(H) Written certification pursuant to Sec. 761.185(e), signed by
the importer identified in paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A) of this section,
indicating that the information in the notice is complete and accurate.
(iv) Some of the information required to be submitted in a PCB
waste import notice may also be required to be
[[Page 11108]]
submitted to EPA pursuant to certain international agreements. With the
exception of information required by paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(F), (G),
and (H) of this section, importers may elect to include information in
the PCB waste import notice using the same form submitted under the
international agreement provided the form contains the information
required by paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A)-(E) of this section. Under all
circumstances, the specific certifications required by paragraphs
(b)(1)(iii)(F), (G), and (H) of this section must be included in each
PCB waste import notice.
(v) Notwithstanding the submission of a PCB waste import notice
pursuant to this subpart, EPA reserves the right to refuse entry into
the United States of individual shipments of PCBs or PCB Items that do
not comply with applicable Federal laws and regulations. EPA also
reserves the right to bring an enforcement action against an importer
whose past import of PCBs or PCB Items does not comply with applicable
Federal laws or regulations.
(vi) Submission of a PCB waste import notice under paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section does not replace or satisfy other import
notice or consent requirements of applicable international agreements
or arrangements, of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
of other Federal statutes, or of TSCA section 13 (see 40 CFR 707.20).
(vii) Confidential business information. (A) EPA believes that the
information requested in PCB waste import notices generally will not be
entitled to be treated as confidential business information (CBI)
pursuant to section 14 of TSCA. However, a person submitting a PCB
waste import notice may claim as CBI information the person believes to
be entitled to confidential treatment under TSCA section 14 and part 2
of this chapter. If no claim is made at the time the notice is
submitted, the information in the notice shall be available to the
public without further notice to the submitter. If CBI claims are made,
such claims shall be made by marking the specific information in the
notice that is claimed CBI. In addition each claim should be
accompanied, at the time the claim is made, by a written justification
substantiating each item of the claim pursuant to 40 CFR 2.204(e). In
accordance with the procedures set forth in TSCA and part 2 of this
chapter, EPA will routinely request such substantiation from the
importer if it does not accompany the claim of confidentiality.
(B) Any claim of confidentiality shall accompany the PCB waste
import notice at the time it is submitted to EPA. The importer shall
submit two copies of each PCB waste import notice if a claim of
confidentiality is made.
(1) One copy of the notice shall contain all information required
in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section. In this copy of the notice,
the submitter must clearly highlight or mark the specific items claimed
as confidential on each page, and identify each item with the label
``TSCA Confidential Business Information.'' This notice shall be double
wrapped, and the inside envelope marked ``PCB Waste Import Notice--CBI
Claimed.'' The outside envelope shall be addressed to: TSCA Document
Processing Center (7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC
20460. Substantiation of CBI claims should be sealed inside the inner
envelope and submitted with this copy.
(2) The other copy shall contain all information required in
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section, except that all information
claimed as confidential in the first copy must be deleted. This copy
must be sent to the address indicated in (b)(1)(i) of this section.
(3) If the importer claims any information in the PCB waste import
notice as CBI, the PCB waste import notice is not considered complete
for purposes of this paragraph until both copies and the written
substantiation are received by EPA.
(2) Storage and disposal. Imports of PCBs and PCB Items under
paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section are subject to the following
conditions, in addition to all other applicable provisions of this
part.
(i) No facility that stores or disposes of imported PCB waste shall
store at any time a combined quantity of imported PCB waste from all
sources in excess of 70% of the facility's approved maximum PCB storage
capacity, pursuant to Sec. 761.65(d)(4)(iii). This limit on the
acceptance of imported PCB waste shall expire on March 18, 1999.
(ii) All PCBs and PCB Items imported for disposal under paragraph
(a)(1)(iii) of this section are PCB wastes subject to 40 CFR part 761,
subpart D and:
(A) Shall be stored and disposed of in facilities which have
approval under subpart D of this part to store or dispose of the type
of PCB waste being imported.
(B) Shall be marked in accordance with subpart C of this part, and
packaged and stored in accordance with subpart D of this part.
(C) For purposes of compliance with the 1 year storage for disposal
limit under Sec. 761.65(a), the date of removal from service for
disposal for imported PCB waste shall be whichever of the following
dates occurs first:
(1) The date the PCB waste enters the contiguous 48 States.
(2) The date the PCB waste enters any State, if the PCB waste will
be disposed of in that State.
(3) The date the PCB waste enters a State outside the contiguous 48
States, if the PCB waste is stored in that State for a period of more
than 10 consecutive days.
(3) Recordkeeping and manifesting. (i) Importers, storers, and
disposers of imported PCBs and PCB Items under paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of
this section shall meet the requirements of subpart J of this part,
with the following modifications:
(A) An importer who is not the initial commercial storer or
disposer of the imported PCB waste is considered to be the generator
for purposes of maintaining annual records under Sec. 761.180(a); the
annual document log maintained under Sec. 761.180(a)(2) must clearly
distinguish between imported and domestically generated waste.
(B) Disposers and commercial storers of PCB waste must clearly
distinguish between imported and domestically generated waste in the
annual document log maintained under Sec. 761.180(b)(2), and in the
annual report submitted to EPA under Sec. 761.180(b)(3).
(ii) Importers, storers, and disposers of PCBs and PCB Items under
paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section shall meet the requirements of
subpart K of this part, with the following modifications:
(A) Imported PCB waste shall be manifested, even in cases where the
importer does not relinquish control of the shipment.
(B) Imported PCB waste shall be manifested separately from domestic
PCB waste.
(C) In place of the generator's name, address and EPA
identification number on the manifest, the name and address of the
foreign generator and the importer's name, address and EPA
identification number shall be used.
(D) In place of the generator's signature on the manifest
certification statement, the importer shall sign and date the
certification and obtain the signature of the initial transporter.
(E) The importer shall comply with all other requirements of
subpart K of this part which apply to the generator.
(F) The date of removal from service for disposal shall be
determined according to paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C) of this section.
(c) PCB analytical samples. PCBs and PCB Items at concentrations of
50 ppm or greater may be imported into the
[[Page 11109]]
United States by a laboratory, commercial storer or disposer of PCB
waste under paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section, without prior
notification, for purposes of chemical analysis to determine the
physical and chemical properties of the PCBs and PCB Items, provided:
(1) Quantities of PCBs and PCB Items imported by an individual
facility shall not exceed 200 kilograms annually for non-liquids, and
25 liters annually for liquids; individual samples cannot exceed 5
kilograms for non-liquids or 25 milliliters for liquids.
(2) Unused and residual PCB waste remaining after analytical use is
completed shall be marked, stored, manifested, and disposed of in
accordance with subparts C, D, and K of this part.
(3) PCB waste is handled by laboratories in compliance with
Sec. 761.65(i).
(4) A TSCA PCB commercial storage approval is required for each
laboratory, unless a total volume of no more than 500 gallons (1.89
cubic meters) of PCB waste is in storage at any one time.
(d) Treatability studies. PCBs and PCB Items at concentrations of
50 ppm or greater may be imported into the United States under
paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section, without prior notification, for
purposes of evaluating the effectiveness of a disposal technology,
provided:
(1) The importer receiving the PCB waste is an approved disposer of
PCB waste under 40 CFR part 761, subpart D.
(2) The quantity of PCB waste imported annually to a disposal
facility does not exceed a total volume of 500 gallons.
(3) The imported PCB waste does not exceed a concentration of
10,000 ppm PCBs, and no more than 1 kilogram total of pure PCBs is
imported annually.
(4) PCB waste imported under this paragraph must be marked, stored,
and manifested in accordance with subparts C and K of this part, and
must comply with paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(3) of this section.
(5) PCB waste imported under this paragraph, including residues
from any treatability study, must be disposed of in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the TSCA disposal approval for the facility
performing the treatability study.
Sec. 761.97 Export for disposal.
(a) General provisions. No person may export PCBs or PCB Items for
disposal without an exemption, except that:
(1) PCBs and PCB Items at concentrations less than 50 ppm may be
exported for disposal.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 96-6448 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6446 Distinctive Paper for United States Currency and Other Securities
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10895-10896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6446]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of Engraving and Printing
31 CFR Part 601
[T.D. BEP-41]
Distinctive Paper for United States Currency and Other Securities
AGENCY: Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), Treasury.
ACTION: Treasury decision, final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Engraving and Printing is amending the
provisions of Distinctive Paper for United States Currency and Other
Securities regulations, to reflect the adoption of a new distinctive
paper adopted for use by the Secretary of the Treasury to deter
counterfeiting.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rodolfo Roberts, Office of Management Services, Bureau of Engraving and
Printing, Room 321-9A, 14th and C Streets, SW., Washington, DC 20228,
(202) 874-3551.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 80 Stat. 379, 106 Stat. 4070, 96 Stat. 880;
(5 U.S.C. 301, 18 U.S.C. 474A and 31 U.S.C. 321, respectively); give
the Secretary of the Treasury the authority of law to adopt a new
distinctive paper for use in printing United States currency and other
interest-bearing securities of the United States.
The changes:
(1) Amend section 601.1 to reflect the existence of three kinds
(threaded, non-threaded and threaded/watermark-bearing) of distinctive
papers for printing United States currency and interest-bearing
securities of the United States.
(2) Amend section 601.2 to reflect a description of the new
watermark-bearing distinctive paper.
(3) Amend section 601.3 to indicate that the distinctive paper
currently in use will continue to be used.
(4) Amend section 601.4 to provide that any of the three
distinctive papers may be used for printing interest-bearing securities
of the United States.
(5) Section 601.5 remains the same.
Executive Order 12866
Because this rule relates to agency organization and management, it
is not subject to E.O. 12866 pursuant to section 3(d)(3) thereof.
Administrative Procedures Act
Because this Treasury decision relates to agency management and is
procedural in nature, notice and public procedure and a delayed
effective date are inapplicable pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this final
rule, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-
511, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part
1320, do not apply to this rule because no requirement to collect
information is contemplated.
Drafting Information: The principal author of this document is
Rodolfo Roberts, Office of Management Services, Bureau of Engraving
and Printing.
List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 601
Currency, Securities, Printing.
Authority and Issuance
31 CFR part 601 is revised to read as follows:
PART 601--DISTINCTIVE PAPER FOR UNITED STATES CURRENCY AND OTHER
SECURITIES
Sec.
601.1 Notice to the public.
601.2 Description of paper.
601.3 Use of paper.
601.4 Use of paper; interest-bearing securities of the United
States.
601.5 Penalty for unauthorized control or possession.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 12 U.S.C. 418; 18 U.S.C. 474A.
Sec. 601.1 Notice to the Public.
The Secretary of the Treasury, by authority of law, has adopted a
new distinctive paper for use in printing United States currency in
addition to the existing distinctive papers for use in printing United
States currency and other securities.
Sec. 601.2 Description of paper.
The paper utilized in the printing of United States currency and
public debt issues is cream-white bank note paper which must contain
security features prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. All
currency paper shall contain distinctive fibers, colored red and blue,
incorporated in the body of the paper while in the process of
manufacture and evenly distributed throughout. In addition to
distinctive red and blue fibers, currency paper shall contain, for
denominations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, security
threads embedded beneath the surface of the paper during the
manufacturing process. Security threads shall contain graphics
consisting of the designation ``USA'' and the denomination of the
currency, expressed in alphabetic or numeric characters. In addition to
the security thread, for the denominations prescribed by the Secretary
of the Treasury, the paper will bear a watermark identical to the
portrait to be printed on the paper.
Sec. 601.3 Use of paper.
The new distinctive paper shall be used for printing Federal
Reserve Notes of the denominations prescribed by the
[[Page 10896]]
Secretary of the Treasury. The use of the existing distinctive papers,
the distinctive features of which consist of distinctive fibers,
colored red and blue, incorporated in the body of the paper while in
the process of manufacture and evenly distributed throughout, and the
security thread containing graphics consisting of the designation
``USA'' and the denomination of the currency, will be continued for
printing of any currency denomination prescribed by the Secretary of
the Treasury.
Sec. 601.4 Use of paper; interest-bearing securities of the United
States.
The existing distinctive papers shall be used for the printing of
interest-bearing securities of the United States, and for any other
printing where the use of distinctive paper is indicated.
Sec. 601.5 Penalty for unauthorized control or possession.
The Secretary of the Treasury hereby gives notice that the new
distinctive paper, together with any other distinctive papers
heretofore adopted for the printing of paper currency or other
obligations or securities of the United States, is and will be subject
to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 474A which provides, in part, that it is
against the law to possess any paper, or facsimile thereof, designated
by the Secretary of the Treasury for the printing of U.S. currency or
any other security of the United States, except with the permission of
the Secretary or the authorized official. This crime is punishable by a
fine not to exceed five thousand dollars or imprisonment for not more
than fifteen years, or both.
Larry E. Rolufs,
Director.
Approved:
George Munoz,
Assistant Secretary for Management & CFO.
[FR Doc. 96-6446 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4840-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6422 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Ball and Roller Bearings
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10899-10901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6422]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
48 CFR Parts 225 and 252
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Ball and
Roller Bearings
AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Interim rule with request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Director of Defense Procurement has issued an interim rule
amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS)
to implement changes to statutory restrictions on the acquisition of
nondomestic ball and roller bearings.
DATES: Effective date: March 18, 1996.
Comment date: Comments on the interim rule should be submitted in
writing to the address shown below on or before May 17, 1996, to be
considered in the formulation of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties should submit written comments to:
Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn: Ms. Amy Williams, PDUSD
(A&T)DP(DAR), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 20301-
3062. Telefax number (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 95-D308 in
all correspondence related to this issue.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Amy Williams, (703) 602-0131.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
This interim DFARS rule implements Section 8099 of the Fiscal Year
1996 Defense Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 104-61) and Section 806,
paragraphs (b) and (d), of the Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Authorization
Act (Pub. L. 104-106), adding a definition of ``bearing components'' at
DFARS 225.7001, amending the restrictions on acquisition of nondomestic
ball or roller bearings at 225.7019, and amending the clause at
252.225-7016, Restriction on Acquisition of Ball and Roller Bearings.
The term ``ball and roller bearings'' has been substituted for the term
``antifriction bearings'' in order to be consistent with the statutory
terminology.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This interim rule may have a significant positive impact on a
substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., because this rule
extends the current restriction on the acquisition of nondomestic ball
and roller bearings through the year 2000, with some tightening of the
regulations relating to exceptions and waiver authority. For
acquisitions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold which are
subject only to the restriction of 10 U.S.C. 2534, there is no
exception to the restriction if ball or roller bearings or bearing
components are the end item being purchased. If Fiscal Year 1996 funds
are used, the only exception to the restriction is for the acquisition
of commercial items incorporating ball or roller bearings. Also, if
Fiscal Year 1996 funds are used, the restriction may be waived only if
the Secretary of the department responsible for the acquisition
certifies to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that (1)
adequate domestic supplies are not available to meet DoD requirements
on a timely basis, and (2) the acquisition must be made in order to
acquire capability for national security purposes. An Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) has been prepared. A copy of the
IRFA has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the
address stated herein. Comments are invited from small businesses and
other interested parties. Comments from small entities concerning the
affected DFARS subparts will be considered in accordance with Section
610 of the Act. Such comments must be submitted separately and cite
DFARS Case 95-D308 in correspondence.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act applies. The burden associated with
paragraph (d) and (e) of the clause at DFARS 252.225-7016 has been
approved at 301,600 hours under OMB clearance 0704-0229. This interim
rule does not significantly alter existing requirements or impose any
new information collection requirements which require the approval of
OMB under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
D. Determination to Issue an Interim Rule
A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary
of Defense that compelling reasons exist to publish this interim rule
prior to affording the public an opportunity to comment. This action is
necessary to implement Section 8099 of the Fiscal Year 1996 Defense
Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 104-61) and Section 806, paragraphs (b) and
(d), of the Fiscal Year 1996 Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 104-
106). Sections 8099 and 806 were effective upon enactment (December 1,
1995, and February 10, 1996, respectively). Comments received in
response to the publication of this interim rule will be considered in
formulating the final rule.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 225 and 252
Government procurement.
Michele P. Peterson,
Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.
Therefore, 48 CFR Parts 225 and 252 are amended as follows:
PART 225--FOREIGN ACQUISITION
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 225 and 252 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
2. Section 225.7001 is revised to read as follows:
225.7001 Definitions.
As used in this subpart--
(a) Bearing components is defined in the clause at 252.225-7016,
Restriction on Acquisition of Ball and Roller Bearings.
(b) Hand or measuring tools means those tools listed in Federal
supply classifications 51 and 52, respectively.
[[Page 10900]]
(c) Possessions, as used in the phrase ``United States or its
possessions,'' includes Puerto Rico.
(d) Specialty metals is defined in the clause at 252.225-7014,
Preference for Domestic Specialty Metals.
3. Sections 225.7019, 225.7019-1, 225.7019-2, 225.7019-3, and
225.7019-4 are revised to read as follows:
225.7019 Restrictions on ball and roller bearings.
225.7019-1 Restrictions.
(a) In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2534, through fiscal year 2000, do
not acquire ball and roller bearings or bearing components which are
not manufactured in the United States or Canada.
(b) In accordance with Section 8099 of Public Law 104-61, do not
use fiscal year 1996 funds to acquire ball and roller bearings other
than those produced by a domestic source and of domestic origin, i.e.,
bearings and bearing components manufactured in the United States or
Canada.
225.7019-2 Exceptions.
(a) The restriction in 225.7019-1(a) does not apply to--
(1) Acquisitions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold,
unless ball or roller bearings or bearing components are the end items
being purchased;
(2) Purchases of commercial items incorporating ball or roller
bearings;
(3) Miniature and instrument ball bearings restricted under subpart
225.71;
(4) Items acquired overseas for use overseas; or
(5) Ball and roller bearings or bearing components or items
containing bearings for use in a cooperative or co-production project
under an international agreement.
(b) The restrictions in 225.7019-1(b) does not apply to the
acquisition of commercial items incorporating ball or roller bearings
(see 212.503(a)(xi) and 212.504(a)(xxvi)).
225.7019-3 Waiver.
(a) The head of the contracting activity may waive the restriction
in 225.7019-1(a)--
(1) Upon execution of a determination and findings that--
(i) No domestic (U.S. or Canadian) bearing manufacturer meets the
requirement;
(ii) It is not in the best interests of the United States to
qualify a domestic bearing to replace a qualified nondomestic bearing.
This determination must be based on a finding that the qualification of
a domestically manufactured bearing would cause unreasonable costs or
delay. A finding that a cost is unreasonable should take into
consideration DoD policy to assist the domestic industrial mobilization
base. Contracts should be awarded to domestic bearing manufacturers to
increase their capability to reinvest and become more competitive;
(iii) United States producers of the item would not be jeopardized
by competition from a foreign country, and that country does not
discriminate against defense items produced in the United States to a
greater degree than the United States discriminates against defense
items produced in that country;
(iv) Application of the restriction would impede cooperative
programs entered into between DoD and a foreign country, and that
country does not discriminate against defense items produced in the
United States to a greater degree than the United States discriminates
against defense items produced in that country;
(v) Application of the restriction would result in the existence of
only one source for the item in the United States or Canada;
(vi) Application of the restriction is not in the national security
interests of the United States; or
(vii) Application of the restriction would adversely affect a U.S.
company.
(2) For multiyear contracts or contracts exceeding 12 months, only
if--
(i) The head of the contracting activity execute a determination
and findings in accordance with paragraph (a) of this subsection;
(ii) The contractor submits a written plan for transitioning from
the use of nondomestic to domestically manufactured bearings;
(iii) The plan--
(A) States whether a domestically manufactured bearings can be
qualified, at a reasonable cost, for use during the course of the
contract period;
(B) Identifies any bearings that are not domestically manufactured,
their application, and source of supply; and
(C) Describes, including cost and timetable, the transition to a
domestically manufactured bearing. (The timetable for the transition
should normally take no longer than 24 months from the date the waiver
is granted); and
(iv) The contracting officer accepts the plan and incorporates it
in the contract.
(b) The Secretary of the department responsible for the acquisition
may waive the restriction in 225.7019-1(b) on a case-by-case basis, by
certifying to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that--
(1) Adequate domestic supplies are not available to meet DoD
requirements on a timely basis; and
(2) The acquisition must be made in order to acquire capability for
national security purposes.
225.7019-4 Contract clause.
Use the clause at 252.225-7016, Restriction on Acquisition of Ball
and Roller Bearings, in all solicitations and contracts, unless--
(a) The restrictions in 225.7019-1 do not apply or a waiver has
been granted; or
(b) The contracting officer knows that the items being acquired do
not contain ball or roller bearings.
PART 252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
4. Section 252.225-7016 is revised to read as follows:
252.225-7016 Restriction on Acquisition of Ball and Roller Bearings.
As prescribed in 225.7019-4, use the following clause:
Restriction on Acquisition of Ball and Roller Bearings (Mar 1996)
(a) Definition.
Bearing components, as used in this clause, means the bearing
element, retainer, inner race, or outer race.
(b) The Contractor agrees that all ball and roller bearings and
ball and roller bearing components delivered under this contract,
either as end items or components of end items, shall be wholly
manufactured in the United States or Canada. Unless otherwise
specified, raw materials, such as preformed bar, tube, or rod stock
and lubricants, need not be mined or produced in the United States
or Canada.
(c) The restriction in paragraph (b) does not apply to the
extent that the end items or components containing ball or roller
bearings are commercial items. The commercial item exception does
not include items designed or developed under a Government contract
or contracts where the end item is bearings and bearing components.
(d) The restriction in paragraph (b) may be waived upon request
from the Contractor in accordance with subsection 225.7019-3 of the
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement.
(e) The contractor agrees to retain records showing compliance
with this restriction until three years after final payment and to
make records available upon request of the Contracting Officer.
(f) The Contractor agrees to insert this clause, including this
paragraph (f), in every subcontract and purchase order issued in
performance of this contract, unless items acquired are--
(1) Commercial items other than ball or roller bearings; or
(2) Items that do not contain ball or roller bearings.
[[Page 10901]]
(End of clause)
[FR Doc. 96-6422 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6406 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10887-10888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6406]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 97
[Docket No. 28491; Amdt. No. 1717]
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at
certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the
adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in
the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new
navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air
traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and
efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight
operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
DATES: An effective date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory
provisions.
Incorporation by reference-approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on December 31, 1980, and reapproved as of January 1, 1982.
ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
For Examination--
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located; or
3. The Flight Inspection Area Office which originated the SIAP.
For Purchase--Individual SIAP copies may be obtained from:
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.
By Subscription--Copies of all SIAPs, mailed once every 2 weeks,
are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Best, Flight Procedures
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Technical Programs Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8277.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to part 97 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or
revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete
regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in official FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and Sec. 97.20 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR). The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Form
8260-5. Materials incorporated by reference are available for
examination or purchase as stated above.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is
unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR
(and FAR) sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs.
This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure
identification and the amendment number.
This amendment to part 97 is effective upon publication of each
separate SIAP as contained in the transmittal. The SIAPs contained in
this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the United States
Standard for Terminal Instrument Approach Procedures (TERPS). In
developing these SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports.
The FAA has determined through testing that current non-localizer
type, non-precision instrument approaches developed using the TERPS
criteria can be flown by aircraft equipped with Global Positioning
System (GPS) equipment. In consideration of the above, the applicable
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures
[[Page 10888]]
(SIAPs) will be altered to include ``or GPS'' in the title without
otherwise reviewing or modifying the procedure. (Once a stand alone GPS
procedure is developed, the procedure title will be altered to remove
``or GPS'' from these non-localizer, non-precision instrument approach
procedure titles.) Because of the close and immediate relationship
between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are, impracticable and
contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause
exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(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) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Navigation (Air).
Issued in Washington, DC on March 8, 1996.
Thomas C. Accardi,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, part 97 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as
follows:
PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 97 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120, 44701; 49 U.S.C.
106(g); and 14 CFR 11.49(B)(2).
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
Secs. 97.23, 97.27, 97.33, 97.35 [Amended]
By amending: Sec. 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec. 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec. 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec. 97.35
COPTER SIAPs, identified as follows:
* * * Effective April 25, 1996
Clinton, IA, Clinton Muni, NDB or GPS RWY 14, Amdt 3 CANCELLED
Clinton, IA, Clinton Muni, NDB RWY 14, Amdt 3
Fort Collins/Loveland, CO, Fort Collins-Loveland Muni, VOR/DME or
RNAV or GPS RWY 15, Amdt 4B CANCELLED
Fort Collins/Loveland, CO, Fort Collins-Loveland Muni, VOR/DME or
RNAV RWY 15, Amdt 4B
Fort Collins/Loveland, CO, Fort Collins-Loveland Muni, VOR/DME or
RNAV or GPS RWY 33, Amdt 5A CANCELLED
Fort Collins/Loveland, CO, Fort Collins-Loveland Muni, VOR/DME or
RNAV RWY 33, Amdt 5A
Independence, KS, Independence Muni, NDB or GPS RWY 35, Amdt 8
CANCELLED
Independence, KS, Independence Muni, NDB RWY 35, Amdt 8
Rock Springs, WY, Rock Springs-Sweetwater County. VOR/DME or GPS RWY
27, Amdt 2 CANCELLED
Rock Springs, WY, Rock Springs-Sweetwater County. VOR/DME RWY 27,
Amdt 2
[FR Doc. 96-6406 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6405 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10888-10889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6405]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 97
[Docket No. 28489; Amdt. No. 1715]
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at
certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the
adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in
the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new
navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air
traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and
efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight
operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
DATES: An effective date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory
provisions.
Incorporation by reference--approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on December 31, 1980, and reapproved as of January 1, 1982.
ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
For Examination--
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located; or
3. The Flight Inspection Area Office which originated the SIAP.
For Purchase--Individual SIAP copies may be obtained from:
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.
By Subscription--Copies of all SIAPs, mailed once every 2 weeks,
are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul J. Best, Flight Procedures Standards Branch (AFS-420), Technical
Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone (202) 267-8277.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to part 97 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or
revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete
regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in official FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and Sec. 97.20 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR). The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms
8260-3, 8260-4, and 8260-5. Materials incorporated by reference are
available for examination or purchase as stated above.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is
unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR
(and FAR) sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs.
This amendment also identifies
[[Page 10889]]
the airport, its location, the procedure identification and the
amendment number.
The Rule
This amendment to part 97 is effective upon publication of each
separate SIAP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP amendments may
have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The
circumstances which created the need for some SIAP amendments may
require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining
SIAPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is
provided.
Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the
criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument
Approach Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs, the TERPS
criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the
affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship
between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and
contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause
exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(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) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Navigation (Air).
Issued in Washington, DC on March 8, 1996.
Thomas C. Accardi,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, part 97 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as
follows:
PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 97 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, 44701; and 14
CFR 11.49(b)(2).
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
Secs. 97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, 97.35 [Amended]
By amending: Sec. 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec. 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec. 97.27
NDB, NDB/DME; Sec. 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, ISMLS, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec. 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec. 97.33 RNAV SIAP's; and Sec. 97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, identified as follows:
* * * Effective March 28, 1996
Marshall, MN, Marshall Muni-Ryan Field, VOR RWY 12, Amdt 6
Marshall, MN, Marshall Muni-Ryan Field, VOR/DME or GPS RWY 30, Amdt
2
Marshall, MN, Marshall Muni-Ryan Field, ILS RWY 12, Orig
* * * Effective April 25, 1996
Anchorage, AK, Anchorage Intl, MLS RWY 6L, Orig
Chandler, AZ, Chandler Muni, NDB RWY 4R, Orig
Jackson, CA, Westover Field Amador County, GPS RWY 1, Orig
Palo Alto, CA, Palo Alto of Santa Clara Co, GPS RWY 30, Orig
Fort Collins, CO, Fort Collins-Loveland Muni, GPS RWY 15, Orig
Fort Collins, CO, Fort Collins-Loveland Muni, GPS RWY 33, Orig
Wray, CO, Wray Muni, GPS RWY 14, Orig
Stuart, FL, Witham Field, GPS RWY 11, Orig
Stuart, FL, Witham Field, GPS RWY 29, Orig
Pinckneyville, IL, Pinckneyville-Du Quoin, NDB-A, Orig
Pinckneyville, IL, Pinckneyville-Du Quoin, NDB RWY 18, Amdt 2,
CANCELLED
Ames, IA, Ames Muni, GPS RWY 31, Amdt 1
Independence, KS, Independence Muni, NDB RWY 35, Amdt 8, CANCELLED
Olathe, KS, Johnson County Executive, LOC RWY 35, Orig
Flemingsburg, KY, Fleming-Mason, NDB OR GPS RWY 25, Amdt 7,
CANCELLED
Worcester, MA, Worcester Muni, GPS RWY 33, Amdt 1
Portland, ME, Portland Intl Jetport, GPS RWY 18, Orig
Portland, ME, Portland Intl Jetport, GPS RWY 36, Orig
New York, NY, LaGuardia, VOR or GPS-F, Amdt 2
Chapel Hill, NC, Horace Williams, RADAR-1, Amdt 7
Ada, OK, Ada Muni, GPS RWY 35, Orig
Ardmore, OK, Ardmore Muni, VOR OR GPS RWY 4, Amdt 20, CANCELLED
Ardmore, OK, Ardmore Muni, VOR-B Orig
Gallatin, TN, Sumner County Regional, GPS RWY 17, Orig
Abingdon, VA, Virginia Highlands, LOC RWY 24, Amdt 2
* * * Effective May 23, 1996
Worcester, MA, Worcester Muni, ILS RWY 29, Amdt 1
* * * Effective June 20, 1996
Conway, AR, Dennis F. Cantrell Field, GPS RWY 25, Orig
Paragould, AR, Kirk Field, NDB RWY 4, Orig
Paragould, AR, Kirk Field, GPS RWY 4, Orig
Paragould, AR, Kirk Field, GPS RWY 22, Orig
Phoenix, AZ, Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl, GPS RWY 8L, Orig
Phoenix, AZ, Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl, GPS RWY 26R, Orig
Fitchburg, MA, Fitchburg, Muni, NDB RWY 20, Amdt 2
Beaufort, SC, Beaufort County, GPS RWY 24, Orig
Panhandle, TX, Panhandle-Carson County, GPS RWY 35, Orig
The FAA published an Amendment in Docket No. 28447, Amdt. No. 1707
to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (Vol 61, No. 23, Page
3796; dated Friday, February 2, 1996) under Section 97.33 effective
April 25, 1996 which is hereby amended as follows:
Roosevelt, UT, Roosevelt Muni, GPS RWY 25, Orig is hereby rescinded.
The FAA published an Amendment in Docket No. 28441, Amdt. No. 1705
to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (Vol 61, No. 20, page
2907; dated Tuesday, January 30, 1996) under Section 97.33 effective
April 25, 1996 which is hereby amended as follows:
Boca Raton, FL, Boca Raton, GPS RWY 5, Orig is hereby rescinded.
[FR Doc. 96-6405 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6404 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10889-10891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6404]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 97
[Docket No. 28490; Amdt. No. 1716]
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at
certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of
changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as
[[Page 10890]]
the commissioning of new navigational facilities, addition of new
obstacles, or changes in air traffic requirements. These changes are
designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace
and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at
the affected airports.
DATES: An effective date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory
provisions.
Incorporation by reference-approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on December 31, 1980, and reapproved as of January 1, 1982.
ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
For Examination
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which affected airport
is located; or
3. The Flight Inspection Area Office which originated the SIAP.
For Purchase
Individual SIAP copies may be obtained from:
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.
By Subscription
Copies of all SIAPs, mailed once every 2 weeks, are for sale by the
Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office, Washington,
DC 20402.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Best, Flight Procedures
Standard Branch (AFS-420), Technical Programs Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8277.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to part 97 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or
revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete
regulatory description on each SIAP is contained in the appropriate FAA
Form 8260 and the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent (P)
Notices to Airmen (NOTAM) which are incorporated by reference in the
amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and Sec. 97.20 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). Materials incorporated by reference
are available for examination or purchase as stated above.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction of charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is
unnecessary. The provisions of this amendment state the affected CFR
(and FAR) sections, with the types and effective dates of the SIAPs.
This amendment also identifies the airport, its location, the procedure
identification and the amendment number.
The Rule
This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes SIAPs. For
safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment
incorporates only specific changes contained in the content of the
following FDC/P NOTAM for each SIAP. The SIAP information in some
previously designated FDC/Temporary (FDC/T) NOTAMs is of such duration
as to be permanent. With conversion to FDC/P NOTAMs, the respective
FDC/T NOTAMs have been cancelled.
The FDC/P NOTAMs for the SIAPs contained in this amendment are
based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal
Instrument Approach Procedures (TERPS). In developing these chart
changes to SIAPs by FDC/P NOTAMs, the TERPS criteria were applied to
only these specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All
SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in
a National Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an
emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to
published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need
for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less
than 30 days.
Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the
criteria contained in the TERPS. Because of the close and immediate
relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find
that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in
less than 30 days.
Conclusion
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(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) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97
Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (Air).
Issued in Washington, DC on March 8, 1996.
Thomas C. Accardi,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, part 97 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as
follows:
PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 97 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120, 44701; 49 U.S.C.
106(g); and 14 CFR 11.49(b)(2).
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:
Secs. 97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, 97.35 [Amended]
By amending: Sec. 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec. 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec. 97.27
NDB, NDB/DME; Sec. 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, ISMLS, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec. 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec. 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec. 97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, identified as follows:
* * * Effective Upon Publication
[[Page 10891]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDC date State City Airport FDC No. SIAP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
02/09/96............. TN Memphis............. Memphis Intl........ FDC 6/0926 ILS RWY 36L AMDT 11. . .
02/09/96............. TX Fort Worth.......... Fort Worth Meacham FDC 6/0929 ILS RWY 16L, AMDT 5. . .
Intl.
02/10/96............. WV Lewisburg........... Greenbrier Valley... FDC 6/0955 ILS RW 4 AMDT 7A. . .
02/12/96............. TX Fort Worth.......... Fort Worth Meacham FDC 6/0973 NDB or GPS RWY 16L, AMDT 3. . .
Intl.
02/12/96............. TX Fort Worth.......... Fort Worth Meacham FDC 6/0974 NDB or GPS RWY 34R, AMDT 5. . .
Intl.
02/13/96............. MN Brainerd............ Brainerd-Crow Wing FDC 6/0999 ILS RWY 23 AMDT 4. . .
County Regional.
02/13/96............. MN Brainerd............ Brainerd-Crow Wing FDC 6/1000 VOR/DME RWY 12 AMDT 8. . .
County Regional.
02/14/96............. MN Cambridge........... Cambridge Muni...... FDC 6/1009 NDB or GPS RWY 34 AMDT 6. . .
02/14/96............. NE Falls City.......... Brenner Field....... FDC 6/1017 NDB or GPS-A, AMDT 3. . .
02/14/96............. TX Fort Worth.......... Fort Worth Meacham FDC 6/1023 LOC BC RWY 34R, AMDT 7. . .
Intl.
02/15/96............. CA Lakeport............ Lampson Field....... FDC 6/1036 NDB or GPS-A ORIG-A. . .
02/20/96............. CA Victorville......... Southern California FDC 6/1111 ILS RWY 17 ORIG. . .
Intl.
02/22/96............. AL Courtland........... Industrial Airpark.. FDC 6/1134 VOR or GPS RWY 13 ORIG. . .
02/23/96............. IL Bloomington/Normal.. Bloomington/Normal.. FDC 6/1174 VOR/DME RWY 21 AMDT 2. . .
02/23/96............. IL Bloomington/Normal.. Bloomington/Normal.. FDC 6/1175 VOR RWY 21 AMDT 17. . .
02/23/96............. IL Bloomington/Normal.. Bloomington/Normal.. FDC 6/1177 ILS RWY 29 AMDT 8. . .
02/23/96............. IL Chicago (West Dupage.............. FDC 6/1170 VOR or GPS RWY 10 AMDT 11. . .
Chicago).
02/23/96............. IL Chicago (West Dupage.............. FDC 6/1171 ILS RWY 10 AMDT 7. . .
Chicago).
02/23/96............. NC Greensboro.......... Greensboro/Piedmont FDC 6/1185 RADAR 1 AMDT 9. . .
Triad Intl.
02/23/96............. NC Greensboro.......... Greensboro/Piedmont FDC 6/1188 VOR/DME or GPS RWY 32 AMDT 3. . .
Triad Intl.
02/23/96............. NC Greensboro.......... Greensboro/Piedmont FDC 6/1191 VOR/DME or GPS RWY 23 AMDT 9. . .
Triad Intl.
02/23/96............. NC Greensboro.......... Greensboro/Piedmont FDC 6/1194 VOR or GPS RWY 5 AMDT 12. . .
Triad Intl.
02/23/96............. NC Greensboro.......... Greensboro/Piedmont FDC 6/1197 NDB or GPS RWY 14 AMDT 15. . .
Triad Intl.
02/23/96............. NC Greensboro.......... Greensboro/Piedmont FDC 6/1198 ILS RWY 23 AMDT 8. . .
Triad Intl.
02/23/96............. NC Greensboro.......... Greensboro/Piedmont FDC 6/1199 ILS RWY 5 AMDT 5. . .
Triad Intl.
02/23/96............. NC Greensboro.......... Greensboro/Piedmont FDC 6/1200 ILS RWY 14 AMDT 18. . .
Triad Intl.
02/23/96............. STE Joseph H. Bittorf Whiteside County.... FDC 6/1172 Ling Rockfalls, IL. NDB or GPS RWY 7 AMDT 4.
Field. . .
02/23/96............. UT Salt Lake City...... Salt Lake City Intl. FDC 6/1205 ILS/DME RWY 34R AMDT 1. . .
02/26/96............. IL Alton/St Louis...... St Louis Regional... FDC 6/1239 NDB or GPS RWY 17 AMDT 10. . .
02/26/96............. IL Bloomington/Normal.. Bloomington/Normal.. FDC 6/1249 VOR RWY 11 AMDT 12. . .
02/26/96............. IL Sterling Rockfalls.. Whiteside County- FDC 6/1242 LOC BC RWY 7 AMDT 4. . .
Joseph H Bittorf
Field.
02/26/96............. NC New Bern............ Craven County FDC 6/1233 RADAR 1 AMDT 2. . .
Regional.
02/26/96............. NC New Bern............ Craven County FDC 6/1234 VOR or GPS RW 22 AMDT 1B. . .
Regional.
02/26/96............. NC New Bern............ Craven County FDC 6/1235 ILS RWY 4 ORIG. . .
Regional.
02/26/96............. NC New Bern............ Craven County FDC 6/1236 VOR or GPS RW 4 AMDT 3A. . .
Regional.
02/28/96............. ME Portland............ Portland Intl FDC 6/1277 ILS/DME RW 29 ORIG. . .
Jetport.
02/29/96............. MD Baltimore........... Baltimore-Washington FDC 6/1306 ILS/DME RWY 15L, AMDT 3. . .
Intl.
02/29/96............. NV Winnemucca.......... Winnemucca Muni..... FDC 6/1291 GPS RWY 14 ORIG. . .
03/01/96............. MI Holland............. Tulip City.......... FDC 6/1338 VOR or GPS-A AMDT 10. . .
03/01/96............. MI Sparta.............. Sparta.............. FDC 6/1339 VOR or GPS-A AMDT 2A. . .
03/04/96............. NJ Woodbine............ Woodbine Muni....... FDC 6/1388 VOR-A ORIG. . .
03/04/96............. SC Greer............... Greenville- FDC 6/1394 ILS RWY 3 AMDT 20. . .
Spartanburg.
03/04/96............. SC Greer............... Greenville- FDC 6/1395 ILS RWY 3/CAT II/AMDT 20. . .
Spartanburg.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR Doc. 96-6404 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6399 Establishment of Class E Airspace; Hettinger, ND
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10886-10887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6399]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AGL-17]
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Hettinger, ND
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Hettinger, ND. A
Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approval procedure
(SIAP) to Runway 30 has been developed for the Hettinger Municipal
Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
ground level (AGL) to 1200 feet AGL is needed for aircraft executing
the approach. The intended effect of this action is to provide adequate
controlled airspace for aircraft using the GPS SIAP at Hettinger
Municipal Airport.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, April 25, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter H. Salmon, Air Traffic Division,
System Management Branch, AGL-530, Federal Aviation Administration,
2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018, telephone (708)
294-7568.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On November 16, 1995, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E
airspace at Hettinger, ND, (60 FR 57551). The proposal was to add
controlled airspace extending upward from 700 to 1200 feet AGL for
aircraft executing the GPS SIAP at Hettinger Municipal Airport.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
One comment objecting to the proposal was received. The Aeronautics
Commission of North Dakota requested that the FAA investigate lowering
the base of the controlled airspace to 500 feet AGL instead of 700 feet
AGL. It is necessary for the base of controlled airspace to be at 700
feet AGL to accommodate prescribed instrument approach procedures.
Class E airspace designations start at 700 feet or more above the
surface of the earth and extend upward. These designations are
published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995,
and effective September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in
14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document
will be published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) establishes Class E airspace at Hettinger, ND to provide
adequate controlled airspace for operators executing the GPS Runway 30
SIAP at Hettinger Municipal Airport. Controlled airspace extending
upward from 700 feet AGL to 1200 feet AGL is needed for aircraft
executing the approach. The area will be depicted on appropriate
aeronautical charts thereby enabling pilots to circumnavigate the area
or otherwise comply with IFR procedures.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established
[[Page 10887]]
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
regulation--(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) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
AGL ND E5 Hettinger, ND [New]
Hettinger Municipal Airport, ND
(Lat. 46 deg.00'54'' N, long. 102 deg.39'20'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of the Hettinger Municipal Airport and
within 1.9 miles each side of the 136 bearing from the Hettinger
Municipal Airport from the 6.4-mile radius to 8.9 miles southeast of
the airport, and that airspace extending upward from 1200 feet above
the surface bounded by a line beginning at Lat. 46 deg.20'00'' N.,
Long. 102 deg.58'00'' W., to Lat. 46 deg.20'00'' N., Long.
102 deg.44'00'' W., to Lat. 45 deg.45'00'' N., to Long.
102 deg.09'00'' W., to Lat. 45 deg.45'00'' N., to
Long.102 deg.58'00'' W., to the point of beginning, excluding that
airspace within Vector 491.
* * * * *
Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on January 25, 1996.
Maureen Woods,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division.
[FR Doc. 96-6399 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6388 Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Pacific Cod for Processing by the Offshore Component
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6388]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 672
[Docket No. 960129018-6018-01; I.D. 031296E]
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Pacific Cod for Processing by
the Offshore Component
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Closure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is closing the directed fishery for Pacific cod for
processing by the offshore component in the Central Regulatory Area of
the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding
the allocation of Pacific cod for the offshore component in the Central
Regulatory Area.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 13, 1996,
until 12 midnight, A.l.t., December 31, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew N. Smoker, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management
Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is
governed by regulations implementing the FMP at 50 CFR parts 620 and
672.
In accordance with Sec. 672.20(c)(1)(ii)(B), the allocation of
Pacific cod for processing by the offshore component in the Central
Regulatory Area was established by the Final 1996 Harvest
Specifications for Groundfish (61 FR 4304, February 5, 1996) as 4,290
metric tons (mt).
The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Director), has
determined, in accordance with Sec. 672.20(c)(2)(ii), that the
allocation of Pacific cod total allowable catch for processing by the
offshore component in the Central Regulatory Area soon will be reached.
The Regional Director established a directed fishing allowance of 3,290
mt, with consideration that 1,000 mt will be taken as incidental catch
in directed fishing for other species in the Central Regulatory Area.
The Regional Director has determined that the directed fishing
allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed
fishing for Pacific cod by vessels catching Pacific cod for processing
by the offshore component in the Central Regulatory Area.
Maximum retainable bycatch amounts for applicable gear types may be
found in the regulations at Sec. 672.20(g).
Classification
This action is taken under 50 CFR 672.20 and is exempt from review
under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: March 12, 1996.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-6388 Filed 3-13-96; 1:49 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6387 Foreign Commodity Options
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10891-10895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6387]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 30
Foreign Commodity Options
AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission or CFTC)
has amended rule 30.3 to eliminate the requirement that the CFTC
authorize the offer and sale of a particular foreign exchange-traded
commodity option before it can be offered or sold in the United States.
The amendment does not affect existing restrictions on transactions
involving
[[Page 10892]]
stock index futures and foreign government debt.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jane C. Kang, Esq., or Robert H. Rosenfeld, Esq., Division of Trading
and Markets, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette
Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581; telephone (202)
418-5435.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Commission rule 30.3(a) of the Commission's Part 30 rules governing
the offer and sale of foreign futures and option transactions makes it
unlawful for any person to engage in the domestic offer or sale of any
foreign commodity option contract until the Commission, by order,
authorizes the foreign option to be offered or sold in the United
States.1 A Commission order is not required with respect to
foreign futures. However, an option on a foreign stock-index futures
contract will not be approved unless, among other things, the
Commission's Office of the General Counsel has issued a no-action
letter authorizing the offer and sale in the United States of the
underlying foreign stock-index futures contract. In addition, debt
obligations of a foreign country must be designated as an exempted
security by the SEC under its rule 3a12-8, 17 CFR 240.3a12-8, before a
futures contract based on such debt obligation (or an option on such a
futures contract) may be offered or sold to a U.S. person.2
\1\ The Commission previously made clear that subject to certain
conditions applicable to transactions involving stock indexes and
foreign government debt, a rule 30.3 order would not be necessary
for transactions effected by U.S. futures commission merchants (FCM)
on behalf of foreign customers. See 57 FR 36369 (August 13, 1992).
\2\ Consistent with section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Commodity Exchange
Act (CEA), this proposed rulemaking would not affect existing
restrictions applicable to transactions involving stock index
futures or foreign government debt. Accordingly, commodity options
based on or involving a foreign futures contract based on a foreign
stock index may not be offered or sold to U.S. persons unless the
foreign stock index futures contract has been the subject of a no-
action letter issued by the Commission's Office of the General
Counsel. Further, commodity options based on a foreign government
debt could not be offered or sold to U.S. persons unless the
underlying debt instrument has been designated as an exempted
security under SEC rule 3a12-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 5, 1995, the Commission proposed to eliminate the
specific authorization requirement of rule 30.3 and thereby permit,
subject to existing prohibitions with respect to stock index futures
and options and foreign government debt futures and options products,
the offer and sale of foreign commodity options in the same manner as
currently applies to the offer and sale of foreign futures.3
\3\ 60 FR 63472 (December 11, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission's proposal to modify rule 30.3(a) was based on its
generally positive experiences with the initial regulations imposed on
foreign options trading. The proposal reflects the Commission's
assessment that the continued treatment of foreign commodity options
differently from foreign futures (which do not require a specific
authorization order) should be reevaluated.4
\4\ See 60 FR 63472-63474 (December 11, 1995), for a history of
commodity option regulation by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Comments
The Commission received twelve comments from six domestic and
foreign futures exchanges (the Chicago Board of Trade (CBT), Chicago
Mercantile Exchange (CME), the Tokyo Grain Exchange (TGE), the Tokyo
International Financial Futures Exchange (TIFFE), Sydney Futures
Exchange (SFE), and the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange (WCE)), the Futures
Industry Association (FIA), the FIA Japan Chapter, National Futures
Association (NFA), the American Bar Association's Section of Business
Law (ABA Business Sec.), the Association of the Bar of the City of New
York (Committee on Futures Regulation) (NY Bar), and a CFTC registered
firm, Commodities Corporation (U.S.A.) N.V. (Commodities Corp.).
In general, all of the commenters either affirmatively supported
the rule change or, in the case of the CBT and the CME, did not object.
Those commenters affirmatively supporting the rule generally agreed
with the rationale set forth in the Commission's proposal--that the
differential treatment of foreign commodity options as opposed to
foreign futures was based on historical factors which no longer exist;
the implementation of regulations governing the offer and sale of
foreign options has increased regulatory protections; and that
continuation of such differential treatment is no longer
warranted.5 Many commenters also noted that the amendment would
likely result in an increase in the number of option instruments
available to U.S. traders thereby giving them a greater choice of risk-
shifting instruments. One commenter, Commodities Corp. (a registered
commodity pool operator and commodity trading advisor), noted that the
trading of foreign commodity options has significantly benefited
clients through enhanced portfolio diversification and by enabling them
to participate in additional market opportunities. Commodities Corp.
urged the Commission similarly to widen access to other foreign
products by eliminating the necessity for a Commission staff no-action
letter before a foreign exchange-traded stock index futures contract
can be offered or sold in the United States.6
\5\ In this regard, the FIA noted that the Commission's generic
risk disclosure statement does not draw any distinction between the
risks of foreign futures and foreign commodity options.
\6\ Commodities Corp. suggested that expedited procedures be
considered at least with respect to ``sophisticated'' clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Contract Market Concerns
In its proposal, the Commission invited comment, in particular
from the contract markets, to indicate any other areas in which the
requirements for options and futures generally could be further
harmonized.
In general, the CBT's and CME's specific suggestions fall into two
broad categories: (1) those which raise issues which the Commission
believes either have been addressed or could be addressed by current
matters before the Commission and (2) those which raise more
complicated statutory issues surrounding the requirements imposed on
contract markets and product authorization.7
\7\ In this regard, the CBT stated that it viewed the proposal
as ``confirmation that the Commission exempts foreign boards of
trade and, in other contexts, over-the-counter markets, from many of
the very regulations it continues to impose on domestic markets.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the first category were suggestions to:
--Delete the requirement in rule 33.4(b) that an FCM give notice
to its designated self-regulatory organization (DSRO) of any
disciplinary action taken against the FCM or its associated persons
(APs) by the Commission or another self-regulatory organization
(SRO);
--Consolidate the options disclosure required by rule 33.7(b)
into rule 1.55(b); and
--Delete the requirement in 33.4(a)(2) that FCMs collect the
full option premium.
In response, the Commission notes that it recently adopted a final
rule amending rule 33.4(b) to eliminate the notice requirement referred
to above (see 61 FR 2719 (January 29, 1996), and that the generic risk
disclosure statement adopted by the Commission as an alternative to
separate risk disclosure in rules 33.7 and 1.55 already reflects a
consolidation of those disclosure statements.8 The Commission has
not to date advanced U.S. exchanges long-standing request to delete the
[[Page 10893]]
requirement in rule 33.4(a)(2) that FCMs collect the full option
premium.9 However, it has indicated that such a proposal could be
entertained with respect to the section 4(c) exemption authority
granted with the adoption of Part 36 of the Commission's regulations.
At the same time, the Commission has permitted certain foreign
exchange-traded commodity options to be offered with margining of the
premium, and the Commission has not been informed of any concerns
associated with that feature.10 In this connection, the Commission
notes that the proposed linkage arrangement between the U.S. CBT and
U.K. LIFFE may provide the Commission an opportunity to review the
feasibility of implementing a program to permit the futures-style
margining of the option premium on a U.S. contract in a limited
context.11 In particular, the product fungibility requirements of
the proposed linkage may necessitate that the Commission address
permitting CBT options to trade on the same basis as LIFFE options
(which permit margining of the premium).
\8\ FCMs may elect whether to provide the generic statement or
individual rules 1.55 and 33.7 statements.
\9\ While U.S. exchanges had petitioned for the ability to
designate option contracts having margining of the premium, a
proposal published in 1989 was never finalized. See 51 FR 11233
(March 17, 1989).
\10\ See, e.g., CFTC Advisory No. 90-1 [1987-1990 Transfer
Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) para. 24,597 (disclosure statement
relating to the deferred payment of option premiums for certain
foreign exchange-traded options, superseding separate disclosure
addenda required by orders concerning the London International
Financial Futures Exchange (LIFFE) (54 FR 37636 (September 12,
1989)), the International Petroleum Exchange (54 FR 50356 (December
6, 1989)), and the London Futures and Options Exchange (renamed as
the London Commodity Exchange) (54 FR 50348 (December 6, 1989)); and
55 FR 14238 (April 17, 1990) (Sydney Futures Exchange).
\11\ See CBT letter dated July 28, 1995 to Jean A. Webb,
Secretary to the Commission (rule 1.41(b) submission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second category of suggestions included the following:
--The ability of foreign products to trade in the United States
immediately as compared to the delay that is involved with the
designation process for contract market products [the CBT urged the
Commission to focus on the disparate treatment between foreign and
domestic products];
--The need for domestic U.S. requirements such as speculative
position limits since foreign products may not be subject to similar
limitations by their home regulatory scheme;
--Differences in the quality of audit trail; and
--A suggestion that the Commission amend rule 1.35(a-1) to
eliminate what one exchange characterized as the ``additional and
burdensome'' time-stamp requirement for option orders,'' a
requirement which currently does not exist for futures orders.
In this regard, the Commission reiterates the commitment set forth
in the 1994 CFTC Competitiveness Study to keeping its regulatory
programs under continuous review to assure that, consistent with its
responsibilities for market integrity and customer protection, they
keep pace with changes in the marketplace and do not unnecessarily
impede domestic exchanges from evolving to remain competitive,
especially with regard to the cost of compliance relative to non-U.S.
exchanges.12
\12\ A Study of the Global Competitiveness of U.S. Futures
Markets, CFTC (April 1994) (``CFTC Competitiveness Study''), p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission recognizes, however, that its review of its
regulations cannot proceed purely on the basis of cost equivalency.
While differences of opinion may exist regarding the implementation of
specific regulatory requirements, ultimately the overriding scheme
pursuant to which U.S. contract markets operate and the level of market
integrity that must be maintained is established by Congress in the
CEA. Thus, speculative position limits exist because of section 4a of
the CEA and are based on the historic concern expressed in the CEA with
avoiding ``excessive'' speculation that could cause ``sudden or
unreasonable fluctuations'' in commodity prices. The Commission
believes that it has been responsive to the economic realities of
contemporary markets and exchange competitive concerns by, for example,
permitting U.S. exchanges to replace their speculative position limit
rules with more flexible position accountability rules for eligible
non-agricultural contracts. Nonetheless, the fundamental requirement to
have such limits or their equivalent has been established by Congress.
Similarly, the designation process and audit trail requirements are
statutory. See section 5a of the CEA. While the basis for any
particular Commission rule is a subject for legitimate comment and
analysis--and the Commission believes that its record reflects a
responsiveness to such comment--ultimately the underlying requirement
is established by Congress. The Commission wishes to note, in this
regard, that it continues to review the appropriateness of all of its
programs under current circumstances.
Finally, notwithstanding differences in regulation, the Commission
notes that most countries with internationally active futures exchanges
appear to share certain common regulatory concerns which result in
comparable regulation, such as position limits and market surveillance
programs, relative to futures trading in their respective
jurisdictions. While the content and complexity of these regulatory
systems differ, such differences often reflect the particular maturity
and market experiences of the market and regulator.13
\13\ See CFTC Competitiveness Study, pp. 31-71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adequacy of Sales Practice Compliance Audits
In its proposal, the Commission stated that prior to adopting any
final rules it would need to be assured that arrangements exist through
NFA or otherwise to ensure that sales practice compliance audits of
registrants offering foreign commodity options will be undertaken,
thereby ensuring complete sales practice compliance audit coverage of
firms (which heretofore has been mandated on a product-specific basis
under rule 30.3 orders). Consistent with the description of NFA sales
practice audit procedures described in the notice of proposed
rulemaking,14 NFA has confirmed that its audit program already
includes steps for determining whether an NFA member FCM or introducing
broker (IB) solicits or executes commodity option transactions on any
foreign exchange.15 If NFA determines that the firm does engage in
such foreign transactions, NFA includes a reasonable number of those
transactions in its audit sample and tests those transactions for
compliance with applicable sales practice rules. NFA has confirmed that
the audit steps cover all authorized commodity options traded on
foreign exchanges and will continue to do so when the authorization is
expanded to include all foreign exchange-traded commodity
options.16
\14\ 60 FR 63472,63474 (December 11, 1995).
\15\ Letter dated January 16, 1996 from Daniel A. Driscoll,
Vice-President-Compliance, National Futures Association to Jean A.
Webb, Secretariat of the Commission.
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NFA also has confirmed that it has entered into an agreement with
certain other self-regulatory organizations (joint contractor self-
regulatory organizations (SROs)) whereby the joint contractor SROs
audit the sales practices of joint FCM members and their guaranteed
IBs. The audit steps used by the joint contractor SROs under the
agreement sample and test foreign option transactions in a manner
similar to that used by NFA.
Similarly, as previously noted in its notice of proposed
rulemaking, the Commission's rule 30.10 orders permitting foreign firms
to directly solicit U.S. persons for foreign products
[[Page 10894]]
address options and futures sales practice concerns.17
\17\ See 60 FR 63472, 63474 (December 11, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Availability of Arbitration
NFA also confirmed that NFA arbitration is available to U.S.
customers who enter into foreign exchange-traded commodity option
transactions and that NFA Member or Associate participation in claims
filed by customers is mandatory.18 Similarly, U.S. customers
solicited by foreign firms under rule 30.10 will, pursuant to the
express terms of such orders, continue to have access to arbitration
procedures both abroad and through NFA.19
\18\ NFA noted that if a claim is brought by a customer against
an NFA Member or Associate, NFA will hear the claim under the Code
of Arbitration and the Member or Associate's participation in the
arbitration process is mandatory. If a claim is brought by a
customer against a foreign party who is not an NFA Member or
Associate, the claim can be heard under NFA's Rules Governing
Arbitration of Disputes Involving Foreign Parties if the parties
agree (unless the claim arises primarily out of delivery, clearance,
settlement or floor practices of a foreign exchange and a similar
dispute-resolution forum is available in the foreign jurisdiction).
\19\ See 60 FR 63472, 63475 (December 11, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision Will Not Affect Existing Restrictions Related to Options
Involving Stock Index Products and Foreign Government Debt
The Commission reiterates that the elimination of the specific
authorization requirement in rule 30.3(a) will not affect the existing
product restrictions applicable to options on futures contracts based
on stock index products (i.e., the underlying stock index futures must
be the subject of a no-action letter issued by the CFTC's Office of the
General Counsel) and foreign government debt (i.e., the debt product
must be designated by the SEC as an exempted security under SEC rule
3a12-8) contained in section 2(a)(1)(B)(v) of the CEA.20
\20\ Among the commodity option contracts to which this relief
would apply are option contracts on foreign currencies that are
traded on a foreign board of trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continued Monitoring by Commission; Availability of Transaction Data
Assumed
The Commission notes that elimination of the specific authorization
requirement will not affect the existing regulatory requirements
applicable to the manner in which appropriate products may be offered
or sold to U.S. persons, e.g., registration of intermediaries,21
requirements related to sales practices (including appropriate
disclosures), prohibitions on fraudulent activities and the
availability to the Commission of books and records.
\21\ Foreign futures and foreign commodity options may be
offered by foreign firms operating under confirmed rule 30.10 relief
consistent with the scope of the relevant rule 30.10 order and
subject to existing product restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission reiterates that FCMs which are not members of
foreign exchanges should assure themselves that there are no statutory
or regulatory impediments on their ability to obtain information from
foreign exchange-member firms necessary to enable such FCMs to comply
with the CEA and regulations thereunder relative to confirming the
execution of foreign option transactions. In this connection, the
Commission believes that the level of ``adequate supervision'' intended
by rule 166.3 22 would require that firms be able to document to
the Commission all material trade-specific data.
\22\ Commission rule 166.3, 17 CFR 166.3, requires that:
Each Commission registrant, except an associated person who has
no supervisory duties, must diligently supervise the handling by its
partners, officers, employees and agents (or persons occupying a
similar status or performing a similar function) of all commodity
interest accounts carried, operated, advised or introduced by the
registrant and all other activities of its partners, officers,
employees and agents (or other persons occupying a similar status or
performing a similar function) relating to its business as a
Commission registrant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission will continue to monitor the situation and take
appropriate action should it determine that U.S. investors, U.S. FCMs
or the Commission, are not able to obtain appropriate information
related to the commodity option transactions of a specific exchange or
are otherwise being adversely affected by the rule change.
Conclusion
Based on the comments received and the rationale set forth in its
proposal, the Commission concludes that the elimination of the specific
authorization requirement for foreign exchange-traded commodity options
23 is warranted and is amending rule 30.3 accordingly.
\23\ Rule 30.3 addresses ``foreign futures'' and ``foreign
options'' which are defined in rule 30.1. by reference to
transactions that are ``made or to be made on or subject to the
rules of any foreign board of trade.'' Thus, rule 30.3 does not
independently authorize the offer and sale in the U.S. of futures
and options which are not executed on or subject to the rules of a
foreign board of trade. However, the trade option exemption of
Commission rule 32.4(a) would continue to apply to foreign commodity
options. See, e.g., 60 FR 30462, n.4 (June 9, 1995).
The Commission also has previously noted that it recognizes that
differences may exist between the practices of foreign boards of
trade and their U.S. counterparts and that the definition should be
interpreted as broadly as possible to effectuate the intent of
Congress. In this connection, to the extent questions arise as to
whether a particular transaction occurs subject to the rules of a
foreign board of trade, the Commission encourages affected persons
to request staff interpretations. See 52 FR 28980, 28987 (August 5,
1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Matters
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
requires that agencies, in proposing rules, consider the impact of
those rules on small businesses. The Commission has previously
determined that FCMs should be excluded from the definition of ``small
entity'' based upon the fiduciary nature of the FCM/customer
relationships as well as the fact that FCMs must meet minimum financial
requirements. 47 FR 18618, 18619 (April 30, 1982). The Commission
similarly determined that commodity pool operators (CPOs) are not small
entities for purposes of the RFA. 47 FR 18618, 18620 (April 30, 1982).
With respect to commodity trading advisors (CTAs) and IBs, the
Commission has stated that it would evaluate within the context of a
particular rule proposal whether all or some affected CTAs would be
considered to be small entities and, if so, the economic impact on them
of any rule. 47 FR 18618, 18620 (April 30, 1982) (CTAs); 48 FR 35248,
35276 (August 3, 1983) (IBs).
The amendment of rule 30.3 is intended to facilitate the ability of
Commission registrants or exempted firms to provide customers with
access to desired products by eliminating a current product-by-product
authorization requirement, thus providing easier access to a greater
number of persons.
Accordingly, the Acting Chairman, on behalf of the Commission,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the revised rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Act), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
imposes certain requirements on federal agencies (including the
Commission) in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any
collection of information as defined by the Act. The Commission has
determined that the amendment of rule 30.3 does not have any paperwork
burden. Copies of the information collection submission to the Office
of Management and Budget are available from Joe Mink, CFTC Clearance
Officer, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20581; telephone (202) 418-5170.
List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 30
Foreign futures and options; Futures commission merchants;
Introducing
[[Page 10895]]
brokers; Commodity trading advisors; Commodity pool operators.
In consideration of the foregoing, and pursuant to the authority
contained in the Commodity Exchange Act and, in particular, sections
2(a)(1)(A), 4, 4c and 8a of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 2, 6,
6c and 12a, the Commission hereby amends part 30 of chapter I of title
17 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 30--FOREIGN FUTURES AND FOREIGN OPTIONS TRANSACTIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 30 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 2(a)(1)(A), 4, 4c and 8a of the Commodity
Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 2, 6, 6c and 12a.
2. Section 30.3 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 30.3 Prohibited Transactions.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the offer and
sale of any foreign futures contract or foreign options transaction for
or on behalf of a foreign futures or foreign options customer, except
in accordance with the provisions of this part: Provided, that, with
the exception of the disclosure and antifraud provisions set forth in
Secs. 30.6 and 30.9 of this part, the provisions of this part shall not
apply to transactions executed on a foreign board of trade, and carried
for or on behalf of a customer at a designated contract market, subject
to an agreement with and rules of a contract market which permit
positions in a commodity interest which have been established on one
market to be liquidated on another market.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC on March 12, 1996 by the Commission.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 96-6387 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6381 Preemption of Local Zoning Regulations; Satellite Earth Stations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10896-10899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6381]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 25
[IB Docket No. 95-59; FCC 96-78]
Preemption of Local Zoning Regulations; Satellite Earth Stations
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission has adopted revisions to its rule preempting
certain local regulation of satellite earth stations. The revised rule
was proposed in Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The new rule clarifies
the preemption standard and establishes procedures for Commission
enforcement of its rules. In crafting the new rule, we have carefully
considered the very weighty and important interests of state and local
governments in managing land use in their communities. Against those
interests, we have balanced the federal interest in ensuring easy
access to satellite-delivered services, which have become increasingly
important and widespread in the last few years and are dependent upon
rapid and inexpensive antenna installation by businesses and consumers.
We believe that the revised preemption rule accommodates both federal
and non-federal interests and provides the Commission with a method of
reviewing disputes that will avoid excessive federal involvement in
local land-use issues.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosalee Chiara, International Bureau,
Satellite and Radiocommunication Division, Satellite Policy Branch,
(202) 418-0754.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order in IB Docket No. 95-59; FCC 96-78, adopted February 29, 1996
and released March 11, 1996. The complete text of this Report and Order
and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making is available for inspection
and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center
(Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and also may be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140,
Washington, DC 20037.
Summary of Report and Order
1. In this Report and Order, the Commission adopts revisions to its
rule preempting certain local regulation of satellite earth station
antennas. Our new rule clarifies the preemption standard and
establishes procedures for Commission enforcement of its rules. In
crafting the new rule, we have carefully considered the very weighty
and important interests of state and local governments in managing land
use in their communities. Against those interests, we have balanced the
federal interest in ensuring easy access to satellite-delivered
services, which have become increasingly important and widespread in
the last few years and are dependent upon rapid and inexpensive antenna
installation by businesses and consumers. We believe that the revised
[[Page 10897]]
preemption rule accommodates both federal and non-federal interests and
provides the Commission with a method of reviewing disputes that will
avoid excessive federal involvement in local land-use issues.
2. The original preemption rule was adopted in 1986 in response to
evidence that state and local governments were, in some instances,
imposing unreasonably restrictive burdens on the installation of
satellite antennas. The 1986 rule preempted ordinances that
discriminate against satellite antennas and impose unreasonable
limitations on reception or unreasonable costs on users. In addition,
in the order adopting the rule, we stated that anyone coming to the
Commission for relief in a particular zoning dispute must first exhaust
all non federal remedies, including all litigation remedies.
3. Several events since 1986 have led us to conclude that our rule
should be revised at this time. For example, in 1992, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit invalidated our exhaustion of remedies
policy. Town of Deerfield v. FCC, 992 F.2d 420 (2d Cir. 1993)
(Deerfield). In addition, antenna users, local governments, and
Commission staff have gained experience in this area and have found
that several aspects of the 1986 rule are problematic. Finally,
representatives of two satellite industry groups filed requests for
declaratory rulings in connection with our preemption rule. The
Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association (SBCA),
representing the interests of direct-to-home video service providers
and users, urged the Commission to clarify its rule and to adopt
enforcement procedures. Similarly, Hughes Network Systems (HNS), a
provider of satellite communications for business uses, requested a
ruling that local restrictions are per se unreasonable if imposed on
very small aperture terminals (VSATs) that measure less than two meters
in diameter and are installed in commercial areas.
4. In the spring of 1995, we adopted a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 60 FR 28077 (May 30, 1995), responding to these events. The
Notice tentatively concluded that our preemption policies, including
procedural rules, must be revised. Accordingly, in the Notice, we
proposed to review local disputes after exhaustion of only nonfederal
administrative remedies, not all non-federal legal remedies. We
proposed new standards to determine the reasonableness of non-federal
regulations, and created two categories of rebuttable presumptions for
small antennas. Finally, we proposed procedures by which state and
local governments authorities can request a waiver of the rule in cases
where unusual circumstances are demonstrated.
5. In the Notice, we described how our proposed rule would apply in
different ways to satellite antennas of different types and sizes.
These antennas fall into two basic categories, depending on the service
provided. The first category consists of antennas designed for direct-
to-home (DTH) reception of video programming for home entertainment
purposes. At this time, DTH uses two different frequency bands for
transmission. In the Ku-band (12/14 GHz), service can be provided with
antennas less than one meter in diameter. In the C-band (4/6 GHz),
antenna diameters are as small as six feet (approximately 2 meters) and
typically around seven and one-half feet (approximately 2.5 meters).
These C-band antennas provide different programming that is sometimes
not available to smaller antenna users. DTH antennas are receive-only
and do not have transmitting capabilities. The second broad category of
antennas is designed for two-way, commercial communications. These
antennas both transmit and receive. The smallest of these are often
referred to as VSATs and provide satellite communications network
services to retail establishments such as gas stations, store chains,
banks, and brokerage services. These antennas are located in the same
areas as the commercial facilities they serve. Most VSAT antennas are
less than two meters in diameter. Other satellite services are provided
by larger transmit/receive antennas that are generally associated with
commercial facilities. Our proposals reflect differences in these
various types of antennas.
6. In response to the Notice, we received extensive comments from
satellite industry representatives and from local governments. In
general, industry representatives stress that our preemption rule must
be clear and easy to apply, and they recommend some modifications to
our proposal to accomplish this goal. Local government representatives
strongly oppose any greater federal preemption, but generally concede
that Commission enforcement procedures are necessary in light of
Deerfield.
7. After our receipt of comments in this matter, Congress enacted
legislation which directly impacts some of the issues in the rule
making proceeding. Specifically, section 207 of the 1996 Act directs
the Commission to promulgate regulations:
to prohibit restrictions that impair a viewer's ability to receive
video programming services through devices designed for over-the-air
reception of television broadcast signals multichannel, multipoint
distribution service, or direct broadcast satellite services.
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56
(1996). Although we seek comment on the impact of the legislation in
the Further Notice, we have decided to proceed with the issuance of
this Report and Order. We feel that it is crucial to put a revised rule
in place as quickly as possible. Moreover, the revised rule proposed in
the Notice and adopted here applies to a variety of services provided
by all sizes of satellite dishes, not just direct broadcasting services
provided by 18'' dishes. Finally, as explained in the Further Notice,
we tentatively conclude that insofar as governmental restrictions are
concerned, our newly adopted preemption rule is a reasonable way to
implement section 207 with regard to DBS antennas. After reviewing the
comments submitted in response to the Further Notice, we will determine
whether further adjustments to our rule are warranted.
8. In crafting our preemption policies, we have attempted to
reflect the differences in the antennas involved and have tried to
accommodate the varying local interests. The main state and local
concerns regarding installation of satellite earth stations relate to
aesthetics, health, and safety. These concerns would appear to be
greater for larger antennas, thus the rule permits greater local
regulation for larger antennas. For smaller antennas, local interests
are less compelling and, accordingly, we more narrowly define
permissible local regulation. After reviewing the record, we conclude
that the basic thrust of our proposals is appropriate and will
adequately address concerns of antenna users while accommodating
interests of state and local governments. However, commenters have
raised concerns about the clarity of certain portions of our rule and,
accordingly, we made adjustments to the adopted version to address
these problems.
Ordering Clauses
9. Accordingly, it is ordered That the revisions to Sec. 25.104 of
the Commission's rules as set out below are hereby adopted.
10. The analysis required pursuant to Section 606 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 608, is set forth below.
11. It is further ordered That the amendments to 47 CFR 25.104
adopted in the Report and Order that comprises
[[Page 10898]]
paragraphs 1 through 52 of the Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking will become effective April 17, 1996. This action
is taken pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7, and 309(j) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
157, and 309(j). The Federal Communications Commission as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public
and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the
information collection in the adopted rule, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Comments concerning the Commision's
need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden
estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden,
including the use of automated information techniques, are requested.
The Commission has requested an emergency Office of Management & Budget
review of this collection with an approval by April 10, 1996.
12. It is further ordered That the Secretary shall send a copy of
this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in
accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
Public Law 95-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (1981).
Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement
13. Pursuant to Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 603, an initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was incorporated
in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in IB Docket No. 95-59. Written
comments on the proposals in the Notice, including the Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, were requested.
A. Need and Purpose of Rules
14. This rulemaking proceeding modifies the Commission's rule
preempting certain local zoning regulation of Satellite earth station
antennas, 47 CFR 25.104. Our objective has been to facilitate the
installation of antennas and to assist in the development of satellite
based technologies.
B. Issues Raised by the Public in Response to the Initial Analysis
15. No comments were received specifically in response to the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. We have, however, taken into
account all issues raised by the Public in response to the proposed
rules. In certain instances, we have eliminated or modified rules in
response to those comments.
C. Significant Alternatives Considered
16. We have attempted to balance all the commenters' concerns with
our public interest mandate under the Communications Act in order to
assure that satellite services are accessible. We will continue to
examine this rule in an effort to eliminate unnecessary regulations and
to minimize significant economic impact on small businesses.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25
Satellites.
Federal Communications Commission
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Final Rules
Part 25 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
17. The authority citation for Part 25 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Sections 25.101 to 25.601 issued under Sec. 4, 48
Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154. Interpret or apply secs. 101-
104, 76 Stat. 416-427; 47 U.S.C. 701-744; 47 U.S.C. 554.
18. Section 25.104 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 25.104 Preemption of local zoning of earth stations.
(a) Any state or local zoning, land-use, building, or similar
regulation that materially limits transmission or reception by
satellite earth station antennas, or imposes more than minimal costs on
users of such antennas, is preempted unless the promulgating authority
can demonstrate that such regulation is reasonable, except that
nonfederal regulation of radio frequency emissions is not preempted by
this section. For purposes of this paragraph (a), reasonable means that
the local regulation:
(1) Has a clearly defined health, safety, or aesthetic objective
that is stated in the text of the regulation itself; and
(2) Furthers the stated health, safety or aesthetic objective
without unnecessarily burdening the federal interests in ensuring
access to satellite services and in promoting fair and effective
competition among competing communications service providers.
(b)(1) Any state or local zoning, land-use, building, or similar
regulation that affects the installation, maintenance, or use of the
following two categories of a satellite earth station antenna shall be
presumed unreasonable and is therefore preempted subject to paragraph
(b)(2) of this section. No civil, criminal, administrative, or other
legal action of any kind shall be taken to enforce any regulation
covered by this presumption unless the promulgating authority has
obtained a waiver from the Commission pursuant to paragraph (e) of this
section, or a final declaration from the Commission or a court of
competent jurisdiction that the presumption has been rebutted pursuant
to paragraph (b)(2) of this section:
(i) A satellite earth station antenna that is two meters or less in
diameter and is located or proposed to be located in any area where
commercial or industrial uses are generally permitted by nonfederal
land-use regulation; or
(ii) A satellite earth station antenna that is one meter or less in
diameter in any area, regardless of land use or zoning category.
(2) Any presumption arising from paragraph (b)(1) of this section
may be rebutted upon a showing that the regulation in question:
(i) Is necessary to accomplish a clearly defined health or
safety objective that is stated in the text of the regulation
itself;
(ii) Is no more burdensome to satellite users than is necessary
to achieve the health or safety objective; and
(iii) Is specifically applicable on its face to antennas of the
class described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(c) Any person aggrieved by the application or potential
application of a state or local zoning or other regulation in violation
of paragraph (a) of this section may, after exhausting all nonfederal
administrative remedies, file a petition with the Commission requesting
a declaration that the state or local regulation in question is
preempted by this section. Nonfederal administrative remedies, which do
not include judicial appeals of administrative determinations, shall be
deemed exhausted when:
(1) The petitioner's application for a permit or other
authorization required by the state or local authority has been
denied and any administrative appeal and variance procedure has been
exhausted;
(2) The petitioner's application for a permit or other
authorization required by the state or local authority has been on
file for ninety days without final action;
(3) The petitioner has received a permit or other authorization
required by the state or local authority that is conditioned upon
the petitioner's expenditure of a sum of money, including costs
required to screen, pole-mount, or otherwise specially install the
antenna, greater than the aggregate purchase or total lease cost of
the equipment as normally installed; or
(4) A state or local authority has notified the petitioner of
impending civil or criminal
[[Page 10899]]
action in a court of law and there are no more nonfederal
administrative steps to be taken.
(d) Procedures regarding filing of petitions requesting declaratory
rulings and other related pleadings will be set forth in subsequent
Public Notices. All allegations of fact contained in petitions and
related pleadings must be supported by affidavit of a person or persons
with personal knowledge thereof.
(e) Any state or local authority that wishes to maintain and
enforce zoning or other regulations inconsistent with this section may
apply to the Commission for a full or partial waiver of this section.
Such waivers may be granted by the Commission in its sole discretion,
upon a showing by the applicant that local concerns of a highly
specialized or unusual nature create a necessity for regulation
inconsistent with this section. No application for waiver shall be
considered unless it specifically sets forth the particular regulation
for which waiver is sought. Waivers granted in accordance with this
section shall not apply to later-enacted or amended regulations by the
local authority unless the Commission expressly orders otherwise.
[FR Doc. 96-6381 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6370 Amendment to Class D and Class E Airspace; Hailey, Idaho
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10884-10885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6370]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ANM-29]
Amendment to Class D and Class E Airspace; Hailey, Idaho
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action amends the Hailey, Idaho, Class D and Class E
airspace to accommodate a Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard
Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP)
[[Page 10885]]
to the Friedman Memorial Airport, Hailey, Idaho.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, June 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James C. Frala, Operations Branch, ANM-532.4, Federal Aviation
Administration, Docket No. 95-ANM-29, 1601 Lind Avenue S.W., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056; telephone number: (206) 227-2535.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On January 29, 1996, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to amend Class D and
Class E airspace at Hailey, Idaho, to accommodate a new GPS SIAP to the
Friedman Memorial Airport (61 FR 2731). Interested parties were invited
to participate in the rulemaking proceeding by submitting written
comments on the proposal. No comments were received.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class D airspace areas extending upward from the
surface, and Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth, are published in paragraph 5000
and paragraph 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17,
1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of Federal Aviation Regulations amends
Class D and Class E airspace at Hailey, Idaho. The FAA has determined
that this regulation only involves an established body of technical
regulations of which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (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) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 71 as
follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace
* * * * *
ANM ID D Hailey, ID [Revised]
Friedman Mermorial Airport, Hailey, ID
(lat. 43 deg.30'17'' N, long. 114 deg.17'48'' W)
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
7,800 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of the Friedman Memorial
Airport, and that airspace within 1.8 miles each side of the
159 deg. bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.1-mile
radius to 6 miles southeast of the airport. This Class D airspace
area is effective during the specified dates and times established
in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will
thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility
Directory.
* * * * *
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth
* * * * *
ANM ID E5 Hailey, ID [Revised]
Friedman Memorial Airport, Hailey, ID
(lat. 43 deg.30'17'' N, long. 114 deg.17'48'' W)
M-SUN MLS
(lat. 43 deg.30'02'' N, long, 114 deg.17'37'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within 1.8 miles each side of the M-SUN MLS 328 deg. azimuth, from
7.4 miles northwest to 4.3 miles southeast of the M-SUN MLS, and 1.8
miles each side of the 159 deg. bearing from the airport, extending
from the airport to 7.6 miles southeast of the airport, that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, within
3.5 miles each side of the M-SUN MLS 328 deg. azimuth, from 15.7
miles northwest to the M-SUN MLS, and that airspace from lat.
43 deg.36'00'' N, long. 114 deg.27'03'' W, thence eastbound to lat.
43 deg.36'00'' N, long. 114 deg.00'03'' W, thence southbound to lat.
43 deg.17'30'' N, long, 114 deg.00'03'' W, thence westbound to lat.
43 deg.17'30'' N, long. 114 deg.27'03'' W, thence northbound to the
point of beginning; excluding that airspace overlying V-231 on the
east side and V-500 on the south side.
* * * * *
Issued in Seattle, Washington, on March 5, 1996.
Richard E. Prang,
Acting Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division, Northwest Mountain
Region.
[FR Doc. 96-6370 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6368 Establishment and Alteration of Class E Airspace; Fort Yukon, AK
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10885-10886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6368]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AAL-1]
Establishment and Alteration of Class E Airspace; Fort Yukon, AK
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment establishes Class E2 airspace and amends the
Class E5 airspace area at Fort Yukon, AK, to provide controlled
airspace for aircraft executing the Standard Instrument Approach
Procedure (SIAP) at the Fort Yukon Airport. The area will be depicted
on aeronautical charts.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, July 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert C. Durand, AAL-531, 222 West 7th Avenue #14, Anchorage, AK
99513-7587; telephone: (907) 271-5898.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On May 12, 1995, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by establishing a Class E2
surface area and revising the Class E5 airspace at Fort Yukon, AK (60
FR 30027). This action will provide controlled airspace for Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR) procedures at the Fort Yukon Airport.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Class E airspace
designations for surface areas of an airport are published in paragraph
6002 of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from
700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in
paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and
effective September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations
[[Page 10886]]
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) establishes the Class E2 surface area at Fort Yukon, AK,
and revises the Class E5 airspace. This action will provide controlled
airspace for IFR procedures at the Fort Yukon Airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation--(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) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace areas designated as a surface area
for an airport.
* * * * *
AAL AK E2 Fort Yukon, AK [New]
Fort Yukon Airport, AK
(Lat. 66 deg.34'18'' N, long. 145 deg.15'01'' W)
Yukon River NDB
(Lat. 66 deg.34'48'' N, long. 145 deg.12'46'' W)
Fort Yukon VORTAC
(Lat. 66 deg.34'28'' N, long. 145 deg.16'36'' W)
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4-mile
radius of the Fort Yukon Airport and within 2.5 miles each side of
the Yukon River NDB 059 deg. bearing extending from the 4-mile
radius to 8.2 miles northeast of the airport and within 3.3 miles
each side of the Fort Yukon VORTAC 075 deg. radial extending from
the 4-mile radius to 11.6 miles east of the airport and within 3.3
miles each side of the Fort Yukon VORTAC 213 deg. radial extending
from the 4-mile radius to 12.4 miles southwest of the airport. This
Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and
times established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date
and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Supplement
Alaska (Airport/Facility Directory).
* * * * *
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
AAL AK E5 Fort Yukon, AK [Revised]
Fort Yukon Airport, AK
(Lat. 66 deg.34'18'' N, long. 145 deg.15'01'' W)
Yukon River NDB
(Lat. 66 deg.34'48'' N, long. 145 deg.12'46'' W)
Fort Yukon VORTAC
(Lat. 66 deg.34'28'' N, long. 145 deg.16'36'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the Fort Yukon Airport and within 4
miles each side of the 213 deg. radial of the Fort Yukon VORTAC
extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 15.4 miles southwest of the
airport and within 4 miles each side of the 075 deg. radial or the
Fort Yukon VORTAC extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 14.6 miles
east of the airport and within 3 miles each side of the Yukon River
NDB 059 deg. bearing extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 11.3
miles northeast of the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Anchorage, AK, on March 4, 1996.
Willis C. Nelson,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Alaskan Region.
[FR Doc. 96-6368 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6298 Special Local Regulations; San Diego Crew Classic
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6298]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD11-96-003]
RIN 2115-AE46
Special Local Regulations; San Diego Crew Classic
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of implementation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice implements 33 CFR 100.1101, ``Southern California
Annual Marine Events,'' for the San Diego Crew Classic. This event
consists of approximately 150 eight-oared shells with coxswains running
in numerous heats over a two-day period. These regulations will be
effective in the portion of Mission Bay, San Diego bounded by Enchanted
Cove, Fiesta Island, Pacific Passage and De Anza Point. Implementation
of section 33 CFR 100.1101 is necessary to control vessel traffic in
the regulated areas during the event to ensure the safety of
participants and spectators. Small craft wakes cause unsafe conditions
for these racing shells.
EFFECTIVE DATES: Section 33 CFR 100.1101 is effective from 7 a.m. on
March 30, 1996 and terminates at 8 p.m. on March 31, 1996 unless
cancelled earlier by the San Diego Activities Commander.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
QMC Paul Appleton, U.S. Coast Guard Activities San Diego, California;
Tel: (619) 683-6309.
Discussion of Notice
The San Diego Crew Classic is scheduled to occur on March 30 and
31, 1996. These Special Local Regulations permit Coast Guard control of
vessel traffic in order to ensure the safety of spectators and
participant vessels. In accordance with the regulations in 33 CFR
100.1101, no spectators shall anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the
through transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the
regulated area during the effective dates and times, unless cleared for
such entry by or through an official patrol vessel.
Dated: March 11, 1996.
R.A. Appelbaum,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 96-6298 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6268 [No title available]
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10879-10881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6268]
========================================================================
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. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 10879]]
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 532
RIN 3206-AH27
Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of Certain Federal Wage
System Wage Areas
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final
rule to redefine several Federal Wage System (FWS) wage areas for pay-
setting purposes. OPM is engaged in an ongoing project to review the
geographic definitions of selected FWS wage areas. Based on recent
reviews of wage and survey area boundaries in a number of wage areas,
OPM is redefining and/or renaming the following FWS wage areas:
Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD; Biloxi, MS; Columbus-Aberdeen,
MS; Jackson, MS; Meridian, MS; Great Falls, MT; Pittsburgh, PA; Eastern
Tennessee; Corpus Christi, TX; San Antonio, TX; and West Virginia.
Timing of the actual implementation of changes in these wage areas
varies somewhat because of the varying dates for the conduct of local
FWS wage surveys.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Allen, (202) 606-2848.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OPM is engaged in an ongoing project to
review the geographic definitions of selected FWS appropriated fund
wage areas. On December 19, 1995, OPM published a proposed rule (60 FR
65245) concerning changes in several FWS wage area definitions. The
proposed rule provided a 30-day period for public comment. OPM received
comments regarding the definition of the Columbus-Aberdeen, MS, wage
area from several FWS employees in the wage area and an attorney. The
commenters recommended that OPM remove Panola, Yalobusha, and Grenada
Counties, MS, from the Columbus-Aberdeen wage area and redefine the
counties to the Memphis, TN, wage area.
During its study of the Columbus-Aberdeen wage area, the Federal
Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee carefully reviewed the wage area
definitions of Grenada, Panola, and Yalobusha Counties and determined
by consensus that, according to the regulatory criteria for defining
FWS wage areas (section 532.211 of title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations), the counties should remain in the wage area to which they
are currently defined, with Grenada County being added to the wage
area's survey area. OPM concurs with that finding and does not,
therefore, agree that Grenada, Panola, and Yalobusha Counties should be
redefined to the Memphis wage area.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that these regulations will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they
affect only Federal agencies and employees.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information,
Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
Office of Personnel Management.
Lorraine A. Green,
Deputy Director.
Accordingly, OPM is amending 5 CFR Part 532 as follows:
PART 532--PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS
1. The authority citation for part 532 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; Sec. 532.707 also issued under 5
U.S.C. 552.
Appendix A to Subpart B--[Amended]
2. Appendix A to subpart B is amended for Great Falls, MT, by
removing the name ``Great Falls'' and adding in its place ``Montana'',
and for Columbus-Aberdeen, MS, by removing the name ``Columbus-
Aberdeen'' and adding in its place ``Northern Mississippi''.
3. Appendix C to subpart B is amended by revising the wage area
listings for Hagerstown-Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD and Biloxi, MS;
removing ``Columbus-Aberdeen'' MS and inserting in alphabetical order a
new listing for ``Northern Mississippi;'' and revising the listing for
Jackson, MS; Meridian, MS; the state of Montana; Pittsburgh, PA;
Eastern Tennessee; Corpus Christi, TX; San Antonio, TX; and West
Virginia to read as follows:
Appendix C to Subpart B of Part 532--Appropriated Fund Wage and Survey
Areas
* * * * *
MARYLAND
* * * * *
HAGERSTOWN-MARTINSBURG-CHAMBERSBURG
Survey Area
Maryland:
Washington
Pennsylvania:
Franklin
West Virginia:
Berkeley
Area of Application--Survey Area Plus
Maryland:
Allegany
Garrett
Pennsylvania:
Fulton (Effective as of April 17, 1996.)
Virginia (cities):
Harrisonburg
Winchester
Virginia (counties):
Clarke
Culpeper
Frederick
Greene
Madison
Page
Rappahannock
Rockingham
Shenandoah
Warren
West Virginia:
Hampshire
Hardy
Jefferson
Mineral
Morgan
* * * * *
MISSISSIPPI
BILOXI
Survey Area
Mississippi:
Hancock
Harrison
Jackson
[[Page 10880]]
Area of Application--Survey Area Plus
Mississippi:
George
Pearl River
Stone (Effective as of November 1, 1997.)
JACKSON
Survey area
Mississippi:
Hinds
Rankin
Warren
Area of Application--Survey Area Plus
Mississippi:
Adams (Effective as of February 1, 1997.)
Amite
Attala
Claiborne (Effective as of February 1, 1997.)
Copiah
Covington
Franklin
Holmes
Humphreys
Issaquena
Jefferson (Effective as of February 1, 1997.)
Jefferson Davis
Lawrence
Lincoln
Madison
Marion
Pike
Scott
Sharkey
Simpson
Smith
Walthall
Wilkinson
Yazoo
MERIDIAN
Survey Area
Mississippi:
Forest
Lamar (Effective as of February 1, 1997.)
Lauderdale
Alabama:
Choctaw
Area of Application--Survey Area Plus
Mississippi:
Clarke
Greene
Jasper
Jones
Kemper
Leake
Neshoba
Newton
Perry
Wayne
Alabama:
Sumter
NORTHERN MISSISSIPPI
Survey Area
Mississippi:
Clay
Grenada (Effective as of February 1, 1996.)
Leflore (Effective as of February 1, 1996.)
Lee
Lowndes
Monroe
Oktibbeha
Area of Application--Survey Area Plus
Mississippi:
Alcorn
Bolivar
Calhoun
Carroll
Chickasaw
Choctaw
Coahoma
Itawamba
Layfayette (Excluding Holly Springs National Forest.)
Montgomery
Noxubee
Panola
Pontotoc (Excluding Holly Springs National Forest.)
Prentiss
Quitman
Sunflower
Tallahatchie
Tishomingo
Union (Excluding Holly Springs National Forest.)
Washington
Webster
Winston
Yalobusha
* * * * *
MONTANA
Survey Area
Montana:
Cascade
Lewis and Clark
Yellowstone
Area of Application--Survey Area Plus
Montana:
Beaverhead
Big Horn
Blaine
Broadwater
Carbon
Carter
Chouteau
Custer
Daniels
Dawson
Deer Lodge
Fallon
Fergus
Flathead
Gallatin
Garfield
Glacier
Golden Valley
Granite
Hill
Jefferson
Judith Basin
Lake
Liberty
Lincoln
McCone
Madison
Meagher
Mineral
Missoula
Musselshell
Park
Petroleum
Phillips
Pondera
Powder River
Powell
Prairie
Ravalli
Richland
Roosevelt
Rosebud
Sanders
Sheridan
Silver Bow
Stillwater
Sweet Grass
Teton
Toole
Treasure
Valley
Wheatland
Wibaux
Wyoming:
Big Horn
Park
* * * * *
PENNSYLVANIA
* * * * *
PITTSBURGH
Survey Area
Pennsylvania:
Allegheny
Beaver
Butler (Effective as of the first day of the month of the first
full-scale wage survey in the Pittsburgh wage area following April
17, 1996.)
Washington
Westmoreland
Area of Application--Survey Area Plus
Pennsylvania:
Armstrong
Bedford
Blair
Cambria
Cameron
Centre
Clarion
Clearfield
Clinton
Crawford
Elk
Erie
Fayette
Forest
Greene
Huntingdon
Indiana
Jefferson
Lawrence
McKean
Mercer
Potter
Somerset
Venango
Warren
Ohio:
Belmont
Carroll
Harrison
Jefferson
Tuscarawas
West Virginia:
Brooke
Hancock
Marshall
Ohio
* * * * *
[[Page 10881]]
TENNESSEE
EASTERN TENNESSEE
Survey Area
Tennessee:
Carter
Hawkins
Sullivan
Unicoi
Washington
Virginia (city):
Bristol
Virginia (counties):
Scott
Washington
Area of Application--Survey Area Plus
Tennessee:
Cocke
Greene
Hancock
Johnson
Virginia:
Buchanan
Grayson
Lee
Russell
Smyth
Tazewell
North Carolina:
Alleghany
Ashe
Watauga
Kentucky:
Harlan
Letcher
* * * * *
TEXAS
* * * * *
CORPUS CHRISTI
Survey Area
Texas:
Nueces
San Patricio
Area of Application--Survey Area Plus
Texas:
Aransas
Bee
Brooks (Effective as of the first day of the first applicable
pay period beginning on or after April 17, 1996.
Calhoun
Cameron (Effective as of the first day of the first applicable
pay period beginning on or after April 17, 1996.
Goliad
Hidalgo (Effective as of the first day of the first applicable
pay period beginning on or after April 17, 1996.
Jim Wells
Kenedy (Effective as of the first day of the first applicable
pay period beginning on or after April 17, 1996.
Kleberg
Live Oak
Refugio
Starr (Effective as of the first day of the first applicable pay
period beginning on or after April 17, 1996.
Victoria
Willacy (Effective as of the first day of the first applicable
pay period beginning on or after April 17, 1996.
* * * * *
SAN ANTONIO
Survey Area
Texas:
Bexar
Comal
Guadalupe
Area of Application--Survey Area Plus
Texas:
Atascosa
Bandera
De Witt
Dimmit
Duval
Edwards
Frio
Gillespie
Gonzales
Jim Hogg
Karnes
Kendall
Kerr
Kinney
La Salle
McMullen
Maverick
Medina
Real
Uvalde
Val Verde
Webb
Wilson
Zapata
Zavala
* * * * *
WEST VIRGINIA
Survey Area
West Virginia:
Cabell
Harrison
Kanawha
Marion
Monongalia
Putnam
Wayne
Ohio:
Lawrence
Kentucky:
Boyd
Greenup
Area of Application--Survey Area Plus
West Virginia:
Barbour
Boone
Braxton
Calhoun
Clay
Doddridge
Fayette
Gilmer
Grant
Greenbrier
Jackson
Lewis
Lincoln
Logan
McDowell
Mason
Mercer
Mingo
Monroe
Nicholas
Pendleton
Pleasants
Pocahontas
Preston
Raleigh
Randolph
Ritchie
Roane
Summers
Taylor
Tucker
Tyler
Upshur
Webster
Wetzel
Wirt
Wood
Wyoming
Ohio:
Athens
Gallia
Jackson
Meigs
Monroe
Morgan
Noble
Pike
Scioto
Vinton
Washington
Kentucky:
Carter
Elliott
Floyd
Johnson
Lawrence
Lewis
Magoffin
Martin
Pike
Virginia (city):
Norton (Effective as of April 17, 1996.
Virginia (counties):
Dickenson
Wise
* * * * *
FR Doc. 96-6268 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6215 Disclosure and Verification of Social Security Numbers and Employer Identification Numbers, and Procedures for Obtaining Income Information; Streamlining Final Rule
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11112-11119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6215]
[[Page 11111]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Housing and Urban Development
_______________________________________________________________________
24 CFR Part 5, et al.
Disclosure and Verification of Social Security Numbers and Employer
Identification Numbers, and Procedures for Obtaining Income
Information; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 53 / Monday, March 18, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 11112]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Office of the Secretary
24 CFR Parts 5, 200, 247, 572, 750, 760, 882, 886, 887, 913, 950,
960, 982, and 983
[Docket No. FR-3992-F-01]
RIN 2501-AC13
Disclosure and Verification of Social Security Numbers and
Employer Identification Numbers, and Procedures for Obtaining Income
Information; Streamlining Final Rule
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends HUD's regulations for the disclosure
and verification of social security numbers and employer identification
numbers, and procedures for obtaining income information. In an effort
to comply with the President's regulatory reform initiatives, this rule
will streamline these regulations as they exist in several parts by
eliminating provisions that are redundant and are otherwise
unnecessary. In addition, this final rule consolidates these
regulations into 24 CFR part 5 and updates the rule with new statutory
references.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Camille Acevedo, Assistant General
Counsel for Regulations, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410, telephone
number (202) 708-2084 (this is not a toll-free number). For hearing- or
speech-impaired persons, this number may be accessed via TDD by calling
the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 4, 1995, President Clinton issued a
memorandum to all Federal departments and agencies regarding regulatory
reinvention. In response to this memorandum, HUD conducted a page-by-
page review of its regulations to determine which can be eliminated,
consolidated, or otherwise improved. HUD has determined that the
regulations for the disclosure and verification of social security
numbers and employer identification numbers and the procedures for
obtaining income information can be improved and streamlined by
eliminating unnecessary provisions.
Several provisions in the regulations apply to more than one
program, and therefore HUD repeated these provisions in different
subparts. This repetition is unnecessary, and updating these scattered
provisions is cumbersome and often creates confusion. Therefore, this
final rule will consolidate these duplicative provisions, maintaining
appropriate cross-references for the reader's convenience. In
accomplishing this consolidation, this final rule also updates cross-
references to applicable program regulations, some of which have
changed as a result of other rules that have reinvented HUD's
regulations.
Several provisions also repeated statutory language from section
165 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 (42 U.S.C.
3543) and section 904 of the Stewart B, McKinney Homeless Assistance
Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 3544). It is unnecessary to maintain
statutory requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), since
those requirements are otherwise fully accessible and binding.
Furthermore, if regulations contain statutory language, HUD must amend
the regulations whenever Congress amends the statute. Therefore, this
final rule will remove repetitious statutory language and replace it
with a citation to the specific statutory section for easy reference.
Finally, this rule includes updated references to income
information obtained pursuant to statutory authority through computer
matches with other Federal agencies. These references merely reflect
existing authority and responsibilities that were not otherwise
acknowledged in the regulations.
Justification for Final Rulemaking
HUD generally publishes a rule for public comment before issuing a
rule for effect, in accordance with its own regulations on rulemaking
in 24 CFR part 10. However, part 10 provides for exceptions to the
general rule if the agency finds good cause to omit advance notice and
public participation. The good cause requirement is satisfied when
prior public procedure is ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest'' (24 CFR 10.1). HUD finds that good cause exists
to publish this rule for effect without first soliciting public
comment. This rule merely removes unnecessary regulatory provisions and
reflects existing authority and responsibilities; the rule does not
establish or affect substantive policy. Therefore, prior public comment
is unnecessary.
Other Matters
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed and approved this final rule, and in so
doing certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule merely
streamlines regulations by removing unnecessary provisions. The rule
will have no adverse or disproportionate economic impact on small
businesses.
Environmental Impact
This rulemaking does not have an environmental impact. This
rulemaking simply amends existing regulations by consolidating and
streamlining provisions and does not alter the environmental effect of
the regulations being amended. Findings of No Significant Impact with
respect to the environment were made in accordance with HUD regulations
in 24 CFR part 50 that implement section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) at the time of
development of regulations implementing the statutory requirements (see
Docket Nos. FR-2501; FR-2588; FR-2854; and FR-2974). Those findings
remain applicable to this rule, and are 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 General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under section 6(a)
of Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has determined that this 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. No programmatic or policy changes
will result from this rule that would affect the relationship between
the Federal Government and State and local governments.
Executive Order 12606, The Family
The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under Executive
Order 12606, The Family, has determined that this rule will not have
the potential for significant impact on family formation, maintenance,
or general well-being, and thus is not subject to review under the
Order. No significant change in existing HUD policies or programs will
result from promulgation of this rule.
[[Page 11113]]
List of Subjects
24 CFR Part 5
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Claims, Drug abuse,
Drug traffic control, Grant programs--housing and community
development, Grant programs--Indians, Grant programs--low and moderate
income housing, Indians, Individuals with disabilities,
Intergovernmental relations, Loan programs--housing and community
development, Low and moderate income housing, Mortgage insurance,
Penalties, Pets, Public housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Unemployment compensation,
Wages.
24 CFR Part 200
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal employment
opportunity, Fair housing, Home improvement, Housing standards,
Incorporation by reference, Lead poisoning, Loan programs--housing and
community development, Minimum property standards, Mortgage insurance,
Organization and functions (Government agencies), Penalties, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Unemployment
compensation, Wages.
24 CFR Part 247
Grant programs--housing and community development, Loan programs--
housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing,
Rent subsidies.
24 CFR Part 572
Condominiums, Cooperatives, Fair housing, Government property,
Grant programs--housing and community development, Low and moderate
income housing, Nonprofit organizations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
24 CFR Part 750
Grant programs--housing and community development, Indians,
Intergovernmental relations, Loan programs--housing and community
development, Public housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Social security.
24 CFR Part 760
Grant programs--housing and community development, Income
verification procedures, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Loan
programs--housing and community development, Penalties, Public housing,
Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
24 CFR Part 882
Grant programs--housing and community development, Homeless, Lead
poisoning, Manufactured homes, Rent subsidies, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
24 CFR Part 886
Grant programs--housing and community development, Lead poisoning,
Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
24 CFR Part 887
Grant programs--housing and community development, Rent subsidies,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
24 CFR Part 913
Grant programs--housing and community development, Public housing,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
24 CFR Part 950
Aged, Grant programs--housing and community development, Grant
programs--Indians, Indians, Individuals with disabilities, Low and
moderate income housing, Public housing, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
24 CFR Part 960
Aged, Grant programs--housing and community development,
Individuals with disabilities, Public housing.
24 CFR Part 982
Grant programs--housing and community development, Housing, Rent
subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
24 CFR Part 983
Grant programs--housing and community development, Rent subsidies,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, under the authority of 42
U.S.C. 3535(d), title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
by amending parts 5, 200, 247, 572, 882, 886, 887, 913, 950, 960, 982,
and 983, and by removing parts 750 and 760, as follows:
PART 5--GENERAL HUD PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS; WAIVERS
1. The authority citation for part 5 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 101r-1; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 3543, 3544, and
11901 et seq.
2. A new subpart B is added to read as follows:
Subpart B--Disclosure and Verification of Social Security Numbers and
Employer Identification Numbers; Procedures for Obtaining Income
Information
Sec.
5.210 Purpose, applicability, and Federal preemption.
5.212 Compliance with the Privacy Act and other requirements.
5.214 Definitions.
Disclosure and Verification of Social Security Numbers and Employer
Identification Numbers for Applicants and Participants in Certain HUD
Programs
5.216 Disclosure and verification of Social Security and Employer
Identification Numbers.
5.218 Penalties for failing to disclose and verify Social Security
and Employer Identification Numbers.
Procedures for Obtaining Income Information About Applicants and
Participants
5.230 Consent by assistance applicants and participants.
5.232 Penalties for failing to sign consent forms.
5.234 Requests for information from SWICAs and Federal agencies;
restrictions on use.
5.236 Procedures for termination, denial, suspension, or reduction
of assistance based on information obtained from a SWICA or Federal
agency.
5.238 Criminal and civil penalties.
Subpart B--Disclosure and Verification of Social Security Numbers
and Employer Identification Numbers; Procedures for Obtaining
Income Information
Sec. 5.210 Purpose, applicability, and Federal preemption.
(a) Purpose. This subpart B requires applicants for and
participants in covered HUD programs to disclose, and submit
documentation to verify, their Social Security Numbers (SSNs). This
subpart B also enables HUD and HAs to obtain income information about
applicants and participants in the covered programs through computer
matches with State Wage Information Collection Agencies (SWICAs) and
Federal agencies, in order to verify an applicant's or participant's
eligibility for or level of assistance. The purpose of this subpart B
is to enable HUD to decrease the incidence of fraud, waste, and abuse
in the covered programs.
(b) Applicability. (1) This subpart B applies to mortgage and loan
insurance and coinsurance and housing assistance programs contained in
chapter II, subchapter B, and chapters VIII and IX of this title.
(2) The information covered by consent forms described in this
subpart involves income information from SWICAs, and wages, net
earnings from
[[Page 11114]]
self-employment, payments of retirement income, and unearned income as
referenced at 26 U.S.C. 6103. In addition, consent forms may authorize
the collection of other information from applicants and participants to
determine eligibility or level of benefits, as provided in parts 813
and 913 of this title.
(c) Federal preemption. This subpart B preempts any State law,
including restrictions and penalties, that governs the collection and
use of income information to the extent State law is inconsistent with
this subpart.
Sec. 5.212 Compliance with the Privacy Act and other requirements.
(a) Compliance with the Privacy Act. The collection, maintenance,
use, and dissemination of SSNs, EINs, any information derived from SSNs
and Employer Identification Numbers (EINs), and income information
under this subpart shall be conducted, to the extent applicable, in
compliance with the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and all other
provisions of Federal, State, and local law.
(b) Privacy Act notice. All assistance applicants shall be provided
with a Privacy Act notice at the time of application. All participants
shall be provided with a Privacy Act notice at each annual income
recertification.
Sec. 5.214 Definitions.
In addition to the definitions in Sec. 5.100, the following
definitions apply to this subpart B:
Assistance applicant. Except as excluded pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
3543(b) and 3544(a)(2), this term means the following:
(1) For any program under 24 CFR parts 215, 221, 236, 290, 880,
882, 886, 887, 891: A family or individual that seeks rental assistance
under the program.
(2) For any program under 24 CFR parts 904, 950, and 960: A
prospective tenant or homebuyer seeking the benefit of the program.
(3) For any program under 24 CFR part 235: A homeowner or
cooperative member seeking homeownership assistance (including where
the individual seeks to assume an existing mortgage).
Computer match means the automated comparison of data bases
containing records about individuals.
Computer matching agreement means the agreement that describes the
responsibilities and obligations of the parties participating in a
computer match.
Consent form means any consent form approved by HUD to be signed by
assistance applicants and participants for the purpose of obtaining
income information from employers and SWICAs; return information from
the Social Security Administration (including wages, net earnings from
self-employment, and payments of retirement income), as referenced at
26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7)(A); and return information for unearned income
from the Internal Revenue Service, as referenced at 26 U.S.C.
6103(l)(7)(B). The consent forms expire after a certain time and may
authorize the collection of other information from assistance
applicants or participants to determine eligibility or level of
benefits as provided in Secs. 813.109, 913.109, and 950.315 of this
title.
Employer Identification Number (EIN) means the nine-digit taxpayer
identifying number that is assigned to an individual, trust, estate,
partnership, association, company, or corporation pursuant to sections
6011(b), or corresponding provisions of prior law, or 6109 of the
Internal Revenue Code.
Entity applicant. (1) Except as excluded pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
3543(b), 3544(a)(2), and paragraph (2) of this definition, this term
means a partnership, corporation, or any other association or entity,
other than an individual owner applicant, that seeks to participate as
a private owner in any of the following:
(i) The project-based assistance programs in 24 CFR parts 880, 882,
886, or 891;
(ii) The programs in 24 CFR parts 215, 221, or 236; or
(iii) The other mortgage and loan insurance programs in 24 CFR
parts 201 through 267, except that the term ``entity applicant'' does
not include a mortgagee or lender.
(2) The term does not include a public entity, such as a PHA, IHA,
or State Housing Finance Agency.
Federal agency means a department of the executive branch of the
Federal Government.
HA is the collective term for PHAs and IHAs.
Income information means information relating to an individual's
income, including:
(1) All employment income information known to current or previous
employers or other income sources that HUD or the processing entity
determines is necessary for purposes of determining an assistance
applicant's or participant's eligibility for, or level of assistance
in, a covered program;
(2) All information about wages, as defined in the State's
unemployment compensation law, including any Social Security Number;
name of the employee; quarterly wages of the employee; and the name,
full address, telephone number, and, when known, Employer
Identification Number of an employer reporting wages under a State
unemployment compensation law;
(3) With respect to unemployment compensation:
(i) Whether an individual is receiving, has received, or has
applied for unemployment compensation;
(ii) The amount of unemployment compensation the individual is
receiving or is entitled to receive; and
(iii) The period with respect to which the individual actually
received such compensation;
(4) Unearned IRS income and self-employment, wages and retirement
income as described in the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7);
and
(5) Wage, social security (Title II), and supplemental security
income (Title XVI) data obtaied from the Social Security
Administration.
Individual owner applicant. Except as excluded pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 3543(b), 3544(a)(2), or paragraph (2) of this definition, this
term means:
(1) An individual who seeks to participate as a private owner in
any of:
(i) The project-based assistance programs in 24 CFR parts 880, 882,
886, 887, or 891; or
(ii) The programs in 24 CFR parts 215, 221, 235 (without
homeownership assistance), or 236, including where the individual seeks
to assume an existing mortgage; or
(2) An individual who:
(i) Either: (A) Applies for a mortgage or loan insured or coinsured
under any of the programs referred to in paragraph (1)(iii) of the
definition of ``entity applicant'' in this section; or
(B) Seeks to assume an existing mortgage or loan; and
(ii) Intends to hold the mortgaged property in his or her
individual right.
IRS means the Internal Revenue Service.
Owner means the person or entity (or employee of an owner) that
leases an assisted dwelling unit to an eligible family and includes,
when applicable, a mortgagee.
Participant. Except as excluded pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 3543(b) and
3544(a)(2), this term has the following meaning:
(1) For 24 CFR parts 880, 882, 886, 887, and 891: A family
receiving rental assistance under the program;
(2) For 24 CFR parts 904, 950, 960: A tenant or homebuyer under the
program;
(3) For 24 CFR parts 215, 221, 236, and 290: A tenant or qualified
tenant under any of the programs; and
[[Page 11115]]
(4) For 24 CFR part 235: A homeowner or a cooperative member
receiving homeownership assistance.
Processing entity means the person or entity that, under any of the
programs covered under this subpart B, is responsible for making
eligibility and related determinations and any income reexamination.
Social Security Number (SSN) means the nine-digit number that is
assigned to a person by the Social Security Administration and that
identifies the record of the person's earnings reported to the Social
Security Administration. The term does not include a number with a
letter as a suffix that is used to identify an auxiliary beneficiary.
SSA means the Social Security Administration.
State Wage Information Collection Agency (SWICA) means the State
agency, including any Indian tribal agency, receiving quarterly wage
reports from employers in the State, or an alternative system that has
been determined by the Secretary of Labor to be as effective and timely
in providing employment-related income and eligibility information.
Disclosure and Verification of Social Security Numbers and Employer
Identification Numbers for Applicants and Participants in Certain HUD
Programs
Sec. 5.216 Disclosure and verification of Social Security and Employer
Identification Numbers.
(a) Disclosure: assistance applicants. Each assistance applicant
must submit the following information to the processing entity when the
assistant applicant's eligibility under the program involved is being
determined:
(1)(i) The complete and accurate SSN assigned to the assistant
applicant and to each member of the assistant applicant's household who
is at least six years of age; and
(ii) The documentation referred to in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section to verify each such SSN; or
(2) If the assistance applicant or any member of the assistance
applicant's household who is at least six years of age has not been
assigned an SSN, a certification executed by the individual involved
that meets the requirements of paragraph (j) of this section.
(b) Disclosure: individual owner applicants. Each individual owner
applicant must submit the following information to the processing
entity when the individual owner applicant's eligibility under the
program involved is being determined:
(1)(i) The complete and accurate SSNs assigned to the individual
owner applicant and to each member of the individual owner applicant's
household who will be obligated to pay the debt evidenced by the
mortgage or loan documents; and
(ii) The documentation referred to in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section to verify the SSNs; or
(2) If any person referred to in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this
section has not been assigned an SSN, a certification executed by the
individual involved that meets the requirements of paragraph (j) of
this section.
(c) Disclosure: certain officials of entity applicants. As
explained more fully in HUD administrative instructions, each officer,
director, principal stockholder, or other official of an entity
applicant must submit the following information to the processing
entity when the entity applicant's eligibility under the program
involved is being determined:
(1) The complete and accurate SSN assigned to each such individual;
and
(2) The documentation referred to in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section to verify each SSN.
(d) Disclosure: participants. (1) Initial disclosure. Each
participant whose initial determination of eligibility under the
program involved was begun before November 6, 1989, must submit the
following information to the processing entity at the next regularly
scheduled income reexamination for the program involved:
(i)(A) The complete and accurate SSN assigned to the participant
and to each member of the participant's family who is at least six
years of age; and
(B) The documentation referred to in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section to verify each such SSN; or
(ii) If the participant or any member of the participant's
household who is at least six years of age has not been assigned an
SSN, a certification executed by the individual(s) involved that meets
the requirements of paragraph (j) of this section.
(2) Subsequent disclosure. Once a participant has disclosed and
verified every SSN, or submitted any certification that an SSN has not
been assigned, as provided by paragraph (a) of this section (for an
assistance applicant) or paragraph (d)(1) (for a preexisting
participant) of this section, the following rules apply:
(i) If the participant's household adds a new member who is at
least six years of age, the participant must submit to the processing
entity, at the next interim or regularly scheduled income reexamination
that includes the new members:
(A) The complete and accurate SSNs assigned to each new member and
the documentation referred to in paragraph (f)(1) of this section to
verify the SSNs for each new member; or
(B) If the new member has not been assigned an SSN, a certification
executed by the individual involved that meets the requirements of
paragraph (j) of this section.
(ii) If the participant or any member of the participant's
household who is at least six years of age obtains a previously
undisclosed SSN, or has been assigned a new SSN, the participant must
submit the following to the processing entity at the next regularly
scheduled income reexamination:
(A) The complete and accurate SSN assigned to the participant or
household member involved; and
(B) The documentation referred to in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section to verify the SSN of each such individual.
(iii) Additional SSN disclosure and verification requirements,
including the nature of the disclosure and the verification required
and the time and manner for making the disclosure and verification, may
be specified in administrative instructions by:
(A) HUD; and
(B) In the case of the public housing program or the programs under
parts 882 and 887 of this title, the HA.
(e) Disclosure: entity applicants. Each entity applicant must
submit the following information to the processing entity when the
entity applicant's eligibility under the program involved is being
determined:
(1) Any complete and accurate EIN assigned to the entity applicant;
and
(2) The documentation referred to in paragraph (f)(2) of this
section to verify the EIN.
(f) Required documentation. (1) Social Security Numbers. The
documentation necessary to verify the SSN of an individual who is
required to disclose his or her SSN under paragraphs (a) through (d) of
this section is a valid SSN card issued by the SSA, or such other
evidence of the SSN as HUD and, where applicable, the HA may prescribe
in administrative instructions.
(2) Employer Identification Numbers. The documentation necessary to
verify any EIN of an entity applicant that is required to disclose its
EIN under paragraph (e) of this section is the official, written
communication from the IRS assigning the EIN to the entity applicant,
or such other evidence of the EIN as HUD may prescribe in
administrative instructions.
(g) Special documentation rules for assistance applicants and
participants.
[[Page 11116]]
(1) Certification of inability to meet documentation requirements. If
an individual who is required to disclose his or her SSN under
paragraph (a) (assistance applicants) of this section or paragraph (d)
(participants) of this section is able to disclose the SSN, but cannot
meet the documentation requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this
section, the assistance applicant or participant must submit to the
processing entity the individual's SSN and a certification executed by
the individual that the SSN submitted has been assigned to the
individual, but that acceptable documentation to verify the SSN cannot
be provided.
(2) Acceptance or certification by processing entity. Except as
provided by paragraph (h) of this section, the processing entity must
accept the certification referred to in paragraph (g)(1) of this
section and continue to process the assistant applicant's or
participant's eligibility to participate in the program involved.
(3) Effect on assistance applicants. If the processing entity
determines that the assistance applicant is otherwise eligible to
participate in the program, the assistance applicant may not become a
participant in the program, unless it submits to the processing entity
the documentation required under paragraph (f)(1) of this section
within the time period specified in paragraph (g)(5) of this section.
During such period, the assistance applicant will retain the position
that it occupied in the program at the time the determination of
eligibility was made, including its place on any waiting list
maintained for the program, if applicable.
(4) Effect on participants. If the processing entity determines
that the participant otherwise continues to be eligible to participate
in the program, participation will continue, provided that the
participant submits to the processing entity the documentation required
under paragraph (f)(1) of this section within the time period specified
in paragraph (g)(5) of this section.
(5) Time for submitting documentation. The time period referred to
in paragraphs (g)(4) and (5) of this section is 60 calendar days from
the date on which the certification referred to in paragraph (g)(1) of
this section is executed, except that the processing entity may, in its
discretion, extend this period for up to an additional 60 days if the
individual is at least 62 years of age and is unable to submit the
required documentation within the initial 60-day period.
(h) Rejection of documentation or certification. The processing
entity may reject documentation referred to in paragraph (f) of this
section, or a certification provided under paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(2),
(d), or (g)(1) of this section, only for such reasons as HUD and the HA
may prescribe in applicable administrative instructions.
(i) Information on SSNs and EINs. (1) Information regarding SSNs
and SSN cards may be obtained by contacting the local SSA Office or
consulting the SSA regulations at 20 CFR chapter III (see,
particularly, part 422).
(2) Information regarding EINs may be obtained by contacting the
local office of the IRS or consulting the appropriate regulations for
the IRS.
(j) Form and manner of certifications. The certifications referred
to in paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(2), (d), and (g)(1) of this section must
be in the form and manner that HUD and the HA prescribe in applicable
administrative instructions. If an individual who is required to
execute a certification is less than 18 years of age, the certification
must be executed by his or her parent or guardian or, in accordance
with administrative instructions, by the individual or another person.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2502-0204.)
Sec. 5.218 Penalties for failing to disclose and verify Social
Security and Employer Identification Numbers.
(a) Denial of eligibility: assistance applicants and individual
owner applicants. The processing entity must deny the eligibility of an
assistance applicant or individual owner applicant in accordance with
the provisions governing the program involved, if the assistance or
individual owner applicant does not meet the applicable SSN disclosure,
documentation and verification, and certification requirements
specified in Sec. 5.216.
(b) Denial of eligibility: entity applicants. The processing entity
must deny the eligibility of an entity applicant in accordance with the
provisions governing the program involved; if:
(1) The entity applicant does not meet the applicable EIN
disclosure and verification requirements specified in Sec. 5.216; or
(2) Any of the officials of the entity applicant referred to in
Sec. 5.216(c) does not meet the applicable SSN disclosure, and
documentation and verification requirements specified in Sec. 5.216.
(c) Termination of assistance or tenancy: participants. The
processing entity must terminate the assistance or tenancy, or both, of
a participant, in accordance with the provisions governing the program
involved, if the participant does not meet the applicable SSN
disclosure, documentation and verification, and certification
requirements specified in Sec. 5.216.
(d) Cross reference. Individuals should consult the regulations and
administrative instructions for the programs covered under this subpart
B for further information on the use of SSNs and EINs in determinations
regarding eligibility.
Procedures for Obtaining Income Information About Applicants and
Participants
Sec. 5.230 Consent by assistance applicants and participants.
(a) Required consent by assistance applicants and participants.
Each member of the family of an assistance applicant or participant who
is at least 18 years of age, and each family head and spouse regardless
of age, shall sign one or more consent forms.
(b) Consent authorization. (1) To whom and when. The assistance
applicant shall submit the signed consent forms to the processing
entity when eligibility under a covered program is being determined. A
participant shall sign and submit consent forms at the next regularly
scheduled income reexamination. Assistance applicants and participants
shall be responsible for the signing and submitting of consent forms by
each applicable family member.
(2) Subsequent consent forms--special cases. Participants are
required to sign and submit consent forms at the next interim or
regularly scheduled income reexamination under the following
circumstances:
(i) When any person 18 years or older becomes a member of the
family;
(ii) When a member of the family turns 18 years of age; and
(iii) As required by HUD or the HA in administrative instructions.
(c) Consent form--contents. The consent form required by this
section shall contain, at a minimum, the following:
(1) A provision authorizing HUD and HAs to obtain from SWICAs any
information or materials necessary to complete or verify the
application for participation and to maintain continued assistance
under a covered program; and
(2) A provision authorizing HUD, HAs, or the owner responsible for
determining eligibility for or the level of assistance to verify with
previous or current employers income information pertinent to the
assistance applicant's or participant's eligibility for or level of
assistance under a covered program;
(3) A provision authorizing HUD to request income return
information from
[[Page 11117]]
the IRS and the SSA for the sole purpose of verifying income
information pertinent to the assistance applicant's or participant's
eligibility or level of benefits; and
(4) A statement that the authorization to release the information
requested by the consent form expires 15 months after the date the
consent form is signed.
Sec. 5.232 Penalties for failing to sign consent forms.
(a) Denial or termination of benefits. In accordance with the
provisions governing the program involved, if the assistance applicant
or participant, or any member of the assistance applicant's or
participant's family, does not sign and submit the consent form as
required in Sec. 5.230, then:
(1) The processing entity shall deny assistance to and admission of
an assistance applicant;
(2) Assistance to, and the tenancy of, a participant may be
terminated.
(b) Cross references. Individuals should consult the regulations
and administrative instructions for the programs covered under this
subpart B for further information on the use of income information in
determinations regarding eligibility.
Sec. 5.234 Requests for information from SWICAs and Federal agencies;
restrictions on use.
(a) Information available from SWICAs and Federal agencies--to whom
and what. Income information will generally be obtained through
computer matching agreements between HUD and a SWICA or Federal agency,
or between a HA and a SWICA, as described in paragraph (c) of this
section. Certification that the applicable assistance applicants and
participants have signed appropriate consent forms and have received
the necessary Privacy Act notice is required, as follows:
(1) When HUD requests the computer match, the processing entity
shall certify to HUD; and
(2) When the HA requests the computer match, the HA shall certify
to the SWICA.
(b) Restrictions on use of information. The restrictions of 42
U.S.C. 3544(c)(2)(A) apply to the use by HUD or a HA of income
information obtained from a SWICA. The restrictions of 42 U.S.C.
3544(c)(2)(A) and of 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7) apply to the use by HUD or a
HA of income information obtained from the IRS or SSA.
(c) Computer matching agreements. Computer matching agreements
shall specify the purpose and the legal authority for the match, and
shall include a description of the records to be matched, a statement
regarding disposition of information generated through the match, a
description of the administrative and technical safeguards to be used
in protecting the information obtained through the match, a description
of the use of records, the restrictions on duplication and
redisclosure, a certification, and the amount that will be charged for
processing a request.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 2508-0008.)
Sec. 5.236 Procedures for termination, denial, suspension, or
reduction of assistance based on information obtained from a SWICA or
Federal agency.
(a) Termination, denial, suspension, or reduction of assistance.
The provisions of 42 U.S.C. 3544(c)(2)(B) and (C) shall govern the
termination, denial, suspension, or reduction of benefits for an
assistance applicant or participant based on income information
obtained from a SWICA or a Federal agency. Procedures necessary to
comply with these provisions are provided in paragraph (b) of this
section.
(b) Procedures for independent verification. (1) Any determination
or redetermination of family income made on the basis of information
verified in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section shall be
carried out in accordance with the requirements and procedures
applicable to the individual covered program. Independent verification
of information obtained from a SWICA or a Federal agency may be:
(i) By HUD; and
(ii) By a HA, when the benefit to be provided to the assistance
applicant or participant is under a program in parts 880, 882, 886,
887, 891, 904, 950, or 960 of this title, including when the HA is the
contract administrator for the owner.
(2) Upon receiving income information from a SWICA or a Federal
agency, HUD or, when applicable, the HA shall compare the information
with the information about a family's income that was:
(i) Provided by the assistance applicant or participant to the HA;
or
(ii) Obtained by the owner (or mortgagee, as applicable) from the
assistance applicant or participant or from his or her employer.
(3) When the income information reveals an employer or other income
source that was not disclosed by the assistance applicant or
participant, or when the income information differs substantially from
the information received from the assistance applicant or participant
or from his or her employer:
(i) HUD or, as applicable or directed by HUD, the HA shall request
the undisclosed employer or other income source to furnish any
information necessary to establish an assistance applicant's or
participant's eligibility for or level of assistance in a covered
program. This information shall be furnished in writing, as directed
to:
(A) HUD, with respect to programs under parts 215, 221, 235, 236,
or 290 of this title;
(B) The HA, with respect to programs under parts 880, 882, 886,
887, 891, 904, 950, or 960 of this title for which the HA is
responsible for determining eligibility or level of benefits; or
(C) The owner (or mortgagee, as applicable), with respect to
programs under parts 215, 221, 235, 236, or 290 of this title, or when
the owner is responsible under parts 880, 882, 886, 887, 891, 904, 950,
or 960 of this title for determining eligibility or the level of
assistance; or
(ii) HUD or the HA may verify the income information directly with
an assistance applicant or participant. Such verification procedures
shall not include any disclosure of income information prohibited under
paragraph (b)(6) of this section.
(4) HUD and the HA shall not be required to pursue these
verification procedures when the sums of money at issue are too small
to raise an inference of fraud or justify the expense of independent
verification and the procedures related to termination, denial,
suspension, or reduction of assistance.
(5) Based on the income information received from a SWICA or
Federal agency, HUD or the HA, as appropriate, may inform an owner (or
mortgagee) that an assistance applicant's or participant's eligibility
for or level of assistance is uncertain and needs to be verified. The
owner (or mortgagee) shall then confirm the assistance applicant's or
participant's income information by checking the accuracy of the
information with the employer or other income source, or directly with
the family.
(6) Nondisclosure of Income information. Neither HUD nor the HA may
disclose income information obtained from a SWICA directly to an owner
(unless a HA is the owner). Disclosure of income information obtained
from the SSA or IRS is restricted under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6103(l)(7) and
42 U.S.C. 3544.
(c) Opportunity to contest. HUD, the HA, or the owner (or
mortgagee, as applicable) shall promptly notify any
[[Page 11118]]
assistance applicant or participant in writing of any adverse findings
made on the basis of the information verified in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section. The assistance applicant or participant
may contest the findings in the same manner as applies to other
information and findings relating to eligibility factors under the
applicable program. Termination, denial, suspension, or reduction of
assistance shall be carried out in accordance with requirements and
procedures applicable to the individual covered program, and shall not
occur until the expiration of any notice period provided by the statute
or regulations governing the program.
Sec. 5.238 Criminal and civil penalties.
Persons who violate the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 3544 or 26 U.S.C.
6103(l)(7) with respect to the use and disclosure of income information
may be subject to civil or criminal penalties under 42 U.S.C.
3544(c)(3), 26 U.S.C. 7213(a), or 18 U.S.C. 1905.
PART 200 --INTRODUCTION
3. The authority citation for part 200 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701-1715z-18; 42 U.S.C. 1436a and 3535(d).
4. Part 200 is amended by revising subparts T, U, and V to read as
follows:
PART 200--INTRODUCTION
* * * * *
Subpart T--Social Security Numbers and Employer Identification
Numbers; Assistance Applicants and Participants
Sec. 200.1001 Cross-reference.
The provisions in subpart B of part 5 of this title apply to Social
Security Numbers and Employer Identification Numbers for assistance
applicants and participants.
Subpart U--Social Security Numbers and Employer Identification
Numbers; Applicants in Unassisted Programs
Sec. 200.1101 Cross-reference.
The provisions in subpart B of part 5 of this title apply to Social
Security Numbers and Employer Identification Numbers for applicants in
unassisted programs.
Subpart V--Income Information; Assistance Applicants and
Participants
Sec. 200.1201 Cross-reference.
The provisions in subpart B of part 5 of this title apply to income
information for assistance applicants and participants.
PART 247--EVICTIONS FROM CERTAIN SUBSIDIZED AND HUD-OWNED PROJECTS
5. The authority citation for part 247 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701q, 1701s, 1715b, 1715l, 1715z-1; 42
U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d).
6. Section 247.3 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(3), to read
as follows:
Sec. 247.3 Entitlement of tenants to occupancy.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) If the tenant:
(i) Fails to supply on time all required information on the income
and composition, or eligibility factors, of the tenant household, as
provided in part 200, subpart G, of this chapter and part 5, subpart B,
of this title; or
(ii) Knowingly provides incomplete or inaccurate information as
required under these provisions; and
* * * * *
PART 572--HOPE FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES PROGRAM
(HOPE 3)
7. The authority citation for part 572 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 12891.
Subpart B--Homeownership Program Requirements--Implementation
Grants
Sec. 572.110 [Amended]
8. In Sec. 572.110, paragraphs (d) (1) and (2) are amended by
removing the references to ``24 CFR part 750'' and ``24 CFR part 760'',
and by adding in their places, ``part 5, subpart B, of this title'',
respectively.
PART 750--[REMOVED]
8a. Part 750 is removed.
PART 760--[REMOVED]
8b. Part 760 is removed.
PART 882--SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM--EXISTING
HOUSING
9. The authority citation for part 882 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, and 3535(d).
Subpart A--Applicability, Scope and Basic Policies
Sec. 882.118 [Amended]
10. In Sec. 882.118, paragraph (a)(1) is amended by removing the
references ``24 CFR part 750'' and ``24 CFR part 760'', and by adding
in their places, ``part 5, subpart B, of this title'', respectively.
Subpart B--Project Development and Operation
Sec. 882.212 [Amended]
11. Section 882.212 is amended:
a. In paragraph (a) by removing the parenthetical reference ``(see
24 CFR parts 750, 760, and 813)'', and by adding in its place the
parenthetical reference ``(see parts 5, subpart B, and 813 of this
title)'';
b. In paragraph (b) by removing the references ``24 CFR
750.10(d)(2)(i)'' and ``24 CFR part 760'', and by adding in their
places the reference ``part 5, subpart B, of this title''; and
c. In paragraph (c) by removing the references ``24 CFR part 750''
and ``24 CFR part 760'', and by adding in their places the reference
``part 5, subpart B, of this title'', respectively.
Subpart E--Special Procedures for Moderate Rehabilitation--Program
Development and Operation
Sec. 882.515 [Amended]
12. Section 882.515 is amended:
a. In paragraph (a) by removing the reference ``24 CFR part 760'',
and by adding in its place the reference ``part 5, subpart B, of this
title'';
b. In paragraph (b) by removing the references ``24 CFR
750.10(d)(2)(i)'' and ``24 CFR part 760'', and by adding in their
places the reference ``part 5, subpart B, of this title'',
respectively; and
c. In paragraph (c) by removing the references ``24 CFR part 750''
and ``24 CFR part 760'', and by adding in their places the reference
``part 5, subpart B, of this title'', respectively.
PART 886--SECTION 8 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM-- SPECIAL
ALLOCATIONS
13. The authority citation for part 886 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), and 13611-
13619.
Subpart A--Additional Assistance Program for Projects With HUD-
Insured and HUD-Held Mortgages
Sec. 886.105 [Amended]
14. Section 886.105 is amended in the undesignated paragraph
following
[[Page 11119]]
paragraph (f) by removing the reference ``24 CFR part 750'', and by
adding in its place the reference ``part 5, subpart B, of this title''.
Sec. 886.119 [Amended]
15. In Sec. 886.119, paragraphs (a) (3) and (7) are amended by
removing the references ``24 CFR part 750'' and ``24 CFR part 760'',
and by adding in their places the reference ``part 5, subpart B, of
this title'', respectively.
Sec. 886.124 [Amended]
16. Section 886.124 is amended:
a. In paragraph (a) by removing the reference ``24 CFR part 760'',
and by adding in its place the reference ``part 5, subpart B, of this
title'';
b. In paragraph (b) by removing the references ``24 CFR
750.10(d)(2)(i)'' and ``24 CFR part 760'', and by adding in their
places the reference ``part 5, subpart B, of this title'',
respectively; and
c. In paragraph (c) by removing the references ``24 CFR part 750''
and ``24 CFR part 760'', and by adding in their places the reference
``part 5, subpart B, of this title'', respectively.
Subpart C--Section 8 Housing Assistance Program for the Disposition
of HUD-Owned Projects
Sec. 886.305 [Amended]
17. Section 886.305 is amended by removing the reference ``24 CFR
part 750'', and by adding in its place the reference ``part 5, subpart
B, of this title''.
Sec. 886.318 [Amended]
18. In Sec. 886.318, paragraphs (a) (3) and (6) are amended by
removing the references ``24 CFR part 750'' and ``24 CFR part 760'',
and by adding in their places the reference ``part 5, subpart B, of
this title'', respectively.
Sec. 886.324 [Amended]
19. Section 886.324 is amended:
a. In paragraphs (a) and (c) by removing the references ``24 CFR
part 750'' and ``24 CFR part 760'', and by adding in their places the
reference ``part 5, subpart B, of this title'', respectively; and
b. In paragraph (b) by removing the references ``24 CFR
750.10(d)(2)(i)'' and ``24 CFR part 760'', and by adding in their
places the reference ``part 5, subpart B, of this title'',
respectively.
PART 887--HOUSING VOUCHERS
20. The authority citation for part 887 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437f(o) and 3535(d).
Subpart H--Payment Standard and Housing Assistance Payment
Sec. 887.355 [Amended]
21. Section 887.355(a) is amended by removing the references ``24
CFR part 750'' and ``24 CFR part 760'', and by adding in their places
the reference ``part 5, subpart B, of this title'', respectively.
PART 913--DEFINITION OF INCOME, INCOME LIMITS, RENT AND
REEXAMINATION OF FAMILY INCOME FOR THE PUBLIC HOUSING PROGRAM
22. The authority citation for part 913 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437d, 1437n and 3535(d).
Sec. 913.109 [Amended]
23. In Sec. 913.109, paragraphs (a) and (b) are amended by removing
the references ``24 CFR part 750'' and ``24 CFR part 760'', and by
adding in their places the reference ``part 5, subpart B, of this
title'', respectively.
PART 950--INDIAN HOUSING PROGRAMS
24. The authority citation for part 950 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 25 U.S.C. 450e(b); 42 U.S.C. 1437aa-1437ee, and
3535(d).
Subpart D--Operation
Sec. 950.301 [Amended]
25. In Sec. 950.301, paragraphs (a)(3)(v) and (vi) are amended by
removing the references ``24 CFR part 750'' and ``24 CFR part 760'',
and by adding in their places the reference ``part 5, subpart B, of
this title'', respectively.
Sec. 950.315 [Amended]
26. In Sec. 950.315, paragraph (b) is amended by removing the
references ``24 CFR part 760'' and ``24 CFR part 750'', and by adding
the reference ``part 5, subpart B, of this title'', respectively.
Subpart E--Mutual Help Homeownership Opportunity Program
Sec. 950.416 [Amended]
27. In Sec. 950.416, paragraph (d) is amended by removing the
reference ``24 CFR part 750'', and by adding in its place the reference
``part 5, subpart B, of this title''.
PART 960--ADMISSION TO, AND OCCUPANCY OF, PUBLIC HOUSING
28. The authority citation for part 960 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437d, 1437n, and 3535(d).
Subpart B--Admission, Rent and Reexamination
Sec. 960.209 [Amended]
29. Section 960.209 is amended:
a. In paragraph (a) by removing the references ``24 CFR part 750''
and ``24 CFR part 760'', and by adding in its place the reference
``part 5, subpart B, of this title''; and
b. In paragraph (b) by removing the references ``24 CFR
750.10(d)(2)(i)'' and ``24 CFR part 760'', and by adding in their
places the reference ``part 5, subpart B, of this title'',
respectively.
PART 982--SECTION 8 TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE: UNIFIED RULE FOR
TENANT-BASED ASSISTANCE UNDER THE SECTION 8 RENTAL CERTIFICATE
PROGRAM AND THE SECTION 8 RENTAL VOUCHER PROGRAM
30. The authority citation for part 982 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, and 3535(d).
Subpart L--Family Obligations; Denial and Termination of Assistance
Sec. 982.551 [Amended]
31. Section 982.551(b)(3) is amended by removing the references
``24 CFR part 750'' and ``24 CFR part 760'', and by adding in their
places the reference ``part 5, subpart B, of this title'',
respectively.
PART 983--SECTION 8 PROJECT-BASED CERTIFICATE PROGRAM
32. The authority citation for part 983 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437f and 3535(d).
Subpart E--Management
Sec. 983.205 [Amended]
33. Section 983.205(b)(3) is amended by removing the references
``24 CFR part 750'' and ``24 CFR part 760'', and by adding in their
places the reference ``part 5, subpart B, of this title'',
respectively.
Dated: March 6, 1996.
Henry G. Cisneros,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-6215 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-32-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.