issue-1996-03-19•Federal Register final rules — 1996-03-19
Federal Register final rules — 1996-03-19
issue-1996-03-19Federal Register final rules — 1996-03-19Regulation
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. 96-6594 Direct Final Rulemaking Procedure
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11278-11283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6594]
[[Page 11277]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 11
Direct Final Rulemaking Procedure; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 11278]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 11
[Docket No. 27925; Amendment No. 11-40]
RIN 2120-AF55
Direct Final Rulemaking Procedure
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to the President's Executive Order on Regulatory
Planning and Review, the Vice President's National Performance Review,
and the Administration's Civil Aviation Initiative, the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) is implementing a new and more efficient
procedure for adopting non-controversial or consensual rules. The
``direct final rulemaking'' procedure involves issuing a final rule
with an opportunity for notice and comment. This final rule will
contain a statement that if the FAA receives no adverse or negative
comment, or notice of intent to file such a comment, the rule will
become effective at the end of a specified period of time after the
close of the comment period. This new procedure is expected to reduce
significantly the time needed to publish non-controversial or
consensual final rules.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3073.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), the President set forth the Administration's
regulatory philosophy and principles. The Executive Order contemplates
an efficient and effective rulemaking process, including the
conservation of the limited government resources available for carrying
out its regulatory functions. In responding to both the letter and the
spirit of the President's order, the Secretary of Transportation has
directed administrations within the Department of Transportation (DOT)
to focus on improvements that can be made in the way in which they
propose and adopt regulations.
The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), prior to
its dissolution, observed that the rulemaking process has become
increasingly time consuming. Aviation interests in particular have
expressed concern to the FAA over the time-consuming nature of the
regulatory process. ACUS believed that agencies should consider
innovative methods for developing rules and obtaining public input,
including the use of groups such as advisory committees and negotiated
rulemaking committees. The FAA and the aviation industry have been
engaged in one such effort for several years through the Aviation
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC).
In addition to focusing on consensus-based rulemaking, ACUS believe
that agencies should consider the use of ``direct final'' rulemaking
where appropriate to eliminate duplicative agency review and
publication of non-controversial rules. Under the direct final rule
procedure, an agency issues a final rule with an opportunity for
comment and a statement that if the agency receives no adverse or
negative comments, the rule becomes effective at a specified time after
the close of the comment period. If an adverse comment, or a notice of
intent to file such a comment, is received, the agency withdraws the
rule before the effective date and issues a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) in the normal manner.
This expedited process was recommended also by the Vice President
in his report on the National Performance Review (``Creating a
Government That Works Better and Costs Less; Improving Regulatory
Systems''). Use of the process is encouraged in rulemakings in which
agencies do not believe there will be adverse public comment, in order
to help agencies streamline their rulemaking procedures.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register on October 4, 1994 (59 FR 50676) that proposed using the
direct final rulemaking procedure for non-controversial rules and for
consensual rules, where the FAA believes there will be no adverse
public comment. The FAA has determined that this expedited process can
be used effectively for a number of future agency rules, including many
of the proposed regulations based on recommendations of broad-based
advisory committee groups such as ARAC. The FAA would consider issuing
a direct final rule where such an advisory committee has involved
representatives of all interested parties in negotiating a proposed
rule; the committee has reached a unanimous recommendation; and the
nature of the negotiations leads the FAA to believe the public will not
file adverse comments. The FAA would expect this often to be the case,
for example, for recommendations of the ARAC intended to harmonize FAA
and European technical standards for the manufacture of aircraft.
The direct final rulemaking process may also be used to issue some
airworthiness directives (AD) whenever there is broad consensus within
the aviation community on the FAA's view of the appropriate correction
for an unsafe condition in an aviation product. Other possible uses of
the process could include regulations amending airspace designations or
extending compliance dates when such regulations are not expected to be
controversial. There may be other effective uses of this procedure.
The Direct Final Rule Procedure
When the FAA believes that a proposed regulation is unlikely to
result in adverse comment, it may choose to use the direct final
rulemaking process. The direct final rule will advise the public that
no adverse comments are anticipated, and that unless a written adverse
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse
comment, is received within the comment period, the regulation will
become effective at the end of a specified period of time after the
close of the comment period. If no written adverse or negative comment,
or notice of intent to submit such a comment, is received within the
comment period, the direct final rule will become effective on the date
indicated in the rule. The FAA will publish a notice in the Federal
Register indicating that no adverse comments were received and
confirming the date on which the final rule will become effective. The
confirmation notice will be issued at least 30 days prior to the
effective date specified in the direct final rule.
If the FAA does receive, within the comment period, an adverse or
negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment,
a notice of withdrawal of the direct final rule will be published in
the Federal Register, and an NPRM may be published with a new comment
period. Normal procedures for the agency's receipt and consideration of
comments will then apply.
The direct final rulemaking procedure provides that either the
adverse comment or the notice of intent to submit such a comment must
be received within the comment period. If a commenter files a notice of
intent to submit an adverse comment within the comment period, the
substantive comment does not have to be received
[[Page 11279]]
within the comment period. Although no specific time interval between
the filing of the notice and the receipt of the substantive comment is
specified, the FAA would expect to receive the substantive comment no
later than 30 days after the comment period closes. The FAA may
consider mandating a specific interval if experience shows a set
deadline is needed. If no substantive comment is received following the
submission of a notice, the FAA may elect to publish a new direct final
rule that addresses the filing of a notice of intent to submit an
adverse or negative comment without the subsequent comment being
received by the agency. The agency intends to monitor the notice of
intent to file an adverse comment process over the next year and may
propose changes to this procedure if substantive adverse comments are
not received following the submission of a notice.
Comments that are outside the scope of the rule will not be
considered adverse under this procedure. A comment recommending other
rule changes in addition to the changes in the direct final rule would
not be considered an adverse comment, unless the commenter states that
the rule would be inappropriate as proposed or would be ineffective
without the additional change. A comment not so qualified may be
considered beyond the scope of the rulemaking.
Although the FAA anticipates that direct final rulemaking will
improve the rulemaking process and that the procedures established by
this action will work well in actual practice, the FAA may propose
modifications to the procedures. The FAA will closely monitor those
rulemaking actions selected for direct final rulemaking to determine
whether further action is warranted on the following issues:
(1) Are notices of intent to file an adverse comment followed by a
substantive comment, and within what time period?
(2) Should the notice of intent to file an adverse comment include
a general discussion of the nature of the adverse comment?
(3) Could the adverse comment be addressed by a subsequent direct
final rule or should an NPRM always be issued?
Discussion of Comments
Twenty-nine comments were received from aviation industry
associations, state aviation authorities, businesses, and the general
public. The commenters raised several common themes and they have been
grouped together.
Opportunity to Comment
One theme was a concern that the FAA would use the new procedure to
deny or limit the right to comment on agency rulemaking proposals. A
particular type of rulemaking, the ``final rule with request for
comments'' procedure used for some AD's, was cited by several
commenters.
The final rule with request for comments procedure has always been
an option that was available to the agency under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA). The final rule with request for comments procedure
is based on section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA that provides that prior
notice and public comment are not required when allowing time for
comment would be ``impracticable'' and ``contrary to the public
interest,'' as in the case of an emergency. The agency was not required
to provide any comment period but decided to do so anyway. Adopting the
direct final rule procedure will not change those procedures. The
direct final rule procedure is based on the third APA exception to the
prior publication requirement where notice and comment are
``unnecessary.'' Even though the agency will be making the finding that
prior notice and comment would be unnecessary, the direct final rule
procedure does provide an opportunity for public comment prior to the
proposed effective date of the rule. Moreover, regardless of their
merits, any comment (within the scope of the rule) or intent to file a
negative or adverse comment will result in the withdrawal of the direct
final rule.
Although some of the AD's that will be issued may be candidates for
the direct final rule procedure, those AD's that are covered under
final rule with request for comments procedures would not be candidates
for a direct final rule. These methods of rulemaking are entirely
distinct from the direct final rule process. Emergency rulemaking has
been permitted under the APA for many years, and the FAA will continue
to use that authority whenever it is necessary. Emergency rulemaking
frequently results in the rule becoming effective before the close of
the comment period. The emergency nature of the rulemaking demands that
action be taken before an opportunity for notice and comment can be
completed. The rationale for using that emergency authority will
continue to be expressed in the preamble to the rule as required by the
APA. Direct final rulemaking, on the other hand, is not designed for
emergency situations. In an emergency rule, the agency makes a finding
that prior notice and comment is not possible due to the nature of the
emergency. In a direct final rule, the agency would ask if there were
any negative comments and might subsequently have to publish an NPRM.
Any action taken under direct final rulemaking would follow the
solicitation of comments.
The FAA intends to use the direct final rule procedure when adverse
comments are not expected. Many of the rules, including AD's, for which
the FAA publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking do not generate any
comments. Some rules only generate general letters of support thanking
the agency for the opportunity to comment without raising any
substantive issues or concerns. These rulemaking proposals are
subsequently adopted as proposed with only minor format changes to
conform to final rule requirements. Although these rules are not
controversial, considerable agency resources are expended to prepare
both the notice and the final rule.
More than thirty years of rulemaking experience has made the FAA
cognizant of which rules are likely to generate adverse comments. The
agency intends to use its years of experience to decide which rules are
likely to be noncontroversial and thus appropriate for direct final
rule procedures. If the agency has misjudged a particular rule, the
public still would be afforded an opportunity for adverse comment and
subsequently for comment through the normal NPRM process when the
direct final rule is withdrawn. The direct final rulemaking procedure
is not designed to keep the public from having an adequate opportunity
to comment.
One commenter believes that the voices of part of the public would
not be heard because other interests are more likely to dominate the
process. The FAA does not intend to use the direct final rule procedure
when the circle of those affected is so large or inadequately
represented that the level of controversy cannot be determined. Even
one adverse comment, from any source, would trigger the traditional
NPRM process.
Time Allotted for Comment
Several commenters raise the concern that the time available for
comment on a direct final rule would be inadequate. The Helicopter
Association International (HAI) is concerned that the effective date of
the direct final rule could be set before the close of the comment
period. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) raises
concerns that the direct final rule proposal truncates the minimum
procedural requirements of the APA. Some small organizations comment
that
[[Page 11280]]
as small organizations they do not have a full time staff to monitor
proposed rulemaking and other developments within the FAA. In addition,
the United States Parachute Association suggests that the FAA provide
automatic notice to any special interest group that is affected by a
proposed rulemaking.
Every effort is made to distribute news of upcoming FAA rulemaking
activities to the public. For example, the FAA routinely issues news
releases to the national media and trade publications. In addition, the
FAA has established an electronic bulletin board that has copies of
recently issued notices of proposed rulemaking and final rules
available for the public to view at no charge. The telephone number to
access the bulletin board is 1-800-FAA-ARAC. All direct final rules
would be included in these methods of dissemination. These
dissemination methods are in addition to the required Federal Register
publication of rulemaking documents. Unfortunately, resource
limitations prevent the FAA from providing personal notification to all
parties potentially affected by a rulemaking.
Section 553(c) of the APA requires that, once a notice has been
published, the public must be given time to comment on the proposal.
While the APA does not prescribe any particular amount of time for a
comment period to remain open, Executive Order 12866 provides that the
comment period remain open for a minimum of 60 days unless a shorter
period is justified in the preamble to the rule. Most FAA rulemaking
projects, particularly those with international ramifications, have
comment periods ranging from 60 to 120 days. Many AD's and airspace
actions have comment periods of 30, 45, or 60 days. The FAA is aware
that occasionally some members of the public do not learn of a
rulemaking until close to the end of the comment period. Although no
system is perfect, the FAA tries to allow adequate time for the
submission of comments. For direct final rules of interest to non-U.S.
commenters, the FAA intends to have a comment period that is adequately
long to accommodate these commenters. Section 11.29(c) of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 11.29(c)) contains a provision for a
potential commenter to request an extension of the comment period. That
provision may be invoked under direct final rulemaking procedures. On
many occasions, the FAA has extended or reopened a comment period when
commenters have asserted that they had insufficient time to prepare
substantive comments.
The direct final rule program will follow the guidelines
established under the APA and FAA policy for the solicitation of
comments. Although a commenter may not have had time to fully develop
its concerns, the filing of a notice of the intent to submit adverse
comments, in effect, will stop the direct final rule from becoming
effective. The FAA does not intend to require that a written notice of
the intent to submit adverse comments adhere to any specific format.
The notice may be merely a letter to the FAA Rules Docket clearly
stating its purpose. The commenter should then submit its substantive
objections and concerns as soon as possible.
Nature of an Adverse Comment
Several commenters raise concerns that the agency would label
adverse or negative comments as ``non-adverse'' and proceed to finalize
the rule. These commenters request either standards for determining or
guidance for deciding what would constitute an adverse comment. The Air
Transport Association (ATA) suggests that the FAA define the terms
``adverse'' and ``negative.'' In addition, ATA is concerned that a
proposal drafted with the consensus of the regulated entities (such as
an ARAC proposal) that addresses counterpoints that were considered and
rejected (as explained in the preamble) could be subject to delay if a
party to the process or a non-party to the process elected to file a
notice of intent to file an adverse comment.
The FAA finds its unnecessary to specifically define ``adverse''
and ``negative''. If commenters are concerned that their comments may
be misinterpreted, they can clearly state in their comment that the
comment is adverse. In determining whether an adverse comment is
sufficient to terminate a direct final rulemaking, the FAA would
consider whether a comment would be one that would warrant a
substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. The FAA would
recognize the following, among other things, as an indication of the
adverse nature of a comment:
--The commenter so states.
--The commenter states that the requirements are unusually burdensome.
--The commenter states that the requirements would generate significant
controversy as to the agency's proposed solution to the problem.
--The commenter states that the requirement would result in an
unwarranted significant change in existing practice.
--The commenter states that the requirement would impose a significant
cost.
--The commenter states that viable, named alternatives should have been
considered.
--The commenter states that the proposed rule would be ineffective or
inappropriate.
--The commenter states that the rule would have an unintended effect.
The FAA realizes that the filing of an adverse comment has the
potential to delay the rulemaking process. Therefore, the agency
intends to use the direct final rule procedure only in those cases
where the agency has reason to believe that adverse comments will not
be received. As mentioned previously, many agency rulemakings go from
the notice stage to the final rule stage without comments being
received and without substantive change.
Corrections to Published Rules
The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) and the Regional Airline
Association (RAA) comment that the direct final rule procedure does not
provide for the possible need to make minor corrections based on the
comments received.
``Corrections'' generally fall into two categories. The first
category are those errors and omissions that should not have occurred.
Using an AD as an example, such an error could be specifying a
particular part number for all models of an aircraft when it was
incorrectly thought that that part was used in all variants of that
model aircraft. The FAA agrees that the commenters, particularly the
part manufacturers and aircraft operators, note these errors in their
comments. In this type of situation, the ``notice'' confirming the
effective date of the rule would be styled as a ``final rule;
correction'' to address the error. Because this type of correction
would not impose any additional burden on the operators, the correction
would be within the scope of the direct final rule, and an NPRM would
not need to be issued. The second type of error typically involves a
proposal that has an unintended result or neglects to cover all that it
should. Again using the AD context, such an error could occur if the
FAA learns that a particular variant of a model aircraft that should
have been covered by the AD was not. Because the operators of the
noncovered aircraft would not have been alerted to the potential
requirements, the comment period must be reported to give them notice
and an opportunity to comment. If such a situation were to occur in the
[[Page 11281]]
direct final rule context, the FAA may issue a new, superseding direct
final rule or an NPRM. The more significant the correction, the more
likely an NPRM would be issued. The FAA anticipates that the need for
corrections in direct final rulemaking to be infrequent.
Response to Comments
Several commenters note that the discussion of comments in a final
rule preamble is beneficial to the public in understanding the intent
of the proposal, and one commenter questions what would become of
adverse comments leading to the withdrawal of the direct final rule and
the issuance of an NPRM.
The FAA agrees the discussion of comments in a final rule can be
beneficial to the public because the disposition of comments provides
the FAA the opportunity to clarify and explain difficult points in a
proposal. Where comments to a direct final rule indicate that the rule
is not clear, such comments could be considered adverse and, if so,
would result in withdrawal of the direct final rule. However, if
comments to a direct final rule indicate that only minor changes are
needed to clarify the rule language without changing the substance of
the requirement, such a minor revision could be made at the time notice
confirming the effective date is given.
Any adverse comments received on a proposed direct final rule would
be discussed either in the subsequent NPRM preamble or in the preamble
of the subsequent final rule.
Review Process
Some commenters would like guidance to be issued as to who would
decide, and how, that a new or revised rule is noncontroversial or
consensual. Another commenter believes that the current NPRM process is
adequate, but the delays in issuing rules is the result of the FAA
review process.
The agency will base its decision as to which rules are
noncontroversial or consensual on its extensive interface with the
aviation community, industry comments to the FAA's rulemaking programs,
petitions for rulemaking, and the guidelines discussed previously. The
agency's conclusion also will be reviewed, in effect, by the highest
levels within the agency and by the Office of the Secretary and the
Office of Management and Budget during their review of the ``non-
significant'' designation for the rule. Because the potential for lost
time is present if the agency misjudges the acceptability of a
particular rule, the agency will tend to be very conservative in its
assessment of those projects that are candidates for direct final
rulemaking.
As to the timeliness of the rulemaking process, most of the reviews
and analyses that must be performed by the agency are mandated by
statutory provisions, Executive Orders, or Departmental policy. Because
rulemaking in today's complex environment touches many diverse
interests, review by many internal FAA offices is necessary to prevent
later problems that may require revising the rule. The FAA has expanded
its use of advisory committees to obtain predecisional input, sought
increases in delegations of authority to reduce the levels of review,
and instituted projects such as this proposal to improve the rulemaking
process.
Economic Burdens
One commenter alleges that many proposed rules are labeled as ``not
substantial'' yet the rules actually carried a significant economic
burden. Another commenter fears that direct final rules would permit
the imposition of burdensome regulations on ``Part 135 Operators''
without proper opportunity for review.
The FAA believes that the commenter who references rules being
labeled ``not substantial'' is referring to the FAA's finding that a
rule is ``not significant.'' The FAA is not aware of any rule that it
has designated as ``non-significant'' that has imposed a significant
economic burden. Rules that are determined to be significant would not
be candidates for the direct final rule process.
Whether a proposal begins as a traditional NPRM or as a direct
final rule, the public will be given an opportunity to review the
proposal and provide comment, just as with the NPRM-to-final rule
process that predominates today. The only significant difference is
that when direct final rules receive no adverse comment, only a
confirmation notice of the effective date will be published after the
close of the comment period.
Comments Outside the Scope of the Notice
The ATA notes that the FAA's labeling of a comment as ``outside the
scope'' of the rulemaking should not automatically make that comment
nonadverse. In addition, AOPA wishes the phrase ``comments outside the
scope of the rule'' to be narrowly construed.
A comment that is designated as ``outside the scope'' of the rule
would not be considered adverse because the comment does not address
the subject of the specific rule change that is being made. The FAA
intends to label a comment as being beyond the scope of the rulemaking
only when the commenter raises an issue that was not the subject of the
rulemaking. An alternative to the rulemaking is generally within the
scope of the rulemaking. The FAA addresses comments received that are
relevant to the proposed rule. The FAA will make every attempt to
properly address and characterize all comments. The ``scope'' concept
is not new; it is part of the agency's determination concerning
comments on NPRM's. All comments received, including those determined
to be outside the scope of the rule, will become part of the official
rulemaking file.
ARAC
The ATA feels the proposal is premature until problems with the
ARAC process are resolved. In addition, AOPA wants to ensure that its
members will be given an adequate opportunity to provide input to the
agency before the agency's position has been determined. The RAA
opposes the use of direct final rules for AD's and other rules that
have not had the benefit of consensus-building through the ARAC, but
would consider changes that make rules less stringent appropriate for
direct final rulemaking.
The FAA agrees that it is important for the public to have their
views considered as early as practicable in the rulemaking process. The
ARAC process is one means by which the agency is trying to seek out
public input before a rule is drafted. Because ARAC-proposed rules have
early public involvement, the FAA believes that they would be ideal
candidates for the direct final rule process. In addition, the FAA is
working to improve the ARAC process. A meeting was held with the ARAC
members in late 1994 to resolve issues and improve the process.
Recommendations from that meeting are being implemented. However, the
FAA must start the process for implementing direct final rulemaking now
in order to have it in place when the majority of ARAC-prepared
proposals reach the agency. When the ARAC makes a recommendation to the
FAA, the FAA may elect to turn that recommendation into a direct final
rule. Other ARAC recommendations may become NPRM's. If the ARAC has not
been able to reach consensus on a particular proposal, such a proposal
would be considered to result in public comment.
The FAA agrees with the RAA that some changes that make rules less
stringent and many ARAC rule proposals would be appropriate for the
direct final rule process. The FAA does
[[Page 11282]]
not agree, however, that direct final rulemaking should not be used for
some AD's or other non-ARAC projects. Many AD's are issued each year in
which no comments are received on the proposal. In many others, the
comments result in only minor changes. The time saved by using the
direct final rule process will benefit the public. The FAA notes that
some AD's and other important rulemaking projects would be
inappropriate for the direct final rulemaking process. The FAA
emphasizes that direct final rulemaking will only be used when there is
a reasonable assurance that adverse comments are unlikely.
Other Comments
One commenter is concerned that the direct final rule process would
make it difficult for aviation mechanics to track AD's issued through
direct final rulemaking in the ``Airworthiness Bi-Weekly Issues'' (a
compilation of issued airworthiness directives).
AD's issued in the form of an NPRM are not incorporated into the
``Airworthiness Bi-Weekly Issues'' until they are issued as final
rules. Similarly, any AD issued under the direct final rule process
will not appear in the ``Airworthiness Bi-Weekly Issues'' until the FAA
publishes a notice in the Federal Register confirming the proposed
effective date of the direct final rule; a direct final rule would be
substantially indistinguishable from an NPRM for the purposes of the
``Airworthiness Bi-Weekly Issues''. No action would be required by a
direct final rule until such time as it becomes effective.
Another commenter would like to amend the proposal to require a
``high'' degree of consensus among the parties affected by the rule
before the direct final rule procedure is invoked. (The proposal used
the term ``broad'' instead of ``high.'') The FAA would only consider
``consensus'' as indicating that a direct final rule is appropriate
when that consensus is complete, i.e., when there are no indications of
dissenting opinion. This could be characterized as a ``high'' degree of
consensus.
A commenter suggests issuing some form of public periodical
containing a listing of those upcoming proposals that the agency
believes are non-controversial. The FAA agrees and intends to use the
``Semiannual Regulatory Agenda'' (Agenda) to partially fulfill this
request. Published twice a year, the Agenda provides a summary of every
known future rulemaking, except routine actions such as AD's and
airspace actions. The FAA believes that such a listing could be
included as part of the electronic bulletin board and will investigate
adding the listing.
One commenter raises several concerns with the AD system that were
beyond the scope of the notice. These concerns will be forwarded to the
office with responsibility for the AD system for review.
General Support for Proposal
Five commenters stated general support for the direct rule
proposal, but some had concerns that have been discussed earlier. The
Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) supports the direct final rule
proposal because it will speed up the FAA rulemaking process for those
rules that are being harmonized with the Joint Aviation Regulations.
Regulatory Evaluation
This amendment to part 11 will provide a new and more efficient
procedure for adopting non-controversial or consensual rules. The FAA
believes that there will be no cost with the use of this procedure in
appropriate instances. Use of this alternative procedure is expected to
reduce the costs of rulemaking to the FAA by eliminating duplicate
publication of rule text when no adverse comment was received. In cases
where the rule will result in cost savings to the aviation industry,
use of this alternative will allow the industry to achieve these cost
savings sooner than if the current rulemaking procedures were used.
Accordingly, the FAA has determined that because no costs can be
foreseen and the expected economic impact of the amendment is minimal
and may save the industry money, a full regulatory evaluation is not
warranted.
International Trade Impact
The rule is only a change in the FAA's procedure for rulemaking and
will result in some improvement in the processing time for projects to
harmonize FAA regulations with those of the JAA.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 ensures that small
entities are not unnecessarily or disproportionately burdened by
Government regulations. The RFA requires agencies to review rules that
may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The costs associated with this proposed rule are minimal, and
are well below any threshold established by FAA Order 2100.14A.
Accordingly, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
any small entity.
Federalism Implications
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effect 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.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, I certify that this
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); (3) will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act; and (4)
that because any economic impact would be minimal, a full regulatory
evaluation is not warranted.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 11
Administrative practice and procedure, reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 11 as follows:
PART 11--GENERAL RULE-MAKING PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40105, 40109, 40113,
44110, 44502, 44701-44702, 44711, and 46102.
2. A new Sec. 11.17 is added to subpart A to read as follows:
Sec. 11.17 Direct final rule.
Whenever the FAA anticipates that a proposed regulation is unlikely
to result in adverse comment, it may choose to issue a direct final
rule. The direct final rule will advise the public that no adverse or
negative comments are anticipated, and that unless a written adverse or
negative comment, or a written notice of intent to submit an adverse or
negative comment is received within the comment period, the regulation
will become effective on the date specified in the direct final rule.
If no written adverse or negative comment, or notice of intent to
submit such a comment is received within the comment period, the direct
final rule will become effective on the date
[[Page 11283]]
indicated in the direct final rule. The FAA will publish a document in
the Federal Register indicating that no adverse or negative comments
were received and confirming the date on which the final rule will
become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the comment period,
an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of intent to submit
such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule will be
published in the Federal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking
may be published with a new comment period. Normal procedures for the
agency's receipt and consideration of comments will then apply.
Issued in Washington, DC on March 12, 1996.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-6594 Filed 3-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6589 NOAA Information Collection Requirements; Addition of OMB Approval Numbers
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11131-11133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6589]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11132]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
15 CFR Part 902
[Docket No. 950203036-6062-03; I.D. 030696A]
RIN 0648-XX03
NOAA Information Collection Requirements; Addition of OMB
Approval Numbers
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS updates Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control
numbers for NOAA information collection requirements to reflect new
approvals of fishing gear identification requirements, vessel
identification requirements, and vessel monitoring and communications
requirements.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 19, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George H. Darcy, NMFS, 301/713-2344.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Part 902 of title 15 CFR displays control
numbers assigned to NOAA information collection requirements by OMB,
pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This part fulfills the
requirement that agencies display a current control number, assigned by
the Director of OMB, for each agency information collection
requirement.
This final rule, technical amendment, updates the table in 15 CFR
902.1(b) to reflect OMB approvals of fishing gear identification
requirements, vessel identification requirements, and vessel monitoring
and communications requirements submitted by NMFS and approved by OMB
on September 29, 1995; only NMFS regulations are impacted. This final
rule does not involve any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
Because of the numerous sections of title 50 CFR that were affected by
the approval, all of the entries in the table appearing in 15 CFR
902.1(b) are republished for convenience and clarity.
Classification
Because this rule only codifies approved recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for purposes of public information, it is
strictly administrative in nature; no useful purpose would be served by
providing prior notice and opportunity for comment on this rule.
Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), it is unnecessary to provide
such notice and opportunity for comment. Also, because this rule is
only administrative in nature and is not a ``substantive rule'' under 5
U.S.C. 553(d), it will be immediately effective upon publication.
This rule is exempt from review under E.O. 12866.
List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 902
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 13, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 15 CFR part 902 is amended
as follows:
PART 902--NOAA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: OMB CONTROL NUMBERS
1. The authority citation for part 902 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
2. In Sec. 902.1, paragraph (b) table, the entries for 50 CFR are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 902.1 OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
* * * * *
(b) Display
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFR part or section where the
information collection requirement is Current OMB control number (all
located numbers begin with 0648-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
50 CFR
Sec. 216.22........................... -0178
Sec. 216.23........................... -0179
Sec. 216.24(c)........................ -0083
Sec. 216.24(d)........................ -0083, -0084,
-0099 and -0217
Sec. 216.24(e)........................ -0040
Sec. 216.31........................... -0084
Sec. 216.33........................... -0084
Sec. 216.45........................... -0084
Sec. 222.11-2......................... -0078
Sec. 222.11-8......................... -0079
Sec. 222.12-7......................... -0078
Sec. 222.12-8......................... -0078
Sec. 222.22........................... -0230
Sec. 222.23........................... -0084
Sec. 227.72........................... -0230 and -0267
Sec. 228.4............................ -0151
Sec. 228.6............................ -0151
Sec. 228.14........................... -0151
Sec. 228.25........................... -0151
Sec. 228.37........................... -0151
Sec. 228.55........................... -0151
Sec. 229.5............................ -0293
Sec. 229.6............................ -0292
Sec. 229.7............................ -0292
Sec. 259.30........................... -0090
Sec. 259.35........................... -0041
Sec. 260.103.......................... -0266
Sec. 280.10........................... -0148
Sec. 280.50........................... -0202
Sec. 280.51........................... -0239
Sec. 280.53........................... -0040
Sec. 282.3............................ -0218
Sec. 282.5............................ -0218
Sec. 282.6............................ -0306
Sec. 285.7............................ -0202
Sec. 285.8............................ -0202
Sec. 285.21........................... -0202
Sec. 285.27........................... -0247
Sec. 285.28........................... -0202
Sec. 285.29........................... -0239
Sec. 285.33........................... -0305
Sec. 285.52........................... -0202
Sec. 285.53........................... -0168
Sec. 285.54........................... -0239
Sec. 285.55........................... -0239
Sec. 285.201.......................... -0040
Sec. 296.5............................ -0082
Sec. 299.3............................ -0228
Sec. 299.4............................ -0228
Sec. 299.5............................ -0228
Sec. 300.4............................ -0304
Sec. 380.4............................ -0194
Sec. 380.5............................ -0194
Sec. 380.6............................ -0194
Sec. 380.8............................ -0194
Sec. 380.20........................... -0194
Sec. 380.24........................... -0194
Sec. 380.28........................... -0194
Sec. 601.37........................... -0192
Sec. 611.3............................ -0089
Sec. 611.4............................ -0075
Sec. 611.5............................ -0305 and -0306
Sec. 611.6............................ -0075
Sec. 611.8............................ -0075
Sec. 611.9............................ -0075
Sec. 611.12........................... -0075
Sec. 611.50........................... -0075
Sec. 611.61........................... -0075
Sec. 611.70........................... -0075
Sec. 611.80........................... -0075
Sec. 611.81........................... -0075
Sec. 611.82........................... -0075
Sec. 611.90........................... -0075
Sec. 611.92........................... -0075
Sec. 611.93........................... -0075
Sec. 611.94........................... -0075
Sec. 625.4............................ -0202
Sec. 625.5............................ -0202
Sec. 625.6............................ -0018, -0212
and -0229
Sec. 625.7............................ -0306
Sec. 625.20........................... -0202
Sec. 625.27........................... -0202
Sec. 628.4............................ -0202
Sec. 630.4............................ -0205
Sec. 630.5............................ -0013 and -0016
Sec. 630.6............................ -0306
Sec. 630.10........................... -0016
Sec. 630.31........................... -0277
Sec. 638.4............................ -0205
Sec. 638.5............................ -0016
Sec. 638.6............................ -0306
Sec. 638.27........................... -0016 and -0305
Sec. 640.4............................ -0205
Sec. 640.6............................ -0305 and -0306
Sec. 641.4............................ -0205
[[Page 11133]]
Sec. 641.5............................ -0013, -0016
and -0301
Sec. 641.6............................ -0305 and -0306
Sec. 641.10........................... -0297, -0298
and -0299
Sec. 642.4............................ -0205
Sec. 642.5............................ -0013 and -0016
Sec. 642.6............................ -0306
Sec. 644.24........................... -0216
Sec. 645.4............................ -0205
Sec. 645.6............................ -0205, -0305
and -0306
Sec. 646.4............................ -0205
Sec. 646.5............................ -0013 and -0016
Sec. 646.6............................ -0205, -0305
and -0306
Sec. 646.10........................... -0262
Sec. 649.4............................ -0202
Sec. 649.5............................ -0202
Sec. 649.6............................ -0202
Sec. 649.7............................ -0306
Sec. 649.21........................... -0305
Sec. 650.4............................ -0202
Sec. 650.5............................ -0202
Sec. 650.6............................ -0202
Sec. 650.7............................ -0018, -0212
and -0229
Sec. 650.8............................ -0306
Sec. 650.24........................... -0202
Sec. 650.25........................... -0202 and -0307
Sec. 650.26........................... -0202
Sec. 650.28........................... -0202
Sec. 651.4............................ -0202
Sec. 651.5............................ -0202
Sec. 651.6............................ -0202
Sec. 651.7............................ -0018, -0212
and -0229
Sec. 651.8............................ -0306
Sec. 651.20........................... -0202
Sec. 651.21........................... -0202
Sec. 651.22........................... -0202
Sec. 651.25........................... -0305
Sec. 651.28........................... -0202 and -0307
Sec. 651.29........................... -0202
Sec. 652.4............................ -0202
Sec. 652.5............................ -0202
Sec. 652.6............................ -0212 and -0229
Sec. 652.7............................ -0306
Sec. 652.9............................ -0202
Sec. 652.20........................... -0238
Sec. 652.24........................... -0240
Sec. 653.5............................ -0013
Sec. 654.6............................ -0305, -0306
and -0307
Sec. 655.4............................ -0202
Sec. 655.6............................ -0306
Sec. 658.5............................ -0013
Sec. 658.6............................ -0306
Sec. 661.4............................ -0222
Sec. 661.20........................... -0222
Sec. 662.5............................ -0306
Sec. 663.4............................ -0271
Sec. 663.6............................ -0306
Sec. 663.10........................... -0203
Sec. 663.11........................... -0203
Sec. 663.22........................... -0305
Sec. 663.33........................... -0203
Sec. 669.6............................ -0205, -0305
and -0306
Sec. 670.6............................ -0306
Sec. 670.23........................... -0303
Sec. 672.4............................ -0206
Sec. 672.5............................ -0213
Sec. 672.6............................ -0206
Sec. 672.24........................... -0305 and -0307
Sec. 674.4............................ -0206
Sec. 675.4............................ -0206
Sec. 675.5............................ -0213
Sec. 675.6............................ -0206
Sec. 675.24........................... -0305
Sec. 675.27........................... -0269
Sec. 676.3............................ -0206
Sec. 676.4............................ -0206
Sec. 676.5............................ -0206
Sec. 676.13........................... -0272
Sec. 676.14........................... -0272
Sec. 676.17........................... -0272
Sec. 676.20........................... -0272
Sec. 676.21........................... -0272
Sec. 676.25........................... -0269
Sec. 677.4............................ -0206
Sec. 677.6............................ -0280
Sec. 677.10........................... -0280 and -0307
Sec. 678.4............................ -0205
Sec. 678.5............................ -0013, -0016
and -0229
Sec. 678.6............................ -0306
Sec. 678.10........................... -0016
Sec. 680.4............................ -0204
Sec. 680.5............................ -0214
Sec. 680.6............................ -0306
Sec. 680.10........................... -0204
Sec. 681.4............................ -0204
Sec. 681.5............................ -0214
Sec. 681.6............................ -0306
Sec. 681.10........................... -0214
Sec. 681.24........................... -0214 and -0305
Sec. 681.25........................... -0214
Sec. 681.30........................... -0204
Sec. 683.4............................ -0214
Sec. 683.9............................ -0204, -0214
and -0306
Sec. 683.21........................... -0204
Sec. 683.25........................... -0204
Sec. 683.27........................... -0214
Sec. 683.29........................... -0214
Sec. 685.4............................ -0214
Sec. 685.9............................ -0204
Sec. 685.10........................... -0306
Sec. 685.11........................... -0214
Sec. 685.12........................... -0305
Sec. 685.13........................... -0214
Sec. 685.14........................... -0214
Sec. 685.15........................... -0204
Sec. 685.16........................... -0307
Sec. 685.24........................... -0214
Sec. 695.4............................ -0205
Sec. 695.5............................ -0016
Sec. 695.6............................ -0306
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-6589 Filed 3-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-W
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6538 Inmate Organizations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11274-11276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6538]
[[Page 11273]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Justice
_______________________________________________________________________
Bureau of Prisons
_______________________________________________________________________
28 CFR Part 551
Inmate Organizations; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 11274]]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Prisons
28 CFR Part 551
[BOP-1045-F]
RIN 1120-AA42
Inmate Organizations
AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Prisons is revising its regulations on Inmate
Organizations to prohibit fund-raising activities by inmates and to
phase out provisions governing inmate accountability for funds. This
amendment is intended to provide for the continued efficient and
orderly operation of the institution and the Bureau.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective April 18, 1996, except
Sec. 551.37 is effective from April 18, 1996 through June 30, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, HOLC Room 754,
320 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy Nanovic, Office of General
Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 514-6655.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bureau of Prisons is revising its
regulations on Inmate Organizations (28 CFR part 551, subpart D). A
proposed rule on this subject was published in the Federal Register on
October 20, 1995 (60 FR 54289). The Bureau received comment from three
respondents. A summary of this public comment and Bureau response
follows.
One commenter, writing for a specific inmate organization, objected
to the proposed ban on fund-raising activities on the grounds that the
activities benefitted both inmate and local community populations. The
commenter noted that his organization operated in a fiscally
responsible manner and had not been the cause of any financial problem.
The commenter stated that fund-raising activities were important to the
successful continuation of the club and its camp efforts, and urged
that the proposed rule be withdrawn or modified in order to allow for
exemption of specific organizations.
While not all inmate organizations have posed financial concerns,
the potential for problems and the dedication of staff resources to
help ensure that such problems do not arise under the current
provisions is sufficient to warrant the Bureau's proposed action. As
stated in the proposed rule, the amendment is not intended to eliminate
inmate activities, but rather to fund such approved inmate activities
from designated sources, including, for example, the Trust Fund.
Another commenter raised a variety of objections to the proposed
rule. This commenter objected to the determinations that the proposed
rule was not a significant regulatory action nor had a significant
impact on small entities, and was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget. The Bureau notes that the proposed rulemaking
was promulgated in accordance with the procedures of E.O. 12866,
including those provisions pertinent to the oversight of the Office of
Management and Budget. This rulemaking does not meet the definition of
significant regulatory action contained in E.O. 12866 and accordingly
is not required to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget.
The commenter speculated that several small businesses will be
negatively impacted by the rulemaking. The Bureau notes that this
speculation does not approach the defined threshold of significant
impact (see 5 U.S.C. 605(b)).
In general, this commenter felt that the proposed rule was
regressive and not supportive of rehabilitation. More specifically, the
commenter objected on the grounds that the proposed rule would reduce
the number of inmate activities and consequently increase inmate
idleness and unrest. The commenter noted that inmate organizations
provided inmates with access to national organizations and consequently
served a positive goal of maintaining contact with the public. The
commenter stated that allowing the organizations to maintain themselves
through dues prevented significant impact on the Bureau's
appropriations. The Bureau notes that the revised regulations do not
limit access to national organizations and therefore do not adversely
affect the maintenance of community contacts. With respect to a
possible reduction of inmate activities and the possible growth of
inmate idleness and unrest, the Bureau believes this concern is
overstated. A variety of activities are available to inmates, as
indicated in 28 CFR 551.34. The Bureau is committed to funding approved
activities. The elimination of fund-raising activities (particularly
when the purpose of the fund-raising activity is to fund other
activities) should not significantly reduce the number of approved
activities for inmates. With respect to the comment on financial
impact, the Bureau points out that while some inmate organizations have
not posed financial problems, as noted above, this is not true for all
inmate organizations. Remedying these financial problems does have an
impact on Bureau appropriations. The Bureau prefers to allocate its
resources (whether monetary or staffing) to activities which do not
entail the potential problems of fund-raising.
The commenter also objected alleging that inmates were not advised
of the proposed regulation until December 1, 1995, and consequently
were impeded in their ability to respond to the proposal or to inform
their families for added comment. Publication in the Federal Register
provides sufficient and proper notice of agency rulemaking to the
general public. The Bureau, in order to help ensure notice to the
inmate population, posts its rulemaking documents in Bureau
institutions. The Bureau notes that copies of the proposed rule were
distributed to institutions for posting on November 3, 1995. Access to
these postings at certain institutions may have been delayed due to
security conditions necessitated by inmate disturbances. As evidenced
by the fact that the commenter's comment has been considered in this
rulemaking, the Bureau believes the December 19, 1995, deadline
afforded sufficient opportunity for comment.
A third commenter, whose submitted comments were dated December 11,
1995, objected to late posting of the proposed rule at a particular
institution. This commenter also objected to the statement that the
proposed rule was intended to provide for the continued efficient and
orderly running of the institution, stating that the security concerns
were an exaggeration. The commenter suggested that the Bureau's
motivation was to increase commissary sales.
As noted above, delays in posting may have resulted in certain
institutions due to security concerns necessitated by inmate
disturbances. The timing of the posting at the institution cited did
not appear to impede the timely filing by the commenter. With respect
to motivation for the proposed rule, the Bureau believes that budgetary
constraints do play a role in the efficient and orderly operation of
the institution, and that the proposed changes were a reasonable means
of achieving legitimate penological goals.
This commenter also questioned the certification under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act that the rulemaking did not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
commenter also claimed that the Bureau was in violation of the law for
[[Page 11275]]
refusing to present rule changes to the Office of Management and Budget
and Congress. The Bureau notes, as above, that the rulemaking was
promulgated in accordance with the procedures of E.O. 12866, including
those provisions pertinent to Office of Management and Budget
oversight.
In adopting the proposed rule as final, the Bureau has made the
following organizational or editorial changes to the regulations. In
Sec. 551.31, paragraph (a) was reworded to clarify that activation of
the organization is dependent upon the Warden's approval. The
provisions in proposed paragraph (c) have been restated in a new
Sec. 551.35. In Sec. 551.33, the phrase ``national organization'' has
been used instead of the phrase ``National Chapter.'' That same
paragraph is further amended to clarify that the Warden is authorized
to approve the rate and method of institution collection of dues. The
Warden was not intended to exercise authority over non-institution
collection of dues by a national organization. Section 551.34 was
amended to remove reference to purchase of items. This provision is
covered in a new Sec. 551.36 (proposed as Sec. 551.35). Section 551.34
was further amended to remove the parenthetical phrase ``(if
appropriate)''. Proposed Secs. 551.35 and 551.36 were redesignated as
Secs. 551.36 and 551.37 in order to accommodate the new section on
withdrawal of approval, as noted above. Finally, for reasons of orderly
codification, newly designated Sec. 551.37 is not included in the
revised subpart, but is added to the subpart separately in order to
facilitate a ``sunset'' provision. Because these further changes are
either organizational or editorial in nature and have no adverse impact
upon inmates, the Bureau finds good cause for exempting the provisions
of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of
proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment. Members of the
public may submit comments concerning these changes or other provisions
of the rule by writing to the previously cited address. These comments
will be considered but will receive no response in the Federal
Register.
The Bureau of Prisons has determined that this rule is not a
significant regulatory action for the purpose of E.O. 12866, and
accordingly was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
After review of the law and regulations, the Director, Bureau of
Prisons has certified that this rule, for the purpose of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the
definition of the Act.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 551
Prisoners.
John L. Clark,
Acting Director, Bureau of Prisons.
Accordingly, pursuant to the rulemaking authority vested in the
Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and delegated to the Director,
Bureau of Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96(p), part 551 in subchapter C of 28
CFR, chapter V is amended as set forth below.
SUBCHAPTER C--INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT
PART 551--MISCELLANEOUS
1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 551 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 1512, 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001,
4005, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on
or after November 1, 1987), 4161-4166 (Repealed as to offenses
committed on or after November 1, 1987), 5006-5024 (Repealed October
12, 1984 as to offenses committed after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C.
509, 510; Pub. L. 99-500 (sec. 209); 28 CFR 0.95-0.99; Attorney
General's August 6, 1991 Guidelines for Victim and Witness
Assistance.
2. Subpart D, consisting of Secs. 551.30 through 551.36, is revised
to read as follows.
Subpart D--Inmate Organizations
Sec.
551.30 Purpose and scope.
551.31 Approval of an organization.
551.32 Staff supervision.
551.33 Dues.
551.34 Organization activities.
551.35 Withdrawal of approval of an organization.
551.36 Funding.
Subpart D--Inmate Organizations
Sec. 551.30 Purpose and scope.
The Bureau of Prisons permits inmates and persons in the community
to participate in approved inmate organizations for recreational,
social, civic, and benevolent purposes.
Sec. 551.31 Approval of an organization.
(a) An inmate must submit a request for recognition of a proposed
inmate organization to the Warden. The organization may not become
active without the Warden's approval.
(b) The Warden may approve an inmate organization upon determining
that:
(1) The organization has a constitution and bylaws duly approved by
its members; the constitution and bylaws must include the
organization's purpose and objectives, the duties and responsibilities
of its officer(s), and the requirements for activities reporting and
operational review; and
(2) The organization does not operate in opposition to the
security, good order, or discipline of the institution.
Sec. 551.32 Staff supervision.
(a) The Warden shall appoint a staff member as the institution's
Inmate Organization Manager (IOM). The IOM shall be responsible for
monitoring the activities of the institution's inmate organizations and
staff sponsors.
(b) The Warden or designee shall assign to a staff sponsor
responsibility for supervising the activities of an individual inmate
organization. The staff sponsor's duties are performed while in
official duty status.
Sec. 551.33 Dues.
Dues may be collected if they are required by the national
organization, are collected by that same national organization, and the
rate and method of institution collection have been approved by the
Warden. No portion of the dues may be kept by the inmate organization
for use at the institution. The organization may not make payment of
dues a requirement of membership for an inmate who lacks funds.
Sec. 551.34 Organization activities.
(a) An officer of the inmate organization must submit a written
request for approval of an activity to the Warden or designee.
Activities include, but are not limited to, meetings, guest speakers,
sports competitions, banquets, or community programs. Activities may
not include fund-raising projects. The request must specifically
include:
(1) Name of the organization;
(2) Nature or purpose of the activity;
(3) Date, time, and estimated duration of the activity;
(4) Estimated cost;
(5) Information concerning guest participation; and
(6) Other pertinent information requested by the Warden.
(b) The Warden may approve the request if the activity:
(1) Does not conflict with scheduled inmate work or program
activities;
(2) Has confirmation of staff supervision;
(3) Can be appropriately funded when applicable (see Sec. 551.36);
and
(4) Does not conflict with the security, good order, or discipline
of the institution.
(c) When an activity requires the expenditure of government funds,
the Warden ordinarily shall require reimbursement from non-inmate
participants (guests or members).
[[Page 11276]]
(d) Each inmate organization shall be responsible for maintaining
accurate records of its activities.
(e) The activities of an inmate organization may be suspended
temporarily due to noncompliance with Bureau policy. The IOM is
responsible for recommending the specific suspension sanction for the
Warden's approval. The inmate organization is to receive written notice
of the proposed suspension sanction and shall have the opportunity to
respond to the Warden. Continued noncompliance with Bureau policy shall
result in an increase in the severity of the suspension sanction, and
may include withdrawal of approval of the organization.
Sec. 551.35 Withdrawal of approval of an organization.
The Warden may withdraw approval of an inmate organization for
reasons of the security, good order, and discipline of the institution,
or in accordance with Sec. 551.34(e).
Sec. 551.36 Funding.
The Bureau of Prisons may fund approved activities of inmate
organizations or organization requests for purchase of equipment or
services for all inmates subject to the availability of designated
funds.
3. Effective from April 18, 1996 through June 30, 1996, Sec. 551.37
is added to Subpart D to read as follows:
Sec. 551.37 Accountability for accumulated funds.
Effective April 18, 1996 through June 30, 1996, all inmate
organizations must, in accordance with Bureau policy and generally
accepted accounting principles, close-out financial records and dispose
of all assets previously accumulated by them.
[FR Doc. 96-6538 Filed 3-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-05-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6493 General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Amendment to Temporary Closure of Block Island to Some Fishing Gear Activity
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11164-11165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6493]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 620
[Docket No. 960126016-6070-02; I.D. 012696C]
RIN 0648-XX41
General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Amendment to Temporary
Closure of Block Island to Some Fishing Gear Activity
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Emergency interim rule; amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request from the State of Rhode Island, NMFS
has determined that it is necessary to modify the emergency interim
rule that closed a portion of Federal waters off the coast of the State
of Rhode Island, in Block Island Sound to protect public health,
safety, and welfare. This action expands by approximately 28 square
miles (73 square kilometers [km]) the area in which fishing for,
landing, or possessing benthic crustaceans and mollusks, including but
not limited to lobsters, clams, and crabs, is prohibited. Accordingly,
the use and operation of lobster traps, trawl and dredge gear designed
or used for fishing on the ocean bottom or any other gear designed for
harvesting benthic crustaceans and mollusks is prohibited in the same
area. This action also rescinds the prohibition on possessing, landing,
or fishing for finfish, including squid, in the area with gear other
than bottom trawl and dredge gear.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 13, 1996, through May 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regina L. Spallone at (508) 281-9221.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 19, 1996, an oil barge grounded
and spilled more than 800,000 gallons (3.0 million liters) of heating
oil into the waters of Block Island Sound, RI. On January 26, 1996,
NMFS, at the request of and in conjunction with the State of Rhode
Island, prohibited the harvest of seafood from an area of approximately
250 square miles (647 square km) in Block Island Sound. The original
area of closure was announced and defined in an emergency interim rule
published in the Federal Register on February 1, 1996 (61 FR 3602).
Since the original closure became effective, state and Federal
agencies have been testing the water, marine life, and sediment in and
around the closed area for contamination. Seafood species have been
subjected to inspection by sensory experts and chemical analysis.
In a portion of those lobsters and shellfish subjected to the
tests, inspectors have discovered indications of oil adulteration. Some
of the contaminated lobsters were taken from sites south of the
established closure area. NMFS, therefore, at the request and
recommendation of the state, is expanding the area in which fishing for
and landing lobsters, clams, and crabs is prohibited. The enlarged area
encompasses the sites to the south and east of Block Island where
contaminated lobsters were collected. The area includes approximately
28 square miles of Federal waters. The coordinates of the full closed
area are described in the rule text below.
Accordingly, this action prohibits the use and operation of fishing
gear that has been determined most likely to take significant numbers
of benthic crustaceans and mollusks, including but not limited to
lobsters, clams, and crabs, in the expanded closed area. The following
gear types fall into this category: Lobster traps, bottom trawl gear,
and dredge gear. The following gear types have been determined not to
take significant numbers of benthic crustaceans and mollusks and are
exempted from this prohibition: Hook and line gear, mid-water trawls,
weirs, purse seine gear, and sink gillnets. Recovery of gear previously
deployed in the closed area in the exclusive economic zone is allowed
if the fisher registers and complies fully with the State's gear
retrieval program under the Department of Environmental Management.
This action prohibits the new deployment of lobster traps in the area.
Gear deployed prior to the closure and left in the area for the
duration of the closure would not be in violation of this rule. Transit
through the closed area and possession of benthic crustaceans and
mollusks captured outside the area is allowed, provided that all
fishing gear is stowed and unavailable for immediate use.
Finfish testing has indicated that the consumption of finfish does
not pose a risk to human health. Therefore, NMFS, at the request and
recommendation of the State of Rhode Island, is modifying
[[Page 11165]]
the closure to allow fishing for finfish except by bottom trawl or
dredge.
The full extent of the ecological damage caused by the oil spill
still is not known. The emergency nature of the adverse environmental
condition created by the presence of oil in the area renders prior
notice and opportunity to comment on a proposed closure contrary to the
public interest. Consequently, the emergency action authority vested in
NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), under section
305(c) of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16
U.S.C. 1855(c) is invoked to make the closure effective immediately.
This action will remain in effect from March 13, 1996, through May
1, 1996, unless circumstances change. An extension of the closure, if
warranted, is possible for an additional 90 days under the Secretary's
emergency rulemaking authority. The New England Fishery Management
Council was informed of this action and has concurred with the
implementation of additional measures, including an extension of the
present closure, so long as such measures complement the State's
regulations and are implemented at the State's request.
In a separate action, the areas discussed above will be closed to
gillnetting, March 1 - March 31, 1996, as part of a larger area closure
for the protection of migrating harbor porpoise, under Framework
Adjustment 14 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan.
Under the Framework Adjustment, gillnetters will not be allowed to
operate in the closed area unless they elect to comply with protocols
for an experimental fishery. The rules set forth below in no way amend
the actions related to Framework Adjustment 14.
Classification
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), has
determined that this rule is necessary to respond to an emergency
situation and is consistent with the Magnuson Act and other applicable
law.
The AA finds that failure to implement the actions in this rule
that close additional areas to fishing for benthic crustaceans and
mollusks could result in serious risk to public safety and human
health. The foregoing constitutes good cause to waive the requirement
to provide prior notice and the opportunity for public comment,
pursuant to authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such
procedures would be contrary to the public interest. Similarly, the
need to implement these measures in a timely manner to address public
safety, health, and welfare constitutes a good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.
Testing has determined that consumption of finfish doesn't pose a
threat to human health. Finfish fishermen would suffer severe economic
hardship unnecessarily if the current prohibition were to remain in
effect. As such, the AA finds that the foregoing constitutes good cause
to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and the opportunity
for public comment, pursuant to authority set forth at 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), as such procedures would be contrary to the public interest.
Further, as this provision relieves a restriction, it is made effective
immediately pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
This emergency rule has been determined to be not significant for
the purposes of E.O. 12866.
This emergency rule is exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act because this rule is not required to be issued with
prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 620
Fisheries, Fishing.
Dated: March 13, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 620 is amended
as follows:
PART 620--GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR DOMESTIC FISHERIES
1. The authority citation for part 620 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. Section 620.7, paragraph (i) is revised and paragraphs (j) and
(k) are added to read as follows:
Sec. 620.7 General prohibitions.
* * * * *
(i) Fish for in, or possess or land benthic crustaceans and
mollusks, including but not limited to American lobsters, rock crabs,
red crabs, blue crabs, jonah crabs, surf clams, ocean quahogs, sea
scallops, mussels, periwinkles, and oysters from the Federal waters of
Block Island Sound bounded as follows: From the point where LORAN line
25740 intersects with the 3-nautical mile (6-km) line south of Easton
Point, RI, proceeding southwesterly along the 25740 line to its
intersection with the 14470 line, thence south-southeasterly along the
14470 line to its intersection with the 43840 line, thence
southwesterly along the 43840 line to its intersection with 14540 line,
thence northwesterly along the 14540 line to its intersection with the
3-nautical mile (6-km) line south of Block Island, RI, thence
northeasterly and along said 3-nautical mile (6-km) line to the
northern intersection of the 3-nautical mile (6-km) line and the 14540
line, thence northwesterly along the 14540 line to the intersection of
the 3-nautical mile (6-km) line, thence northeasterly along the 3-
nautical mile (6-km) line to the starting point.
(j) Unless exempted in this paragraph, to deploy, use, fish with or
operate lobster traps, trawl or dredge gear designed or used for
fishing on the ocean bottom, or any other gear designed for or capable
of catching benthic mollusks or crustaceans, in the area described in
Sec. 620(i). Hook and line gear, mid-water trawls, weirs, purse seine
gear and sink gillnets are specifically exempted from this prohibition.
Recovery of trap gear from the closed area is specifically exempted
from this prohibition if the owner/fisher of said gear registers and
complies fully with the State of Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management's gear retrieval program.
(k) Transit the area described in parargraph (i) of this section,
unless all prohibited fishing gear is stowed and unavailable for
immediate use in accordance with 50 CFR 625.24(f), 650.21(a)(2)(iii),
and 651.20(c)(4)(i).
[FR Doc. 96-6493 Filed 3-13-96; 5:04 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6466 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana: Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11142-11149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6466]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IN56-1-7077a; FRL-5426-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana: Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is giving
full approval through a direct final action to a state implementation
plan (SIP) revision submitted on June 6, 1995 and September 28, 1995,
by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM). This
revision provides for the adoption and implementation of an enhanced
motor vehicle emission inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in the
areas of Lake, Porter, Clark, and Floyd Counties. The Lake and Porter
County area is designated severe nonattainment for ozone and is
required to implement an enhanced I/M program. The Clark and Floyd
County area is designated moderate nonattainment for ozone and has
opted to implement enhanced I/M. These areas are required to attain the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as specified under the
Clean Air Act (Act) by 2007 and 1996, respectively. The implementation
of this important program in the areas stated above will reduce vehicle
emissions which contribute to the formation of urban smog in Indiana by
more than 4.5 tons per day. In the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register, USEPA is proposing approval of this I/M program and
SIP revision, and solicits public comments on the action. If adverse
comments are received on this direct final rule, USEPA will withdraw
this final rule and address these comments in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule.
DATES: This final rule is effective on May 20, 1996 unless adverse or
critical comments are received by April 18, 1996. If the effective date
is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Indiana's I/M SIP submittal, and other documents
pertinent to this direct final rule are available at the following
address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and
Radiation Division, Regulation Development Branch, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Comments on this rule should be addressed to: J. Elmer Bortzer,
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental
Engineer, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6061.
Anyone wishing to come to Region 5 offices should first contact
Francisco J. Acevedo.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
Motor vehicles are significant contributors of volatile organic
compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen oxide (NOX)
emissions. The motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program is an
effective means of reducing these emissions. Despite improvements in
emission control technology in past years, mobile sources in urban
areas continue to remain responsible for roughly half of
[[Page 11143]]
the emissions of VOC causing ozone, and most of the emissions of CO.
They also emit substantial amounts of nitrogen oxides and air toxics.
This is because the number of vehicle miles traveled has doubled in the
last 20 years to 2 trillion miles per year, offsetting much of the
technological progress in vehicle emission control over the same
period. Projections indicate that the steady growth in vehicle miles
will continue.
Under the Act, the USEPA is pursuing a three-point strategy to
achieve emission reductions from motor vehicles. The development and
commercialization of cleaner vehicles and cleaner fuels represent the
first two elements of the strategy. These developments will take many
years before cleaner vehicles and fuels dominate the fleet and
favorably impact the environment. This document deals with the third
element of the strategy, vehicle inspection and maintenance, which is
aimed at the reduction of emissions from the existing fleet by ensuring
that vehicles are maintained to meet the emission standards established
by USEPA. Properly functioning emission controls are necessary to keep
pollution levels low. The driving public is often unable to detect a
malfunction of the emission control system. While some minor
malfunctions can increase emissions significantly, they do not affect
drivability and may go unnoticed for a long period of time. Effective
I/M programs can identify excessive emissions and assure repairs. The
USEPA projects that sophisticated I/M programs such as the one being
implemented by Indiana will identify emission related problems and
prompt the vehicle owner to obtain timely repairs thus reducing
emissions.
The Act requires that certain areas which have not attained the
ozone NAAQS adopt either a ``basic'' or ``enhanced'' I/M program,
depending on the severity of the pollution and the population of the
area. Moderate ozone nonattainment areas, plus marginal ozone areas
with existing or previously required I/M programs in Census-defined
urbanized areas, fall under the ``basic'' I/M requirements. Basic and
enhanced I/M programs both achieve their objective by identifying
vehicles that have high emissions as a result of one or more
malfunctions, and requiring them to be repaired. An ``enhanced'' I/M
program covers more vehicles in operation in the fleet, employs
inspection methods which are better at finding high emitting vehicles,
and has additional features to better assure that all vehicles are
tested properly and effectively repaired. The Act directed USEPA to
establish a minimum performance standard for enhanced I/M programs. The
standard is based on the performance achievable by annual inspections
in a centralized test program. States have flexibility to design their
own program if they can show that their program is as effective as the
model program used in the performance standard. Naturally, the more
effective the program the more credit a State will get toward the
emission reduction requirement.
The USEPA and the States have learned a great deal about what makes
an I/M program effective since the Clean Air Act of 1977 first required
I/M programs. There are three major keys to an effective program:
(1) Given the advanced state of current vehicle design and
anticipated technology changes, the ability to accurately ``fail''
problem vehicles and ``pass'' clean ones requires improved test
equipment and test procedures;
(2) Comprehensive quality control and aggressive enforcement is
essential to assuring the testing is done properly;
(3) Skillful diagnostics and capable mechanics are important to
assure that failed cars are fixed properly.
These three factors are missing in most older I/M programs.
Specifically, the idle and 2500 RPM/idle short tests and anti-tamper
inspections used in these older I/M programs are not as effective in
identifying and reducing in-use emissions from the types of vehicles in
the current and future fleet. Also, covert audits by USEPA and State
agencies typically discover improper inspection and testing 50 percent
of the time in test-and-repair stations, indicating poor quality
control. Experience has shown that quality control at high-volume test
only stations is usually much better. And, finally, diagnostics and
mechanics training are often poor or nonexistent.
On November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950), USEPA established a high-tech
emission test for high-tech cars. This I/M test, known as the IM240
test, is so effective that biennial test programs yield almost the same
emission reduction benefits as annual programs. The test can also
accurately measure NOX emissions where NOX is important to
address an ozone problem. Adding the pressure and purge test increases
the benefit even more, resulting in lower testing costs and consumer
time demands. The pressure test is designed to find leaks in the fuel
system, and the purge test evaluates the functionality of the vapor
control system. In addition, USEPA published additional changes to the
I/M rule in the Federal Register on September 18, 1995 (60 FR 48029),
in order to provide greater flexibility to states required to implement
I/M programs.
II. Background
The State of Indiana contains the Lake and Porter County area which
is classified as a severe nonattainment area for ozone, and the Clark
and Floyd County area which is classified as a moderate nonattainment
area for ozone. On June 6, 1995, IDEM submitted a complete SIP revision
request containing the I/M program. USEPA made a finding of
completeness in a letter dated June 9, 1995. This submittal includes
new I/M regulations adopted on April 5, 1995 by the Indiana Air
Pollution Control Board and documentation addressing required portions
of the Federal I/M rule. The rules were signed by Governor Bayh on June
20, 1995, and the final rules were published in the Indiana Register on
August 1, 1995. On September 28, 1995, IDEM submitted additional
documentation for the Indiana I/M SIP. Under IC 13-1-1 and 13-7-7, the
Air Pollution Control Board has the authority to adopt air pollution
regulations for the State under Title 326 Indiana Administrative Code.
The adopted regulation changes the current program in all four counties
from a basic I/M program to an enhanced I/M program. In addition to the
Indiana I/M rule, the State SIP submittal includes the Indiana I/M
Performance Standard Modeling Demonstration (August 30, 1995); State of
Indiana Request for Proposal #A305-2038 for the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (December 14, 1993); Systems Control Inc.
Contract for Services with Amendments; Systems Control Inc. Proposed
Public Information Plan; Supplemental I/M State Implementation Plan
Document (September 27, 1995). USEPA summarizes the requirements of the
Federal I/M regulations as found in 40 CFR 51.350-51.373 and its
analysis of the state submittal below. Parties desiring additional
details on the Federal I/M regulation are referred to the November 5,
1992, Federal Register document (57 FR 52950) and 40 CFR 51.350-51.373.
III. EPA's Analysis of the Indiana, Enhanced I/M Program
As discussed above, section 182 of the Act requires that states
adopt and implement updated regulations for I/M programs in moderate
and above ozone nonattainment areas. The following sections of this
document summarize the requirements of the Federal I/M regulations and
address whether the
[[Page 11144]]
elements of the State's submittal comply with the Federal rule.
Applicability--40 CFR 51.350
Under the requirements of the Act, basic I/M programs are required
in a number of areas classified as moderate nonattainment for ozone. In
Indiana, these areas are: Clark and Floyd Counties. In addition, areas
classified as serious and above are required to implement an enhanced
I/M program. In Indiana, these are Lake and Porter Counties. The
Indiana submittal contains the legal authority and regulations
necessary for IDEM to establish the program boundaries and operate an
enhanced I/M program in all four counties cited above. 326 IAC 13-1.1
specifies that the geographic boundaries of the program in each area
are county-wide. The program boundaries described in the Indiana
submittal meet the Federal I/M requirements under Section 51.350 and
are approvable. The Federal I/M regulation requires that state programs
not lapse prior to the time they are no longer needed. USEPA believes
that a program that does not lapse prior to the attainment deadline for
each applicable area would meet this requirement. The attainment date
for the Clark and Floyd County nonattainment area is November 15, 1996,
and the attainment date for the Lake and Porter County nonattainment
area is November 15, 2007. The State I/M regulation contained in the
Indiana submittal allows for implementation of the program through the
attainment date for each of the areas listed above, and is therefore
approvable.
Enhanced I/M Performance Standard--40 CFR 51.351
The enhanced I/M program must be designed and implemented to meet
or exceed a minimum performance standard, which is expressed as
emission levels in area-wide average grams per mile (gpm) for certain
pollutants. The performance standard shall be established using local
characteristics, such as vehicle mix and local fuel controls, and the
following model I/M program parameters: network type, start date, test
frequency, model year coverage, vehicle type coverage, exhaust emission
test type, emission standards, emission control device, evaporative
system function checks, stringency, waiver rate, compliance rate and
evaluation date. The emission levels achieved by the state's program
design shall be calculated using the most current version, at the time
of submittal, of the USEPA mobile source emission factor model. At the
time of the Indiana submittal, the most current version was MOBILE5a.
Areas shall meet or exceed the performance standard for the pollutants
which cause them to be subject to I/M requirements. In the case of
ozone nonattainment areas, the performance standard must be met for
both nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
The Indiana submittal includes the following program design
parameters: centralized test only network; January 1, 1996 start date;
biennial frequency; 1976 and newer model year coverage; Vehicle type
include LDGV, LDGT1, LDGT2 up to 9,000 pounds; IM240 for 1981 and newer
vehicles, and Idle for 1976 through 1980 vehicles; four element visual
inspection; purge test on 1981 and newer vehicles; pressure test on
1976 and newer vehicles; stringency rate will be 20 percent for 1980
and older vehicles; waiver rate will be 3 percent and a 95 percent
compliance rate for Clark and Floyd Counties and 96 percent compliance
rate for Lake and Porter Counties.
The Indiana program design parameters meet the Federal I/M
regulations and are approvable. The emission levels achieved by the
State, for each area, were modeled using MOBILE5a. The modeling
demonstration was performed correctly, using local characteristics
where available and it demonstrated that the program design will meet
the enhanced I/M performance standard, expressed in gpm, for VOCs and
NOX for each milestone and for the attainment deadline. The
modeling demonstration is approvable.
Network Type and Program Evaluation--40 CFR 51.353
The two Indiana ozone nonattainment areas required to implement an
I/M program will be implementing an enhanced I/M program. In both areas
a single contractor, Systems Control, Inc., will operate a test-only
centralized network for inspections and reinspection. All vehicles
included in the emission reduction demonstration will be tested by the
contractor in centralized I/M test facilities. The contract specifies
that the contractor is barred from involvement in motor vehicle-related
business with the exception of vehicle testing equipment fabrication
and sales. The Indiana I/M program plan calls for IDEM to institute an
ongoing evaluation of the enhanced I/M program consistent with USEPA
regulations to quantify the emissions reductions benefits of the
program to verify that it is meeting the requirements of the Act. The
evaluation will consist of monitoring the performance of IM240 on a
random, representative sample of at least 0.1 percent of the vehicles
subject to inspection and covering 1981 and later vehicles. Evaporative
system purge (1981 and newer vehicles) and pressure tests (1976 and
newer vehicles) will be performed on those vehicles subject to the test
requirements. The State's plan describes the manner in which the State
will perform the evaluation: using IDEM auditors, visiting each lane at
every station quarterly, choosing vehicles at random at different times
of the day, performing calibration checks, and ensuring the selected
vehicles represent the fleet mix in the test area. Data will be
collected as part of the regular data collection system for routine
testing. IDEM will submit biennial reports on the results of the
evaluations. The reports will assess whether the program is meeting the
emission reduction target. The State's submittal meets the network type
and program evaluation requirements in the Federal I/M rules.
Adequate Tools and Resources--40 CFR 51.354
The Federal regulation requires states to demonstrate that adequate
funding of the program is available. Reliance on funding from a state
or local General Fund is not acceptable unless doing otherwise would be
a violation of the State's Constitution. The SIP shall include a budget
plan which describes the source of funds for personnel, program
administration, program enforcement, and purchase of equipment. The SIP
shall also detail the number of personnel dedicated to the quality
assurance program, data analysis, program administration, enforcement,
public education and assistance and other necessary functions. Indiana
has entered into a contract for services with Systems Control, Inc. to
conduct enhanced I/M testing in Lake, Porter, Clark, and Floyd
Counties. This contract has a ten-year duration. During the first two
years of the program, Indiana intends to use $6.8 million in Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality funds and $4.2 million in State funds to
operate the program. The submittal demonstrates that sufficient funds,
equipment and personnel have been appropriated to meet program
operation requirements. The State's submittal meets the adequate tools
and resources requirements set forth in the Federal I/M regulations.
Test Frequency and Convenience--40 CFR 51.355
The enhanced I/M performance standard assumes an annual test
frequency; however, other schedules may be approved if the performance
[[Page 11145]]
standard is achieved. The SIP shall describe the test year selection
scheme and shall include the legal authority, regulations, or contract
provisions necessary to implement and enforce the test frequency
requirement. The program shall be designed to provide convenient
service to motorists by ensuring short waiting times, short driving
distances and regular testing hours. The Indiana enhanced I/M
regulation provides for a biennial test frequency for all subject
vehicles. New vehicles are exempt from testing the first year. Based on
the performance standard modeling provided by the State, the enhanced
I/M program meets the performance standard accounting for biennial test
frequency. For re-registration the vehicles are placed back into the
testing cycle according to their vehicle identification number (VIN).
In Indiana's biennial program if the last three digits of the VIN are
from 000 to 495, or if the VIN contains any letters in place of the
last three digits, such vehicles will be tested in even-numbered
calendar years. If the last three digits of the VIN are from 496 to
999, such vehicles will be tested in odd-numbered calendar years. Used
vehicles that are not currently registered in the four subject counties
must be tested and receive a valid emission test certificate prior to
registration in the subject counties. The State plan specifies that
test facilities are located such that eighty (80) percent of all
motorists in urban areas do not have to drive more than five (5) miles
to a test facility, and ninety-six (96) percent in urban areas will not
have to drive more than twelve (12) miles. The I/M contract specifies
at least fifty-four (54) hours of operation of a test facility per
week. These provisions are approvable.
Vehicle Coverage--40 CFR 51.356
The performance standard for enhanced I/M programs assumes coverage
of all 1968 and newer model year light duty vehicles and light duty
trucks up to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), and
includes vehicles operating on all fuel types. Other levels of coverage
may be approved if the necessary emission reductions are achieved. The
Indiana I/M program requires coverage of all 1976 and newer gasoline
powered light duty passenger cars, light duty trucks up to 9,000 pounds
GVWR. The Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (IBMV) data available on the
current fleet does not include vehicles owned by the U.S. General
Services Administration or the U.S. Post Office. These government
vehicles are required to be tested but are not currently part of the
State data base. IDEM is working with these organizations to establish
a testing routine and schedule for these vehicles, which are not
presently licensed by the IBMV. The Indiana program exempts vehicles
older than model year 1976, motor cycles, vehicles over 10,000 pounds,
and diesel-fueled vehicles, electric vehicles, farm vehicles, and
recreational vehicles. USEPA agrees with the State that these vehicles
do not make up a significant portion of the total motor vehicle fleet
in the tested area and most are not included in the modeling for the
performance standard. Additional information and other statistical
information regarding the fleet, required to manage the program, will
become available following the first test cycle. This section is
approvable.
Test Procedures and Standards--40 CFR 51.357
Written test procedures and pass/fail standards are required to be
established and followed for each model year and vehicle type included
in the program. Federal test procedures and standards are found in 40
CFR 51.357 and in the draft USEPA document entitled ``High-Tech I/M
Test Procedures, Equipment Standards, Quality Control Requirements, and
Equipment Specifications'', EPA-AA-EPSD-IM-93-1, finalized in April
1994. IDEM has the authority to establish test procedures according to
the needs of the program. The Indiana submission requires the
contractor to develop and maintain written up-to-date procedures which
correspond to the USEPA recommended test procedures. All applicable
1981 and newer vehicles will be subject to an IM240 test that includes
the purge and pressure test. All applicable 1976 through 1980 vehicles
will be subject to a BAR90 single-speed idle test that includes the
pressure test. The IM240 test will include a fast-pass algorithm. All
vehicles will be tested in an as-received condition and vehicle owners
will have an opportunity to view the test from an area at the test site
that affords an unobstructed view. Each vehicle will be inspected prior
to the emissions test and rejected from testing if any unsafe condition
exists or if the exhaust is leaking or missing. In the event of an
emission failure of any kind, all components are retested after
repairs. These provisions are approvable.
Test Equipment--40 CFR 51.358
The Federal regulation requires computerized test systems for
performing any measurement on subject vehicles. IDEM lists the details
of the technical specification of the test equipment in the Indiana
SIP, and makes reference to the requirements of the Federal regulations
and the technical guidance document. Computerized test systems are
required for performing any measurements on subject vehicles. According
to the requirements in the SIP, these systems must conform to Federal
requirements. Each of the State's test lanes shall be equipped with a
dynamometer, constant volume sampler, non-dispersive infrared analyzers
to measure carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and hydrocarbons, and an
analyzer for measuring NOx, and pressure and purge test equipment.
All of this equipment must pass an acceptance test before it is
approved by the State. All test systems will be linked by a real-time
data link in order to prevent unauthorized multiple initial tests on
the same vehicle in the same test cycle. These provisions are
approvable.
Quality Control--40 CFR 51.359
Quality control measures shall ensure that emission measurement
equipment are calibrated and maintained properly, and that inspection,
calibration records, and control charts are accurately created,
recorded and maintained. IDEM prepared the I/M contract to require the
contractor to develop and implement a quality assurance/quality control
plan which complies with 40 CFR 51.359. The Indiana SIP states that the
contractor's quality control procedures shall ensure that emission
measurement equipment are properly calibrated and maintained. Analyzers
will automatically record quality control check information, lockouts,
attempted tampering, and any other recordable circumstances that impact
quality control. These provisions are approvable.
Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection--40 CFR 51.360
The I/M program allows the issuance of a waiver, which is a form of
compliance with the program requirements, that allows a motorist to
comply without meeting the applicable test standards, as long as the
prescribed criteria are met. The State program plan contains elements
in this section which generally follow the waiver issuance criteria
listed in the Federal I/M regulation. In modeling the emission
reduction benefits, Indiana used MOBILE5a and assumed a maximum waiver
rate of 3 percent for 1980 and older model year vehicles and 3 percent
for 1981 and newer vehicles. In the event the actual waiver rate
exceeds the planned maximum used for estimating the emission reduction
benefit, the State will remodel to assess the emission
[[Page 11146]]
reduction benefits based on the actual waiver rate. The Indiana I/M
rule provides the authority to issue waivers, set and adjust cost
limits, and administer the waiver system. Following a test failure, the
subsequent reinspection must show that the minimum waiver limit amount
has been spent on emission related repairs. A vehicle is eligible for a
waiver when proof is provided that the vehicle has received all repairs
and adjustments for which it is eligible under any emissions
performance warranty. The costs associated with repair of any tampering
is not considered valid toward a waiver. When proof is provided to the
inspection station manager that appropriate repairs have been performed
on the vehicle, such vehicle will be eligible for a waiver. The
inspection station manager is responsible for verifying repairs and
reviewing repair receipts. The station managers are authorized to
determine waiver eligibility. Waivers are valid for one (1) year and
are not renewable. The minimum expenditure made on emission repairs in
Clark and Floyd Counties is seventy-five ($75) dollars for 1980 and
older vehicles and two-hundred ($200) dollars for 1981 and newer. While
the Clean Air Act requires a minimum waiver repair expenditure for
enhanced I/M programs of $450, basic areas such as the Clark and Floyd
county areas which are opting up to enhanced I/M do not have to meet
this requirement. In order to qualify for a waiver in the Lake and
Porter Counties, motorists with 1981 model year or newer vehicles shall
spend at least three hundred dollars in repairs between January 1,
1996, and December 31, 1998; and at least four hundred fifty dollars in
repairs on or after January 1, 1999. Beginning in January 1, 2000, IDEM
shall adjust the four hundred fifty dollar minimum expenditure in
January of each year by the percentage, if any, by which the Consumer
Price Index (CPI) for the preceding calendar year differs from the CPI
for 1989. Motorists in Lake and Porter County with 1980 model year or
older vehicles shall expend at least seventy-five dollars in repairs.
The State allows exemptions to the inspection requirement and
extensions if a vehicle is undergoing extensive repair at the time of
its registration or registration renewal. The requirements for an
extension or exemption are sufficient to allow the State full
understanding of the need by the consumer for the extension or
exemption, and places a burden on the consumer to prove to the State
that such an extension or exemption is needed. The Federal I/M rules
also allow the use of compliance via diagnostic inspection following
repairs after a test failure. The State of Indiana has chosen to allow
compliance via diagnostic repair. These provisions are approvable.
Motorist Compliance Enforcement--40 CFR 51.361
The Federal regulations require the use of registration denial to
ensure compliance with the requirements of the I/M program. IDEM, along
with the IBMV, will continue to implement a registration denial
enforcement program. Vehicle owners who do not renew vehicle
registrations, and continue to drive an unregistered vehicle in the
State, will be subject to enforcement action by any law enforcement
officer in the State. Local governments are responsible for
establishing policies for the mandatory fines of all traffic violations
including failing to comply with registration requirements. Owners of
all vehicles registered in the State are required to affix stickers to
the upper portion of the license plate. These stickers identify the
month and year of the registration renewal date. If an owner or driver
fails to comply with I/M or registration requirements, he or she will
be unable to legally drive that automobile and will be subject to
enforcement action. In the I/M SIP, Indiana commits to the level of
motorist enforcement necessary to ensure a compliance rate of no less
than 96 percent among subject vehicles in Lake and Porter Counties and
95 percent in Clark and Floyd counties. If it is determined as part of
the required program evaluation that the I/M program is not meeting the
compliance rate, Indiana commits to investigating the problem and
instituting changes to improve the compliance rates. These provisions
are approvable.
Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight--40 CFR 51.362
The Federal I/M regulation requires that the enforcement program
shall be audited regularly and shall follow effective program
management practices, including adjustments to improve operation when
necessary. The SIP shall include quality control and quality assurance
procedures to be used to insure the effective overall performance of
the enforcement system. An information management system shall be
established to characterize, evaluate and enforce the program. The
legal authority for the implementation of an I/M program is found in
Indiana Environmental Statutes IC 13-1-1 and 13-7-7. These statutes
provide the authority necessary to develop and implement the
enforcement program oversight element of the I/M program. Specific
operation of this aspect of the program is contained in 326 IAC 13-1.1-
3. Program oversight shall be accomplished by IDEM staff using two
oversight personal computers located at IDEM. The information base for
the enforcement program is assured through the use of trackable serial
numbers and test lane and inspector identifiers, such that responsible
personnel can be identified. Program software precludes any duplicate
initial inspections being conducted. Follow-up of exempt vehicles and
exemption-triggering registration changes will be done through periodic
program documentation audits. These provisions are approvable.
Quality Assurance--40 CFR 51.363
An ongoing quality assurance program shall be implemented to
discover, correct and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in the program.
The program shall include covert and overt performance audits of the
inspectors, audits of station and inspector records, equipment audits,
and formal training of all State I/M enforcement officials and
auditors. A description of the quality assurance program which includes
written procedure manuals on the above discussed items must be
submitted as part of the SIP.
Both 326 IAC 13-1.1-16 and the I/M contract with Systems Control,
Inc., include provisions necessary to develop and implement the quality
assurance element of the I/M program. Overt audits shall include a
check of document security; recordkeeping practices; licenses,
certificates and required display information; observation and written
evaluation of each inspector's ability to perform the test procedure;
and, a quality control evaluation of test equipment. Test records will
be reviewed electronically once a month by station to flag
statistically inconsistent or improbable results. The program shall
conduct yearly covert audits based upon the number of inspectors
participating in the program. Additional covert audits may be conducted
as necessary for suspected problem sites. Covert vehicles will be set
to fail various aspects of the inspection so as to reflect the full
range of technology and malfunction types based upon procedures
established for audits. These provisions are approvable.
Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors--40 CFR 51.364
The Federal I/M regulation requires the establishment of minimum
penalties for violations of program rules and
[[Page 11147]]
procedures which can be imposed against stations, contractors and
inspectors. Senate Enrolled Act No. 285 amended the Indiana
Administrative Code and gives IDEM authority to enter into a contract
to implement and maintain an inspection and maintenance program. This
contract allows the State to impose penalties when violations occur
that adversely affect the operation of the inspection network. The
contract lists a variety of rules infractions, which will be used for
violations discovered at an inspection facility as a result of overt
and covert audits conducted by IDEM staff. Penalties range from
monetary fines to termination of employment and breach of contract
depending on the violation. Under 326 IAC 13.1.1-15, in cases of
inspector incompetence, IDEM may suspend, revoke, or deny renewal of an
inspector's state certification. All warnings, fines, suspensions,
revocations, and notices of violation will be recorded as enforcement
activities. An Enforcement Activity Summary Report will be compiled and
submitted to USEPA annually. These provisions of the Indiana submittal
are approvable.
Data Collection--40 CFR 51.365
In order to manage, evaluate and enforce the program requirements,
an effective I/M program requires accurate data collection. The Indiana
I/M program requires the contractor to design the program to include
all of the elements of data collection listed in the Federal rule and
326 IAC 13-1.1-14. The contractor is also required to conduct quality
control checks and report data from those checks. This section of the
Indiana submittal is approvable.
Reporting--40 CFR 51.366
Data analysis and reporting are required in order to monitor and
evaluate the program by the State and the USEPA. The Federal rule
requires annual reports submitted to the USEPA following a performance
period by a specific time. The Indiana I/M program requires the
contractor to provide the information to the State in order to meet the
submittal requirements of the Federal rule. Beginning July 1, 1997, and
annually thereafter, the State of Indiana shall report summary data
based upon program activities taking place from January through
December of the previous year. This report will provide statistics for
the testing program, the quality control program, the quality assurance
program, and the enforcement program. In the I/M SIP, the State commits
to address any appropriate data elements listed in 40 CFR 51.366.
Beginning July 1, 1999, and biennially thereafter, Indiana will report
on all changes made in the program design, funding, personnel levels,
procedures, regulations, and legal authority, and will outline the
impact of such changes upon the program. The report will also discuss
any weakness or problems discovered in the program over the previous
two-year period, as well as the steps that were taken to address those
problems, the result of those corrective actions, and any future
efforts planned. These provisions of the Indiana submittal are
approvable.
Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification--40 CFR 51.367
The Federal I/M regulation requires all inspectors to be formally
trained and licensed or certified to conduct inspections. The Indiana
I/M regulation (326 IAC 13-1.1-15) requires all inspectors to receive
formal training, be certified, and renew their certification at least
every two years. In order to be licenced by the State, an inspector
shall be required to pass an examination developed by the State in
conjunction with the contractor, which shall include both written and
practicum sections. Curricula shall include, but will not be limited
to, the following: emission testing program orientation, State
policies, vehicle emissions and standards, inspection and facility
operations procedures, customer service, and complaint handling. This
provision meets the Federal I/M regulation requirements for inspector
training and certification and is approvable.
Public Information and Consumer Protection--40 CFR 51.368
The Federal I/M regulation requires the SIP to include a public
information and consumer protection program. IDEM assigned some public
awareness efforts to the contractor with state oversight. These efforts
include the operation of a hot-line to be used by the public for (but
not limited to) general information, inquiries on inspection facility
hours, queuing times and, complaints. In addition, the contractor will
develop and distribute general information brochures on the emission
testing program to the public in the program area. Brochures will
include discussions of potential fuel savings, tampering, fuel
switching and vehicle warranties. The contractor will also work with
the Indiana Vocational Technical College (Ivy Tech) public relations
personnel in order to provide a smooth transition of the I/M inspection
program during the period where Ivy Tech's involvement is phased out
and the contractor becomes involved. The public information and
consumer protection programs contained in the SIP submittal meets the
Federal regulations and are approvable.
Improving Repair Effectiveness--40 CFR 51.369
Effective repairs are the key to achieving program goals. The
Federal regulation requires States to take steps to ensure that the
capability exists in the repair industry to repair vehicles. The SIP
must include a description of the technical assistance program to be
implemented, a description of the procedures and criteria to be used in
meeting the performance monitoring requirements required in the Federal
regulation and, a description of the repair technician training
resources available in the community. Systems Control, Inc., will be
responsible for assisting repair facilities and technicians. A
technician hotline service will be provided by ASPIRE. This service is
a user friendly, diagnostic service for repair mechanics which will be
accessed by dialing a 1-900 phone number which has a cost to the
caller. The Indiana program will monitor the performance of individual
motor vehicle repair facilities, so the consumer has a choice of
locations to seek repairs. The repair statistics also will be available
to the repair facilities. The repair effectiveness program described in
the SIP submission meets the Federal regulation and is approvable.
Compliance with Recall Notices--40 CFR 51.370
States are required to establish a method to ensure that vehicles
subject to enhanced I/M and that are included in either a voluntary
emissions recall as defined at 40 CFR 85.1902(d), or in a remedial plan
determination made pursuant to section 207(c) of the Act, receive the
required repairs. IDEM, at the time of submittal, did not have a
specific plan developed but included provisions in its Request-for-
Proposal (RFP) for the contractor to follow to ensure subject vehicles
receive all required recall repairs. Emissions tests will not be
conducted on a vehicle that has an unresolved recall notice until all
of the work is done. Vehicles with unresolved recall work will be
identified as noncomplying by the contractor's system. An owner is
required to provide proof that the repairs have been performed before a
test is allowed. The contractor shall have the ability to resolve
situations where the repairs have been performed
[[Page 11148]]
but the database has not yet been updated. The State rule 326 IAC 13-
1.1-11 requires documented proof that the repairs have been performed.
The cost of these repairs are not counted toward the amount needed for
a waiver. Unresolved recall reports from the contractor to the State
are required on an annual basis. The State requires the contractor to
provide detailed information in the annual report sufficient for the
State to inform the USEPA of the status of operations of the program.
These provisions meet the Federal regulations and are approvable.
On-Road Testing--40 CFR 51.371
On-road testing is required in enhanced I/M areas. The use of
either remote sensing devices (RSD) or roadside pullovers, including
tailpipe emission testing, can be used to meet the Federal regulations.
The program must include on-road testing of 0.5 percent of the subject
fleet or 20,000 vehicles, whichever is less, in the nonattainment area
or the I/M program area. Motorists that have passed an emission test
and are found to be high emitters as a result of a on-road test shall
be required to pass an out-of-cycle test. The Indiana I/M regulation
(326 IAC 13-1.1-12) requires on-road testing through the use of remote
sensing devices or roadside pullovers, including tailpipe emissions
testing. If a violation is detected the motorist shall be notified that
the vehicle is required to pass an out-of-cycle follow-up inspection at
a state facility. Penalty for noncompliance is suspension of the
motorist's vehicle registration. These provisions meet the Federal
regulations and are approvable.
State Implementation Plan Submissions--40 CFR 51.372-373
Indiana is currently in the process of implementing an enhanced I/M
program. The June 6, 1995 I/M SIP submittal and the September 28, 1995
additional documentation are fully approvable and contain all elements
meeting USEPA's I/M requirements. Such elements include: mobile
computer modeling which shows that the program meets the performance
standard, a description of the geographic area, a discussion of the
design elements included in the SIP, final copy of the legal authority,
regulation, final RFP, and a final, signed contract with Systems
Control, Inc. USEPA's review of the material indicates that the State
has adopted an enhanced I/M program in accordance with the requirements
of the Act.
IV. Comments and Approval Procedure
The USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse public comments. However, in a separate document in this
Federal Register publication, the USEPA is proposing to approve the SIP
revision should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will
be effective on May 20, 1996 unless, by April 18, 1996, adverse or
critical comments are received. If USEPA receives such comments, this
action will be withdrawn before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be discussed in a subsequent final rule
based on the separate proposed rule. The USEPA will not institute a
second comment period for this action. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time. If no such
comments are received, the public is advised that this action will be
effective on May 20, 1996.
Final Action
USEPA is approving this revision to the Indiana SIP for an enhanced
I/M program. The Agency has reviewed this request for revision of the
Federally-approved SIP for conformance with the provisions of the 1990
Amendments enacted on November 15, 1990. The Agency has determined that
this action conforms with those requirements. Under section 307(b)(1)
of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed In the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by May 20, 1996. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607
(b)(2).) The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule
from the requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 12866.
Precedental Effect
Nothing in this action shall be construed as permitting or allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for a revision to
any State implementation plan. Each request for revision to the State
implementation plan shall be considered separately in light of specific
technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to
relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000. SIP approvals under 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the CAA do
not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that
the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under the Act,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Act forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2) and 7410(k)(3).
Unfunded Mandates
Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22,
1995, USEPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed
or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to
State, or tribal governments in the aggregate. USEPA's final action
does not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate, as defined in
section 101 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, upon the State. To the extent
that the rules being approved by this action will impose any mandate
upon the State, local, or tribal governments, or upon the private
sector, EPA's action will impose no new requirements; such sources are
already subject to these regulations under State law.
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action. For
these reasons, USEPA has determined that this final action does
[[Page 11149]]
not include a mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and record-
keeping requirements.
Dated: January 26, 1996.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42. U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart P--Indiana
2. Section 52.770, is amended by adding paragraph (c)(102) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.770 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
( c) * * *
(102) On June 6, 1995, and on September 28, 1995 the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management submitted State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revisions establishing an enhanced inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program in accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act as amended in 1990. The new enhanced I/M program replaces
the basic I/M programs in operation in Lake, Porter, Clark, and Floyd
Counties. The Air Pollution Control Board adopted new rule 326 IAC 13-
1.1 and repealed existing 326 IAC 13-1, thereby putting in place a
revised I/M program.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) 326 Indiana Administrative Code 13-1.1 adopted April 5, 1995,
effective October 1, 1995.
(ii) Other material.
(A) June 6, 1995 letter and enclosures from the Indiana Department
of Environmental Management (IDEM) Commissioner to the Regional
Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) submitting Indiana's revision to the ozone State Implementation
Plan (SIP).
(B) September 28, 1995 letter and enclosures from the IDEM
Assistant Commissioner to the Regional Administrator of USEPA
submitting supplemental vehicle inspection and maintenance SIP revision
information and documentation.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-6466 Filed 3-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6464 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Interim Final Determination that the Richmond, Virginia Ozone Nonattainment Area is Exempt From NOINFX RACT Requirements for Purposes of Staying Sanctions
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11162-11163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6464]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[VA 0054-5006b; FRL-5441-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Interim Final Determination that the Richmond, Virginia Ozone
Nonattainment Area is Exempt From NOX RACT Requirements for
Purposes of Staying Sanctions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Interim final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA has published a
notice of proposed rulemaking proposing approval of the Commonwealth of
Virginia's petition to exempt the Richmond ozone nonattainment area
from the nitrogen oxides (NOX) reasonably available control
technology (RACT) requirement under section 182(f) of the Clean Air Act
(Act). Based on the proposed approval, EPA is making an interim final
determination by this action that, with respect to the NOX RACT
requirement, the State, contingent upon continued monitoring of
attainment of the ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS),
has corrected the deficiency which was the basis for the sanctions
clock . This action will stay the application of the offset sanction
which was imposed January 8, 1996 and, if final action is not taken by
July 8, 1996, defer the application of the highway sanction. Although
this action is effective upon publication, EPA will take comment on
this interim final determination as well as EPA's proposed approval of
the State's submittal. EPA will publish a final action taking into
consideration any comments received on EPA's proposed action and this
interim final action.
Effective date. March 19, 1996.
Comment date. Comments must be received by April 18, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Marcia L. Spink, Associate
Director, Air Programs, (3AT00), Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
U.S. EPA Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103. The state submittal and EPA's analysis for that submittal, which
are the basis for this action, are available for public review at the
above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher H. Cripps, (215) 597-0545,
at the EPA Region III address
above or via e-mail at [email protected]. While
information may be requested via e-mail, comments must be submitted in
writing to the EPA Region III address above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On July 8, 1994, EPA sent a letter to the Governor of Virginia
stating that, under section 179 of the Act, EPA made a finding that
Virginia failed to submit a state implementation plan (SIP) revision
for NOX RACT. This finding commenced the sanctions process
outlined by section 179. The two to one (2:1) offset sanction has been
in effect in the Richmond ozone nonattainment area as of January 8,
1996 as a result of the July 8, 1994 finding of failure to submit. On
December 18, 1995, the Director of the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VA DEQ) submitted on behalf of the Commonwealth
of Virginia a petition pursuant to section 182(f) of the Act to exempt
the Richmond moderate ozone nonattainment area from the NOX RACT
requirement. The petition is based upon ambient air monitoring data for
1993, 1994 and 1995 ozone seasons which shows that the Richmond ozone
nonattainment area is meeting the ozone NAAQS. This petition could not
be submitted until the monitoring data for the entire 1995 ozone season
was quality assured under the procedures of 40 CFR Part 58 and recorded
in the EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). In the
Proposed Rules
[[Page 11163]]
section of today's Federal Register, EPA has proposed approval of this
petition contingent upon continued monitoring of attainment of the
ozone NAAQS in the Richmond ozone nonattainment area.
II. EPA Action
Based on the proposed approval set forth in today's Federal
Register, EPA believes that it is more likely than not that the State
is eligible for an exemption from the NOX RACT requirement, under
section 182(f) and, therefore, is no longer subject to the requirement
for which the July 8, 1994 finding of failure to submit was issued.
Therefore, EPA is making this interim final determination finding that
the State, contingent on continued monitored attainment of the ozone
NAAQS, has corrected the deficiency of failing to submit NOX RACT
rules. This action shall be effective on publication pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(1). This action does not stop the sanction clock that
started under section 179 for this area on July 8, 1994. However, this
action will stay the application of the offset sanction and, if
necessary, will defer the application of the highway sanction. See 59
FR 39832 (August 4, 1994) to be codified at 40 CFR 52.31. If EPA's
final action fully approves the December 18, 1995 exemption petition,
such action will stay and defer sanctions for the duration of the
exemption.
Today EPA is also providing the public with an opportunity to
comment on this interim final determination. If, based on any comments
on this action and any comments on EPA's proposed approval of the
NOX waiver petition, EPA determines that the petition is not
approvable and this final action is inappropriate, EPA will take
further action to disapprove the petition and to find that the Richmond
ozone nonattainment area is not eligible for an exemption from NOX
RACT. If EPA's proposed approval of the NOX exemption petition is
reversed, then sanctions would be applied or re-applied at the time of
a final action disapproving the NOX exemption petition (or, if
action is re-proposed, at the time of the proposed disapproval).
Regardless of EPA's final action on the NOX exemption petition,
the July 8, 1994 finding of failure to submit still may be corrected by
submittal of a NOX RACT SIP for the Richmond ozone nonattainment
area that meets the completeness criteria of section 110(k). See 59 FR
39832 (August 4, 1994). A finding of completeness for such a submittal
would stop the sanctions clock.
III. Administrative Requirements
Because EPA has preliminarily determined that the December 18, 1995
petition under section 182(f) is approvable, relief from sanctions
should be provided as quickly as possible. Therefore, EPA is invoking
the good cause exception under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
in not providing an opportunity for comment before this action takes
effect.1 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The EPA believes that notice-and-
comment rulemaking before the effective date of this action is
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The EPA has reviewed
the December 18, 1995 NOX exemption petition and, through its
proposed action, is indicating that it is more likely than not that the
State, contingent upon continued monitored attainment of the ozone
NAAQS, has corrected the deficiency of failing to submit a NOX
RACT SIP. Therefore, it is not in the public interest to initially
apply sanctions or to keep applied sanctions in place when the State
has most likely done all that it can to correct the deficiency that
triggered the sanctions clock. Moreover, it would be impracticable to
go through notice-and-comment rulemaking on a finding that the State
has corrected the deficiency prior to the rulemaking approving the
December 18, 1995 NOX exemption petition. Therefore, EPA believes
that it is necessary to use the interim final rulemaking process to
stay or defer sanctions while EPA completes its rulemaking process on
the approvability of the petition. In addition, EPA is invoking the
good cause exception to the 30-day notice requirement of the APA
because the purpose of this document is to relieve a restriction. See 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
\1\ As previously noted, however, by this action EPA is
providing the public with a chance to comment on EPA's determination
after the effective date and EPA will consider any comments received
in determining whether to reverse such action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from
review under Executive Order 12866.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000.
This action, pertaining to the interim final determination of the
Commonwealth of Virginia's December 18, 1995 petition for an exemption
from NOX RACT under section 182(f), temporarily relieves sources
of an additional burden potentially placed on them by the sanction
provisions of the Act. Therefore, I certify that it does not have an
impact on any small entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: March 7, 1996.
Stanley L. Laskowski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 96-6464 Filed 3-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6421 Airworthiness Directives; The Enstrom Helicopter Corporation Model F-28, F-28A, F-28C, F-28C-2, F-28F, 280, 280C, 280F, and 280FX Helicopters
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11129-11131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6421]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11130]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 93-SW-27-AD; Amendment 39-9540; AD 96-06-03]
Airworthiness Directives; The Enstrom Helicopter Corporation
Model F-28, F-28A, F-28C, F-28C-2, F-28F, 280, 280C, 280F, and 280FX
Helicopters
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), applicable to The Enstrom Helicopter Corporation (Enstrom) Model
F-28, F-28A, F-28C, F-28C-2, F-28F, 280, 280C, 280F, and 280FX
helicopters, that currently requires initial and repetitive inspections
of a certain main rotor transmission clutch assembly (clutch assembly)
for bearing roughness, noise, lock-up, or improper oil level and, if
necessary, replacement of the clutch assembly. The existing AD also
requires replacement of the clutch assembly at certain time-in-service
intervals. This amendment requires the same inspections and
replacements as required by the existing AD, but would provide for
installation of an additional approved replacement part number and
provide a reference to three additional manufacturer service documents.
This amendment is prompted by the approval of an additional replacement
clutch assembly; the manufacturer's issuance of additional service
information, and the need to correct a service information letter's
number. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent
failure of the clutch assembly, loss of control of the main rotor
system, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 23, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from The Enstrom Helicopter Corporation, Twin County Airport,
P.O. Box 490, Menominee, Michigan 49858. This information may be
examined at the FAA, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel. 2601
Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Joe McGarvey, Aerospace Engineer,
Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, Airframe Branch, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Room 232, Des Plaines,
Illinois 60018, telephone (847) 294-7136, fax (847) 294-7834.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 89-04-09,
Amendment 39-6138 (54 FR 6391, February 10, 1989), which is applicable
to Enstrom Model F-28, F-28A, F-28C, F-28C-2, F-28F, 280, 280C, 280F,
and 280FX helicopters, was published in the Federal Register on
September 13, 1994 (59 FR 46944). That action proposed to require
initial and repetitive inspections of certain clutch assemblies for
bearing roughness, noise, lock-up, or improper oil levels and, if
necessary, immediate replacement of the clutch assembly. Owner/operator
checks were proposed after engine start and rotor engagement to verify
proper operation of the clutch assembly, and after each engine
shutdown, while the main rotor is still turning down, to check for
abnormal noise (such as a clicking or racheting sound) from the upper
pulley that houses the clutch assembly. Those proposed owner/operator
checks do not require the use of tools, precision measuring equipment,
training, pilot logbook endorsements, or the use of technical data not
contained in the AD. Additionally, those owner/operator checks are
considered part of the normal pilot ``Before Takeoff'' and ``After
Landing'' checks and were allowed by the existing AD. Those owner/
operator checks are additional measures to ensure, between 25 hours TIS
inspections, that sufficient lubricants are maintained in the clutch
assembly and not lost through a leaking seal. Those checks may be
performed by an owner/operator holding at least a private pilot
certificate and must be entered into the aircraft records showing
compliance with this AD in accordance with sections 43.11 and
91.417(a)(2)(v) of the Federal Aviation Regulations. The action also
proposed to require replacement of the clutch assembly at certain TIS
intervals.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the
proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA
has determined that air safety and the public interest require the
adoption of the rule as proposed, except for editorial changes revising
paragraph (a)(3) of the AD to clarify the aircraft records entries, and
adding explanatory Note 1, relating to the scope of the applicability
statement when modifications, alterations, or repairs have been made in
the area subject to the requirements of the AD. Additionally, the FAA
has revised the proposed estimated average labor rate from $55 per work
hour to an estimated average labor rate of $60 per work hour in the
preamble portion of this final rule. This revision will increase the
estimated total cost impact of the AD from $471,420 to $473,040 if only
overhauled clutch assemblies are installed, and from $1,718,820 to
$1,720,440 if only zero-time clutch assemblies are used. The FAA has
determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden
on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
The FAA estimates that 162 helicopters of U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2 work hours per
helicopter to accomplish the required actions, and that the average
labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately
$2,800 to overhaul or $10,500 for a zero-time clutch assembly per
helicopter. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on
U.S. operators is estimated to be from $473,040 if only overhauled
clutch assemblies are installed, to $1,720,440 if only zero-time clutch
assemblies are installed.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it 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, 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
[[Page 11131]]
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 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing Amendment 39-6138 (54 FR
6391, February 10, 1989), and by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD), Amendment 39-9540, to read as follows:
AD 96-06-03 The Enstrom Helicopter Corporation: Amendment 39-9540.
Docket No. 93-SW-27-AD. Supersedes AD 89-04-09, Amendment 39-6138.
Applicability: Model F-28, F-28A, F-28C, F-28C-2, F-28F, 280,
280C, 280F, and 280FX helicopters, certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each helicopter 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 helicopters 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 (e) to request approval from the 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 helicopter from the applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent failure of the main rotor transmission clutch
assembly (clutch assembly), loss of control of the main rotor
system, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter accomplish
the following:
(a) For Model F-28, F-28A, F-28C, F-28C-2, 280, and 280C
helicopters, with clutch assembly part number (P/N) 28-13401-1
(Formsprag CL 40526-1 through -7) installed, perform the following:
(1) Before the first flight of each day, before takeoff, gently
close the throttle, splitting the tachometer needles to verify
proper operation of the clutch assembly. If the tachometer needles
do not split, before further flight, inspect the clutch assembly in
accordance with paragraph (a)(4).
(2) At the conclusion of the last flight of each day, after
engine shutdown, while the main rotor is still running down, listen
for any abnormal noise (such as a clicking or racheting sound) from
the area of the upper pulley that houses the clutch assembly. If any
abnormal noise is heard from the clutch assembly, inspect the clutch
assembly in accordance with paragraph (a)(4).
(3) The operational checks required by paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) may be performed by an owner/operator holding at least a
private pilot certificate and must be entered into the aircraft
records showing compliance with paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this
AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.11 and 91.417(a)(2)(v).
(4) If any irregularities are noted while performing the
procedures required by paragraph (1) or (2), inspect the clutch
assembly to determine if it is locked-up, or if the upper pulley
will rotate. Rotate it in both directions while feeling for any
bearing roughness and listening for any bearing noise. The upper
pulley should free-wheel if rotated in a clockwise direction and
engage if rotated in a counterclockwise direction.
(5) Within the next 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this airworthiness directive (AD), make an entry
in the aircraft log book documenting the clutch assembly part
number, the number of hours TIS, and the date.
(6) Within the next 25 hours TIS after the effective date of
this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS,
inspect the clutch assembly for proper oil level in accordance with
the appropriate maintenance manual. If there has been less than a
complete loss of oil, replenish the oil and service the clutch
assembly in accordance with the applicable maintenance manual.
Note 2: The Enstrom Helicopter Corporation (Enstrom) Service
Information Letter No. 0079A, dated February 14, 1980, provides
specific information regarding clutch lubrication.
(7) If there has been a complete oil loss, or lock-up, noise, or
roughness are detected from the clutch assembly as a result of the
inspections required by paragraphs (a) (4) or (a) (6) of this AD,
before further flight, replace the clutch assembly, P/N 28-13401-1
(Formsprag CL 40526-1 through -7), with an airworthy clutch
assembly, P/N 28-13401-2 (Formsprag CL 40526-8) or P/N 28-13401-4
(Formsprag CL 40526-10).
(8) For a clutch assembly, P/N 28-13401-1 (Formsprag CL 40526-1
through -7), that has 1,175 or more hours TIS on the effective date
of this AD, within the next 25 hours TIS, replace the clutch
assembly with an airworthy clutch assembly, P/N 28-13401-2
(Formsprag CL 40526-8) or P/N 28-13401-4 (Formsprag CL 40526-10).
(9) For a clutch assembly, P/N 28-13401-1 (Formsprag CL 40526-1
through-7), that has less than 1,175 hours TIS on the effective date
of this AD, replace the clutch assembly with an airworthy clutch
assembly, P/N 28-13401-2 (Formsprag CL 40526-8) or P/N 28-13401-4
(Formsprag CL 40526-10), prior to the clutch assembly accumulating
1,200 hours TIS.
Note 3: The clutch service information published in The Enstrom
Helicopter Corporation (Enstrom) Service Note No. 0027, dated
December 9, 1975; Enstrom Service Information Letter No. 0084, dated
December 19, 1978; Enstrom Service Information Letter No. 0079A,
dated February 14, 1980; Service Information Letter No. 0088,
Revision A, dated August 6, 1980, Enstrom Service Directive Bulletin
No. 0068, Revision A, dated July 9, 1990; and Enstrom Service
Directive Bulletin No. 0069, Revision A, dated July 9, 1990;
pertains to this AD.
(b) For Model F-28F, 280F, and 280FX helicopters, accomplish the
following:
(1) Within the next 25 hours TIS after the effective date of
this AD, determine the part number of the clutch assembly.
(2) If a clutch assembly, P/N 28-13401-1 (Formsprag CL 40526-1
through -7), is found, before further flight, replace it with an
airworthy clutch assembly, P/N 28-13401-2 (Formsprag CL 40526-8) or
P/N 28-13401-4 (Formsprag CL 40526-10). The clutch assembly, P/N 28-
13401-1 (Formsprag CL 40526-1 through -7), is not approved for use
on Enstrom Model F-28F, 280F, or 280FX helicopters.
(c) Installation of a clutch assembly, P/N 28-13401-2 (Formsprag
CL 40526-8) or P/N 28-13401-4 (Formsprag CL 40526-10), on Model F-
28, F-28A, F-28C, F-28C-2, F-28F, 280, 280C, 280F, and 280FX
helicopters constitutes a terminating action for the requirements of
this AD.
(d) This AD establishes a retirement life of 1,200 hours TIS for
the clutch assembly, P/N 28-13401-1 (Formsprag CL 40526-1 through -
7). However, for clutch assemblies with 1,175 or more hours TIS on
the effective date of this AD, those clutch assemblies need not be
retired until on or before the accumulation of an additional 25
hours TIS.
(e) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used when approved by the Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification
Office, FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an FAA
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may concur or comment and then
send it to the Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office.
Note 4: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Chicago Aircraft Certification Office.
(f) 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 helicopter to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(g) This amendment becomes effective on April 23, 1996.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 11, 1996.
Eric Bries,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 96-6421 Filed 3-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6395 Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Consolidation of Regulations Including Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements; Correction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11165-11166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6395]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 675
[Docket No. 950727194-6005-02; I.D. 062795C]
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Groundfish Fishery of the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Consolidation of Regulations
Including Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements; Correction
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Correction to final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final regulations (I.D.
062795C) which were published Tuesday, February 13, 1996 (61 FR 5608).
The regulations related to recordkeeping and reporting information for
groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 19, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patsy Bearden, 907-586-7228.
[[Page 11166]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The final regulations that are the subject of this correction
consolidated several sections of regulations in parts 672 and 675,
corrected errors, clarified vague text, removed outdated requirements,
as well as simplified and streamlined the remaining regulations,
including the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Need for Correction
As published, the final regulations contain a change that should
not have been.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the publication on February 13, 1996, of the final
regulations (I.D. 062795C), which was the subject of FR Doc. 96-2574,
is corrected as follows:
On page 5642, in the first column, in Sec. 675.7, paragraph (m) is
corrected to read as follows:
Sec. 675.7 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(m) With respect to halibut caught with hook-and-line gear deployed
from a vessel fishing for groundfish, except for vessels fishing for
Pacific halibut in accordance with part 301 of this title--
(1) Fail to release the halibut outboard a vessel's rails;
(2) Release the halibut by any method other than;
(i) Cutting the gangion;
(ii) Positioning the gaff on the hook and twisting the hook from
the halibut; or
(iii) Straightening the hook by using the gaff to catch the bend of
the hook and bracing the gaff against the vessel or any gear attached
to the vessel;
(3) Puncture the halibut with a gaff or other device; or
(4) Allow the halibut to contact the vessel, if such contact
causes, or is capable of causing, the halibut to be stripped from the
hook.
* * * * *
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: March 12, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-6395 Filed 3-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6375 Signature Requirements for State Agency Medical and Psychological Consultants in Disability Determinations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11133-11136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6375]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
20 CFR Parts 404 and 416
[Regulations Nos. 4 and 16]
RIN 0960-AD88
Signature Requirements for State Agency Medical and Psychological
Consultants in Disability Determinations
AGENCY: Social Security Administration (SSA).
ACTION: Final rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are revising the requirements of the Social Security and
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) regulations regarding the
certifications required on the disability determination forms used by
State agencies to certify determinations of disability. Present
regulations require that, unless the disability determination is made
by a State agency disability hearing officer, disability determinations
made by a State agency will be made by a State agency medical or
psychological consultant and a State agency disability examiner. This
includes determinations made on technical, non-medical, rather than
medical, grounds. We are revising our rules to remove the requirement
that a medical or psychological consultant sign the disability
determination forms used by the State agency to certify each
determination, when there is no medical evidence to be evaluated. In
such cases, the disability examiner may make the determination alone.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry J. Short, Legal Assistant,
Division of Regulations and Rulings, Social Security Administration,
6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235, (410) 965-6243.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Social Security Act (the Act) provides, in title II, for the
payment of disability insurance benefits to individuals insured under
the Act. Title II also provides for the payment of child's insurance
benefits based on disability and widow's and widower's insurance
benefits for disabled widows, widowers, and surviving divorced spouses
of insured individuals. In addition, the Act provides, in title XVI,
for SSI payments to persons who are aged, blind, or disabled and who
have limited income and resources. For adults under both the title II
and title XVI programs and for persons claiming child's insurance
benefits based on disability under the title II program,
[[Page 11134]]
``disability'' means the inability to engage in any substantial gainful
activity by reason of any medically determinable impairment which has
lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less
than 12 months or result in death. For an individual under age 18
claiming SSI benefits based on disability, ``disability'' means that
the individual's impairment(s) is of comparable severity to one that
would disable an adult (i.e., the impairment(s) substantially reduces
the individual's ability to function independently, appropriately, and
effectively in an age-appropriate manner such that the individual's
impairment(s) and resulting limitations are comparable to those that
would disable an adult). The individual's impairment(s) must also meet
the statutory duration requirement.
Sections 221 and 1633(a) of the Act and Secs. 404.1503 and 416.903
of our regulations provide that State agencies make disability and
blindness determinations for the Commissioner of Social Security for
most persons living in the State. Sections 404.1615(c) and 416.1015(c)
of the regulations provide that disability determinations will be made
by either: (1) a State agency medical or psychological consultant and a
State agency disability examiner or (2) a State agency disability
hearing officer. In addition, a single decisionmaker may make the
determination of disability for purposes of the tests we are conducting
under the authority of the final rules we published on April 24, 1995,
``Testing Modifications to the Disability Determination Procedures,''
(60 FR 20023). (To be codified at 20 CFR 404.906 and 416.1406). These
final rules do not affect the procedures we are following for the
purposes of those tests.
Sections 404.1615(e) and 416.1015(f) of the regulations require the
State agency to certify each determination of disability to the Social
Security Administration (SSA) on forms provided by SSA. The term
``determination of disability'' is defined in Secs. 404.1602 and
416.1002 of the regulations to mean one or more of the following
decisions: whether or not a person is under a disability; the date a
person's disability began; or the date a person's disability ended.
When a disability determination is made jointly by a State agency
medical or psychological consultant and a State agency disability
examiner, the medical or psychological consultant is responsible for
the medical portion of the determination, and the disability examiner
is responsible for the remainder of the determination. Under our
current procedures for these cases, both the disability examiner and
the medical or psychological consultant must certify the determination
on forms which we provide as required in the regulations.
In some instances the requirement for the medical or psychological
consultant's certification is unnecessary because the determination is
made on technical, non-medical, grounds alone, without consideration of
any medical evidence. Many medical and psychological consultants who
work with the State agencies do so on a part-time basis and are not
always available to sign disability determination forms. This can
result in delays of cases that are otherwise complete because no
medical evaluation or expertise is necessary.
This happens, for example, when an individual who has no history of
medical treatment or examination--and, hence, no existing medical
records that we can obtain--refuses to attend a consultative
examination purchased at our expense. In such a case, the State agency
makes its determination on technical, non-medical, rather than medical,
grounds. It denies such a claim because, without the individual's
cooperation, the evidence needed to determine whether the individual is
disabled cannot be obtained. Nevertheless, our current rules require
that a medical or psychological consultant sign the standard disability
determination form in such a case, even though there is no medical
evidence and no medical findings that can be made.
Change Made by This Rule
We are addressing the above issue by revising Secs. 404.1615 and
416.1015 of the regulations to provide, in a new paragraph (c)(2), that
a State agency disability examiner alone may make the disability
determination when there is no medical evidence to be evaluated, such
as when there is no existing medical evidence and the individual
refuses to attend a consultative examination. We are redesignating
current paragraph (c)(2), which provides that a State agency disability
hearing officer may also make disability determinations, as paragraph
(c)(3).
Public Comments
On October 26, 1994, we published these revisions in a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (59 FR 53769). We
invited interested persons, organizations, and groups to submit their
comments on the NPRM within 60 days.
We received letters from four State agencies, three legal
advocates, and a vocational rehabilitation council. Five commenters
indicated support for the rule, two opposed it, and one provided
comments without indicating either support or opposition.
Comment: One commenter requested that we broaden the provision to
state that the medical or psychological consultant's signature is not
required on the disability determination form if the consultant has
furnished a written medical severity assessment.
Response: We are currently considering alternatives to our
procedures for documenting medical or psychological consultant
participation in the disability determination. In February 1994, we
provided temporary procedures for State agencies to document medical or
psychological consultant participation in certain cases with the
consultant's signature on a document other than the disability
determination form. We are also considering ways to expand this
procedure to other cases. We do not believe that a regulatory change
beyond the changes made by these final rules is appropriate at this
time.
Comment: Another commenter recommended that we broaden the
provision to include cases in which there is some medical evidence, but
the substantive conclusion of whether an individual is disabled appears
obvious. The commenter also suggested including cases involving only
medical evidence from outside the period at issue in the case, and
cases that include some medical evidence but are still denied based on
failure to attend a consultative examination.
Response: This kind of expansion would not be consistent with the
scope or intent of this rule. We believe that the presence of medical
evidence in connection with a claim for benefits is sufficient reason
to require the special expertise of a medical or psychological
consultant, even if the outcome seems ``obvious'' or the evidence seems
immaterial to a lay person. Therefore, we did not make these changes.
Comment: Three commenters expressed concern about the scope and
meaning of the proposed provisions. All three were concerned that cases
with insufficient medical evidence will be denied on a technical basis;
i.e., without the participation of a medical or psychological
consultant. Two of these commenters requested clarification of the
phrase ``no medical evidence.'' Two stated that existing regulations
(Secs. 404.1516, 404.1518, 416.916, and 416.918) require a medical
evaluation of the case when an individual fails or refuses to attend a
consultative examination. They said that the decision should,
therefore, be made
[[Page 11135]]
with the participation of a medical or psychological consultant.
Response: We have changed the proposed rules to clarify what we
mean by ``no medical evidence.'' The final rules do not apply if the
file contains some medical evidence, even if such evidence is
insufficient to make a determination or contains no findings to support
a determination that the claimant is disabled. In such a case, the
medical or psychological consultant and disability examiner must make
the determination as a team.
We disagree with the commenters who stated that existing
regulations require a medical evaluation of the case when an individual
fails or refuses to attend a consultative examination. Our current
regulations (Secs. 404.1518 and 416.918) state only that if a claimant
does ``not have a good reason for failing or refusing to take part in a
consultative examination * * *, we may find that you are not disabled *
* * .'' This provision does not require a medical evaluation of such a
case, and we believe that it would be futile to attempt to make such an
evaluation in the absence of any medical evidence. Although we do not
necessarily agree that Secs. 404.1516 and 416.916 apply to this
situation, they do not prescribe any specific kind of case evaluation
(i.e., a medical evaluation). They merely provide that we will ``make a
decision based on information available in your case.''
Comment: The same commenters were concerned that disability
examiners will not make adequate attempts to obtain medical evidence.
Two of these commenters stated that only a physician should decide
whether the case is unsupported by medical evidence. One observed that
the rule does not define ``medical evidence,'' and another stated that
a physician should be involved in deciding what is or is not medical
evidence.
Response: These new rules do not alter the existing statutory and
regulatory requirement that, before we make a determination that an
individual is not disabled, we develop a complete medical history for
at least the 12 months preceding the month in which the application is
filed, unless there is reason to believe that development of an earlier
period is necessary or unless the claimant states that his or her
disability began less than 12 months before the application is filed.
These rules also do not alter the existing requirement that we make
every reasonable effort to obtain medical evidence from the
individual's own medical sources, as provided for in sections
223(d)(5)(B) and 1614(a)(3)(G) of the Act and Secs. 404.1512(d) and
416.912(d) of our regulations. We have revised these final rules to
emphasize that we will continue to do so.
Our existing regulations, Secs. 404.1513 and 416.913, set forth the
requirements for the contents of medical evidence and reports, and
these rules do not change those requirements. We do not agree that a
physician's expertise is required to determine whether evidence is
``medical evidence'', or to evaluate non-medical evidence.
Comment: Two commenters requested a more definitive identification
of the circumstances that justify the provision.
Response: We have clarified the circumstances under which the final
rules apply. They apply whenever there is no medical evidence to be
evaluated and the claimant fails or refuses, without a good reason, to
attend a consultative examination. The final versions of
Secs. 404.1615(c)(2) and 416.1015(c)(2) make this clear.
Comment: A number of commenters observed that mental illness or
other factors may be the basis for an individual's failure to
cooperate.
Response: Existing regulations include provisions on good cause for
failure to attend a consultative examination. Regulations
Secs. 404.1518 and 416.918 require us to consider an individual's
physical, mental, educational and linguistic limitations when
determining whether he or she has a good reason for failing to attend a
consultative examination. Nevertheless, in the final rules we have
clarified that they apply only if the individual fails or refuses to
attend a consultative examination without a good reason, and have
provided a cross-reference to Secs. 404.1518 and 416.918.
Except for these clarifications, several minor, non-substantive
technical changes, and corrections to authority citations, we are
adopting the proposed rules as final rules.
Regulatory Procedures
Executive Order 12866
We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and determined that these final rules do not meet the criteria for a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Therefore,
they are not subject to OMB review.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We certify that these regulations will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they
affect individuals' eligibility for program benefits under the Social
Security Act. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
Paperwork Reduction Act
These regulations will impose no additional reporting or
recordkeeping requirements necessitating clearance by OMB.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001, Social
Security-Disability Insurance; and 96.006, Supplemental Security
Income)
List of Subjects
20 CFR Part 404
Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Death benefits,
Disability benefits, Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security.
20 CFR Part 416
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Blind, Disability
benefits, Public assistance programs, Supplemental Security Income
(SSI), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 8, 1996.
Shirley S. Chater,
Commissioner of Social Security.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, subpart Q of part 404 and
subpart J of part 416 of chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are amended as set forth below:
PART 404--FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE
(1950-- )
Subpart Q--[Amended]
1. The authority citation for subpart Q of part 404 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 205(a), 221, and 702(a)(5) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(a), 421, and 902(a)(5)).
2. Section 404.1615 is amended by removing the ``or'' at the end of
paragraph (c)(1), by adding a semicolon after paragraph (c)(1), by
redesignating paragraph (c)(2) as paragraph (c)(3), and by adding a new
paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 404.1615 Making disability determinations.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) A State agency disability examiner alone when there is no
medical evidence to be evaluated (i.e., no medical evidence exists or
we are unable, despite making every reasonable effort, to obtain any
medical evidence
[[Page 11136]]
that may exist) and the individual fails or refuses, without a good
reason, to attend a consultative examination (see Sec. 404.1518); or
* * * * *
PART 416--SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND, AND
DISABLED
Subpart J--[Amended]
3. The authority citation for subpart J continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1614, 1631, and 1633 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5), 1382c, 1383, and 1383b).
4. Section 416.1015 is amended by removing the ``or'' at the end of
paragraph (c)(1), by redesignating paragraph (c)(2) as paragraph
(c)(3), and by adding a new paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 416.1015 Making disability determinations.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) A State agency disability examiner alone when there is no
medical evidence to be evaluated (i.e., no medical evidence exists or
we are unable, despite making every reasonable effort, to obtain any
medical evidence that may exist) and the individual fails or refuses,
without a good reason, to attend a consultative examination (see
Sec. 416.918); or
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-6375 Filed 3-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4190-29-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6358 Revision of Airman Medical Standards and Certification Procedures and Duration of Medical Certificates
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11238-11263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6358]
[[Page 11237]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Parts 61 and 67
Revision of Airman Medical Standards and Certification Procedures and
Duration of Medical Certificates; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11238]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 61 and 67
[Docket No. 27940; Amendment Nos. 61-99 and 67-17]
RIN 2120-AA70
Revision of Airman Medical Standards and Certification Procedures
and Duration of Medical Certificates
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule revises airman medical standards and medical
certification procedures. The amendments implement a number of
recommendations resulting from a comprehensive review of the medical
standards announced in previous notices. This revision of the standards
for airman medical certification and associated administrative
procedures is necessary for aviation safety and reflects current
medical knowledge, practice, and terminology. Also, this rule revises
procedures for the special issuance of medical certificates
(``waivers'') for those airmen who are otherwise not entitled to a
medical certificate.
This rule also changes the duration of third-class airman medical
certificates, based on the age of the airman, for operations requiring
a private, recreational, or student pilot certificate.
Also, in this document, the FAA is announcing disposition of a
number of petitions for rulemaking related to medical standards and
duration of medical certificates.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 16, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McEachen, Manager, Aeromedical
Standards and Substance Abuse Branch, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 493-4075.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Current Requirements--Airman Medical Certification
Section 61.3(c) of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR part 61) provides, with some exceptions, that no person may serve
as pilot in command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight
crewmember unless that person has in his or her personal possession an
appropriate current airman medical certificate issued under 14 CFR part
67. Part 67 provides for the issuance of three classes of medical
certificates. A first-class medical certificate is required to exercise
the privileges of an airline transport pilot certificate. Second- and
third-class medical certificates are needed to exercise the privileges
of commercial and private pilot certificates, respectively.
A person who is found to meet the appropriate medical standards,
based on a medical examination and an evaluation of the applicant's
history and condition, is entitled to a medical certificate without
restrictions or limitations other than the prescribed limitation as to
its duration. These medical standards are currently set forth in
Secs. 67.13, 67.15, and 67.17.
Special Issuance of Airman Medical Certificates
An applicant for a medical certificate who is unable to meet the
standards in Secs. 67.13, 67.15, or 67.17, and be entitled to a medical
certificate, may nevertheless, be issued a medical certificate on a
discretionary basis. Procedures for granting special issuances or
exemptions have always been available, and, thus, failure to meet the
standards has never been absolutely disqualifying. Historically,
approximately 99 percent of all applicants ultimately receive a medical
certificate.
Under Sec. 67.19, Special issue of medical certificates, at the
discretion of the Federal Air Surgeon, acting on behalf of the
Administrator under Sec. 67.25, a special flight test, practical test,
or medical evaluation may be conducted to determine that,
notwithstanding the person's inability to meet the applicable medical
standard, airman duties can be performed, with appropriate limitations
or conditions, without endangering public safety. If this determination
can be made, a medical certificate may be issued with appropriate
safety limitations.
Duration of Airman Medical Certificates
Section 61.23 identifies the duration of validity and privileges of
each class of medical certificate. Currently, a first-class medical
certificate is valid for 6 months for operations requiring an airline
transport pilot certificate, 12 months for operations requiring a
commercial pilot certificate or an air traffic control tower operator
certificate (for non-FAA controllers), and 24 months for operations
requiring only a private, recreational, or student pilot certificate. A
second-class medical certificate is valid for 12 months for operations
requiring a commercial pilot certificate or an air traffic control
tower operator certificate (for non-FAA controllers) and for 24 months
for operations requiring only a private, recreational, or student pilot
certificate. A third-class medical certificate currently is valid for
24 months for operations requiring a private, recreational, or student
pilot certificate.
History
On October 21, 1994, the FAA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) (Notice No. 94-31, 59 FR 53226) proposing to amend
parts 61 and 67. The proposed revisions to part 67 were based on an
agency review of part 67 which was announced in the preamble to
Amendment 67-11 (47 FR 16298; April 15, 1982) and on recommendations
from a report prepared for the FAA by the American Medical Association
(AMA). In the preamble to Amendment 67-11, the FAA announced that it
intended to conduct an overall review of the medical standards in part
67. A complete review of the regulations was needed to bring the
standards and procedures for airman medical certification up to date
with advances in medical knowledge, practice, and terminology.
Amendment 67-11 was considered interim clarification until a
comprehensive review of the medical standards contained in part 67
could be concluded.
The FAA began the review of the medical standards for airmen and of
its certification practices and procedures by requesting public comment
(47 FR 30795; July 15, 1982). In addition, the FAA initiated a contract
with the AMA to provide professional and technical information. The AMA
presented its report, ``Review of Part 67 of the Federal Air
Regulations and the Medical Certification of Civilian Airmen'' (AMA
Report), on March 26, 1986. The public was again invited to comment on
part 67 in ``Announcement of the Availability of a Report'' (51 FR
19040; May 23, 1986). The AMA Report detailed the results of a
comprehensive review of the standards for airman medical certification
and of their application. The AMA Report considered pertinent advances
in the field of medicine since 1959, recommended changes in the FAA
medical standards, and explained the rationale for such changes. The
FAA considered public comments received on the AMA Report in developing
Notice No. 94-31.
In a separate but related issue, on May 11, 1979, the Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) petitioned to amend Sec. 61.23 to
require medical examinations for private pilots at 36-month intervals
rather than at 24-month
[[Page 11239]]
intervals. In response to the 1979 AOPA petition to amend Sec. 61.23,
the FAA issued on October 29, 1982, NPRM No. 82-15 (47 FR 54414,
December 2, 1982) proposing to amend part 61 to revise the duration of
validity of third-class privileges of airman medical certificates for
operations requiring a private or student pilot certificate. As
proposed by Notice No. 82-15, the requirement for a third-class medical
examination would have been changed to every 5 years for the youngest
pilots then increasing in frequency to the existing 2-year interval for
older pilots.
On September 27, 1985, prior to the issuance of the AMA Report on
its review of the airman medical standards and certification procedures
in part 67, the notice proposing to amend part 61 to revise the
duration of third-class airman medical certificates was withdrawn (50
FR 39619). The proposal was withdrawn, in part, because of issues
raised by the medical community. Given the then pending issuance of the
AMA Report and the possibility that the report would provide better
data on which to base an evaluation of the safety concerns raised by
the medical community, the FAA decided that any future consideration of
examination frequency would be within the context of the outcome of the
comprehensive review of part 67.
Petitions for Rulemaking
The FAA has received a number of other petitions for rulemaking
that relate to airman medical certification and duration. These
petitions are disposed of in this rulemaking. For each of these
petitions a public docket was established, a notice of the petition was
published in the Federal Register, and comments, if any, received on
the petition were placed in the docket for public inspection.
On July 30, 1981, the Civil Pilots for Regulatory Reform petitioned
the FAA to revise the rules so that pilots who have incurred a
myocardial infarction will not be automatically disqualified for life
for airman medical certification. (Docket No. 22054) This petition was
discussed in the preamble to the NPRM (59 FR 53243). Also, see the
discussion in this preamble under ``Cardiovascular Secs. 67.111,
67.211, and 67.311'' and the corresponding rule language. Comments
received on the petition totaled 311; all of which generally supported
the petition. After careful consideration of all the comments, both
from this petition and the current rulemaking action (Docket No.
27940), the FAA has determined that a diagnosis or medical history of
myocardial infarction will continue to be disqualifying under part 67.
On February 26, 1986, AOPA again petitioned the FAA to revise the
duration of a third-class airman medical certificate to 36 calendar
months for noncommercial operations requiring a private, recreational,
or student pilot certificate. (Docket No. 24932) See preamble
discussion under ``Discussion of Comments and Amendments to Part 61''
(Sec. 61.23) and the corresponding rule language. Comments received on
this petition totaled two; both supported the petition. After careful
consideration of all comments, both from this petition and the current
rulemaking action (Docket No. 27940), the FAA has decided to deny this
AOPA petition and adopt the proposal (Docket No. 27940) with the
modifications discussed under ``Discussion of Comments and Amendments
to Part 61.''
On January 20, 1989, a petition was submitted to the FAA by Thomas
J. Rush to provide a longer timeframe (60 or 90 days) for airmen to
schedule medical examinations when they renew their special issuances
of medical certificates. (Docket No. 25787) See the discussion in the
preamble under ``Special Issuance Sec. 67.401;'' ``Discussion of
Comments and Amendments to Part 61;'' and the corresponding rule
language. The Federal Register notice of this petition received no
comment. After careful consideration of the issues of this petition and
of comments to the current rulemaking action (Docket No. 27940), the
FAA has determined that the rule as it relates to this issue should
remain unchanged.
On February 12, 1990, AOPA petitioned the FAA to revise certain eye
and cardiovascular standards to facilitate medical certificate issuance
and better relate those standards to current medical knowledge and
technology. Changes sought included the following: (1) Change the color
vision standard for first-class medical certificates to the standard
used for second-class medical certificates; and delete the color vision
standard for third-class medical certificates; (2) Delete the
uncorrected visual acuity standards; (3) Change the pathology of the
eye standard for second-class medical certificates to the standard used
for first-class medical certificates; and (4) For second- and third-
class medical certificates, relate cardiovascular conditions to their
impact on the applicant's ability to operate safely. (Docket No. 26156)
See the discussion in the preamble under the major heading ``Vision
Secs. 67.103, 67.203, and 67.303'' (``Color Vision Secs. 67.103(c),
67.203(c), and 67.303(c)''; ``Distant Visual Acuity''; ``Near Visual
Acuity Standard''; and ``Intermediate Visual Acuity Standard''); and
``Cardiovascular Secs. 67.111, 67.211, and 67.311''. Also see the
corresponding rule language for these sections. Comments received on
the petition totaled 80; 79 generally support the petition and 1 from
the Air Line Pilots Association (now known as the Air Line Pilots
Association International) (ALPA) opposed the petition. ALPA opposed
the petition because they considered it premature in light of FAA's
active rulemaking project to revise all of part 67. After careful
consideration of all comments, both from this petition and the current
rulemaking action (Docket No. 27940), the FAA has decided to adopt the
vision and cardiovascular proposals of the current rulemaking action
(Docket No. 27940) with the modifications discussed under ``Discussion
of Comments and Final Rule for Part 67.''
On June 25, 1990, AOPA petitioned the FAA to amend frequently
waived medical standards as follows: (1) Add a provision for continued
limited pilot privileges pending FAA action on an application for
renewal of a medical certificate; (2) Permit applicants for all classes
of medical certificates to meet revised hearing standards in either or
both ears with or without a corrective device; (3) Change the 2-year
period of abstinence from alcohol to a period ``reasonable to ensure
abstinence''; and (4) Permit issuance of second- and third-class
medical certificates to diabetics using hypoglycemic drugs other than
insulin (with Federal Air Surgeon concurrence). (Docket No. 26281) See
the discussion in the preamble under ``Discussion of Comments and
Amendments to Part 61'' (Sec. 61.23); ``Hearing Secs. 67.105(a),
67.205(a), and 67.305(a)''; under the major heading ``Mental Standards
Secs. 67.107, 67.207, and 67.307'' (``Substance Dependence and
Definitions'' and ``Substance Abuse''); and ``Diabetes Secs. 67.113(a),
67.213(a), and 67.313(a)''. Also see the corresponding rule language
for these sections. Comments received on the petition totaled 29; 28
generally supported the petition, and one from ALPA opposed the
petition. ALPA opposed the AOPA petition for the same reason it opposed
the February 1990 AOPA petition; ALPA considered it premature in light
of FAA's active rulemaking project to revise all of part 67. After
careful consideration of all comments, both from this petition and the
current rulemaking action (Docket No. 27940), the FAA has decided to
adopt the duration, hearing, mental, and
[[Page 11240]]
general medical proposals with the modifications discussed under
``Discussion of Comments and Amendments to Part 61'' and ``Discussion
of Comments and Final Rule for Part 67.''
On August 27, 1990, a petition was submitted to the FAA by Frank
Goeddeke, Jr., to allow individuals with alcoholism problems to obtain
a medical certificate after abstaining from alcohol for 90 days, rather
than the 2-year time period stipulated in the rules. (Docket No. 26330)
See the discussion in the preamble under the major heading ``Mental
Standards Secs. 67.107, 67.207, and 67.307'' (``Substance Dependence
and Definitions'' and ``Substance Abuse''). Also see the corresponding
rule language for these sections. Comments received on the petition
totaled three; all three supported the petition. After careful
consideration of all comments, both from this petition and the current
rulemaking action (Docket No. 27940), the FAA has decided to retain the
2-year abstinence requirement related to alcoholism.
In February 1991, the American Diabetes Association petitioned the
FAA to amend the special issuance provisions of part 67 or,
alternatively, amend the FAA special issuance policy to permit grants
of special issuance of medical certificates to persons with insulin-
treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) and permit grants of special issuance
of medical certificates on a case-by-case basis. The ADA also requested
the creation of an FAA-appointed medical task force to develop a
medical protocol to permit meaningful case-by-case review. (Docket No.
26493) The FAA referred to this petition in a request for comments on a
proposed policy change concerning individuals with diabetes mellitus
who require insulin that was published in the Federal Register on
December 29, 1994. (See 59 FR 67246) See also the discussion in this
preamble under ``Diabetes Secs. 67.113(a), 67.213(a), and 67.313(a)''
and the corresponding rule language. Comments received on the petition
totaled 160; there was general support for the rulemaking part of the
petition. Most commenters, however, strongly support special issuance
of medical certificates for persons with ITDM. After careful
consideration of all comments, both from this petition and the current
rulemaking action (Docket No. 27940), the FAA is denying that part of
the ADA petition that requested rulemaking; i.e., an amendment to
Sec. 67.19. The FAA will respond to the ADA request for a policy change
and to the comments received to both dockets when it publishes in a
separate notice its disposition of the December 29, 1994, notice on
that subject (Docket No. 26493).
On September 24, 1993, AOPA once again petitioned the FAA to revise
the duration of a third-class airman medical certificate to 48 calendar
months for a specific trial period for noncommercial operations
requiring a private or student pilot certificate. Docket No. 27473) See
the preamble discussion under ``Discussion of Comments and Amendments
to Part 61'' (Sec. 61.23) and the corresponding rule language. Comments
received on the petition totaled 140; 137 generally supported the
petition and 3 opposed it. After careful consideration of all comments,
both from this petition and the current rulemaking action (Docket No.
27940), the FAA has decided to deny this AOPA petition and adopt the
current rulemaking action's duration proposal (Docket No. 27940) with
the modifications discussed under ``Discussion of Comments and
Amendments to Part 61.''
The FAA considered each of these petitions for rulemaking and the
public comments on the petitions in preparing the NPRM and this final
rule. The FAA believes that the actions requested in the petitions are
addressed and resolved in this rulemaking action. Therefore, action in
each of the referenced petitions is considered completed by publication
of this final rule.
The FAA is also addressing two other petitions for rulemaking
relating to part 67. On August 14, 1991, a petition was submitted to
the FAA by Charles Webber and on June 20, 1992, a petition was
submitted to the FAA by Robert H. Monson. Both of these petitioners
request that the FAA eliminate Sec. 67.3 in its entirety. The
petitioners state that this rule allows the FAA to obtain a copy of an
applicant's automobile driving record before an airman medical
certificate can be issued and that this violates individual privacy
rights (under the Privacy Act, 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) 552a).
(Docket No. 26782 and Docket No. 26913) Section 67.3 was added to part
67 in 1990 after the National Driver Register (NDR) Act of 1982 was
amended to specifically authorize the FAA to receive information from
the NDR regarding motor vehicle actions that pertain to any individual
who has applied for an airman medical certificate. In the NPRM and in
this final rule Sec. 67.3 has been recodified as Sec. 67.7. The
substance of this section was not discussed in the NPRM for this
rulemaking because the background, issues, and public comments had been
thoroughly covered in the final rule for Sec. 67.3 (August 1, 1990; 55
FR 31300). Since Sec. 67.3 went into effect, the FAA has found access
to the NDR useful in making medical certification determinations.
Comments received to the Webber petition totaled 24; all generally
supported the petition. The Monson petition received no comment. After
careful consideration of both petitions and all the comments, both from
the petitions and the current rulemaking action (Docket No. 27940), the
FAA has determined it will take no further action on the referenced
petitions after publication of this final rule.
In accordance with the above discussion and after consideration of
comments received on the NPRM, the FAA is revising part 67 and
Secs. 61.23 and 61.39 of part 61.
Summary of Amendments to Part 67
The following is a summary of the substantive revisions made by
this rulemaking. Because this rulemaking completely recodifies part 67,
this summary states both the current and new section/paragraph numbers.
1. Distant visual acuity requirements for first- and second-class
medical certification are changed to delete the uncorrected acuity
standards. However, each eye must be corrected to 20/20 or better, as
in the current standard. [Current Secs. 67.13(b) and 67.15(b); Final
Secs. 67.103(a) and 67.203(a)]
2. For third-class medical certification, the current 20/50,
uncorrected, or 20/30, corrected, distant visual acuity standard is
changed to 20/40 or better, in each eye, with or without correction.
[Current Sec. 67.17(b); Final Sec. 67.303(a)]
3. For first- and second-class medical certification, minimum near
visual acuity requirements are specified in terms of Snellen equivalent
(20/40), corrected or uncorrected, each eye, at 16 inches. This
replaces the current standard of v=1.00 at 18 inches for first-class
only. An intermediate visual acuity standard (near vision at 32 inches)
of 20/40 or better at 32 inches Snellen equivalent, corrected or
uncorrected, is added to the first- and second-class visual
requirements for persons over age 50. [Current Secs. 67.13(b) and
67.15(b); Final Secs. 67.103(b), 67.203(b), and 67.303(b)]
4. A near visual acuity standard of 20/40 or better, Snellen
equivalent (20/40), corrected or uncorrected, each eye, at 16 inches is
added to the third-class visual requirements. [Current (None); Final
Sec. 67.303(b)]
5. Color vision requirements are amended to read: ``ability to
perceive those colors necessary for safe performance of airman
duties,'' and are the same for all classes. Current
[[Page 11241]]
standards require ``normal color vision'' for first-class and the
ability to distinguish aviation signal colors for second- and third-
class applicants. [Current Secs. 67.13(b), 67.15(b), and 67.17(b);
Final Secs. 67.103(c), 67.203(c), and 67.303(c)]
6. The current first-class standard pertaining to pathological
conditions of the eye or adnexa that interfere or that may reasonably
be expected to interfere with proper function of an eye is substituted
in both the second- and third-class standards for the current standards
which specify, respectively, ``no pathology of the eye'' and ``no
serious pathology of the eye.'' [Current Secs. 67.15(b) and 67.17(b);
Final Secs. 67.203(e) and 67.303(d)]
7. The ``whispered voice test'' for hearing is replaced for all
classes by a conversational voice test using both ears at 6 feet; an
audiometric word (speech) discrimination test to a score of at least 70
percent obtained in one ear or in a sound field environment; or pure
tone audiometry according to a table of acceptable thresholds (American
National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1969). [Current Secs. 67.13(c),
67.15(c), and 67.17(c); Final Secs. 67.105(a), 67.205(a), and
67.305(a)]
8. The standards pertaining to the ear, nose, mouth, pharynx, and
larynx are revised to more general terms and related to flying and
speech communication. Specific references to the mastoid and eardrum
are deleted. The current standard, ``No disturbance in equilibrium,''
is changed to, ``No ear disease or condition manifested by, or that may
reasonably be expected to be manifested by, vertigo or a disturbance of
equilibrium.'' The amended standards are the same for all classes.
[Current Secs. 67.13(c), 67.15(c), and 67.17(c); Final Secs. 67.105(b),
67.205(b), and 67.305(b)]
9. ``Psychosis,'' as used in the final rule, refers to a mental
disorder in which the individual has delusions, hallucinations, grossly
bizarre or disorganized behavior, or other commonly accepted symptoms
of this condition, or may reasonably be expected to manifest such
symptoms. [Current Secs. 67.13(d), 67.15(d), and 67.17(d); Final
Secs. 67.107(a), 67.207(a), and 67.307(a)]
10. Substance dependence and substance abuse are defined and
specified as disqualifying medical conditions. Substance dependence is
disqualifying unless there is clinical evidence, satisfactory to the
Federal Air Surgeon, of recovery, including sustained total abstinence
from the substance for not less than the preceding 2 years. Substance
abuse is disqualifying if use of a substance was physically hazardous
and if there has been at any other time an instance of the use of a
substance also in a situation in which that use was physically
hazardous; or if a person has received a verified positive drug test
result under an anti-drug program of the Department of Transportation
or one of its administrations within the preceding 2 years. Alcohol
dependence and alcohol abuse are included in the terms ``substance
dependence'' and ``substance abuse'', respectively. [Current
Secs. 67.13(d), 67.15(d), and 67.17(d); Final Secs. 67.107(a) and (b),
67.207(a) and (b), and 67.307(a) and (b)]
11. ``Bipolar disorder'' is added as a specifically disqualifying
condition. This addresses an issue created by a change in nomenclature
contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
Third Edition (DSM III), and continued in the DSM IV. [Current (None);
Final Secs. 67.107(a), 67.207(a), and 67.307(a)]
12. The general mental standard is amended to add the word
``other'' before ``mental.'' The final revised standard reads, ``No
other personality disorder, neurosis, or other mental condition * *
*.'' [Current Secs. 67.13(d), 67.15(d), and 67.17(d); Final
Secs. 67.107(c), 67.207(c), and 67.307(c)]
13. ``A transient loss of control of nervous system function(s)
without satisfactory medical explanation of the cause,'' is added as a
specifically disqualifying neurologic condition. [Current (None); Final
Secs. 67.109(a), 67.209(a), and 67.309(a)]
14. The word ``seizure,'' is substituted for ``convulsive.''
[Current Secs. 67.13(d), 67.15(d), and 67.17(d); Final Secs. 67.109(b),
67.209(b), and 67.309(b)]
15. ``Cardiac valve replacement,'' ``permanent cardiac pacemaker
implantation,'' and ``heart replacement'' are added as specifically
disqualifying cardiovascular conditions for all classes of
certification. [Current Secs. 67.13(e), 67.15(e), and 67.17(e); Final
Secs. 67.111(a); 67.211 (d), (e), and (f); and 67.311 (d), (e), and
(f)]
16. The time period for which an electrocardiogram may be used to
satisfy the requirements of the first-class medical certificate is
revised to 60 days from the current 90 days. [Current Sec. 67.13(e);
Final Secs. 67.111(c)]
17. The current table of age-related maximum blood pressure
readings for applicants for first-class medical certificates and the
reference to ``circulatory efficiency'' are deleted. Blood pressure
will continue to be assessed for all three classes but will be
evaluated under the appropriate general medical standards. [Current
Sec. 67.13(e); Final Secs. 67.113(b), 67.213(b), and 67.313(b)]
18. Current Sec. 67.19, Special issue of medical certificates, is
rewritten [Final Sec. 67.401(a)] to provide for, at the discretion of
the Federal Air Surgeon, an ``Authorization for a Special Issuance of
Medical Certificate'' (Authorization), valid for a specified period of
time. An individual who does not meet the published standards of part
67 may be issued a medical certificate of the appropriate class if he
or she possesses a valid Authorization. The duration of any medical
certificate issued in accordance with proposed Sec. 67.401 is for the
period specified at the time of its issuance or until withdrawal of an
Authorization upon which the certificate is based. A new Authorization
is required after expiration, and the applicant must again apply for a
special issuance of a medical certificate.
19. Final Sec. 67.401(b) provides for a Statement of Demonstrated
Ability (SODA) instead of an Authorization. A SODA will be issued with
no expiration date to applicants whose disqualifying conditions are
static or nonprogressive and who have been found capable of performing
airman duties without endangering public safety. A SODA authorizes an
aviation medical examiner to issue a medical certificate if the
applicant is otherwise eligible.
20. Final Sec. 67.401(e) retains the language of current
Sec. 67.19(c) regarding consideration of the freedom of a private pilot
to accept reasonable risks to his or her own person or property that
are not acceptable in the exercise of commercial or airline transport
pilot privileges, and consideration at the same time of the need to
protect the safety of persons and property in other aircraft and on the
ground.
21. Final Sec. 67.401(f) adds language that explicitly provides
that the Federal Air Surgeon may withdraw the Authorization or SODA. An
Authorization or SODA may be withdrawn at any time for (1) adverse
change in medical condition, (2) failure to comply with its provisions,
(3) potential endangerment of public safety, (4) failure to provide
medical information, or (5) the making or causing to be made of a
statement that is covered by Sec. 67.403.
22. Final Sec. 67.401(i) permits a person to request that the
Federal Air Surgeon review a decision to withdraw an Authorization or
SODA. The request for a review must be made within 60 days of the
service of the letter that withdrew the Authorization or SODA. The
review procedures will be on an expedited basis and will provide the
affected
[[Page 11242]]
holder of an Authorization or SODA a full opportunity to respond to a
withdrawal by submitting supporting appropriate evidence.
23. Final Sec. 67.403 differs from current Sec. 67.20 by providing
for denial of an airman medical certificate if the application for an
airman medical certificate is falsified. Though this consequence is
implied, the current regulation specifically provides only for
revocation or suspension of certificates. Additionally, Sec. 67.403
provides for denial or withdrawal of any Authorization or SODA if the
information provided to obtain it is false, whether the statement was
knowingly false or unknowingly incorrect. Finally, Sec. 67.403(c) makes
an unknowingly incorrect statement that the FAA relied upon in making
its decisions regarding an application for an airman medical
certificate or a request for an Authorization or SODA, a basis for
denial, revocation, or suspension of an airman medical certificate and
the denial or withdrawal of an Authorization or SODA.
24. A new Sec. 67.415 provides that the holder of any medical
certificate that is suspended or revoked shall, upon the
Administrator's request, return it to the Administrator. The FAA
practice always has been to request return of the certificate in such
circumstances to avoid any misunderstanding as to the validity of the
certificate.
25. Where appropriate, changes are made to eliminate gender-
specific pronouns, to replace ``applicant'' with ``person,'' to use
current position titles and addresses, to correct spelling and improve
syntax, and to adjust section and paragraph references.
General Discussion of Public Comments
In response to the NPRM, the FAA received over 5,200 written
comments from the public. In addition, in January of 1995, the FAA held
three public meetings on the proposal, at which approximately 50
individuals and organizations participated. One was held in Washington,
D.C., one in Orlando, Florida, and one in Seattle, Washington.
Information from both the written comments to the docket and the
presentations at these public meetings was considered in the final rule
decisions along with the petitions for rulemaking and the comments
received to those dockets discussed above.
Commenters include approximately 30 trade associations, over 20 FAA
aviation medical examiners (AME's), and over 5,100 members of the
general public. Air transport pilots and other commercial pilots,
private and recreational pilots, flight schools, and flight instructors
were among the public commenters.
A substantial number of commenters oppose the proposed changes on
the basis that these changes would be a financial burden, that there is
a lack of accident data to support stricter standards, and that the
stricter standards would not produce discernible safety benefits. There
was little or no opposition, however, to proposed changes that relaxed
standards or reduced the regulatory burden.
The FAA carefully considered each comment and all presentations
made at the public meetings in determining this final rule. Comments
that address specific proposed requirements relevant to the proposed
rule are summarized and responded to in the following sections of this
preamble. To the extent possible, all comments relevant to the adopted
standards and regulatory changes are addressed; issues not relevant to
this rulemaking raised in the written comments or at the public
meetings are not addressed in this document.
The FAA has determined that several of the proposed stricter
standards are not required at this time. The withdrawal of these
proposed stricter standards are fully discussed in the relevant
sections of this document.
Overall Justification and Authority for This Rulemaking
AOPA, which represents the interests of 330,000 pilots and aircraft
owners, states in its comment that there is not sufficient
justification to warrant this rulemaking since more than 98 percent of
all general aviation accidents do not involve medical factors. AOPA
also asserts that the FAA's statutory authority for regulating medical
standards does not justify the medical certification program currently
in place, especially with respect to persons who exercise only private
or recreational flying privileges. AOPA states that it is unable to
identify a grant of authority to the Administrator to deny a medical
certificate to a pilot based, not on the pilot's present physical
ability but on the finding that a condition may reasonably be expected
within 2 years after the finding to make the pilot unable to perform
the required duties. AOPA believes that the FAA should reconsider
whether the proposal goes beyond the intent of the Federal Aviation Act
of 1958 and beyond what is necessary to safety in air commerce.
In a related comment, the Independent Pilots Association (IPA)
states that ``nowhere is the FAA or the Federal Air Surgeon charged
with the duty to practice preventive medicine.''
FAA Response: The FAA has not gone beyond the intent of its
authority in this rulemaking action. As stated previously in this
notice, the purpose of this rulemaking is to update the medical
standards to reflect current medical knowledge, practice, and
terminology. The FAA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 44703 to find that
an applicant for an airman certificate is physically able to perform
duties pertaining to the position for which the certificate is sought.
The FAA is to issue such a certificate ``containing such terms,
conditions, and limitations as to duration thereof, periodic or special
examinations, tests of physical fitness, and other matters'' necessary
to assure aviation safety.
It is reasonable that airmen, sharing the same air space and flying
over the same populated areas, whether engaged in air transportation or
in private operations, must meet certain standards in skills and
medical fitness to assure aviation safety. That some distinction in the
degree of standards is permissible is reflected in the distinction
between types of pilot certificates and classes of medical certificates
as required by law. While the FAA is not charged with the duty to
practice preventive medicine, determining the medical fitness of airmen
requires making an assessment of the risks involved in certain medical
conditions and denying medical certification in instances in which the
person is, or may be, unable to safely perform aviation activities.
On reconsideration of the proposal and after careful consideration
of all the comments and presentations received, the FAA is withdrawing
certain proposed requirements. Among the withdrawals are (1) the
proposal to shorten the duration of third-class medical certificates
for pilots 70 and older, (2) the requirement for a test to determine
total blood cholesterol, and (3) electrocardiogram requirements for
second-class medical certificates. A more complete discussion of the
withdrawal of the requirements occurs in the following sections of the
preamble.
One of the FAA's primary concerns is the need to ensure that its
regulations maintain the proper balance between cost and benefits. The
FAA will only issue a final rule when there is clear evidence that it
will enhance safety, and that it will do so at a reasonable cost. This
is a longstanding FAA commitment, and a requirement of DOT policies and
procedures. In this context, after review of the comments, the FAA is
not persuaded that there is yet adequate evidence to show that those
costs of the proposals are justified by
[[Page 11243]]
the safety benefits that can reasonably be expected.
However, the FAA will continue to monitor accident and health data
as part of our responsibility to help ensure that adequate safety is
maintained. Consistent with the principles of the Clinton
administration's National Performance Review, the FAA will, in the
coming months, explore alternative nonregulatory means to reduce
medically-related accidents. These alternative administrative actions
will not impose the same costs on airmen as the proposals contained in
the NPRM, but will assist pilots and aviation medical examiners in
identifying and reducing potential medical risks.
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Judicial Review
Several associations and individuals comment that this rulemaking
appears to be an effort by the FAA to change decisions by the NTSB and
the courts. Several individuals at the hearings held in conjunction
with this rulemaking also expressed this opinion.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees that in some cases these comments are
accurate. The FAA promulgates rules and policies when the FAA
determines that a substantial public safety interest requires such
action. In some circumstances, the NTSB or the courts have determined
that the rule language adopted by the FAA does not achieve the FAA's
intent. The FAA views the circumstances in which review authorities
have disagreed with the FAA's interpretation of its rules as a
reflection of regulatory defects and not a reflection of policy
defects. This rule corrects the regulatory defects by clarifying or
more accurately stating in the regulatory language those policies that
the FAA believes are necessary to protect substantial public safety
interests.
Discussion of Comments and Amendments to Part 61
Proposed Sec. 61.23 lengthens the current 2-year third-class
medical certification period to a 3-tier system: a 3-year period for
pilots under age 40, a 2-year period for those age 40 to 69, and annual
certification for pilots age 70 and over.
Comments: Most individual commenters expressed support for the
increased duration (from 2 years to 3 years) for third-class medical
certificates for pilots under age 40. Several AME's comment that it is
appropriate to differentiate for age, although opinions of AME's and
other commenters vary as to the age at which the frequency of
examinations should change. Commenters suggest duration periods for
third-class medical certificates ranging from 1 to 5 years.
Several associations, several AME's, and a majority of the
individuals who commented on this issue strongly oppose the proposal to
increase the frequency of medical examinations for pilots age 70 and
over for reasons including the following: the proposal may be illegal
under federal age discrimination laws; more frequent examinations will
not predict sudden incapacitation; the benefits have not been
demonstrated; accident rates are lower for older pilots; and the
statistical analysis the FAA used to confirm that incidence of
accidents increases with age is supported by an insufficient sample
size. The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), AOPA, and the
Colorado Pilots Association believe all airmen should have a 3-year
standard regardless of age because, until medical technology reaches a
point where the onset of a heart attack can be accurately predicted,
there is no justification for more frequent or different examinations
for pilots age 70 or over.
Some commenters say that the requirement will be particularly
burdensome to older pilots, many of whom are on a fixed income. One
commenter suggests that the FAA pay for annual examinations if they
will be required. Several commenters note that such examinations are
generally not covered by insurance.
FAA Response: The FAA has decided to lengthen the current 2-year
third-class medical certification period to a 2-tier system. For airmen
under age 40, medical certificates must be renewed every 3 years. For
airmen age 40 and over, the current 2-year duration will remain.
As stated in the NPRM, extending the length of time between
examinations for third-class medical certificates of persons under age
40 should result in no significant increase in undetected pathology
between required examinations. The FAA, after careful consideration of
all comments and testimony received as well as the petitions and
comments received to Docket Nos. 24932, 26281, and 27473, has
determined that extending the duration between medical examinations can
be done with no detriment to safety in the case of younger airmen who
are much less likely to suffer medical incapacitation. As with all age
groups, those individuals under age 40 manifesting conditions that
represent a risk to safety will be denied certification or, if they
apply for and receive a special issuance of a medical certificate, will
be restricted in their flying activities or examined more thoroughly
and frequently, or both.
The final rule will provide for maximum regulatory relief without a
decrement to public safety.
The proposal to shorten the duration of third-class medical
certificates of airmen over the age of 70 is being withdrawn because on
reexamination insufficient data exist to support the revision at this
time. Several aviation associations, AME's, and individuals commented
that the data used in the proposal did not support the conclusion that
decreased accidents would result if the duration of third-class medical
certificates for airmen over the age of 70 was shortened. The FAA has
determined that the possible reduction of a very few known general
aviation accidents that are medically-related cannot be justified when
compared with the cost of the proposal. This is in contrast to
accidents of airline transport and commercial carriers where a single
accident may have significant loss of life and property.
All third-class medical certificates or third-class privileges of a
first- or second-class medical certificate issued prior to the
effective date of this final rule will remain valid for 2 years from
the date of issuance of the certificate unless the validity period has
been otherwise limited by the FAA. The period of validity for all
third-class airman medical certificates or third-class privileges of a
first- or second-class medical certificate issued on or after the
effective date of this final rule will be calculated according to the
provisions of the final rule unless the validity period is otherwise
limited by the FAA.
Section 61.53 provides that: ``No person may act as pilot in
command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember
while he [or she] has a known medical deficiency, or increase of a
known medical deficiency, that would make him [or her] unable to meet
the requirements for his [or her] current medical certificate.'' This
amendment does not change Sec. 61.53, and the FAA continues to require
airmen to comply with that rule. In reducing the frequency of required
periodic contacts with knowledgeable health professionals, self-
monitoring and personal attention to health become a more important
part of the individual airman's responsibility for flight safety.
Consistent with the changes above, the final rule amends Sec. 61.39
to coincide with the duration change in Sec. 61.23. Section 61.39
requires that applicants must possess at least a third-class medical
certificate or the third-class privileges of a first- or second-class
medical certificate valid under Sec. 61.23
[[Page 11244]]
in order to be eligible for a flight test for a certificate, or an
aircraft or instrument rating.
Discussion of Comments and Final Rule for Part 67
The following discussion generally addresses comments received and
the FAA's response to those comments on the specific standards or
requirements in the rule. As noted above, over 5,200 comments were
received concerning this rulemaking. The comments addressed by the FAA
are broadly representative of these many thousands of comments. Other
matters and issues raised by the commenters, such as additional tests
and examinations that are performed under the special issuance
procedures, are not addressed in this document. The FAA is responding
only to comments that are within the scope of this rulemaking.
Lists of Medical Standards
General
``Include, but are not limited to.'' The proposal uses the word
``includes'' rather than the word ``are'' in each section of the
medical standards because the proposed medical standards are not, and
never have been, meant to be exhaustive in naming all medical
conditions that are disqualifying.
Comments: AOPA, EAA, National Air Transportation Association
(NATA), and most individual commenters say this provision gives FAA
absolute discretion without proper promulgation of regulations; the
language is too open-ended and provides no standard at all. AOPA states
that because the disqualifying conditions are not enumerated,
applicants cannot know if they have a deficiency for which the FAA
would disqualify them. One AME says that the proposal gives the FAA too
much leeway, and should read ``are limited to.'' A majority of the
individual commenters strongly oppose use of the term ``include, but
are not limited to,'' saying that it would allow FAA too much unchecked
authority over an applicant.
FAA Response: The final rule will not contain the proposed language
``include, but are not limited to.'' Medical conditions identified
during an evaluation that are not specifically listed as disqualifying
but do not meet the general medical standard regarding safe performance
of duties and exercise of privileges, would continue to be
disqualifying under general medical standards. The intent of the
proposal was to alert individuals of this long-standing FAA practice
and not to expand the scope of the regulations.
Vision (Sections 67.103, 67.203, 67.303)
Distant Visual Acuity. The proposal deletes the uncorrected vision
standard for first- and second-class medical certificates and requires
a distant visual acuity of 20/20 or better, in each eye, with or
without correction. For third-class medical certificates, a distant
visual acuity of 20/40 or better with or without correction, is
required for each eye.
Comments: Comments on the proposal for distant visual acuity were
in favor of the changes; one AME notes that the proposal is less
stringent than the present standards.
FAA Response: The final rule is the same as proposed in the NPRM.
As stated in the NPRM, the FAA practice for many years has been to
grant any class medical certificate requested, regardless of
uncorrected distant acuity, if the required minimum vision is present
or achieved through conventional corrective lenses, there is no
evidence of significant eye pathology, and the person is otherwise
eligible. Thousands of airmen have demonstrated their ability to safely
perform their jobs while using corrective lenses for distant visual
acuity that is poorer than 20/100 in each eye. The FAA, after careful
consideration of the comments and presentations received as well as the
petition and comments received to Docket No. 26156, has determined that
the requirements for distant visual acuity may be relaxed. The revision
will streamline the process of medical certification by not requiring
special issuance for persons who cannot meet an uncorrected distant
acuity standard.
Near visual acuity standard. The proposed rule replaces the
outdated standards for near visual acuity by requiring for all three
classes a near visual acuity of 20/40 or better, Snellen equivalent, at
16 inches in each eye separately, with or without corrective lenses.
Comments: United States Pilots Association (USPA) states that the
FAA presented no evidence to justify the addition of a near-vision
standard. Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) also notes the lack of
accident-supported data, but states that the European opinion is that
the pilot should have enough visual capacity to read the aircraft
instruments if his or her glasses or lenses are lost in flight. The EAA
suggests changing 16 inches to ``ability to read an instrument panel,''
which would preserve the intent of the rule, but would not require any
additional equipment or training of AME's.
Three AME's approve and one disapproves of the proposed near visual
acuity standards. One AME doubts that a pilot with 20/40 vision can
read small print (such as on instrument approach plates) in dim light,
but notes that a nearsighted person can compensate by looking around
one's spectacle lenses. Farsighted persons with 20/40 vision, however,
may not be able to read small print at 16 inches. This commenter
suggests (1) supplying AME's with specimen aeronautical charts and
plates and requiring that the items be read in normal room light with
or without correcting lenses, or (2) raising the near vision standard
to at least 20/25.
FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the AMA Report recommendation
that all three classes of medical certificates should have the same
near visual acuity standards. The final rule is the same as proposed.
It eliminates the antiquated terminology in the current standards for
first-class medical certification, corrects the inconsistency between
standards and practice for second-class medical certification, and
establishes a standard for third-class medical certificates. After
careful consideration of all comments and presentations received as
well as the petition and comments received to Docket No. 26156, the FAA
has determined that the near visual acuity standard proposed in the
NPRM establishes an objective requirement that is necessary for safety
and can be best accomplished by the final rule.
Intermediate visual acuity standard. The NPRM proposed to add a new
intermediate visual acuity standard (near vision at 32 inches) for
first- and second-class medical certificates for pilots age 50 or older
of 20/40, Snellen equivalent, at 32 inches in each eye separately, with
or without corrective lenses.
Comments: The AMA states that all pilot applicants older than 50
should have 20/40 visual acuity at 32 inches because they need this
degree for proper sight and use of instruments, switches, and other
controls.
Regarding intermediate visual acuity, AOPA says that 20/40 at 32
inches over age 50 is unjustified, and that the age criteria is
arbitrary. One AME says there are no data or operational experience to
suggest that an additional middle vision standard for older pilots is
needed. According to one AME, the 32-inch intermediate vision standard
is too strict for pilots over 50 and will add to the cost without
adding any discernible benefit. According to this commenter, those who
need trifocals already have them.
FAA Response: The final rule includes a requirement for
intermediate
[[Page 11245]]
visual acuity for first- and second-class medical certificates for
pilots age 50 or older. This standard is consistent with the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards. The AMA
Report recommended this intermediate vision standard in light of the
eye's diminished ability with age to accommodate intermediate viewing
distances. Also, the NTSB has recommended that an intermediate vision
standard be established. The FAA, after careful consideration of the
comments received as well as the petition and comments received to
Docket No. 26156, has determined to adopt the rule proposed in the
NPRM; airline transport and commercial pilots need adequate
intermediate vision to monitor aircraft instruments and other cockpit
equipment. This standard is also necessary to safeguard the public
safety.
Color Vision (Sections 67.103(c), 67.203(c), 67.303(c))
The proposed color vision standard for all classes is the ``ability
to perceive those colors necessary for safe performance of airman
duties.'' Current standards require ``normal color vision'' for first-
class applicants and the ability to distinguish aviation signal colors
for second- and third-class applicants.
Comments: The USPA, NATA, and National Agricultural Aviation
Association (NAAA) support the proposed simplification of the color
vision standard.
One AME states that the current system is adequate to identify the
individual with a color vision problem and should be left intact. This
commenter states that the proposed NPRM advances no new or improved
method of determining color vision abilities.
AOPA and the AMA say that the regulations as proposed leave too
much room for inconsistent interpretation; the rule should precisely
state what colors are ``necessary for the safe performance of airman
duties'' and what tests should be done. An individual suggests using
visual flight rule (VFR) charts and runway and taxi light colors as
discriminants for realistic and practical color vision tests. EAA says
that the FAA should change the wording ``safe performance of airman
duties'' to ``read and understand a sectional aeronautical chart.'' EAA
believes this would ensure the intent of the rule, give the AME a
simple inexpensive test, and better define what is necessary for safe
performance of duties.
Aerospace Medical Association (ASMA) and Air Transport Association
(ATA) oppose the proposed changes. ASMA suggests that the FAA
discontinue the color blindness test; the standard should be based on
an individual's ability to perform safely.
FAA Response: The final rule for color vision is the same as
proposed. As stated in the NPRM, in current practice applicants for
certification are tested by use of standard pseudoisochromatic plates
or by other approved devices. A passing score defines the applicant as
not color deficient. Failure indicates a color deficiency and requires
that any medical certificate issued be limited, prohibiting flight at
night or by color signal control. The limitation can be removed by
successful completion of a practical signal light test or of a medical
flight test, as appropriate for the class medical certificate sought
and the level of aviation experience of the applicant. This final rule
would allow, for all three classes of medical certificates, an
individual who fails the test using pseudoisochromatic plates or other
approved devices to still obtain a medical certificate without
obtaining a waiver as long as the individual can demonstrate an ability
to perceive those colors necessary for the safe performance of airman
duties. The FAA will provide guidance to AME's to assist in these
tests.
The FAA, after careful consideration of the comments and
presentations received as well as the petition and comments received to
Docket No. 26156, has determined that the color vision standard in the
final rule should remain as proposed.
Hearing (Sections 67.105(a), 67.205(a), 67.305(a))
In the proposed rule, the ``whispered voice test'' for hearing is
deleted for all classes and replaced with three alternatives: (1) A
conversational voice test using both ears at 6 feet; (2) an audiometric
word (speech) discrimination test to a score of at least 70 percent
obtained in one ear or in a sound field environment; or (3) pure tone
audiometry according to a table of acceptable thresholds (ANSI, 1969).
Comments: Some AME's generally support the proposed hearing
standards. ASMA states, however, that the rule language could be
interpreted to require audiograms and that the FAA should state in the
preamble that it intends for the basic screening test to be the spoken-
voice test. ASMA also says that the rule should state that audiometric
tests are only used as alternatives for further evaluation of
individuals who show reduced hearing acuity.
Many commenters support the ``conversational voice'' recognition
standard as operationally relevant. AOPA and USPA support the proposed
standard that allows both ears to be used simultaneously to hear
conversational voice spoken at 6 feet.
ATA says a pure tone audiogram followed by a speech discrimination
test based upon an audiometric standard guideline would be a far more
accurate and objective measurement of hearing than the highly
subjective conversational and whispered voice tests.
-ATA says that a 70 percent score on an audiometric word
discrimination test is too low to support speech comprehension during
critical phases of flight; the standard should be 95 percent. Another
individual suggests that 85 percent would allow for accurate
communication in more cockpit environments. ATA and one AME also
believe that the rule is vague, should be more descriptive, and should
cite a decibel reading for administering the test.
- One AME says that possibly a screening cut-off level for pure-
tone audiometry would be appropriate.
-AOPA says that the same screening test should apply for those
without ``normal hearing'' and users of hearing aids. According to
AOPA, there appears to be no clinical reason for excluding the use of
hearing aids within the medical standards.
-Several commenters question whether an ``and'' or an ``or'' is
appropriate between subparagraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of Secs. 67.105,
67.205, and 67.305. Most think the rule should say ``or.''
-A commenter notes that the standard for 2000 Hz in the chart in
Sec. 67.205(c) is 30 for the poorer ear, which is more stringent than
the standard of 50 for first-class medical certificate. The commenter
believes that this must be a typographical error.
FAA Response: The final rule is the same as proposed, except that
the typographical error in the chart in Sec. 67.205(c) is corrected to
50 and the lead-in for paragraph (a) in all three sections reads: ``The
person shall demonstrate acceptable hearing by at least one of the
following tests:'' and a period is placed at the end of each
subparagraph. These editorial corrections to paragraph (a) are intended
to eliminate any confusion or ambiguity. Passing any one of the tests,
as required, is acceptable for certification. The FAA anticipates that
the conversational voice test will be the most commonly used; however,
passing any one of the tests will suffice even if the applicant has
failed the other two. While there is some subjectivity to a
conversational voice test, it is the simplest and least expensive form
of testing. The FAA, after careful consideration of the
[[Page 11246]]
comments and presentations received as well as the petition and
comments received to Docket No. 26281, has determined that the hearing
standards in the final rule should remain as proposed.
-The FAA is following the AMA Report recommendations in requiring a
70 percent score in an audiometric word discrimination test. The FAA
considers a 95 percent score too restrictive.
-As with current policy, if a hearing aid is necessary to meet the
standard, an Authorization or SODA is required. In most cases, however,
a person using a hearing aid can be issued a medical certificate.
Equilibrium (Sections 67.105(c), 67.205(c), 67.305(c))
-The proposal revises the current standard, ``No disturbance in
equilibrium,'' to, ``No ear disease or condition manifested by, or that
may reasonably be expected to be manifested by, vertigo or a
disturbance of equilibrium.'' The proposed standards are the same for
all classes.
Comments: One commenter states that the ear, nose, throat, and
equilibrium revisions are appropriate and realistic for addressing
safety.
-AOPA and other commenters say that the language relating to
vertigo or disturbance of equilibrium is too broad; instead the rule
should qualify that an applicant shall have ``no disturbance of
equilibrium that is severe enough to make piloting an aircraft
unsafe.'' AOPA asserts that vertigo is a common and normal occurrence
and disqualification should not be based on a symptom. According to
AOPA an episode of in-flight vertigo is not necessarily attributable to
an underlying medical condition that is disqualifying. AOPA notes that
the FAA intentionally induces vertigo at safety seminars using a
``vertigon'' chair.
FAA Response: The final rule is the same as proposed. The final
rule is more precise than the current rule since it specifies that the
vertigo or disturbance of equilibrium be a manifestation of a condition
or disease of the ear. It appears commenters are confusing pilot
vertigo or spatial disorientation that can occur in flight with vertigo
that is a manifestation of a medical condition or disease. In-flight
pilot vertigo or spatial disorientation is not related to this medical
standard. The FAA has determined, after careful consideration of the
comments and presentations received, that the equilibrium standards in
the final rule should remain as proposed.
Mental Standards (Sections 67.107, 67.207, 67.307)
-Definition of Psychosis. The proposed rule states that
``psychosis'' refers to ``a mental disorder in which the individual has
manifested psychotic symptoms or to a mental disorder in which the
individual may reasonably be expected to manifest psychotic symptoms.''
This language change was proposed to be consistent with the diagnostic
terminology and classification of mental disorders, published in the
DSM III and its successor DSM IV.
Comments: ATA suggests identifying the underlying disorders that
FAA considers psychoses, e.g., schizophrenia, paranoid states, or
depression. ATA suggests defining psychosis as ``an alteration in
either thought content or process, or both, to such an extent that the
individual suffers from hallucinations, delusions, or other
manifestations.'' One AME states that ``psychotic reaction'' needs
further definition in the rule. IPA suggests that the FAA refrain from
referring to a specific edition of the DSM since DSM-IV is the current
psychiatric diagnostic standard, not the 15-year old DSM-III referenced
in the NPRM. JAA says its Manual of Civil Aviation Medicine gives much
more detailed interpretation of its psychiatric and psychological
requirements.
FAA Response: On reconsideration and after careful consideration of
the comments received, the FAA has changed the final rule language
regarding psychosis to be more specific. Paragraph (a)(2) of
Secs. 67.107, 67.207, and 67.307 reads as follows:
``(2) A psychosis. As used in this section, `psychosis' refers to a
mental disorder in which:
-``(i) The individual has manifested delusions, hallucinations,
grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior or other commonly accepted
symptoms of this condition; or
-``(ii) The individual may reasonably be expected to manifest
delusions, hallucinations, grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or
other commonly accepted symptoms of this condition.''
-At the time of the AMA Report and the FAA review of part 67, the
most current DSM was DSM III. Since then, the DSM has been revised and
the most current version is DSM IV. The FAA has determined that the
revisions between DSM III and DSM IV do not necessitate any substantive
changes between the proposed rule and the final rule.
-Bipolar disorder. The proposed rule adds bipolar disorder
(formerly ``manic depressive psychosis'') as a specifically
disqualifying mental condition because the American Psychiatric
Association's nomenclature in DSM III and DSM IV no longer includes
bipolar disorder within the category of psychoses.
Comments: One AME and a few individuals support the proposal to
make bipolar disorders disqualifying.
AOPA believes bipolar disorder should not be singled out as a
disqualifying mental condition, and that applicants should be evaluated
on a case-by-case basis. AOPA asserts that bipolar disorders vary in
severity and symptoms from one individual to another; some never
exhibit the manic symptoms which appear to be the primary concern of
the FAA.
FAA Response: The FAA, after careful consideration of the comments
and presentations received, has determined that the final rule be the
same as proposed. However, since the proposed rule was issued, DSM IV
was developed which refers to more than one bipolar disorder and to
separate criteria that apply to the different types of bipolar
disorders. Although the DSM IV contains a change in classification of
this disorder, there is no change in the rule language from the
proposed rule language because the disorder, whatever its
classification, is considered disqualifying.
The FAA believes these conditions are of concern in the context of
airman medical certification and flight safety, and that the agency
must amend the mental standards since in accordance with the DSM III
and its successor DSM IV, psychoses no longer include bipolar
disorders. In consideration of potential risk to flight safety,
individuals with this diagnosis are rarely granted certification. Those
few individuals who are determined to be eligible for certification
through the special issuance provisions must be followed closely for
relapse and recurrence of symptoms. By including the new terminology,
the standards will clearly reflect the agency's concern about this
disorder. Specifically listing bipolar disorders as disqualifying is
not a substantive change in FAA policy or practice.
-Substance Dependence and Definitions. The proposal updates the
standards for alcoholism and drug dependence to make them consistent
with DSM III (and subsequently DSM IV) nomenclature which eliminates
the term ``alcoholism'' and substitutes the diagnoses of ``substance
dependence'' and ``substance abuse.'' The proposed revision defines
``substance dependence,'' ``substance abuse,'' and ``substance.'' The
proposed revision identifies disqualifying substances or
[[Page 11247]]
groups of substances (e.g., alcohol, cocaine, opioids, hallucinogens,
cannabis, etc.) and would make dependence on or abuse of them
disqualifying. The proposal also makes substance dependence
disqualifying unless there is clinical evidence of recovery, including
sustained total abstinence for not less than the preceding 2 years in
the case of alcohol dependence, and the preceding 5 years in the case
of other substance dependence.
Comments: Two AME's generally support the proposed changes
regarding substance dependence. AOPA, National Air Traffic Controllers
Association (NATCA), EAA, and two other AME's suggest a minimum 2-year
abstinence for all substances because they believe the extended period
of decertification for substance dependency is without statistical
justification. According to these commenters, the AMA data on which the
5-year restriction is based are dated; there are many new treatments
and research that indicate a required 5-year abstinence is too strict;
and the 5-year rule may reflect some public hysteria concerning drug
use. In addition, according to these commenters, there are six times as
many alcohol-related accidents as drug-related accidents, bringing into
question why the FAA is proposing stricter standards on other
substances when alcohol is a greater problem.
Two AME's say the FAA should not broaden the substances and should
leave the regulation as is. Another AME says FAA needs to further
define ``substance'' by identifying particular drugs.
EAA says that the FAA should limit the disqualification for muscle
relaxants to users of ``muscle relaxants with habit-forming potential''
because many muscle relaxants have no habit-forming potential.
FAA Response: The FAA, after careful consideration of the comments
and presentations received as well as the petitions and comments
received to Docket Nos. 26281 and 26330, has decided to make the
minimum period of abstinence from alcohol and other substances 2 years
because longer term experience with recovery from dependence on drugs
or alcohol now suggest that 2 years is adequate for both alcohol and
drugs. In many cases, the FAA has granted special issuance to air
transport and commercial pilots and has waived the 2-year abstinence
period when it was satisfied that certain stringent criteria are met.
The criteria can be summarized as follows: (1) A full commitment and
partnership of the aviation employer and employee to ensure the
employee's continued sobriety through monitoring; (2) full commitment
and partnership of the recovering employee with a fellow employee to
ensure continued sobriety through monitoring; and (3) frequent
evaluations, testing, and attendance at professional aftercare
treatment.
Also, the FAA has decided to delete ``muscle relaxants'' from the
list of substances in Secs. 67.107(a)(4)(i), 67.207(a)(4)(i), and
67.307(a)(4)(i) in part because the FAA agrees with the EAA comment,
but also because muscle relaxants are not included as a substance in
DSM III and its successor DSM IV.
To conform with DSM IV terminology, the FAA has changed the
reference to ``volatile solvents and gases'' to ``inhalants,'' a term
the FAA considers to be equivalent.
Otherwise the final rule is the same as proposed. The standards are
consistent with the AMA Report and address the national concerns about
substance dependence.
-Substance abuse. As proposed, substance abuse is one of the
following:
(1) Use of alcohol within the preceding 2 years in a situation in
which that use is physically hazardous, if there has been at any other
time an instance of the use of alcohol or another substance also in a
situation in which that use was physically hazardous; or
(2) Use of a substance other than alcohol within the preceding 5
years in a situation in which that use is physically hazardous, if
there has been at any other time an instance of the use of that
substance, alcohol, or another substance also in a situation in which
that use was physically hazardous; -
(3) Use of a prohibited drug defined in appendix I of part 121 of
this chapter within the preceding 5 years; or -
(4) Misuse of a substance within the preceding 2 years if alcohol
or within the preceding 5 years if another substance, that the Federal
Air Surgeon based on case history and appropriate qualified medical
judgment, finds-- -
(i) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or
exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held
or -
(ii) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the
airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person
unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
Comments: Two AME's and other commenters generally support the
proposed changes to the substance abuse standard. -
The JAA states that the proposed recommendations are similar to
those in the JAA proposals except that a shorter recertification period
following alcohol abuse is allowed and the JAA Manual of Civil Aviation
Medicine gives much more detailed interpretation of the psychiatric and
psychological requirements. -
EAA says the broad FAA list of ``substances,'' combined with the
definition of ``abuse'' and the extremely vague issue of ``physical
hazard'' makes it conceivable that abuse could be held as a single
misapplication of prescription medication (e.g., amphetamines,
tranquilizers, sedatives, and muscle relaxants).
FAA Response: The FAA has decided to make the time periods related
to substance abuse of alcohol or other substances 2 years to be
consistent with substance dependence abstinence time requirements of
this section and for the reasons already given. Otherwise the final
rule is the same as proposed, except that Secs. 67.107(b)(2),
67.207(b)(2), and 67.307(b)(2) are modified. Instead of prohibiting the
``use of a prohibited drug defined in Appendix I of part 121,'' the
final rule language reads ``A verified positive drug test result
acquired under any anti-drug program or internal program of the U.S.
Department of Transportation or any other Administration of th
FR Doc. 96-6358 Revision of Airman Medical Standards and Certification Procedures and Duration of Medical Certificates
e U.S.
Department of Transportation.'' The modified language clarifies the
FAA's intention in referencing Appendix I in the proposed rule. The FAA
stated in the NPRM preamble that it considers a positive drug test
conducted under any rule or internal program of the Department of
Transportation to be compelling proof of the use of a prohibited drug
for which the drug test was positive. -
The changes are intended to provide specific regulatory medical
standards and enhance the agency's ability to examine and exclude from
aviation a person who, though not substance dependent, manifests
recurrent abuse of alcohol or other legal or illegal substances, or has
a single violation of DOT drug testing programs within the preceding 2
years. These standards are consistent with the AMA Report and address
national concerns about substance abuse. -
In referring to use of a substance when ``physically hazardous,''
the standard generally refers to instances such as driving or flying
while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol or drugs, but could
also refer to other physically hazardous situations that occurred while
a person was under the influence of alcohol or legal or illegal drugs.
This term is also used in DSM III and its successor DSM IV. The FAA,
after careful consideration of the comments and presentations
concerning
[[Page 11248]]
substance abuse as well as the petitions and comments received to
Dockets Nos. 26281 and 26330, has determined that the rule as modified
provides adequate notice to airmen of the required medical standards
and is necessary to protect the public safety.
Neurological (Sections 67.109, 67.209, and 67.309) -
The FAA proposed three changes to the neurological standards,
adding ``a single seizure'' to the list of disqualifying conditions;
using ``seizure'' rather than ``convulsive'' to describe potentially
disqualifying conditions; and adding a ``transient loss of control of
nervous system functions'' standard.
Comments: ATA, AOPA, and three AME's assert that the proposed
requirement that focuses on a single seizure is burdensome and not
necessary; a single mild seizure should not be the sole cause for
disqualification. ATA notes that a single febrile seizure during
childhood, associated with a normal electroencephalogram (EEG),
neurological examination, and imaging study, does not increase the risk
for further seizure activity over time. EAA suggests rather than
disqualifying applicants who have had seizures, AME's be given a
checklist and evaluation guide for pilots with a history of a
disturbance of consciousness or neurologic function. AOPA cites common
causes of single seizure events including low sodium in the blood, heat
exhaustion, head injury from which the applicant entirely recovers, and
eclampsia during pregnancy. -
One AME asserts that the frequency of in-flight incapacitation
following seizure episodes is so low as to render this change
unnecessary. According to the AME, febrile seizures are common, and the
amount of increased paperwork to request special issuance of a medical
certificate for individuals who have had these is simply not worth it.
-
USPA and AOPA say the neurological loss of control definition is
too broad and is open to abuse and misinterpretation. -
In response to the FAA's statement in the NPRM preamble that
neither the AMA-recommended test nor the test by Folstein provides a
``useful screening device, alone or in combination, for airman
neurological status,'' the AMA emphasizes the extreme importance of a
test of mental fitness in attempting to ensure aviation safety and
strongly recommends that the FAA designate or develop a sensitive and
more specific test of mental capacity if those proposed by the AMA
report are unsatisfactory.
FAA Response: The FAA, after careful consideration of all the
comments and presentations received, has decided to withdraw the
proposal that specifies that a single seizure is disqualifying. The
proposed standard at paragraph (a)(2) will not be added to the first-,
second-, or third-class medical certificate requirements. This part of
the proposal is being withdrawn because the FAA agrees with commenters
that a single febrile seizure in childhood should not in most instances
be disqualifying. However, any seizure that has occurred must be
reported by the applicant as part of the medical history and could be
found to be disqualifying under the general neurological standards of
Secs. 67.109(b), 67.209(b), and 67.309(b). Also, a single seizure that
constitutes a disturbance of consciousness or a transient loss of
control of nervous system function(s) without satisfactory medical
explanation of the cause would be disqualifying under
Secs. 67.109(a)(2) or (3), 67.209(a)(2) or (3), and 67.309(a)(2) or 3).
Under Sec. 61.53, Operations during medical deficiency, such an
occurrence would require an airman to cease exercising the privileges
of any airman certificate held until medically evaluated and cleared
for airman duties by the FAA. -
The proposed change from ``convulsive disorder'' to ``seizure
disorder'' at paragraph (b) remains in the final rule.-
The FAA has determined that the addition of ``transient loss of
control of nervous system functions'' should remain in the final rule.
It clarifies the agency's aeromedical concern about such events whether
or not they are characterized as disturbances of consciousness and
allows for the identification and individual evaluation of persons with
this history. -
As to mental screening tests, neither the AMA report nor the
American Academy of Neurology/American Association of Neurological
Surgeons report proposes detailed, objective criteria and tests that
could be included in the standards and by which medical certification
could be determined. Neither the AMA-recommended test nor the Folstein
test provides a useful screening device, alone or in combination, for
airman neurological status. Also, neither screening test, alone or in
combination, provides predictors of skills relevant to piloting.
Cardiovascular (Sections 67.111, 67.211, and 67.311) -
List of Disqualifying Conditions. The proposed rule adds to the
list of disqualifying cardiovascular conditions for first-, second-,
and third-class airman medical certificates an established medical
history of cardiac valve replacement, permanent cardiac pacemaker
implantation, and heart replacement.
Comments: None of the commenters specifically object to the
disqualification for heart replacement. -
Two associations, one AME, and several individuals do not support
the proposal to specifically disqualify applicants with cardiac valve
replacements or permanent cardiac pacemakers. One association states
that the current list of disqualifying conditions is adequate. Many of
these commenters say medical technology for valve replacements and
pacemakers is excellent and improving, so it would be premature for the
FAA to disqualify these heart conditions. -
EAA says that for bioprosthetic cardiac valve patients with no
signs of heart failure, arrhythmia, or atrial fibrillation, and with a
normal functional capacity on stress testing, the FAA should not
require the applicant to go through the special issuance process to
obtain a medical certificate. According to the commenter, these
individuals are at very low risk for sudden incapacitation and can
perform normal activities including piloting an aircraft without undue
risk. One AME believes that disqualifications for heart valve
replacements should be evaluated on an individual basis. -
EAA maintains that standby pacemakers or well-functioning permanent
pacemakers should be allowed with a satisfactory cardiovascular
evaluation and monitoring. Another commenter believes it is appropriate
to deny pacemaker users first- and second-class medical certificates,
but a pacemaker should not disqualify a person from a third-class
medical certificate.
FAA Response: The FAA, after careful consideration of the comments
and presentations received as well as the petitions and comments
received to Docket Nos. 22054 and 26156, has determined that
disqualifying cardiovascular conditions remain in the final rule as
proposed. Further, the FAA has determined that these are serious
conditions that give rise to safety concerns in the aviation
environment specifically with regard to valve failure, pacemaker
malfunction, progression of the underlying disease that required
[[Page 11249]]
artificial cardiac pacing, organ rejection, or the complications of
immunosuppression. As stated in the NPRM preamble, the FAA will
continue to consider special issuance of medical certification on a
case-by-case basis after specialized medical evaluations to confirm
adequate recovery and function and the absence of significant risk in
terms of the aviation environment. -
These regulations clarify long-standing FAA policy. Previously, the
FAA has denied medical certification to airmen with cardiac valve
replacement, pacemaker implantation, or heart transplant under the
current general medical standards. In the final rule, a medical history
of cardiac valve replacement, pacemaker implantation, or heart
transplant is disqualifying. A person with such a medical history,
however, may apply for and possibly receive, a special issuance of a
medical certificate. The FAA will continue to monitor medical
technology in this area and will reassess these rules as developments
warrant. -
Blood Pressure (Proposed Secs. 67.111(b), 67.211(b), and
67.311(b)). The proposed rule revises the blood pressure standards
established in 1959 applicable to first-class medical certificates. The
current table of age-related maximum blood pressure readings for
applicants for first-class medical certificates and the reference to
``circulatory efficiency'' are deleted, and a requirement that average
blood pressure while sitting not exceed 150/95 millimeters of mercury
is added for applicants of all classes. A medical assessment is
specified for all applicants who need or use antihypertensive
medication to control blood pressure.
Comments: Four AME's support the proposed blood pressure standard,
but one requests that the AME make some notation as to whether this is
achieved by approved antihypertensive medication. JAA suggests further
assessment of applicants whose blood pressure level is not
``consistently 160/95'' or lower. -
The Boeing Employees Soaring Club, ALPA, USPA, NATA, GAPA, NAAA,
three AME's, and many individual commenters do not support the proposed
blood pressure standard. They say that it would increase the cost of
medical care, would require costly cardiovascular work-ups for people
who would not otherwise require therapy, and is not supported by
medical data or accident information. Many commenters and one AME do
not support the proposal because, according to these commenters, blood
pressure naturally increases with age. -
ALPA and Boeing Employees Soaring Club say a blood pressure reading
could be affected by many factors, including time of day, daily stress,
or fear of a visit to their physician, and that the FAA should not have
a set blood pressure level in the rule. -
AOPA, EAA, and several commenters, including doctors, say that the
FAA should not disqualify persons whose blood pressure is stabilized at
a lower level with therapy. According to commenters, in the NPRM the
FAA implies that treated hypertension is more of a risk than the
condition of high blood pressure.
FAA Response: After careful consideration of all the comments and
testimony, the FAA has decided to eliminate specific blood pressure
requirements in the final rule. For all classes, the final rule makes
no specific reference to blood pressure but, rather, requires that the
appropriate general medical standard in Secs. 67.113(b), 67.213(b), and
67.313(b) be met.
The FAA has determined that a blood pressure standard is
unnecessary. Each person's medical condition and treatment regimen, if
any, will continue to be evaluated on an individual basis. While the
use of an antihypertensive medication is not made specifically
disqualifying, a person may be required to undergo further medical
assessment.
Electrocardiograms (Proposed Sec. Sec. 67.111 (c) and (d) and
67.211(d)); Final Sec. Sec. 67.111 (b) and (c)). The NPRM proposed to
add a new requirement for routine resting electrocardiograms (ECG) for
second-class medical certification. Applicants would have an ECG after
reaching age 35 and every 2 years after reaching age 40. An ECG
requirement currently exists for first-class applicants; however,
first-class applicants must have an initial ECG after the 35th birthday
and annually after reaching age 40. The NPRM did not propose to add an
ECG requirement for third-class applicants. The NPRM also proposed to
change the validity period for an ECG to meet the requirements of a
medical examination. Currently, an ECG made within 90 days before a
medical examination can be used to satisfy the first-class application
requirement. The proposal was to change to this to 60 days.
Comments: The AMA, ATA, JAA, and two AME's support the proposal.
ASMA, NATA, NAAA, EAA, GAPA, and ALPA do not support the proposal
to require ECG's for second-class applicants. National Business
Aircraft Association (NBAA), ASMA, AOPA, and EAA cite the lack of
cardiac incapacitation as a causal factor in aviation accidents. Many
commenters, including doctors, do not support the requirement to
administer ECG tests to asymptomatic persons. Six AME's say that the
ECG does not predict sudden incapacitation.
A majority of commenters stress the financial burden that ECG
testing would create on those who need second-class medical
certificates. According to commenters, the FAA's cost estimate for
ECG's does not account for the cost to AME's of purchasing the
equipment and modems to transmit the readings to the Civil Aeromedical
Institute. The ECG test would also increase the amount of time an AME
would spend on each pilot. AOPA notes that the FAA anticipates 1,800
applicants will not meet ECG standards, and would have to undergo the
cost of additional evaluation to determine eligibility for a medical
certificate. AOPA also noted that the FAA's regulatory evaluation
estimated that 90 percent of these applicants would ultimately be
granted medical certificates. AOPA believes the ECG requirement and
follow-up testing is a waste of time and money. The Soaring Society of
America suggests that an applicant's regular medical facility could
perform this test and certify it to the AME, which would prevent
redundant tests and lower the cost and complexity of obtaining the
second-class medical certificate.
FAA Response: After careful consideration of the comments and
testimony received, the FAA has decided to withdraw the proposal for an
ECG requirement for second-class medical certification. There was
limited support for the proposal within the medical community; and
several aviation associations (including an aeromedical association),
AME's, and individuals commented that the cost of implementing this
proposal cannot be justified when compared with the current, limited-
prognostic capabilities of the routine resting ECG.
The existing ECG requirement for first-class medical certification,
an initial ECG after the 35th birthday and annual ECG's after reaching
age 40, remains in the final rule. The change from 90 to 60 days for
using an ECG to satisfy the first-class medical certification
requirement also remains in the final rule. The FAA has determined that
the ECG requirement for first-class medical certification, normally
held by airline transport pilots, is consistent with the highest level
of safety and is cost effective when coupled with the semi-annual
examination required for that certificate. An airman holding a first-
class medical certificate receives the highest level of medical
scrutiny (i.e., semi-annual
[[Page 11250]]
examination) because of the nature of his or her employment; the annual
ECG is one element of this frequent, multi-factorial, medical
surveillance.
Most commercial ``commuter'' operations (e.g., passenger operations
of a turbojet airplane, passenger operations of an airplane having a
passenger seating configuration of 10 seats or more, or passenger
operations of a multiengine airplane being operated by a commuter air
carrier) require pilots to have first-class medical certificates. The
remaining population of commercial pilots (e.g., pilots of commuter
passenger operations with airplane passenger seating configuration of 9
seats or less; flight instructors; pilots of crop dusting, banner
towing, powerline, pipeline inspection operations) is required to hold
a second-class medical certificate. As previously stated, the FAA has
determined that biennial ECG's for these commercial pilots are not cost
effective and that these pilots do not require the same level of
medical scrutiny, given their employment, as pilots who are required to
have a first-class medical certificate. The FAA, however, will continue
to monitor and evaluate the medical/flying histories of those pilots
required to have a second-class medical certficate and will, if
appropriate, impose an ECG requirement in the future.
Finally, the public should be aware that the FAA uses the ECG to
evaluate the medical fitness of second-class medical certificate
applicants when sound medical judgment indicates that the test would be
reasonable and useful. The FAA routinely requests an ECG when an
individual has or may have a medical history or clinical diagnosis of a
variety of medical conditions, including cardiovascular disease,
hypertension, dysrhythmia, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease,
cerebral vascular disease, cardiomyopathy, valvular heart disease,
congenital heart disease, or a previously abnormal ECG. The FAA will
continue to use the ECG as a diagnostic tool in appropriate situations.
Anticoagulant medications (Proposed Secs. 67.111(c), 67.211(c),
and 67.311(c)). The proposed rule adds the provision that
persons applying for first-, second-, or third-class medical
certificates must not use anticoagulant medication.
Comments: EAA, AOPA, two AME's, and several individuals state that
the proposed rule is subject to interpretation and could, for example,
include aspirin. The two AME's say that the FAA needs to differentiate
between anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications regarding which are
disqualifying. AOPA says disqualification should be based on the
applicant's disease, not on the medicine taken, unless there are
specific side effects that directly affect the safety of flight.
EAA supports the prohibition of heparin. AOPA says coumadin use
should not be disqualifying, since its track record is well
established.
FAA Response: The FAA did not intend for antiplatelet medications
(e.g., aspirin) to be included as anticoagulants. After careful
consideration of the comments and testimony received, the FAA has
decided to withdraw the proposal to add anticoagulant use as a
specifically disqualifying medication since the use of these
medications could be found disqualifying in this final rule under
paragraph (c) of the general medical condition section (see
Secs. 67.113(c), 67.213(c), and 67.313(c)), of part 67.
Cholesterol Testing (Proposed Section 67.111(f))
The current rule contains no cholesterol standards. The proposed
rule adds a new total blood cholesterol testing requirement for first-
class applicants after they reach age 50, and annually thereafter. A
blood cholesterol level of 300 milligrams per deciliter or more
requires applicants to undergo further evaluation. If otherwise
eligible, the applicant would be issued a medical certificate pending
results of the evaluation.
Comments: The vast majority of individual commenters, as well as
NBAA, AOPA, ASMA, and EAA, do not support the proposed requirement for
total blood cholesterol determination for first-class medical
certification. AOPA, NATA, and ALPA say some individuals believe that
the test is invasive and a personal health matter to be discussed with
a private physician, not with the FAA. AOPA, EAA, two AME's, and
several individuals say factors other than total cholesterol contribute
to coronary artery disease. Since the AMA study, Allied Pilots
Association (APA), EAA, two AME's and several others note, high density
lipoprotein (HDL) and low density lipoprotein (LDL) have been found to
better correlate with coronary artery disease (CAD) than total
cholesterol.
Nearly half of the AME commenters state that cholesterol testing is
not needed because it does not predict an applicant's ability to
perform safely. One AME notes that 50 percent of all myocardial
infarctions occur in people with cholesterol ranging between 180 and
220, levels well below the FAA's proposed evaluation threshold of 300.
NBAA and APA say the link between incidence of high serum cholesterol
and aircraft accidents caused by pilot incapacitation is tenuous at
best. APA suggests that the FAA consider reviewing cardiovascular risk
factors every 3-5 years to develop other, more appropriate measures of
cardiovascular risk.
FAA Response: After careful consideration of the comments and
testimony received, the FAA has decided to withdraw the proposal to
measure the total cholesterol of applicants for first-class medical
certification. Several aviation associations, AME's, and individuals
commented that there is no scientific evidence that demonstrates the
relationship between a specific cholesterol value and the existence of
identifiable pathology that represents a threat to aviation safety.
Commenters pointed out that a different understanding exists today
about total cholesterol level, per se, and pathology compared to when
the data that supported the original proposal were compiled.
Cholesterol testing, as proposed, is not cost effective. The FAA
encourages airmen to have their lipid levels checked as a health
measure but is not requiring airmen to do so in the final rule.
Diabetes (Sections 67.113(a), 67.213(a), and 67.313(a))
No change is proposed to the standards concerning airmen with
diabetes, currently set forth in paragraph (f)(1) of Secs. 67.13,
67.15, and 67.17. In the preamble to the proposed rule, however, FAA
states that it has determined that persons who do not meet the medical
standard because their diabetes requires oral hypoglycemic drugs would
no longer be categorically denied special issuance of airman medical
certification. This policy would apply to individuals whose diabetes is
without complications and acceptably controlled by diet and oral drugs
with appropriate monitoring and other conditions. However, this policy
change does not affect the long-standing FAA policy and practice that a
diabetic using insulin for control is not eligible for unrestricted or
restricted medical certification.
Comments: Two AME's believe that insulin-dependent diabetics should
not be allowed any type of pilot's license.
USPA says insulin-dependent diabetics should be acceptable on a
case-by-case basis. One commenter believes that diabetic private or
recreational pilots should be certificated if their diabetes is under
good control.
EAA, two other AME's, and many individuals support permitting
[[Page 11251]]
noninsulin-dependent diabetics to obtain special issuance.
A few commenters state that it is unrealistic to exclude all users
of hypoglycemic drugs, as proposed in the NPRM. One diabetic noted that
50 percent of men over 65 have ``Diabetes II,'' which does not require
insulin or anything other than a mild drug.
FAA Response: After careful consideration of the comments and
testimony received as well as the petitions and comments received to
docket Nos. 26281 and 26493, the FAA has determined that the current
consensus of the medical community supports the FAA position. Many
individuals who are not insulin-treated diabetics can, with appropriate
monitoring and other conditions, receive a special issuance of their
medical certificates to perform the duties authorized by their class of
medical certificate without endangering public safety. The final rule
is the same as the current rule.
Also, the FAA has determined that, rather than engaging in
rulemaking concerning diabetes, it is more appropriate to reexamine its
policy on special issuance of medical certificates to persons with
insulin-treated diabetes mellitus. On December 29, 1994, subsequent to
publication of the NPRM, the Federal Air Surgeon requested comments on
a possible policy change with respect to individuals who have a
clinical diagnosis of insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (59 FR 67246,
December 29, 1994). The docket for this notice closed on March 29,
1995. The FAA will review the comments and testimony received in
dockets Nos. 26493 and 27940 concerning diabetes and will publish in a
separate notice the agency's determination concerning its policy on
special issuance of medical certificates to persons with insulin-
treated diabetes mellitus.
Special Issuance (Section 67.401)
Proposed Sec. 67.401(a) limits the duration of any medical
certificate issued under the special issuance procedures of this
section to the duration of an Authorization for special issuance. When
the Authorization expires, or if the FAA withdraws the Authorization,
the medical certificate issued pursuant to that Authorization also
expires.
Comments: AOPA and IPA say that the extra requirements for special
issuance procedures should be withdrawn because they will increase the
burden on FAA to write exceptions (especially in a time of government
budget cutting and staff reductions), and because applicants will have
to pay more and bet their livelihood with each reaffirmation request.
FAA Response: The FAA, after careful consideration of all the
comments and testimony received as well as the petitions and comments
received to Docket No. 25787, has decided to retain the requirement
limiting duration of any class medical certificate to the duration of
an Authorization. This will ensure that the medical justification for
the special issuance remains valid and the holder of the special
issuance undergoes appropriate periodic reevaluation. This change
explicitly connects the duration of any special issuance medical
certificate to the validity of the document upon which it is based and
requires periodic requests for reissuance. The FAA foresees no
significant additional administrative burden on the FAA.
The FAA has included specific requirements for an Authorization in
the rule language in order to provide procedures for legal
documentation and control of validity periods, followup requirements,
withdrawals, and functional or operational limitations.
Incorrect Statements by Applicants (Sections 67.401(f)(5) and
67.403(c))
The proposed rule broadens the regulatory basis for action when an
applicant or airman provides incorrect information when applying for
medical certification. Proposed Secs. 67.401(f)(5) and 67.403(c) would
allow the FAA the option of denying, suspending, or revoking an airman
medical certificate and denying or withdrawing an Authorization or
SODA, not only when the holder makes a fraudulent or intentionally
false statement, but also when the holder makes an incorrect statement
in support of a request for a medical certificate, an Authorization, or
SODA or in an entry in any logbook, record, or report that is kept,
made, or used to show compliance with the medical certificate,
Authorization, or SODA. A suspension, revocation, or withdrawal could
occur even if the person did not knowingly make the incorrect statement
or entry.
Comments: One AME supports the Authorization and SODA withdrawal
proposals.
EAA says the proposed Sec. 67.403(c) statement concerning
unknowingly false statements should only call for a review of the
medical certificate and possible revocation, if warranted by the
corrected information. AOPA notes that the Federal Aviation Act says
applicants denied issuance or renewal of a certificate may have an NTSB
hearing.
NATCA, IPA, APA, four AME's, and a large number of individual
commenters are concerned about what they view as the lack of due
process in the decision to withdraw the Authorization. According to
these commenters, many innocent errors are made on the applications due
to the applicant's unclear memory or misunderstanding of terms on the
application. These commenters suggest that the FAA require the AME to
contact the pilot and provide a chance to explain and correct the
incorrect statements. Commenters say that the wording creates too
ambiguous an authority for the FAA and creates the potential for action
by the FAA against almost any pilot. Some associations are concerned
that individuals whose applications or certificates are denied may
actually lose their jobs without benefit of an opportunity to clarify
unintentional discrepancies.
FAA Response: The FAA noted in the preamble to the NPRM its concern
that medical certification based on incorrect medical data may be
inappropriate in the light of the true data. The current regulations do
not explicitly provide for withdrawal of an Authorization or SODA or
suspension or revocation of a medical certificate when unknowingly
incorrect statements are relied upon in the FAA's decision to issue an
Authorization, SODA, or medical certificate. The FAA's intent in
including language on incorrect statements is to provide a basis for
appropriate action when a person provides such unknowingly incorrect
information that is relied on by the agency in its decision. The
withdrawal, suspension, or revocation in this case is not meant to be
punitive, but rather corrects the inappropriate granting of an
Authorization, SODA, or medical certificate. The final rule clarifies
the FAA's intent by including language in Sec. 67.403(c) that limits
the reference to ``incorrect statements'' to those ``upon which the FAA
relied.''
Return of Medical Certificate Sections 67.401(i)(4) and 67.415
Proposed Sec. 67.401(i)(4) requires surrender to the Administrator
of a medical certificate rendered invalid pursuant to a withdrawal in
accordance with Sec. 67.401(a). The proposal also adds a requirement in
Sec. 67.415 to specify that the holder of a medical certificate that is
suspended or revoked must return the medical certificate to the
Administrator.
Comments: EAA says that presently airmen are not required to return
their medical certificates without a hearing before the NTSB;
procedures now exist for emergency suspension or revocation of a
certificate based on false information. Therefore, EAA believes
[[Page 11252]]
there is no need for this requirement. Three AME's believe that the
added requirement for mandatory return of a medical certificate at the
request of the Administrator would open the whole process of medical
certification to potential abuse by the FAA and should be deleted.
Several individuals state that this provision is unnecessary and should
be withdrawn; the current rules are sufficient to ensure that pilots
fly only with a valid medical certificate.
FAA Response: Current Sec. 67.27(g) provides that the holder of a
medical certificate shall surrender it, upon request of the FAA, if its
issuance is wholly or partly reversed upon reconsideration. After
careful consideration of all the comments and testimony received, the
FAA has determined that the language, as proposed, codifies existing
practice, parallels the procedures with airman certificates, and
clarifies the FAA's intent to require the return of medical
certificates that have become invalid. The retention by an airman of an
invalid medical certificate is not consistent with proper and efficient
enforcement of safety regulations because of the apparent authority of
these documents. Inclusion of this requirement, however, does not in
any way affect the certificate holder's administrative review or appeal
rights.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Introduction
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs Federal agencies to
promulgate new regulations or modify existing regulations only if the
potential benefits to society justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the economic
impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Finally, the Office of
Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the effects of
regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting these
assessments, the FAA has determined that this rule: (1) Will generate
benefits exceeding its costs and is not ``significant'' as defined in
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Policies and Procedures; (3) will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities; and (4) will not constitute a
barrier to international trade. These analyses, available in the
docket, are summarized below.
The majority of the amendments will have insignificant attributable
costs and benefits. This evaluation does not address the minor
amendments such as changes in syntax, technical corrections,
reorganization, updating medical terminology, or adjustments to cross
references for conformance purposes.
Furthermore, the evaluation attributes no significant costs or
benefits to several other amendments that add a specific disease or
medical condition to the list of medical standards. Such additions do
not necessarily constitute a change in the standards. Existing
regulations include three open-ended (general) medical standards that
cover:
(1) any other personality disorder, neurosis, or mental
condition * * *, (2) any other organic, functional, or structural
disease, defect, or limitation * * *, and (3) no medication or other
treatment * * *.
that the Federal Air Surgeon finds would make, or may reasonably be
expected to make, the applicant unable to perform the duties associated
with the airman certificate. Thus, the applicable medical standards are
not limited to those actually listed in the regulation. As medical
knowledge and experience progress, the Federal Air Surgeon may find a
previously unlisted disease or condition to be grounds for withholding
or restricting a medical certificate, so long as that finding is based
on qualified medical judgment.
The addition of specifically disqualifying medical conditions under
the amended standards could cause a small number of airmen, who
currently hold medical certificates as a result of an order of the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to be disqualified from
further medical certification. These airmen were denied medical
certification by the FAA under the current general medical standards.
For example, the FAA has denied medical certification to airmen who
have had cardiac valve replacement and the NTSB has ordered medical
certification in some of these cases. Under the amended standards a
medical history of cardiac valve replacement is specifically
disqualifying and those airmen will no longer be entitled to medical
certification. It is expected, however, that medical certification of
the affected individuals will continue under the Federal Air Surgeon's
special issuance authority once the FAA evaluates the case and is
satisfied that the airman's condition has not worsened since the NTSB
ordered medical certification. As such, the expected economic impact of
the specifically disqualifying medical conditions will be minor.
Discussion of Comments Addressing Economic Evaluation
This section of the summary responds to comments concerning the
economic evaluation of the NPRM. The NPRM for this rule included five
significant proposals that were withdrawn after careful consideration
of the comments received. This section notes, but does not address
comments concerning the regulatory evaluation of the withdrawn
proposals, since such comments are no longer pertinent.
Comment: The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) states in it
comment that the FAA's regulatory flexibility analysis for the NPRM
does not conform to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), and that a
proper regulatory flexibility analysis must be performed prior to
issuing a final rule.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree. Federal agencies are required
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis only if the proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.\1\ The NPRM would not have had such impact and this was
stated. The SBA also notes that no explanation was provided to support
that determination. The FAA agrees and provides the following table of
explanation.
\1\ A Guide to Federal Agency Rulemaking, 2nd edition,
Administrative Conference of the United States; 1991; p. 162.
[[Page 11253]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
NPRM cost per
Medical certification category NPRM 10-year annualized Active year per
present value costs airmen active
airman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First-class........................................... $5,700,000 $811,551 147,676 $5.50
Second-class.......................................... 22,700,000 3,231,969 173,435 18.64
Third-class........................................... 5,600,000 797,314 325,996 2.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown above, the average annualized cost impact of the proposed
rule would have ranged from $2.45 to $18.64 per person subject to
medical certification requirements. It would be statistically
impossible for the impact of the proposed rule to exceed these averages
to such an extent as to have a significant impact (multiple thousands
of dollars annually depending on the entity type) on a substantial
number (at least one-third) of small entities; even if the rule only
affected small entities. Similarly, since the costs of the final rule
are approximately 20 percent of the NPRM costs, it follows that the
final rule also will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Comments: Several associations and numerous individual commenters
find it illogical to draw inferences for pilots from the air traffic
controllers who were monitored in the Johns Hopkins study. The reasons
cited by the commenters include air traffic control (ATC) work is
inherently stressful, ATC work is sedentary, controllers are exposed to
cathode ray tube monitors and indoor air, controllers have a history of
strife between labor and management, and they work on varying shifts.
FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The Hopkins study was expressly
used to quantify the relative differences of primary pathology
incidence across age cohorts. The Hopkins results are conclusively
supported by other general medical investigation as well as the FAA's
own medical certification data for pathology incidence and application
denials.
Comments: Four national aviation associations strongly disagree
with the NPRM proposal to reduce the duration of third-class medical
certificates for persons age 70 and older. The commenters assert that
the benefits have not been demonstrated and that the statistical
analysis FAA used to confirm that the incidence of pathology related
accidents increases with age is supported by an insufficient sample
size.
FAA Response: After careful consideration of the testimony and
comments received, the FAA has withdrawn this proposed provision.
Comments: Numerous individual commenters stated that the proposed
higher standards for blood pressure would prove costly to pilots with
borderline pressure measurements and that the affected individuals
would be required to take extensive additional testing.
FAA Response: After careful consideration of the testimony and
comments received, the FAA has withdrawn this proposed provision.
Comments: Six major associations disagree with the provision for
electrocardiograms, second class and assert that the frequency of
medically related aviation accidents, the majority of which are not
predictable, does not support the administrative and economic burdens
that would be imposed on the affected applicants. Two associations
assert that the 40-percent effectiveness level that was assumed in the
evaluation is questionable and is a significant error in the cost-
benefit analysis. Five associations, two AME's, and numerous individual
commenters state that the FAA's cost estimate does not account for the
cost for AME's to purchase the necessary medical equipment and modems.
They warn that some AME's may withdraw their participation rather than
incur the additional costs.
FAA Response: After careful consideration of the testimony and
comments received, the FAA has withdrawn this proposed provision.
Comments: Several associations assert that requiring a cholesterol
test would be a significant administrative and cost burden. One
association stated that the regulatory evaluation employed an average
laboratory test cost of $10, but that costs range between $15 and $16
in the Washington, D.C. area. One individual commenter asserts that the
cost-benefit analysis is flawed because it based cost savings on a
cholesterol level lower than 300, and because the analysis assumed that
all heart attacks studied represented individuals with critically high
cholesterol.
FAA Response: After careful consideration of the testimony and
comments received, the FAA has withdrawn this proposed provision.
Comments: One major association states that the addition of the
intermediate vision, first and second class is unnecessary and
unwarranted, and that it would add costs with no significant safety
benefit.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree. The evaluation estimated that
the direct testing costs, including applicant time, would range from
$1.30 to $3.86 per year per applicant age 50 and older. Additional
costs (for glasses and examinations) would only be incurred by those
persons whose intermediate vision was, in fact, deficient, and who
could not satisfactorily read their flight instruments. The FAA
maintains that these costs are not unreasonable, and that the benefits
of commercial pilots being able to read flight instruments are
conclusive.
Costs and Benefits That Are Not Quantified
Prior to summarizing the evaluation of the substantive provisions,
it is important to note one category of costs and one category of
benefits that have not been quantified in this analysis. The evaluation
does not explicitly quantify the economic consequences to those
individuals who could lose their pilot medical certificate privileges
as a result of the additional medical tests or standards. Where such
consequences are expected, the evaluation estimates the numbers of
persons who may be denied but does not attribute a cost to those
actions.
-It is recognized that the denial of pilot privileges could mean
the loss of a highly valued avocation for some individuals. For others,
it could actually result in the loss of primary livelihood. An accurate
assessment of the economic valuation of the denials that are projected
under the rule is beyond the scope of the evaluation.
-At the same time, the evaluation also does not quantify the
overwhelming personal health benefits, external to flight safety, that
will be afforded to those individuals whose medical conditions will be
detected and whose treatment will be enabled by the new tests and
standards. On average, third-class medical certificate holders spend
only 0.7 percent of their time flying. The evaluation only quantifies
the direct benefits of the rule to reduced aviation accidents.
[[Page 11254]]
-Under existing regulations, the Federal Air Surgeon is charged to
deny a medical certificate in those cases where a disease or other
physical or mental condition would make, or may be reasonably be
expected to make, the applicant unable to perform the duties associated
with the medical certificate. Such findings are not capricious, but
instead, are based on the case history of the individual and on
appropriate, qualified medical judgment. The FAA holds that the
severity of a disease or medical condition necessary to warrant a
denial is such that the aviation safety and personal health benefits of
that action will always exceed the costs associated with the loss of
pilot privilege.
Summary of Quantified Costs and Benefits
Vision Amendments, All Classes. The final rule institutes
additional vision tests and standards for all three classes. For first-
and second-class medical certificate applicants age 50 and older, it
adds a new standard (20/40 or better, Snellen equivalent) and a new
test for intermediate vision (near vision at 32 inches). Applicants for
third-class medical certificates will be subject to a new standard (20/
40 or better) and a new test for near vision (16 inches).
The projected 10-year costs of the intermediate vision amendment
for first-class medical certificate applicants are: (1) $1.4 million in
primary testing costs, (2) $2.1 million in follow-up compliance costs
(examinations and glasses) for those persons who would not meet the
standard, and (3) $6,147 in direct processing costs for the expected 15
additional persons who could be denied under the provision. In total,
it is expected that the intermediate vision amendment for first-class
medical certificate applicants would impose an incremental 10-year cost
of $3.5 million, with a 1995 present value of $2.5 million.
The projected 10-year costs of the intermediate vision amendment
for second-class medical certificate applicants are: (1) $442,224 in
primary testing costs, (2) $2.0 million in follow-up compliance costs
(examinations and glasses) for those persons who would not meet the
standard, and (3) $6,626 in direct processing costs for the expected 17
additional persons who would be denied under the provision. In total,
it is expected that the intermediate vision amendment for second-class
medical certificate applicants would impose an incremental 10-year cost
of $2.4 million, with a 1995 present value of $1.7 million.
The projected 10-year costs of the near vision amendment for third-
class medical certificate applicants are: (1) $2.3 million in primary
testing costs, (2) $1.1 million in follow-up compliance costs
(examinations and glasses) for those persons who would not meet the
standard, and (3) $129,690 in direct processing costs for the expected
330 additional persons who would be denied under the provision. In
total, it is expected that the near vision amendment for third-class
medical certificate applicants would impose an incremental 10-year cost
of $3.5 million, with a 1995 present value of $2.5 million. It is
emphasized that the denials and costs associated with the near vision
requirement are not wholly attributable to the amendment. Although this
requirement does not exist in current regulations, the requirement has
been in place administratively for some time. Thus, the associated
costs are being and would continue to be incurred without this
amendment. The economic evaluation of this requirement is provided as
information to assess the fact the requirement would explicitly be
added to the regulations.
In assessing the benefits of the vision amendments, NTSB accident
records were investigated for the periods from 1962 through 1989 for
commercial flights and from 1982 through 1989 for general aviation. For
these periods, no accident was found where intermediate or near vision
deficiency was specifically determined to be the cause. As such, the
FAA is not able to quantitatively ascribe the benefits of the three
vision amendments based solely on historical accident analysis.
Notwithstanding the absence of documented accidents related to
these three provisions, the FAA maintains that such accidents may well
have occurred and would continue to occur in the absence of the
amendments. The NTSB accident analysis system may not document those
cases where a near or intermediate vision problem caused or contributed
to accidents. Examples would include deviations from course or
altitude, inaccurate monitoring of gauges and other avionics displays,
and incorrect setting of aeronautical parameters such as headings or
radio frequencies.
While the extent to which intermediate or near vision problems have
caused such accidents is unknown, it is the FAA's position that: (1)
general aviation pilots require adequate near vision to read charts and
checklists, and (2) commercial pilots require adequate intermediate
vision to properly monitor aircraft instruments. Although this
evaluation is not able to quantify the benefits of the vision
amendments, the FAA holds that the benefits will be significant and
will exceed the expected costs.
Part 61, Medical Certificate Validity Period, Third-Class. Under
the final rule, persons under age 40 will generally only be required to
undergo a physical examination every 3 years. Medical certificates for
persons age 40 and older will continue to be valid for 2 years.
Other than minor administrative costs to effect the new procedure,
there will be no direct expenditures associated with the amendment. In
addition, careful consideration of all comments and testimony received,
as well as the petitions and comments received to Docket Nos. 24932,
26281, and 27473, leads the FAA to conclude that extending the duration
between medical examinations can be done with no detriment to safety in
the case of younger airmen, who are much less likely to suffer medical
incapacitation.
The FAA has investigated the relative primary pathology incidence
rates for persons under and over 40 years of age. As a group, persons
under age 40 exhibit 1/27 of the pathology incidence rate of persons 40
and older. Even weighting these rates, by the numbers of pilots by age
class, results in an ``under age 40'' incidence equal to 1/6 that of
third-class medical certificate applicants age 40 and older.
The FAA's position on this issue is further supported by a review
of the pertinent accident data. National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) data were reviewed for the period 1982 through 1989. During that
period, 259 pathology related, general aviation accidents occurred.
Only two of those accidents, however, involved private pilots under age
40 with a potentially detectable primary pathology. One case involved a
37-year-old pilot with a valid medical certificate who suffered a heart
attack that had not been predicted. The second accident involved a 25-
year-old with a vasovagal syncope who was flying without a medical
certificate.
As with all age groups, those individuals under age 40 manifesting
conditions that represent a risk to safety will be denied medical
certification or, if they apply for and receive a special issuance of a
medical certificate, will be restricted in their flying activities and/
or examined more thoroughly and frequently.
The primary benefits of this amended provision will derive from the
annual reduction in third-class medical certificate applications. FAA
compared the projected numbers of applications
[[Page 11255]]
under the existing 2 year duration for all ages, against the
applications that are expected under the final rule provision extending
the duration for persons under age 40 to 3 years. Applications under
the final rule were computed by reducing the projected applications for
persons under age 40 by a factor of two-thirds. Over the 10-year study
period, the part 61 provision is expected to reduce applications by
268,000.
Each avoided examination is valued at $89, consisting of $50 in
direct testing costs, and one and one-half hours of the applicant's
time valued at $29 per hour. This produces an expected 10-year savings
of $23.9 million, with a 1995 present value of $16.7 million, not
counting FAA processing costs
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily or
disproportionately burdened by Government regulations. The RFA requires
a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a rule would have a significant
economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial
number of small entities. FAA Order 2100.14A, Regulatory Flexibility
Criteria and Guidance, provides threshold cost and small entity size
standards for complying with RFA review requirements in FAA rulemaking
actions.
The rule is estimated to have a 10 year, 1995 present value cost of
$6.6 million, which equates to an annualized cost of $940,000 to the
approximately 647,100 active airmen. The average annualized effect per
airman is projected to equal $1.45. In light of this information, the
FAA finds that the amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The final rule will have little or no impact on trade for both U.S.
firms doing business in foreign countries and foreign firms doing
business in the United States.
Federalism Implications
The regulations herein would not have substantial direct effects on
the states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive
Order 12866, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and based on the
findings in the Regulatory Evaluation and the International Trade
Impact Analysis, the FAA has determined that this rule is not major
under Executive Order 12866. In addition, the FAA certifies that this
rule will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule is considered significant under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979). A regulatory evaluation of the rule, including a Regulatory
Flexibility Determination and Trade Impact Analysis, has been placed in
the docket. A copy may be obtained by contacting the person identified
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The paperwork burden associated with part 67 is currently approved
under OMB number 2120-0034. There is small reduction in paperwork
associated with this final rule.
Derivation and Distribution Tables
The Derivation Table below shows the source in current part 67 on
which each paragraph of each section of revised part 67 is based. The
Distribution Table below shows where each current part 67 section and
paragraph can be found in the revised part 67.
Derivation Table
Revised section Based On
Subpart A
Section
67.1............................... Current Secs. 67.1 and 67.21.
67.3............................... Current Sec. 67.11.
67.5............................... Current Sec. 67.12.
67.7............................... Current Sec. 67.3.
Subpart B
Section
67.101............................. Current Sec. 67.13(a) and new
language.
67.103(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.13(b)(1).
67.103(b).......................... Current Sec. 67.13(b)(2) and new
language.
67.103(c).......................... Current Sec. 67.13(b)(3) and new
language.
67.103(d).......................... Current Sec. 67.13(b)(4).
67.103(e).......................... Current Sec. 67.13(b)(5).
67.103(f).......................... Current Sec. 67.13(b)(6) and
flush paragraph.
67.105(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.13(c)(1) and new
language.
67.105(b).......................... Current Sec. 67.13(c)(2),
(c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(5), and new
language.
67.105(c).......................... Current Sec. 67.13(c)(6) and new
language.
67.107(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.13(d)(1)(i) and
new language.
67.107(b).......................... New language.
67.107(c).......................... Current Sec. 67.13(d)(1)(ii)
reordered.
67.109(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.13(d)(2)(i) and
new language.
67.109(b).......................... Current Sec. 67.13(d)(2)(ii).
67.111(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.13(e)(1) and new
language.
67.111(b).......................... Current Sec. 67.13(e)(2) and (3)
and new language.
67.111(c).......................... Flush paragraph after current
Sec. 67.13(e)(5) as modified.
67.113(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.13(f)(1).
67.113(b).......................... Current Sec. 67.13(f)(2).
67.113(c).......................... Current Sec. 67.13(f)(3), added
September 9, 1994.
67.115............................. Current Sec. 67.13(g).
Subpart C
Section
67.201............................. Current Sec. 67.15(a) and new
language.
67.203(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.15(b)(1).
67.203(b).......................... Current Sec. 67.15(b)(2) and new
language.
67.203(c).......................... Current Sec. 67.15(b)(5) and new
language.
67.203(d).......................... Current Sec. 67.15(b)(3).
67.203(e).......................... Current Sec. 67.15(b)(4) and new
language.
67.203(f).......................... Current Sec. 67.15(b)(6) and
flush paragraph.
67.205(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.15(c)(1) and new
language.
67.205(b).......................... Current Sec. 67.15(c)(2),
(c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(5), and new
language.
67.205(c).......................... Current Sec. 67.15(c)(6) and new
language.
67.207(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.15(d)(1)(i) and
new language.
67.207(b).......................... New language.
67.207(c).......................... Current Sec. 67.15(d)(1)(ii)
reordered.
67.209(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.15(d)(2)(i) and
new language.
67.209(b).......................... Current Sec. 67.15(d)(2)(ii) and
new language.
67.211............................. Current Sec. 67.15(e)(1) and new
language.
67.213(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.15(f)(1).
67.213(b).......................... Current Sec. 67.15(f)(2).
67.213(c).......................... Current Sec. 67.15(f)(3), added
September 9, 1994.
67.215............................. Current Sec. 67.15(g).
Subpart D
Section
67.301............................. Current Sec. 67.17(a) and new
language.
67.303(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.17(b)(1) and new
language.
67.303(b).......................... New language.
67.303(c).......................... Current Sec. 67.17(b)(3) and new
language.
67.303(d).......................... Current Sec. 67.17(b)(2) and new
language.
67.305(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.17(c)(1) and new
language.
67.305(b).......................... Current Sec. 67.17(c)(2) and
(3), and new language.
67.305(c).......................... Current Sec. 67.17(c)(4) and new
language.
67.307(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.17(d)(1)(i) and
new language.
67.307(b).......................... New language.
67.307(c).......................... Current Sec. 67.17(d)(1)(ii)
reordered.
67.309(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.17(d)(2)(i) and
new language.
67.309(b).......................... Current Sec. 67.17(d)(2)(ii) and
new language.
[[Page 11256]]
67.311............................. Current Sec. 67.17(e)(1) and new
language.
67.313(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.17(f)(1).
67.313(b).......................... Current Sec. 67.17(f)(2).
67.313(c).......................... Current Sec. 67.17(f)(3), added
September 9, 1994.
67.315............................. Current Sec. 67.17(g).
Subpart E
Section
67.401(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.19(a) and new
language.
67.401(b).......................... New language.
67.401(c).......................... Current Sec. 67.19(b).
67.401(d).......................... Current Sec. 67.19(d) and new
language.
67.401(e).......................... Current Sec. 67.19(c).
67.401(f).......................... New language.
67.401(g).......................... Current Sec. 67.19(e) and new
language.
67.401(h).......................... Current Sec. 67.19(f) and new
language.
67.401(i).......................... New language.
67.401(j).......................... New language.
67.403(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.20(a) and new
language.
67.403(b).......................... Current Sec. 67.20(b) and new
language.
67.403(c).......................... New language.
67.405(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.23(a).
67.405(b).......................... Current Sec. 67.23(b).
67.407(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.25(a) and new
language.
67.407(b).......................... Current Sec. 67.25(a) flush
paragraph and new language.
67.407(c).......................... Current Sec. 67.25(b), as
amended September 9, 1994, and
new language.
67.407(d).......................... Current Sec. 67.25(c).
67.409(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.27(a).
67.409(b).......................... Current Sec. 67.27(b), as
amended September 9, 1994.
67.409(c).......................... Current Sec. 67.27(c).
67.409(d).......................... Current Sec. 67.27(d).
67.411(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.29(a).
67.411(b).......................... Current Sec. 67.29(b).
67.411(c).......................... Current Sec. 67.29(c).
67.413(a).......................... Current Sec. 67.31.
67.413(b).......................... New language.
67.415............................. New language.
Distribution Table
Current Section Revised Section
Subpart A
Section
67.1............................... Sec. 67.1.
67.3............................... Sec. 67.7.
67.11.............................. Sec. 67.3.
67.12.............................. Sec. 67.5.
67.13(a)........................... Sec. 67.101.
67.13(b)........................... Sec. 67.103.
67.13(c)........................... Sec. 67.105.
67.13(d)........................... Sec. 67.107 and Sec. 67.109.
67.13(e)........................... Sec. 67.111 and Sec. 67.113(b).
67.13(f)........................... Sec. 67.113.
67.13(g)........................... Sec. 67.115.
67.15(a)........................... Sec. 67.201.
67.15(b)........................... Sec. 67.203.
67.15(c)........................... Sec. 67.205.
67.15(d)........................... Sec. 67.207 and Sec. 67.209.
67.15(e)........................... Sec. 67.211.
67.15(f)........................... Sec. 67.213.
67.15(g)........................... Sec. 67.215.
67.17(a)........................... Sec. 67.301.
67.17(b)........................... Sec. 67.303.
67.17(c)........................... Sec. 67.305.
67.17(d)........................... Sec. 67.307 and Sec. 67.309.
67.17(e)........................... Sec. 67.311.
67.17(f)........................... Sec. 67.313.
67.17(g)........................... Sec. 67.315.
67.19.............................. Sec. 67.401.
67.20.............................. Sec. 67.403.
Subpart B
Section
67.21.............................. Sec. 67.1.
67.23.............................. Sec. 67.405.
67.25.............................. Sec. 67.407.
67.27.............................. Sec. 67.409.
67.29.............................. Sec. 67.411.
67.31.............................. Sec. 67.413.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 61
Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Recreation and
recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 67
Airmen, Delegations of authority (Government agencies), Health,
Medical standards and certification procedures, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
The Amendments
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends parts 61 and 67 of Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR parts 61 and 67) as follows:
PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS AND FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS
1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-
44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
2. Section 61.23 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(2),
and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 61.23 Duration of medical certificates.
(a)-* * *
(3) The period specified in paragraph (c) of this section for
operations requiring only a private, recreational, or student pilot
certificate.
(b)-* * *
(2) The period specified in paragraph (c) of this section for
operations requiring only a private, recreational, or student pilot
certificate.
(c) A third-class medical certificate for operations requiring a
private, recreational, or student pilot certificate issued--
(1) Before September 16, 1996, expires at the end of the 24th month
after the month of the date of examination shown on the certificate.
(2) On or after September 16, 1996, expires at the end of the:
(i) 36th month after the month of the date of the examination shown
on the certificate if the person has not reached his or her 40th
birthday on or before the date of the examination; or
(ii) 24th month after the month of the date of the examination
shown on the certificate if the person has reached his or her 40th
birthday on or before the date of the examination.
3. Section 61.39 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 61.39 Prerequisites for flight tests.
(a)-* * *
(3) Hold a current medical certificate appropriate to the
certificate the applicant seeks or, in the case of a rating to be added
to the applicant's pilot certificate, at least a current third-class
medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter;
* * * * *
4. Part 67 is revised to read as follows:
PART 67--MEDICAL STANDARDS AND CERTIFICATION
Subpart A--General
Sec.
67.1 Applicability.
67.3 Issue.
67.5 Certification of foreign airmen.
67.7 Access to the National Driver Register.
Subpart B--First-Class Airman Medical Certificate
67.101 Eligibility.
67.103 Eye.
67.105 Ear, nose, throat, and equilibrium.
67.107 Mental.
67.109 Neurologic.
67.111 Cardiovascular.
67.113 General medical condition.
67.115 Discretionary issuance.
Subpart C--Second-Class Airman Medical Certificate
67.201 Eligibility.
67.203 Eye.
67.205 Ear, nose, throat, and equilibrium.
67.207 Mental.
FR Doc. 96-6358 Revision of Airman Medical Standards and Certification Procedures and Duration of Medical Certificates
67.209 Neurologic.
67.211 Cardiovascular.
67.213 General medical condition.
67.215 Discretionary issuance.
Subpart D--Third-Class Airman Medical Certificate
67.301 Eligibility.
67.303 Eye.
67.305 Ear, nose, throat, and equilibrium.
67.307 Mental.
67.309 Neurologic.
67.311 Cardiovascular.
67.313 General medical condition.
67.315 Discretionary issuance.
[[Page 11257]]
Subpart E--Certification Procedures
67.401 Special issuance of medical certificates.
67.403 Applications, certificates, logbooks, reports, and -
records: Falsification, reproduction, or alteration; incorrect
statements.
67.405 Medical examinations: Who may give.
67.407 Delegation of authority.
67.409 Denial of medical certificate.
67.411 Medical certificates by flight surgeons of Armed Forces.
67.413 Medical records.
67.415 Return of medical certificate after suspension or
revocation.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-
44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45303.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 67.1 Applicability. -
This part prescribes the medical standards and certification
procedures for issuing medical certificates for airmen and for
remaining eligible for a medical certificate.
Sec. 67.3 Issue. -
Except as provided in Sec. 67.5, a person who meets the medical
standards prescribed in this part, based on medical examination and
evaluation of the person's history and condition, is entitled to an
appropriate medical certificate.
Sec. 67.5 Certification of foreign airmen. -
A person who is neither a United States citizen nor a resident
alien is issued a certificate under this part, outside the United
States, only when the Administrator finds that the certificate is
needed for operation of a U.S.-registered aircraft.
Sec. 67.7 Access to the National Driver Register. -
At the time of application for a certificate issued under this
part, each person who applies for a medical certificate shall execute
an express consent form authorizing the Administrator to request the
chief driver licensing official of any state designated by the
Administrator to transmit information contained in the National Driver
Register about the person to the Administrator. The Administrator shall
make information received from the National Driver Register, if any,
available on request to the person for review and written comment.
Subpart B -- First-Class Airman Medical Certificate
Sec. 67.101 Eligibility. -
To be eligible for a first-class airman medical certificate, and to
remain eligible for a first-class airman medical certificate, a person
must meet the requirements of this subpart.
Sec. 67.103 Eye. -
Eye standards for a first-class airman medical certificate are: -
(a) Distant visual acuity of 20/20 or better in each eye
separately, with or without corrective lenses. If corrective lenses
(spectacles or contact lenses) are necessary for 20/20 vision, the
person may be eligible only on the condition that corrective lenses are
worn while exercising the privileges of an airman certificate. -
(b) Near vision of 20/40 or better, Snellen equivalent, at 16
inches in each eye separately, with or without corrective lenses. If
age 50 or older, near vision of 20/40 or better, Snellen equivalent, at
both 16 inches and 32 inches in each eye separately, with or without
corrective lenses. -
(c) Ability to perceive those colors necessary for the safe
performance of airman duties. -
(d) Normal fields of vision. -
(e) No acute or chronic pathological condition of either eye or
adnexa that interferes with the proper function of an eye, that may
reasonably be expected to progress to that degree, or that may
reasonably be expected to be aggravated by flying. -
(f) Bifoveal fixation and vergence-phoria relationship sufficient
to prevent a break in fusion under conditions that may reasonably be
expected to occur in performing airman duties. Tests for the factors
named in this paragraph are not required except for persons found to
have more than 1 prism diopter of hyperphoria, 6 prism diopters of
esophoria, or 6 prism diopters of exophoria. If any of these values are
exceeded, the Federal Air Surgeon may require the person to be examined
by a qualified eye specialist to determine if there is bifoveal
fixation and an adequate vergence-phoria relationship. However, if
otherwise eligible, the person is issued a medical certificate pending
the results of the examination.
67.105 Ear, nose, throat, and equilibrium. -
Ear, nose, throat, and equilibrium standards for a first-class
airman medical certificate are:
(a) The person shall demonstrate acceptable hearing by at least one
of the following tests:
(1) Demonstrate an ability to hear an average conversational voice
in a quiet room, using both ears, at a distance of 6 feet from the
examiner, with the back turned to the examiner.
(2) Demonstrate an acceptable understanding of speech as determined
by audiometric speech discrimination testing to a score of at least 70
percent obtained in one ear or in a sound field environment.
(3) Provide acceptable results of pure tone audiometric testing of
unaided hearing acuity according to the following table of worst
acceptable thresholds, using the calibration standards of the American
National Standards Institute, 1969 (11 West 42d Street, New York, NY
10036):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 1000 2000 3000
Frequency (Hz) Hz Hz Hz Hz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better ear (Db)............................... 35 30 30 40
Poorer ear (Db)............................... 35 50 50 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) No disease or condition of the middle or internal ear, nose,
oral cavity, pharynx, or larynx that--
(1) Interferes with, or is aggravated by, flying or may reasonably
be expected to do so; or
(2) Interferes with, or may reasonably be expected to interfere
with, clear and effective speech communication.
(c) No disease or condition manifested by, or that may reasonably
be expected to be manifested by, vertigo or a disturbance of
equilibrium.
Sec. 67.107 Mental.
Mental standards for a first-class airman medical certificate are:
(a) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of any of
the following:
(1) A personality disorder that is severe enough to have repeatedly
manifested itself by overt acts.
(2) A psychosis. As used in this section, ``psychosis'' refers to a
mental disorder in which:
(i) The individual has manifested delusions, hallucinations,
grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or other commonly accepted
symptoms of this condition; or
(ii) The individual may reasonably be expected to manifest
delusions, hallucinations, grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or
other commonly accepted symptoms of this condition.
(3) A bipolar disorder.
(4) Substance dependence, except where there is established
clinical evidence, satisfactory to the Federal Air Surgeon, of
recovery, including sustained total abstinence from the substance(s)
for not less than the preceding 2 years. As used in this section-- --
(i) ``Substance'' includes: Alcohol; other sedatives and hypnotics;
anxiolytics; opioids; central nervous system stimulants such as
cocaine, amphetamines, and similarly acting sympathomimetics;
hallucinogens;
[[Page 11258]]
phencyclidine or similarly acting arylcyclohexylamines; cannabis;
inhalants; and other psychoactive drugs and chemicals; and
(ii) ``Substance dependence'' means a condition in which a person
is dependent on a substance, other than tobacco or ordinary xanthine-
containing (e.g., caffeine) beverages, as evidenced by--
(A) Increased tolerance;
(B) Manifestation of withdrawal symptoms;
(C) Impaired control of use; or
(D) Continued use despite damage to physical health or impairment
of social, personal, or occupational functioning.
(b) No substance abuse within the preceding 2 years defined as:
(1) Use of a substance in a situation in which that use was
physically hazardous, if there has been at any other time an instance
of the use of a substance also in a situation in which that use was
physically hazardous;
(2) A verified positive drug test result acquired under an anti-
drug program or internal program of the U.S. Department of
Transportation or any other Administration within the U.S. Department
of Transportation; or
(3) Misuse of a substance that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on
case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to
the substance involved, finds--
(i) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or
exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held;
or
(ii) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the
airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person
unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
(c) No other personality disorder, neurosis, or other mental
condition that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case history and
appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the condition
involved, finds--
(1) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or
exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held;
or
(2) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the
airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person
unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
Sec. 67.109 Neurologic.
Neurologic standards for a first-class airman medical certificate
are:
(a) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of any of
the following:
(1) Epilepsy;
(2) A disturbance of consciousness without satisfactory medical
explanation of the cause; or
(3) A transient loss of control of nervous system function(s)
without satisfactory medical explanation of the cause.
(b) No other seizure disorder, disturbance of consciousness, or
neurologic condition that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case
history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the
condition involved, finds--
(1) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or
exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held;
or
(2) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the
airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person
unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
Sec. 67.111 Cardiovascular.
Cardiovascular standards for a first-class airman medical
certificate are:
(a) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of any of
the following:
(1) Myocardial infarction;
(2) Angina pectoris;
(3) Coronary heart disease that has required treatment or, if
untreated, that has been symptomatic or clinically significant;
(4) Cardiac valve replacement;
(5) Permanent cardiac pacemaker implantation; or
(6) Heart replacement;
(b) A person applying for first-class medical certification must
demonstrate an absence of myocardial infarction and other clinically
significant abnormality on electrocardiographic examination:
(1) At the first application after reaching the 35th birthday; and
(2) On an annual basis after reaching the 40th birthday.
(c) An electrocardiogram will satisfy a requirement of paragraph
(b) of this section if it is dated no earlier than 60 days before the
date of the application it is to accompany and was performed and
transmitted according to acceptable standards and techniques.
Sec. 67.113 General medical condition.
The general medical standards for a first-class airman medical
certificate are:
(a) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
diabetes mellitus that requires insulin or any other hypoglycemic drug
for control.
(b) No other organic, functional, or structural disease, defect, or
limitation that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case history and
appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the condition
involved, finds--
(1) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or
exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held;
or
(2) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the
airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person
unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
(c) No medication or other treatment that the Federal Air Surgeon,
based on the case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment
relating to the medication or other treatment involved, finds--
(1) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or
exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held;
or
(2) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the
airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person
unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
Sec. 67.115 Discretionary issuance.
A person who does not meet the provisions of Secs. 67.103 through
67.113 may apply for the discretionary issuance of a certificate under
Sec. 67.401.
Subpart C--Second-Class Airman Medical Certificate
Sec. 67.201 Eligibility.
To be eligible for a second-class airman medical certificate, and
to remain eligible for a second-class airman medical certificate, a
person must meet the requirements of this subpart.
Sec. 67.203 Eye.
Eye standards for a second-class airman medical certificate are:
(a) Distant visual acuity of 20/20 or better in each eye
separately, with or without corrective lenses. If corrective lenses
(spectacles or contact lenses) are necessary for 20/20 vision, the
person may be eligible only on the condition that corrective lenses are
worn while exercising the privileges of an airman certificate.
(b) Near vision of 20/40 or better, Snellen equivalent, at 16
inches in each eye separately, with or without corrective lenses. If
age 50 or older, near vision of 20/40 or better, Snellen equivalent, at
both 16 inches and 32 inches in each eye separately, with or without
corrective lenses.
(c) Ability to perceive those colors necessary for the safe
performance of airman duties.
(d) Normal fields of vision.
(e) No acute or chronic pathological condition of either eye or
adnexa that
[[Page 11259]]
interferes with the proper function of an eye, that may reasonably be
expected to progress to that degree, or that may reasonably be expected
to be aggravated by flying.
(f) Bifoveal fixation and vergence-phoria relationship sufficient
to prevent a break in fusion under conditions that may reasonably be
expected to occur in performing airman duties. Tests for the factors
named in this paragraph are not required except for persons found to
have more than 1 prism diopter of hyperphoria, 6 prism diopters of
esophoria, or 6 prism diopters of exophoria. If any of these values are
exceeded, the Federal Air Surgeon may require the person to be examined
by a qualified eye specialist to determine if there is bifoveal
fixation and an adequate vergence-phoria relationship. However, if
otherwise eligible, the person is issued a medical certificate pending
the results of the examination.
Sec. 67.205 Ear, nose, throat, and equilibrium.
Ear, nose, throat, and equilibrium standards for a second-class
airman medical certificate are:
(a) The person shall demonstrate acceptable hearing by at least one
of the following tests:
(1) Demonstrate an ability to hear an average conversational voice
in a quiet room, using both ears, at a distance of 6 feet from the
examiner, with the back turned to the examiner.
(2) Demonstrate an acceptable understanding of speech as determined
by audiometric speech discrimination testing to a score of at least 70
percent obtained in one ear or in a sound field environment.
(3) Provide acceptable results of pure tone audiometric testing of
unaided hearing acuity according to the following table of worst
acceptable thresholds, using the calibration standards of the American
National Standards Institute, 1969:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 1000 2000 3000
Frequency (Hz) Hz Hz Hz Hz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better ear (Db)-.............................. 35 30 - 30 40
Poorer ear (Db)-.............................. 35 50 50 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) No disease or condition of the middle or internal ear, nose,
oral cavity, pharynx, or larynx that--
(1) Interferes with, or is aggravated by, flying or may reasonably
be expected to do so; or
(2) Interferes with, or may reasonably be expected to interfere
with, clear and effective speech communication.
(c) No disease or condition manifested by, or that may reasonably
be expected to be manifested by, vertigo or a disturbance of
equilibrium.
Sec. 67.207 Mental.
Mental standards for a second-class airman medical certificate are:
(a) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of any of
the following:
(1) A personality disorder that is severe enough to have repeatedly
manifested itself by overt acts.
(2) A psychosis. As used in this section, ``psychosis'' refers to a
mental disorder in which:
(i) The individual has manifested delusions, hallucinations,
grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or other commonly accepted
symptoms of this condition; or
(ii) The individual may reasonably be expected to manifest
delusions, hallucinations, grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or
other commonly accepted symptoms of this condition.
(3) A bipolar disorder.
(4) Substance dependence, except where there is established
clinical evidence, satisfactory to the Federal Air Surgeon, of
recovery, including sustained total abstinence from the substance(s)
for not less than the preceding 2 years. As used in this section-- ---
(i) ``Substance'' includes: Alcohol; other sedatives and hypnotics;
anxiolytics; opioids; central nervous system stimulants such as
cocaine, amphetamines, and similarly acting sympathomimetics;
hallucinogens; phencyclidine or similarly acting arylcyclohexylamines;
cannabis; inhalants; and other psychoactive drugs and chemicals; and
(ii) ``Substance dependence'' means a condition in which a person
is dependent on a substance, other than tobacco or ordinary xanthine-
containing (e.g., caffeine) beverages, as evidenced by--
(A) Increased tolerance;
(B) Manifestation of withdrawal symptoms;
(C) Impaired control of use; or
(D) Continued use despite damage to physical health or impairment
of social, personal, or occupational functioning.
(b) No substance abuse within the preceding 2 years defined as:
(1) Use of a substance in a situation in which that use was
physically hazardous, if there has been at any other time an instance
of the use of a substance also in a situation in which that use was
physically hazardous;
(2) A verified positive drug test result acquired under an anti-
drug program or internal program of the U.S. Department of
Transportation or any other Administration within the U.S. Department
of Transportation; or
(3) Misuse of a substance that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on
case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to
the substance involved, finds--
(i) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or
exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held;
or
(ii) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the
airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person
unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
(c) No other personality disorder, neurosis, or other mental
condition that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case history and
appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the condition
involved, finds--
(1) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or
exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held;
or
(2) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the
airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person
unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
67.209 Neurologic.
Neurologic standards for a second-class airman medical certificate
are:
(a) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of any of
the following:
(1) Epilepsy;
(2) A disturbance of consciousness without satisfactory medical
explanation of the cause; or
(3) A transient loss of control of nervous system function(s)
without satisfactory medical explanation of the cause;
(b) No other seizure disorder, disturbance of consciousness, or
neurologic condition that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case
history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the
condition involved, finds--
(1) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or
exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held;
or
(2) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the
airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person
unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
67.211 Cardiovascular.
Cardiovascular standards for a second-class medical certificate are
no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of any of the
following:
(a) Myocardial infarction;
(b) Angina pectoris;
(c) Coronary heart disease that has required treatment or, if
untreated, that
[[Page 11260]]
has been symptomatic or clinically significant;
(d) Cardiac valve replacement;
(e) Permanent cardiac pacemaker implantation; or
(f) Heart replacement.
67.213 General medical condition.
The general medical standards for a second-class airman medical
certificate are:
(a) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
diabetes mellitus that requires insulin or any other hypoglycemic drug
for control.
(b) No other organic, functional, or structural disease, defect, or
limitation that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case history and
appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the condition
involved, finds--
(1) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or
exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held;
or
(2) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the
airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person
unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
(c) No medication or other treatment that the Federal Air Surgeon,
based on the case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment
relating to the medication or other treatment involved, finds--
(1) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or
exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held;
or
-(2) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the
airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person
unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
Sec. 67.215 Discretionary issuance.
- A person who does not meet the provisions of Secs. 67.203 through
67.213 may apply for the discretionary issuance of a certificate under
Sec. 67.401.
Subpart D--Third-Class Airman Medical Certificate
Sec. 67.301 Eligibility.
-To be eligible for a third-class airman medical certificate, or to
remain eligible for a third-class airman medical certificate, a person
must meet the requirements of this subpart.
Sec. 67.303 Eye.
-Eye standards for a third-class airman medical certificate are:
-(a) Distant visual acuity of 20/40 or better in each eye
separately, with or without corrective lenses. If corrective lenses
(spectacles or contact lenses) are necessary for 20/40 vision, the
person may be eligible only on the condition that corrective lenses are
worn while exercising the privileges of an airman certificate.
-(b) Near vision of 20/40 or better, Snellen equivalent, at 16
inches in each eye separately, with or without corrective lenses.
-(c) Ability to perceive those colors necessary for the safe
performance of airman duties.
-(d) No acute or chronic pathological condition of either eye or
adnexa that interferes with the proper function of an eye, that may
reasonably be expected to progress to that degree, or that may
reasonably be expected to be aggravated by flying.
Sec. 67.305 Ear, nose, throat, and equilibrium.
-Ear, nose, throat, and equilibrium standards for a third-class
airman medical certificate are:
-(a) The person shall demonstrate acceptable hearing by at least
one of the following tests:
-(1) Demonstrate an ability to hear an average conversational voice
in a quiet room, using both ears, at a distance of 6 feet from the
examiner, with the back turned to the examiner.
-(2) Demonstrate an acceptable understanding of speech as
determined by audiometric speech discrimination testing to a score of
at least 70 percent obtained in one ear or in a sound field
environment.
-(3) Provide acceptable results of pure tone audiometric testing of
unaided hearing acuity according to the following table of worst
acceptable thresholds, using the calibration standards of the American
National Standards Institute, 1969:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
500 1000 2000 3000
Frequency (Hz) Hz Hz Hz Hz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better ear (Db)-.............................. 35 30 30 40
Poorer ear (Db)-.............................. 35 50 50 60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-(b) No disease or condition of the middle or internal ear, nose,
oral cavity, pharynx, or larynx that--
-(1) Interferes with, or is aggravated by, flying or may reasonably
be expected to do so; or
-(2) Interferes with clear and effective speech communication.
-(c) No disease or condition manifested by, or that may reasonably
be expected to be manifested by, vertigo or a disturbance of
equilibrium.
Sec. 67.307 Mental.
-Mental standards for a third-class airman medical certificate are:
-(a) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of any of
the following:
-(1) A personality disorder that is severe enough to have
repeatedly manifested itself by overt acts.
-(2) A psychosis. As used in this section, ``psychosis'' refers to
a mental disorder in which--
-(i) The individual has manifested delusions, hallucinations,
grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or other commonly accepted
symptoms of this condition; or
-(ii) The individual may reasonably be expected to manifest
delusions, hallucinations, grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or
other commonly accepted symptoms of this condition.
-(3) A bipolar disorder.
-(4) Substance dependence, except where there is established
clinical evidence, satisfactory to the Federal Air Surgeon, of
recovery, including sustained total abstinence from the substance(s)
for not less than the preceding 2 years. As used in this section-- -
-(i) ``Substance'' includes: alcohol; other sedatives and
hypnotics; anxiolytics; opioids; central nervous system stimulants such
as cocaine, amphetamines, and similarly acting sympathomimetics;
hallucinogens; phencyclidine or similarly acting arylcyclohexylamines;
cannabis; inhalants; and other psychoactive drugs and chemicals; and
-(ii) ``Substance dependence'' means a condition in which a person
is dependent on a substance, other than tobacco or ordinary xanthine-
containing (e.g., caffeine) beverages, as evidenced by--
-(A) Increased tolerance;
-(B) Manifestation of withdrawal symptoms;
-(C) Impaired control of use; or
-(D) Continued use despite damage to physical health or impairment
of social, personal, or occupational functioning.
-(b) No substance abuse within the preceding 2 years defined as:
-(1) Use of a substance in a situation in which that use was
physically hazardous, if there has been at any other time an instance
of the use of a substance also in a situation in which that use was
physically hazardous;
-(2) A verified positive drug test result conducted under an anti-
drug rule or internal program of the U.S. Department of Transportation
or any other Administration within the U.S. Department of
Transportation; or
-(3) Misuse of a substance that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on
case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to
the substance involved, finds--
-(i) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or
exercise the
[[Page 11261]]
privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held; or
-(ii) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the
airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person
unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
-(c) No other personality disorder, neurosis, or other mental
condition that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case history and
appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the condition
involved, finds--
-(1) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or
exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held;
or
-(2) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the
airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person
unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
Sec. 67.309 Neurologic.
-Neurologic standards for a third-class airman medical certificate
are:
-(a) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of any of
the following:
-(1) Epilepsy;
-(2) A disturbance of consciousness without satisfactory medical
explanation of the cause; or
-(3) A transient loss of control of nervous system function(s)
without satisfactory medical explanation of the cause.
-(b) No other seizure disorder, disturbance of consciousness, or
neurologic condition that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case
history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the
condition involved, finds--
(1) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or
exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held;
or
(2) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the
airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person
unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
Sec. 67.311 Cardiovascular.
Cardiovascular standards for a third-class airman medical
certificate are no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
any of the following:
(a) Myocardial infarction;
(b) Angina pectoris;
(c) Coronary heart disease that has required treatment or, if
untreated, that has been symptomatic or clinically significant;
(d) Cardiac valve replacement;
(e) Permanent cardiac pacemaker implantation; or
(f) Heart replacement.
Sec. 67.313 General medical condition.
The general medical standards for a third-class airman medical
certificate are:
(a) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
diabetes mellitus that requires insulin or any other hypoglycemic drug
for control.
(b) No other organic, functional, or structural disease, defect, or
limitation that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case history and
appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the condition
involved, finds--
(1) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or
exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held;
or
(2) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the
airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person
unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
(c) No medication or other treatment that the Federal Air Surgeon,
based on the case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment
relating to the medication or other treatment involved, finds--
(1) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or
exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held;
or
(2) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the
airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person
unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
Sec. 67.315 Discretionary issuance.
A person who does not meet the provisions of Secs. 67.303 through
67.313 may apply for the discretionary issuance of a certificate under
Sec. 67.401.
Subpart E--Certification Procedures
Sec. 67.401 Special issuance of medical certificates.
(a) At the discretion of the Federal Air Surgeon, an Authorization
for Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate (Authorization), valid
for a specified period, may be granted to a person who does not meet
the provisions of subparts B, C, or D of this part if the person shows
to the satisfaction of the Federal Air Surgeon that the duties
authorized by the class of medical certificate applied for can be
performed without endangering public safety during the period in which
the Authorization would be in force. The Federal Air Surgeon may
authorize a special medical flight test, practical test, or medical
evaluation for this purpose. A medical certificate of the appropriate
class may be issued to a person who does not meet the provisions of
subparts B, C, or D of this part if that person possesses a valid
Authorization and is otherwise eligible. An airman medical certificate
issued in accordance with this section shall expire no later than the
end of the validity period or upon the withdrawal of the Authorization
upon which it is based. At the end of its specified validity period,
for grant of a new Authorization, the person must again show to the
satisfaction of the Federal Air Surgeon that the duties authorized by
the class of medical certificate applied for can be performed without
endangering public safety during the period in which the Authorization
would be in force.
(b) At the discretion of the Federal Air Surgeon, a Statement of
Demonstrated Ability (SODA) may be granted, instead of an
Authorization, to a person whose disqualifying condition is static or
nonprogressive and who has been found capable of performing airman
duties without endangering public safety. A SODA does not expire and
authorizes a designated aviation medical examiner to issue a medical
certificate of a specified class if the examiner finds that the
condition described on its face has not adversely changed.
(c) In granting an Authorization or SODA, the Federal Air Surgeon
may consider the person's operational experience and any medical facts
that may affect the ability of the person to perform airman duties
including--
(1) The combined effect on the person of failure to meet more than
one requirement of this part; and
(2) The prognosis derived from professional consideration of all
available information regarding the person.
(d) In granting an Authorization or SODA under this section, the
Federal Air Surgeon specifies the class of medical certificate
authorized to be issued and may do any or all of the following:
(1) Limit the duration of an Authorization;
(2) Condition the granting of a new Authorization on the results of
subsequent medical tests, examinations, or evaluations;
(3) State on the Authorization or SODA, and any medical certificate
based upon it, any operational limitation needed for safety; or
(4) Condition the continued effect of an Authorization or SODA, and
any second- or third-class medical certificate based upon it, on
compliance with a statement of functional limitations issued to the
person in coordination with the Director of Flight Standards or the
Director's designee.
[[Page 11262]]
(e) In determining whether an Authorization or SODA should be
granted to an applicant for a third-class medical certificate, the
Federal Air Surgeon considers the freedom of an airman, exercising the
privileges of a private pilot certificate, to accept reasonable risks
to his or her person and property that are not acceptable in the
exercise of commercial or airline transport pilot privileges, and, at
the same time, considers the need to protect the safety of persons and
property in other aircraft and on the ground.
(f) An Authorization or SODA granted under the provisions of this
section to a person who does not meet the applicable provisions of
subparts B, C, or D of this part may be withdrawn, at the discretion of
the Federal Air Surgeon, at any time if--
(1) There is adverse change in the holder's medical condition;
(2) The holder fails to comply with a statement of functional
limitations or operational limitations issued as a condition of
certification under this section;
(3) Public safety would be endangered by the holder's exercise of
airman privileges;
(4) The holder fails to provide medical information reasonably
needed by the Federal Air Surgeon for certification under this section;
or
(5) The holder makes or causes to be made a statement or entry that
is the basis for withdrawal of an Authorization or SODA under
Sec. 67.403.
(g) A person who has been granted an Authorization or SODA under
this section based on a special medical flight or practical test need
not take the test again during later physical examinations unless the
Federal Air Surgeon determines or has reason to believe that the
physical deficiency has or may have degraded to a degree to require
another special medical flight test or practical test.
(h) The authority of the Federal Air Surgeon under this section is
also exercised by the Manager, Aeromedical Certification Division, and
each Regional Flight Surgeon.
(i) If an Authorization or SODA is withdrawn under paragraph (f) of
this section the following procedures apply:
(1) The holder of the Authorization or SODA will be served a letter
of withdrawal, stating the reason for the action;
(2) By not later than 60 days after the service of the letter of
withdrawal, the holder of the Authorization or SODA may request, in
writing, that the Federal Air Surgeon provide for review of the
decision to withdraw. The request for review may be accompanied by
supporting medical evidence;
(3) Within 60 days of receipt of a request for review, a written
final decision either affirming or reversing the decision to withdraw
will be issued; and
(4) A medical certificate rendered invalid pursuant to a
withdrawal, in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, shall be
surrendered to the Administrator upon request.
(j) No grant of a special issuance made prior to September 16,
1996, may be used to obtain a medical certificate after the earlier of
the following dates:
(1) September 16, 1997; or
(2) The date on which the holder of such special issuance is
required to provide additional information to the FAA as a condition
for continued medical certification.
Sec. 67.403 Applications, certificates, logbooks, reports, and
records: Falsification, reproduction, or alteration; incorrect
statements.
(a) No person may make or cause to be made--
(1) A fraudulent or intentionally false statement on any
application for a medical certificate or on a request for any
Authorization for Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate
(Authorization) or Statement of Demonstrated Ability (SODA) under this
part;
(2) A fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any logbook,
record, or report that is kept, made, or used, to show compliance with
any requirement for any medical certificate or for any Authorization or
SODA under this part;
(3) A reproduction, for fraudulent purposes, of any medical
certificate under this part; or
(4) An alteration of any medical certificate under this part.
(b) The commission by any person of an act prohibited under
paragraph (a) of this section is a basis for--
(1) Suspending or revoking all airman, ground instructor, and
medical certificates and ratings held by that person;
(2) Withdrawing all Authorizations or SODA's held by that person;
and
(3) Denying all applications for medical certification and requests
for Authorizations or SODA's.
(c) The following may serve as a basis for suspending or revoking a
medical certificate; withdrawing an Authorization or SODA; or denying
an application for a medical certificate or request for an
authorization or SODA:
(1) An incorrect statement, upon which the FAA relied, made in
support of an application for a medical certificate or request for an
Authorization or SODA.-
(2) An incorrect entry, upon which the FAA relied, made in any
logbook, record, or report that is kept, made, or used to show
compliance with any requirement for a medical certificate or an
Authorization or SODA.
Sec. 67.405 Medical examinations: Who may give. -
(a) First-class. Any aviation medical examiner who is specifically
designated for the purpose may give the examination for the first-class
medical certificate. Any interested person may obtain a list of these
aviation medical examiners, in any area, from the FAA Regional Flight
Surgeon of the region in which the area is located. -
(b) Second- and third-class. Any aviation medical examiner may give
the examination for the second- or third-class medical certificate. Any
interested person may obtain a list of aviation medical examiners, in
any area, from the FAA Regional Flight Surgeon of the region in which
the area is located.
Sec. 67.407 Delegation of authority. -
(a) The authority of the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44703 to
issue or deny medical certificates is delegated to the Federal Air
Surgeon to the extent necessary to-- -
(1) Examine applicants for and holders of medical certificates to
determine whether they meet applicable medical standards; and -
(2) Issue, renew, and deny medical certificates, and issue, renew,
deny, and withdraw Authorizations for Special Issuance of a Medical
Certificate and Statements of Demonstrated Ability to a person based
upon meeting or failing to meet applicable medical standards. -
(b) Subject to limitations in this chapter, the delegated functions
of the Federal Air Surgeon to examine applicants for and holders of
medical certificates for compliance with applicable medical standards
and to issue, renew, and deny medical certificates are also delegated
to aviation medical examiners and to authorized representatives of the
Federal Air Surgeon within the FAA. -
(c) The authority of the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44702, to
reconsider the action of an aviation medical examiner is delegated to
the Federal Air Surgeon; the Manager, Aeromedical Certification
Division; and each Regional Flight Surgeon. Where the person does not
meet the standards of Secs. 67.107(b)(3) and (c), 67.109(b), 67.113(b)
and (c), 67.207(b)(3) and (c), 67.209(b), 67.213(b) and (c),
67.307(b)(3) and (c), 67.309(b), or 67.313(b) and (c), any action taken
under this paragraph other than by the Federal Air Surgeon is subject
to
[[Page 11263]]
reconsideration by the Federal Air Surgeon. A certificate issued by an
aviation medical examiner is considered to be affirmed as issued unless
an FAA official named in this paragraph (authorized official) reverses
that issuance within 60 days after the date of issuance. However, if
within 60 days after the date of issuance an authorized official
requests the certificate holder to submit additional medical
information, an authorized official may reverse the issuance within 60
days after receipt of the requested information. -
(d) The authority of the Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44709 to re-
examine any civil airman to the extent necessary to determine an
airman's qualification to continue to hold an airman medical
certificate, is delegated to the Federal Air Surgeon and his or her
authorized representatives within the FAA.
Sec. 67.409 Denial of medical certificate. -
(a) Any person who is denied a medical certificate by an aviation
medical examiner may, within 30 days after the date of the denial,
apply in writing and in duplicate to the Federal Air Surgeon,
Attention: Manager, Aeromedical Certification Division, AAM-300,
Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 26080, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma 73126, for reconsideration of that denial. If the person does
not ask for reconsideration during the 30-day period after the date of
the denial, he or she is considered to have withdrawn the application
for a medical certificate. -
(b) The denial of a medical certificate---
(1) By an aviation medical examiner is not a denial by the
Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44703.-
(2) By the Federal Air Surgeon is considered to be a denial by the
Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44703. -
(3) By the Manager, Aeromedical Certification Division, or a
Regional Flight Surgeon is considered to be a denial by the
Administrator under 49 U.S.C. 44703 except where the person does not
meet the standards of Secs. 67.107(b)(3) and (c), 67.109(b), or
67.113(b) and (c); 67.207(b)(3) and (c), 67.209(b), or 67.213(b) and
(c); or 67.307(b)(3) and (c), 67.309(b), or 67.313(b) and (c). -
(c) Any action taken under Sec. 67.407(c) that wholly or partly
reverses the issue of a medical certificate by an aviation medical
examiner is the denial of a medical certificate under paragraph (b) of
this section. -
(d) If the issue of a medical certificate is wholly or partly
reversed by the Federal Air Surgeon; the Manager, Aeromedical
Certification Division; or a Regional Flight Surgeon, the person
holding that certificate shall surrender it, upon request of the FAA.
Sec. 67.411 Medical certificates by flight surgeons of Armed Forces. -
(a) The FAA has designated flight surgeons of the Armed Forces on
specified military posts, stations, and facilities, as aviation medical
examiners. -
(b) An aviation medical examiner described in paragraph (a) of this
section may give physical examinations for the FAA medical certificates
to persons who are on active duty or who are, under Department of
Defense medical programs, eligible for FAA medical certification as
civil airmen. In addition, such an examiner may issue or deny an
appropriate FAA medical certificate in accordance with the regulations
of this chapter and the policies of the FAA. -
(c) Any interested person may obtain a list of the military posts,
stations, and facilities at which a flight surgeon has been designated
as an aviation medical examiner from the Surgeon General of the Armed
Force concerned or from the Manager, Aeromedical Education Division,
AAM-400, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 26082, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma 73125.
Sec. 67.413 Medical records. -
(a) Whenever the Administrator finds that additional medical
information or history is necessary to determine whether an applicant
for or the holder of a medical certificate meets the medical standards
for it, the Administrator requests that person to furnish that
information or to authorize any clinic, hospital, physician, or other
person to release to the Administrator all available information or
records concerning that history. If the applicant or holder fails to
provide the requested medical information or history or to authorize
the release so requested, the Administrator may suspend, modify, or
revoke all medical certificates the airman holds or may, in the case of
an applicant, deny the application for an airman medical certificate. -
(b) If an airman medical certificate is suspended or modified under
paragraph (a) of this section, that suspension or modification remains
in effect until the requested information, history, or authorization is
provided to the FAA and until the Federal Air Surgeon determines
whether the person meets the medical standards under this part.
Sec. 67.415 Return of medical certificate after suspension or
revocation. -
The holder of any medical certificate issued under this part that
is suspended or revoked shall, upon the Administrator's request, return
it to the Administrator.
Issued in Washington, D.C. on March 12, 1996.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-6358 Filed 3-13-96; 1:34 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6348 Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of Southeastern California; Interim Final Rule to Revise Container Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11127-11129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6348]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 925
[Docket No. FV95-925-1IFR]
Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of Southeastern California;
Interim Final Rule to Revise Container Requirements
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Interim final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule adds two new containers to the list of containers
authorized for use by table grape handlers regulated under the
marketing order. This rule also reduces the minimum net weight of
containers of California table grapes from 22 pounds to 20 pounds and
for grapes packed in poly bags from 20 pounds to 18 pounds. The
marketing order regulates the handling of table grapes grown in a
designated area of Southeastern California. The marketing order is
locally administered by the California Desert Grape Administrative
Committee (CDGAC). This rule allows for more
[[Page 11128]]
efficient use of containers and helps handlers meet industry needs.
DATES: Effective on March 19, 1996; comments must be received by April
18, 1996 will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this rule. Comments must be submitted in triplicate to the
Docket Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P. O. Box 96456,
Room 2523-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456, or by facsimile at (202) 720-
5698. Comments should reference this docket number and the date and
page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made
available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk
during regular business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles L. Rush, Marketing Order
Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O.
Box 96456, room 2526-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456, telephone (202) 690-
3670; or Rose M. Aguayo, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing
Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA,
2202 Monterey Street, Suite 102B, Fresno, California 93721; telephone
(209) 487-5901.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing Order
No. 925 [7 CFR Part 925], as amended, regulating the handling of table
grapes grown in a designated area of Southeastern California,
hereinafter referred to as the ``order.'' The order is effective under
the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended [7 U.S.C.
601-674], hereinafter referred to as the ``Act.''
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this interim
final rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This interim rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive
effect. This interim final rule would not preempt any State or local
laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted
therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the
petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the petition.
The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any
district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her
principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review the
Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided a bill in equity is filed
not later than 20 days after date of the entry of the ruling.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small
entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that
they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 20 handlers of California table grapes
subject to regulation under the order and approximately 80 table grape
producers in the production area. Small agricultural service firms are
defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as those
whose annual receipts are less than $5,000,000, and small agricultural
producers have been defined as those having annual receipts of less
than $500,000. A majority of handlers and producers are classified as
small entities.
This action is in accordance with Sec. 925.52(a)(4) of the order.
This section authorizes the Secretary to fix the size, capacity,
weight, dimensions, markings, materials, and pack of containers which
may be used in the handling of grapes.
Currently, Sec. 925.304(b)(2) of the regulations specifies that the
minimum net weight requirement for grapes in any container, except for
containers containing grapes packed in sawdust, cork, excelsior, or
similar packing material, or packed in bags or wrapped in plastic or
paper, and experimental containers, shall be 22 pounds based on the
average net weight of grapes in a representative sample of containers.
Containers of grapes packed in bags or wrapped in plastic or paper
prior to being placed in these containers are required to meet a net
weight requirement of 20 pounds.
Section 925.304(b)(1) of the regulations specifies the dimensions
of six containers that may be used by handlers of table grapes and
authorizes the use of other types and sizes of containers on an
experimental basis.
The CDGAC met on November 27, and December 4, 1995, and unanimously
recommended changes in current container requirements. Specifically,
the CDGAC recommended reducing the minimum net weight of containers
from 22 to 20 pounds and for containers of grapes wrapped or packed in
poly bags from 20 to 18 pounds, effective April 20, 1996. The CDGAC
also unanimously recommended adding two new containers (38S, 12 x 20
inches) and (38T, 13 \1/8\ x 15 \7/8\ inches) to the list of authorized
containers. These changes are intended to improve the quality of grapes
delivered to consumers and reduce handling costs.
The genesis for discussion of revising containers used to pack
grapes began about 6 years ago when the recyclability of packaging
materials became of interest to consumers worldwide and then to
retailers who bore the brunt of consumers' concern. In addition to the
environmental concern expressed by consumers, retailers were concerned
about the increasing costs of disposing of packing and shipping
materials.
Simultaneously, in an effort to differentiate themselves in the
marketplace, many in the retail industry began demanding that grape
growers provide custom packs. One customer wanted only a certain type
of bag, another wanted only 5-kilo bags, another wanted bags with
nothing printed on them, while yet another wanted a special store code.
These kinds of demands from the retail and food service industry
led to a great deal of packaging experimentation within the California
grape industry. It also led to the realization that it had been 25
years since there had been any quantifiable packaging research. The
industry decided to take a critical look at grape packaging and
determine if current practices were getting the product to the retailer
and ultimately the consumer in the best possible condition; and if not,
what changes needed to be made to improve delivery. Toward that end,
the California Table Grape Commission funded a three-year research
project designed to answer a simple question: what types of containers
get grapes to the consumer in the best possible condition?
Grapes are a fragile product. The current method of packing is a
holdover from 25 years ago when grapes were sold at auctions and it was
considered a marketing advantage to overpack the box so that when
buyers looked at the box it was bulging with fruit. Too often though,
what they did not see was the condition of the fruit inside; crushed,
[[Page 11129]]
split or falling off the stem. In addition, the standard lug box in use
today was designed to fit railroad cars. Shipping grapes by rail car is
a part of the industry's picturesque past.
The study of table grape packaging was conducted by the University
of California at Davis and the University of California at Kearney
Agricultural Center at Parlier. The objective of the study was to
develop knowledge concerning packaging that allows the movement of
table grapes from the field to the consumer in the best possible
condition.
The study looked at multiple varieties of grapes grown in
California, packed in cartons of a wide variety of materials,
dimensions, and packing depths. The study monitored numerous shipments
from the field to the grocery store. The conclusion of the study was
that the California table grape industry should reduce the weight of
its containers by 2 pounds in order to get the fruit delivered to
consumers in the best possible condition. At the reduced weight, the
damage to the grapes, particularly in terms of bruising, splitting and
shattering, decreases. Table grapes of most varieties suffered
considerable damage when packed at net weights of 22 or 23 pounds. The
damage was reduced considerably when the pack weights were reduced to
20 to 21 pounds.
Thus, the CDGAC's recommendation to reduce the minimum net weight
requirements is expected to result in higher quality grapes being
offered to consumers. This should increase satisfaction, strengthen
demand, and improve returns to growers and handlers.
Currently, most grapes packed in California are palletized on 35-
x 42-inch or 53- x 42-inch pallets prior to shipment. When received by
wholesalers or retailers, the grapes are unloaded and restacked on 48-
x 40-inch pallets. In response to these concerns by their customers,
grape handlers are beginning to discontinue use of the 35- x 42- inch
or 53- x 42-inch pallets.
Grocery and wholesale warehouse operations use 48- x 40-inch
pallets as the standard pallet for most products. The bulk of product
sold at retail outlets (e.g., cereal, paper products, canned goods,
etc.) are dry goods. These products are generally shipped on 48- x 40-
pallets. Consequently, the distribution channel is set up to
accommodate 48- x 40-inch pallets.
Nonstandard pallets such as those used by grape handlers must be
disposed of at the receivers' expense. However, with the use of 48-
x 40-inch pallets, which can be recycled, there should be a reduction
in expenses associated with pallets. The recycling program allows the
receiver to use the pallet more than once or remove it from the waste
stream to use or sell.
These changes in container requirements are supported by the
California Department of Agriculture, the California Grape and Tree
Fruit League, the California Table Grape Commission, the Food Marketing
Institute, and the National Association of Perishable Agricultural
Receivers. These organizations have all agreed that the reduction in
net weight is necessary to facilitate the implementation of an
industry-wide adoption of the standardized 48- x 40-inch pallet and the
incidence of damage to fruit due to over packing.
Through the research conducted the CDGAC determined that other
container size and net weight options available were not in the best
interest of the industry. Further, wholesalers and retailers support
the recommended changes, and believe it is the best option.
Thus, this rule allows the industry to use more efficient
containers and provides handlers with more flexibility in packing table
grapes. Imported table grapes will not be affected by this rule.
Based on the above, the Administrator of the AMS has determined
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including
the CDGAC's recommendation, and other available information, it is
found that this interim final rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend
to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined, upon
good cause, that it is impracticable, unnecessary and contrary to the
public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule
into effect, and that good cause exists for not postponing the
effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register because: (1) This action relaxes handling requirements
currently in effect for table grapes grown in designated areas of
Southeastern California; (2) California table grape handlers are aware
of this action which was unanimously recommended by the CDGAC at a
public meeting, and they will need no additional time to comply with
the relaxed requirements (since they have the option of continuing to
use previously approved containers; (3) California table grape
shipments begin approximately April 20, 1996, and this rule needs to be
in effect as soon as possible; and (4) this rule provides a 30-day
comment period and any comments received will be considered prior to
finalization of this rule.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 925
Grapes, Marketing agreements and orders, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 925 is
amended to read as follows:
PART 925--GRAPES GROWN IN A DESIGNATED AREA OF SOUTHEASTERN
CALIFORNIA
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 925 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. In Sec. 925.304, paragraph (b)(2) is revised and paragraphs
(b)(1)(vi) and (b)(1) (vii) are redesignated as paragraphs (b)(1)(vii)
and (vii) and new paragraphs (b)(1) (vi) and (vii) are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 925.304 California Desert Grape Regulation 6.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) Grape lug with dimensions in inches of 5 to 9 inches (inside)
x 11\11/16\ to 12 (outside) x 19\11/16\ to 20 (outside), specified as
container 38S;
(vii) Grape lug with dimensions in inches of 6\5/8\ to 7\1/2\
(inside) x 13\1/8\ (outside) x 15\7/8\ (outside), specified as
container 38T;
* * * * *
(2) The minimum net weight of grapes in any such containers, except
for containers containing grapes packed in sawdust, cork, excelsior or
similar packing material, or packed in bags or wrapped in plastic or
paper, and experimental containers, shall be 20 pounds based on the
average net weight of grapes in a representative sample of containers.
Containers of grapes packed in bags or wrapped in plastic or paper
prior to being placed in these containers shall meet a minimum net
weight requirement of 18 pounds.
* * * * *
Dated: March 11, 1996.
Eric M. Forman,
Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-6348 Filed 3-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6343 Table Grapes (European or Vinifera Type); Grade Standards
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11125-11127]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6343]
========================================================================
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. 54 / Tuesday, March 19, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 11125]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 51
[Docket Number FV-94-301]
Table Grapes (European or Vinifera Type); Grade Standards
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule revises the United States Standards for Grades
of Table Grapes (European or Vinifera Type). This rule lowers the
present minimum bunch size and provides a separate tolerance for off-
size bunches for the U.S. No. 1 Institutional grade only. It also
includes a technical update which would revise the reference to Arizona
and California State maturity regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 18, 1996. The incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in the regulations has been approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of April 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank O'Sullivan, Fresh Products
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Agricultural Marketing Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 96456, Washington D.C. 20090-
6456, (202) 720-2185.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Agriculture (Department)
is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Administrator of the
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has determined that this action
will not have a significant economic impact on substantial number of
small entities. This final rule revising the U.S. Standards for Grades
of Table Grapes (European or Vinifera Type) will not impose substantial
direct economic cost, recordkeeping, or personnel workload changes on
small entities, and will not alter the market share or competitive
position of these entities relative to large businesses.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive
effect. This proposed rule will not preempt any State or local laws,
regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures which
must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of
this rule.
Agencies periodically review existing regulations. An objective of
the review is to ensure that the grade standards are serving their
intended purpose, the language is clear, and the standards are
consistent with AMS policy and authority.
The United States Standards for Grades of Table Grapes (European or
Vinifera Type) was revised in April 1991. This revision established a
new grade, U.S. No. 1 Institutional. This grade--used in sales to
restaurant and other food service concerns--provides for grape lots
which have very small bunch sizes. In recent years, new marketing and
packaging techniques have developed very small, individual consumer
size servings of grapes. Under previous grade requirements these
``single serving'' type grape bunches were too small to meet any U.S.
grade. Therefore, the Department developed, at the request of the table
grape industry, a separate grade reflecting today's modern marketing
and packaging methods for the growing food service market while
preserving the integrity of the ``regular'' fresh pack grades for
grapes sold to consumers in supermarkets and other retail outlets.
Thus, grades for two different types of pack could be contained in one
standard allowing the grades to share common characteristics while at
the same time maintaining grades for two distinct types (packs) of
table grapes.
This portion of the final rule concerns only the institutional pack
and not the ``regular'' fresh pack grades. Growers and shippers of the
institutional pack type table grape represented by the California Grape
and Tree Fruit League (CGTFL) requested a revision to the institutional
grade only, to address a new market which is emerging that would
utilize extremely small clusters and/or bunches of grapes. According to
the CGTFL, these buyers typically want a smaller grouping of grapes
than is allowed under the current two ounce minimum bunch size
requirement in the institutional grade. As an example, certain
restaurant chains presently garnish some of their plates with
institutional pack grapes, but must cut the existing small bunches to
even smaller clusters of grapes (as little as two berries to a cluster)
to fit their particular needs. Changing this minimum bunch requirement
on the U.S. No. 1 Institutional grade allows the industry to develop
contract specifications and otherwise use the U.S. grade to satisfy
that growing segment of the restaurant and food service industry market
that utilizes grapes as a garnish.
A proposed rule was issued to address this change as well as other
changes. Docket Number FV-94-301 was published in the Federal Register
as a proposed rule on March 15, 1995, [Vol. 60, No. 50, Pages 13926-
13928]. A comment period of sixty days was issued which closed on May
15, 1995.
A total of seven comments were received pertaining to this specific
issue. Six of these comments, from growers/shippers, a receivers' trade
association, and a growers' trade association, were in favor of the
proposed change. A receiver commented against the proposed change but
offered no other explanation other than ``At this time I am pleased
with the current situation.'' AMS is of the view that the changes as
concerning U.S. No. 1 Institutional, will more efficiently serve the
industry which produces ``institutional type'' table grapes.
Therefore, this final rule changes Section 51.885 U.S. No. 1
Institutional to resemble Section 51.884 (the format for U.S. No. 1
Table), except for the elimination of straggliness requirements and
trimming away of defective berries for bunches, by providing a lower
size designation from the previous minimum of two ounces to the new
minimum requirement of a two berry cluster. The opening paragraph of
the institutional grade requirement section reads as follows: ``` U.S.
No. 1 Institutional' grapes must have no less than 95 percent of the
containers in the lot
[[Page 11126]]
legibly marked `Institutional Pack.' Further requirements for this
grade include grapes which consist of clusters and/or bunches of well
developed grapes of one variety, except when designated as assorted
varieties, which are at least fairly well colored, uniform in
appearance when so specified in connection with the grade, and which
meet the following requirements:''
As mentioned above, the requirements will be the same as for U.S.
No. 1 Table except paragraph (b)(1) ``Not Straggly'' and (g)(4)
``Trimming away of defective berries'' will be omitted. Also, paragraph
(h)(2) includes size requirements for clusters and/or berries:
``(2) For clusters/bunches: In this grade grapes shall consist of
at least a two berry cluster ranging to clusters and/or bunches of
grapes not greater than five ounces in weight. See Section 51.913.''
The present Section 51.913, Metric Conversion Table, is
redesignated Section 51.914 and a new Section 51.913 is added to define
a cluster. Since grape bunches are normally thought of as a series of
grapes attached to small lateral stems which are in turn attached to a
common main stem, the term bunch does not seem entirely appropriate
when referring to two berries which share a common point of attachment.
Therefore, for the purpose of the U.S. No. 1 Institutional grade only,
Section 51.913 shall define a cluster as ``two or more berries sharing
a common point of attachment.''
In addition, Table Ia, Tolerances at Shipping Point for U.S. No. 1
Institutional Only, and Table IIa, Tolerances En Route or at
Destination for U.S. No. 1 Institutional Only, would be added. The
CGTFL requested that a separate tolerance of four percent be provided
for offsize clusters or bunches to maintain the integrity of the grade
in relation to size requirements. Presently, Tables I and II combine
both the offsize and remaining grade requirements in one tolerance
(eight percent for tolerances at shipping point, Table I, and 12
percent for tolerances en route or at destination, Table II). The
corresponding new tables, Table Ia and IIa for U.S. No. 1 Institutional
grade only, maintain an eight and twelve percent tolerance,
respectively, for remaining grade requirements but include a separate
tolerance of four percent for offsize clusters or bunches.
The proposed rule also included a technical change which is not
associated with the request pertaining to the U.S. No. 1 Institutional
grade. Presently, Sections 51.882 (i)(1)(ii) and 51.884 (i)(1)(i) make
reference to ``Superior Seedless'' as a varietal name. Representatives
of Sunworld International, Inc., California, have argued that
``Superior Seedless'' is a registered trademark name and not the
varietal name. ``Sugraone'' according to Sunworld, is the correct
varietal name.
The intent of AMS in proposing to change the wording to reflect
``sugraone'' as the varietal name was to correct what at first appeared
to be an incorrect reference in the text of these grade standards.
However, after reviewing the comments pertaining to the proposed change
and conducting further research on this question, AMS found that the
varietal name issue is a complicated one involving a number of
interests. The question concerning the appropriate varietal name for
the grape has been ongoing for several years, and has been the subject
of State proceedings.
AMS provides inspection and grading services and issues grade and
quality standards for commodities such as grapes. The agency does not
determine varietal names for such commodities. Therefore, based on the
above, the proposal to change the name ``Superior Seedless'' to
``Sugraone'' is withdrawn.
A total of ten comments were received pertaining to this specific
issue. Five comments from growers/shippers, receivers, and an European
import/export company were in favor of changing the reference in the
standard from Superior Seedless to Sugraone. Five comments from
growers/shippers, and receivers were against making this change.
Therefore, AMS has decided that no changes will be made to the text
when stating grade requirements for this particular variety at this
time. Sections 51.882, 51.884, and 51.885 and any other references to
this variety will remain unchanged from the present standard, using the
term ``Superior Seedless.''
In a separate, third area, as a technical change the paragraphs
incorporating text by reference to maturity requirements for grapes
grown in Arizona and California have been revised. Specifically,
Section 51.888 Maturity Requirements, has been revised to incorporate
by reference the latest Arizona table grape maturity requirements.
Therefore, it is no longer necessary to include each subsection of
Arizona regulations within the standard. This change will result in
deleting subsections (i), (ii)(A) through (E), and (iii). This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on August 25, 1995 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51.
The latest reference to the Arizona standards became effective
January 6, 1994. This results in two changes concerning procedure: 1.)
The reference to Cardinals and Robins requiring at least 14.5 percent
soluble solids is removed, and 2.). Instead of sampling the least
mature grapes in any container for the maturity test, the least mature
grapes in a contiguous area of the container shall be sampled.
In addition, Paragraph 2 of this section is being revised to
reference the latest edition of the Administrative Code of California
(February 28, 1992). There are no apparent procedure changes as a
result of this change, however this does make the incorporation by
reference current.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 51
Agricultural commodities, Food grades and standards, Fruits, Nuts,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trees, Vegetables.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Part 51 shall be
amended as follows:
PART 51--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.
2. Section 51.885 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 51.885 U.S. No. 1 Institutional.
``U.S. No. 1 Institutional'' grapes must have no less than 95
percent of the containers in the lot legibly marked ``Institutional
Pack.'' Further requirements for this grade include grapes which
consist of clusters and/or bunches of well developed grapes of one
variety, except when designated as assorted varieties, which are at
least fairly well colored, uniform in appearance when so specified in
connection with the grade, and which meet the following requirements:
(a) Basic requirements for berries:
(1) Mature;
(2) Firm;
(3) Firmly attached to capstem;
(4) Not weak;
(5) Not materially shriveled at capstem;
(6) Not shattered;
(7) Not split or crushed;
(8) Not wet.
(b) Basic requirements for stems: Not weak, or dry and brittle.
(c) Berries free from:
(1) Decay;
(2) Waterberry;
(3) Sunburn.
(d) Stems free from:
(1) Mold;
[[Page 11127]]
(2) Decay.
(e) Berries not damaged by: Any other cause.
(f) Bunches not damaged by:
(1) Shot berries;
(2) Dried berries;
(3) Other defective berries;
(4) Any other cause.
(g) Stems not damaged by:
(1) Freezing;
(2) Any other cause.
(h) Size:
(1) For berries: Exclusive of shot berries and dried berries, 75
percent, by count, of the berries on each bunch shall have the minimum
diameters indicated for varieties as follows:
(i) Thompson Seedless, Perlette, Delight, Beauty Seedless, Superior
Seedless, Flame Seedless and other seedless varieties nine-sixteenths
of an inch.
(ii) Other varieties ten-sixteenths of an inch.
(2) For clusters/bunches: In this grade grapes shall consist of at
least a two berry cluster ranging to clusters and/or bunches of grapes
not greater than five ounces in weight. See Section 51.913.
(i) For tolerances see Section 51.886.
3. Section 51.886 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (b) and adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.886 Tolerances.
* * * * *
(b) In order to allow for variations incident to proper grading and
handling in each of the foregoing grades except U.S. No. 1
Institutional, tolerances, by weight, other than for maturity, are
provided as set forth in Tables I and II.
* * * * *
(c) In order to allow for variations incident to proper grading and
handling in the U.S. No. 1 Institutional grade only, tolerances, by
weight, other than for maturity, are provided as set forth in Tables Ia
and IIa of this section.
Table Ia.--Tolerances at Shipping Point for U.S. No. 1 Institutional
Grade Only \1\
[Percent]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor U.S. No. 1 institutional
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) For clusters/bunches failing to meet 10.
color requirements.
(B) For clusters/bunches failing to meet 10.
requirements for minimum diameter of
berries.
(C) For offsize clusters/bunches........... 4.
(D) For clusters/bunches and berries 8.
failing to meet the remaining requirements
for the grade.
Including in (D):
(a) For serious damage................... 2
And, including in (a):
(i) For decay.............................. \1/2\ of 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Shipping point, as used in these standards, means the point of origin
of the shipment in the producing area or at port of loading for ship
stores or overseas shipment, or, in the case of shipments from outside
the continental United States, the port of entry into the United
States.
Table IIa.--Tolerances En Route or at Destination for U.S. No. 1
Institutional Grade Only
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. No. 1
Factor institutional
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) For clusters/bunches failing to meet color
requirements............................................ 10.
(B) For clusters/bunches failing to meet requirements for
minimum diameter of berries............................. 10.
(C) For offsize clusters/bunches......................... 4.
(D) For clusters/bunches and berries failing to meet the
remaining requirements for the grade.................... 12.
Including in (D):
(a) For permanent defects.............................. 8.
(b) For serious damage................................. 4.
And, including in (b):
(i) For serious damage by permanent defects........ 2.
(ii) For decay..................................... 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. In Sec. 51.888 paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 51.888 Maturity requirements.
(a) In the case of grapes grown in Arizona or California,
``mature'' means grapes in any lot shall meet the maturity requirements
for the variety as set forth in the applicable State Agricultural Laws
and Regulations referenced in this section. 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, in the case of Arizona maturity regulations, Arizona
Department of Agriculture, Citrus, Fruit and Vegetable Standardization,
1688 W. Adams, Phoenix, AZ 85007 or in the case of California maturity
regulations, California Department of Food and Agriculture, Fruit and
Vegetable Quality Control, Standardization Section, 1220 N Street, P.O.
Box 942871, Sacramento, California 94271-0001 or copies of both
regulations may be inspected at USDA, AMS, F&VD, FPB, Standardization
Section, Room 2065-S, 14th and Independence Avenue, Washington, DC
20250 or at the Office of the Federal Register, Suite 700, 800 North
Capitol, Washington, DC.
(1) Arizona maturity regulations are contained in Chapter 4--Plant
Services Division, Article 7, Fruit And Vegetable Standardization,
Section R3-4-733 Table Grape Standards, Effective January 6, 1994.
(2) California maturity regulations are contained in The California
Code of Regulations, Title 3, Subchapter 4. Fresh Fruits, Nuts and
Vegetables, Article 25, Table Grapes and Raisins, February 28, 1992.
* * * * *
Sec. 51.913 [Redesignated as Sec. 51.914]
5. In Part 51, Subpart--United States Standards for Grades of Table
Grapes (European or Vinifera Type), Sec. 51.913 is redesignated as
Sec. 51.914 and a new Sec. 51.913 is added under the heading
``Definitions'' to read as follows:
Sec. 51.913 Clusters.
``Clusters'' as used in these standards in reference to the U.S.
No. 1 Institutional grade only shall be defined as two or more berries
sharing a common point of attachment.
Dated: March 11, 1996.
Lon Hatamiya,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-6343 Filed 3-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6009 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Alabama: Revision to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management Administrative Code for the Air Pollution Control Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11137-11139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6009]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[AL-042-1-9614a, AL-043-9613a; FRL-5426-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Alabama:
Revision to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Administrative Code for the Air Pollution Control Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 30, 1995, and December 14, 1995, the State of
Alabama through the Department of Environmental Management (ADEM)
submitted a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to amend
the ADEM Administrative Code for the Air Pollution Control Program. The
purpose of this submittal is to revise the definition of Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) in Chapter 335-3-1--General Provisions--Section
335-3-1-.02 (gggg), to ensure that the state regulation is consistent
with the Federal rule.
DATES: This action is effective May 20, 1996 unless adverse or critical
comments are received by April 18, 1996. If the effective date is
delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Kimberly Bingham at the EPA Region
4 address listed below. Copies of the material submitted by ADEM may be
examined during normal business hours at the following locations:
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102),
[[Page 11138]]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington DC
20460.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Programs Branch, 345
Courtland Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 1751 Congressman W.L.
Dickinson Drive, Montgomery, Alabama 36109.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Bingham, Regulatory Planning
and Development Section, Air Programs Branch, Air Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Region 4, Environmental Protection Agency, 345
Courtland Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30365. The telephone number is
(404) 347-3555 ext. 4195.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 30, 1995 and December 14, 1995,
the State of Alabama through the ADEM submitted revisions to the
Alabama SIP. Chapter 335-3-1--General Provisions, Section 335-3-1-.02,
was amended to exempt compounds from the definition of VOC on the basis
that these compounds have been determined to have negligible
photochemical reactivity. These revisions include the addition of new
compounds and changes to the names of existing exempt compounds.
Also included with the submittal were revisions to Chapter 335-3-11
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP),
Appendix C, and Chapter 335-3-18 Acid Rain Program--Permits Regulation.
EPA is not taking action on these revisions in this notice because they
are federally enforceable through 40 CFR Part 63 and Part 72,
respectively.
Final Action
The EPA is approving the revisions to the VOC definition and is
publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views
this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse
comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal Register
publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision should
adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be effective
May 20, 1996 unless, by April 18, 1996, adverse or critical comments
are received.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule
published with this action. The EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this
action should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the
public is advised that this action will be effective May 20, 1996.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C.
7607(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed
in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by
May 20, 1996. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this
rule for purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within
which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. [See
section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2)].
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP-
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under the CAA,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2) and 7410(k)(3).
Nothing in this action shall be construed as permitting or allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for a revision to
any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be considered
separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental
factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory
requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22,
1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed
or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of this state implementation plan or plan
revision, the State and any affected local or tribal governments have
elected to adopt the program provided for under Section 110 of the CAA.
These rules may bind State, local and tribal governments to perform
certain actions and also require the private sector to perform certain
duties. EPA has examined whether the rules being approved by this
action would impose no new requirements, since such sources are already
subject to these regulations under State law. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action, and therefore there will be no
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.
Dated: February 6, 1996.
Phyllis P. Harris,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as
follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart B--Alabama
2. Section 52.50 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(69) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.50 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
[[Page 11139]]
(69) The State of Alabama submitted revisions to the ADEM
Administrative Code for the Air Pollution Control Program on October
30, 1995, and December 14, 1995. These revisions involve changes to
Chapter 335-3-1--General Provisions.
(i) Incorporation by reference. Section 335-3-1-.02 (gggg) of the
Alabama regulations adopted on November 28, 1995.
(ii) Other material. None.
[FR Doc. 96-6009 Filed 3-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6007 Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan; Illinois; Clean-Fuel Fleet Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11139-11142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6007]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IL124-1-6977a; FRL-5435-6]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan; Illinois;
Clean-Fuel Fleet Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USEPA is giving full approval through a direct final
action to a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted on
September 29, 1995, by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA). IEPA submitted the SIP revision request to satisfy provisions
of the Clean Air Act, requiring certain states to establish Clean-Fuel
Fleet Programs. The rules submitted by Illinois that are being approved
today establish and require the implementation of a Clean-Fuel Fleet
Program (CFFP) in the Chicago ozone nonattainment area. The Chicago
ozone nonattainment area, which includes Cook, DuPage, Grundy (Aux
Sable and Goose Lake townships only), Kane, Kendall (Oswego township
only), Lake, McHenry, and Will counties, is required to attain the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as specified under the
Clean Air Act (CAA) by 2007. The implementation of this program is
expected to reduce motor vehicle volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions, which contribute to the formation of urban smog in the
Chicago area, by nearly 3 tons per day starting in the year 2003. In
the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, USEPA is proposing
approval of the CFFP and SIP revision and solicits comments on the
action. If adverse comments are received on this direct final rule,
USEPA will withdraw this final rule and address these comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.
DATES: This final rule is effective May 20, 1996 unless adverse
comments are received by April 18, 1996. If the effective date is
delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Illinois' CFFP SIP submittal, and other documents
pertinent to this direct final rule are available at the following
address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and
Radiation Division, Air Programs Branch, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Comments on this rule should be addressed to: J. Elmer Bortzer,
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental
Engineer, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6061.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On November 15, 1990, Congress enacted amendments to the 1977 CAA,
codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. The CFFP is contained under Part C,
entitled ``Clean Fuel Vehicles,'' of Title II of the Clean Air Act.
Part C was added to the CAA to establish two programs, a clean-fuel
vehicle pilot program in the state of California (the California Pilot
Test Program) and a federal CFFP in certain ozone and carbon monoxide
(CO) nonattainment areas.
The CFFP will introduce lower pollution emitting vehicles, ``clean-
fuel vehicles'' (CFVs), into centrally fueled fleets or fleets that are
determined to be capable of being centrally fueled by requiring covered
fleet operators to include a percentage of CFVs in their new fleet
purchases. The goal of the CFFP is to reduce emissions of non-methane
organic gasses (NMOG), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and CO through
the introduction of CFVs into the covered areas. Both NMOG and NOx are
precursors of ozone and, in most areas, their reduction will reduce the
concentration of ozone in covered ozone nonattainment areas. Reductions
of vehicular CO emissions will reduce the concentration of CO in
covered CO nonattainment areas.
Congress chose centrally fueled fleets because operators of these
fleets have more control over obtaining fuel than the general public.
Additionally, the control that operators maintain over their fleets
simplifies maintenance and refueling of these vehicles. Finally,
because fleet vehicles typically travel more miles on an annual basis
than do non-fleet vehicles, they provide greater opportunity to improve
air quality on a per vehicle basis.
Section 182(c)(4) of the CAA allows states to opt-out of the CFFP
by submitting, for USEPA approval, a SIP revision consisting of a
substitute program resulting in as much or greater long term emission
reductions in ozone producing and toxic air emissions as the CFFP. The
USEPA may approve such a revision ``only if it consists exclusively of
provisions other than those required under the [CAA] for the area.''
II. Program Requirements
Unless a state chooses to opt-out of the CFFP under section
182(c)(4) of the CAA, section 246 of the CAA directs a state containing
covered areas to revise its SIP, within 42 months after enactment of
the CAA, to establish a CFFP. The CFFP shall require a specified
percentage of all newly acquired vehicles of covered fleets, beginning
with model year (MY) 1998 and thereafter, to be CFVs and such vehicles
shall use the fuel on which the vehicle was certified to be a CFV, when
operating in the covered area.
III. State Submittal
The state of Illinois did not choose to opt-out of the CFFP
pursuant to section 182(c)(4) of the CAA and, therefore, submitted a
SIP revision on September 29, 1995, to implement a CFFP. On October 16,
1995, USEPA determined that the state's SIP submittal for a CFFP was
complete.
IV. USEPA's Analysis of the State's Clean Fuel Fleet Program
USEPA has reviewed the state's submittal for consistency with the
requirements of USEPA regulations. A summary of USEPA's analysis is
provided below. More detailed support for approval of the state's
submittal is contained in a Technical Support Document (TSD), dated
February 12, 1996, which is available from the Region 5 Office, listed
above.
A. Covered Areas
The SIP revision needs to list those areas where the CFFP will be
implemented, as required by section 246(a)(2) of the CAA. In Illinois,
the applicable areas defined by section 246(a)(2) include Cook, DuPage,
Grundy (Aux Sable and Goose Lake townships only), Kane, Kendall (Oswego
township only), Lake, McHenry, and Will counties.
[[Page 11140]]
Section 241.102 of 35 Illinois Administrative Code 241 defines the
covered area to include Cook, DuPage, Grundy (Aux Sable and Goose Lake
townships only), Kane, Kendall (Oswego township only), Lake, McHenry,
and Will counties. These are the same counties as required by the CAA.
B. Definitions
Sections 241(1) to (7) of the CAA, and 40 CFR 88.302-94, define
specific terms that are to be used in the state regulations.
Section 241.102 contains definitions of the terms used by Illinois
in the CFFP rule. The revision's definitions are consistent with
section 241 (1) to (7) of the CAA as well as 40 CFR Part 88.302-94.
C. Covered Fleets
Section 241(5) of the CAA defines a ``covered fleet'' as 10 or more
motor vehicles that are owned or operated by a single person.
Section 241.102 of the Illinois rule identifies vehicles/fleets
that are included in Illinois' CFFP, and are consistent with section
241(5) of the CAA.
D. Vehicle Classes Covered
Sections 242 and 243 of the CAA and 40 CFR 88, define the vehicle
classes covered by the CFFP. Additionally, section 245(a) of the CAA
exempts from the CFV standards vehicles having a Gross Vehicle Weight
Rating (GVWR) of more than 26,000 pounds.
Section 241.102 defines the vehicle classes covered by the Illinois
CFFP. The classes of vehicles included in the Revision are identical to
those set forth in sections 242 and 243 of the CAA and 40 CFR 88,
including the 26,000 pound GVWR exemption.
E. Clean-Fuel Vehicles (CFVs)
Section 241(7) of the CAA defines a CFV to mean a vehicle in a
class or category of vehicles that has been certified to meet for any
model year the applicable CFV standards. 40 CFR 88 establishes three
categories of increasingly stringent CFV standards, which are referred
to as low-emission vehicle (LEV) standards, ultra low-emission vehicle
(ULEV) standards, and zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) standards. In
addition, a vehicle certified by the USEPA to meet the inherently low-
emission vehicle (ILEV) standard, found in 40 CFR 88.311-93, is also
considered a CFV.
Section 241.102 of the Illinois rule defines a CFV as a motor
vehicle in a class or category of motor vehicles (e.g., LDVs, LDTs, or
HDVs) which have been certified by USEPA to meet the clean fuel vehicle
standards applicable under the Illinois rule. The standards specified
in the rule are the same as those established in 40 CFR 88.
F. Percentage Requirements
Section 246(b) of the CAA establishes phase-in requirements for
covered fleets applicable to new vehicle acquisitions. Section 241.113
of the Illinois rule contains the CFV purchase requirements for the
Illinois' CFFP. The phase-in schedule in Illinois' rule is identical to
the schedule in the CAA.
G. Credit Program
Section 246(f) of the CAA and 40 CFR 88.304-94 require the state to
implement a credit program as part of the CFFP. Briefly, the Clean-Fuel
Fleet (CFF) credit program establishes a market-based mechanism that
allows fleet owners some flexibility in complying with the CFF purchase
requirement. Under these provisions, a credit program must provide that
fleet owners may meet the purchase requirements in any of several ways:
(1) by the purchase of more CFVs than the minimum required by a CFFP;
(2) by the purchase of CFVs which meet more stringent emission
standards than the minimum required by the CFFP; (3) by the purchase of
CFVs otherwise exempt from the CFFP; and (4) by the purchase of CFVs
before MY 1998.
The credits generated may be used by a covered fleet operator to
satisfy the purchase requirements of a CFFP or may be traded by one
covered fleet operator to another, provided the credits were generated
and used in, and both operators are located in, the same nonattainment
area. Certain restrictions on the trading of the credits between
classes must be observed. The credits do not depreciate with time and
are to be freely traded without interference by the state.
Section 241.130 establishes a credit program that provides credits
for operators who: (1) acquire more CFVs than the Illinois CFFP
requires in any year; (2) acquire CFVs which meet more stringent
emission standards than the minimum requirements; (3) acquire CFVs in
exempted vehicle categories; or (4) acquire CFVs prior to September 1,
1997. These eligibility requirements are consistent with section 246(f)
of the CAA, and 40 CFR 88.304-94.
Section 241. Appendix B of the Illinois rule includes Tables A, B,
C, D, E, and F, which set forth the amount of credit granted for the
various ways of meeting the purchasing requirements explained above.
These tables are identical to Tables C94-1, C94-1.2, C94-1.3, C94-4,
C94-4.2, C94-4.3 of 40 CFR Part 88, Subpart C.
The credit program established in this revision requires credits
for LDV and HDV to be kept separate. Trading of credits between LDV and
LDT is permitted. These limitations and restrictions are consistent
with those specified in section 246(f)(2) of the CAA.
H. Fuel Use
40 CFR 88.304-94(b)(3) requires that the fuel on which a dual fuel/
flexible fuel CFV was certified to be used at all times when the
vehicle is in the covered area.
Section 241.115(a) requires that any CFV acquired to meet the
acquisition requirements of the CFFP or to generate credits must be
operated, while in the covered area, on the fuel or power source, for
which it was certified by USEPA to meet applicable emission standards.
I. Fuel Availability
Section 246(e) of the CAA requires the SIP revision to require fuel
providers to make clean alternative fuel available to the covered
fleets at central locations.
Because of the wide availability of reformulated gasoline in the
Chicago nonattainment area, requirements on fuel providers to make
clean alternative fuels available to covered fleet operators at central
locations where technically and economically feasible is not considered
to be a critical component of the program.
J. Consultation
Section 246(a)(4) of the CAA requires that the SIP revision must be
developed in consultation with fleet operators, vehicle manufacturers,
fuel producers, distributors of motor vehicle fuel, and other
interested parties, taking into consideration operational range,
specialty uses, vehicle and fuel availability, costs, safety, resale
values, and other relevant factors.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) organized a
consultation workgroup, called the Clean-Fuel Fleet Workgroup. The
Workgroup met several times and included representatives from the
National Association of Fleet Administrators, Illinois Natural Gas
Vehicle Coalition, Ethanol Work Group, Sierra Club, American Lung
Association, Illinois Petroleum Council, American Automobile
Manufacturer's Association, USEPA, Illinois Department of Energy and
Natural Resources, and the Office of the Secretary of State. The group
took into
[[Page 11141]]
consideration the factors specified in section 246(a)(4) of the CAA.
K. Recordkeeping and Monitoring
No specific recordkeeping and monitoring requirements are found in
section 246 of the CAA or 40 CFR 88.304-94. However, there are a number
of questions which should be answered in order to determine the
adequacy of a CFFP. 60 Fed. Reg. 54305 (Oct. 23, 1995).
(1) Does the SIP revision provide a reasonable process for the
state to determine which fleets should report data to the state,
consistent with the state's approach to ``operated in the covered
area''?
(2) Is there a process for updating this list of potentially
covered fleet operators?
(3) Does the SIP revision include a process for the state agency to
receive at least the following data from fleet operators:
(a) Numbers, categories, and fueling patterns of vehicles in the
fleet?
(b) Numbers, engine family names, categories, and fueling patterns
of new acquisitions?
(c) Numbers, engine family names, categories, and fueling patterns
of CFV acquisitions?
(d) For dual-fuel/flexible-fuel vehicles, data on fuel usage
sufficient to demonstrate that the proper fuel was used when the
vehicle was operated in the covered area?
(4) Does the SIP revision describe how the data will be processed,
maintained, updated, and used to confirm compliance by fleets?
(5) Does the SIP revision provide for oversight of the data
acquisition process?
Section 241.112 requires the owner or operator of a fleet of 10 or
more covered fleet vehicles to register with the IEPA.
Section 241.112 also requires the registration to include certain
information. In addition, Section 241.140 requires covered fleet
operators to submit annual compliance plans to IEPA. General
information required in 3(a) to 3(d) above, as well as other
information, is included in these requirements. Section 241.141
establishes recordkeeping requirements for covered fleet owners or
operators to maintain a number of additional records and information.
The records required under this section shall be retained by the owner
or operator for at least three years and shall be made available
immediately to IEPA upon request. The information reported by the
covered fleet owners or operators, allows IEPA to monitor the
performance of the operators. IEPA will review the annual compliance
plans for approval or disapproval in keeping with the regulatory
requirements of the Illinois CFFP.
L. Enforcement
The state must be able to adequately enforce the requirements of
the regulations adopted for implementation of the CFFP. 60 Fed. Reg.
54305 (Oct. 23, 1995).
The Illinois Environmental Protection Act, Section 42(a), states
that any person that violates any provision of this Illinois
Environmental Protection Act or any regulation adopted by the IPCB, or
any permit or term or condition thereof, or that violates any
determination or order of the IPCB pursuant to this Act, shall be
liable to a civil penalty not to exceed $50,000 for the violation and
an additional $10,000 for each day for which the violation continues.
In that this submittal is a regulation adopted by the IPCB, a violation
of which subjects the violator to penalties under section 42(a), the
submittal is then enforceable and thus satisfies the Federal
requirement.
M. Transportation Control Measure Exemptions
40 CFR 88.307-94(a) requires states to exempt any CFV, required by
law to participate in a CFFP, from temporal-based (e.g., time-of-day or
day-of-week) transportation control measures (TCM) existing for air
quality reasons as long as the exemption does not create a clear and
direct safety hazard. In the case of high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes, this exemption only applies to CFVs that are certified to be
ILEVs pursuant to 40 CFR 88.313-93.
The Chicago ozone nonattainment area does not currently have any
temporal based TCM requirements.
N. Concluding Statement
The USEPA has reviewed the Illinois CFFP SIP revision submitted to
the USEPA as described above. The materials contained in the SIP
revision represent an acceptable approach to the CFFP requirements and
meet the criteria required for approvability.
V. Action
The USEPA approves Illinois' CFFP SIP submittal. With this action,
USEPA incorporates Illinois' CFFP SIP revision into the SIP, making it
federally enforceable.
Because USEPA considers this action noncontroversial and routine,
we are approving it without prior proposal. This action will become
effective on May 20, 1996. However, if we receive significant adverse
comments by April 18, 1996, USEPA will publish a document that modifies
or withdraws this action.
VI. Miscellaneous
A. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. The USEPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in
light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
B. Executive Order 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted
this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
C. Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).
Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
This approval does not create any new requirements. Therefore, I
certify that this action does not have a significant impact on any
small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-
state relationship under the Act, preparation of the regulatory
flexibility analysis would constitute federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of the state action. The Act forbids USEPA to base its
actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.
E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976).
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the
USEPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any
proposed or final rule that includes a federal mandate that may result
in estimated costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate; or to the
[[Page 11142]]
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, the USEPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the USEPA to establish a
plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
The USEPA has determined that the approval action promulgated today
does not include a federal mandate. The mandate does not arise from
this approval action, but from the language of section 246 of the CAA.
This federal action approves pre-existing requirements under state
or local law, and imposes no new federal requirements. Accordingly, no
additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or the private
sector, result from this action.
D. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 20, 1996. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review, nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Motor vehicle pollution, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 15, 1996.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart O--Illinois
2. Section 52.720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(124) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.720 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c ) * * *
(124) The state of Illinois requested a revision to the Illinois
State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision is for the purpose of
establishing and implementing a Clean-Fuel Fleet Program in the Chicago
ozone nonattainment area, which includes Cook, DuPage, Grundy (Aux
Sable and Goose Lake townships only), Kane, Kendall (Oswego township
only), Lake, McHenry, and Will counties, to satisfy the federal
requirements for a Clean Fuel Fleet Program to be part of the SIP for
Illinois.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) 35 Illinois Administrative Code 241; Sections 241.101, 241.102,
241.103, 241.104, 241.110, 241.111, 241.112, 241.113, 241.114, 241.115,
241.130, 241.131, 241.140, 241.141, 241.142, 241. Appendix A, 241.
Appendix B adopted in R95-12 at 19 Ill. Reg. 13265, effective September
11, 1995.
(ii) Other material.
(A) September 29, 1995 letter and attachments from the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency's Bureau of Air Chief to the USEPA's
Regional Air and Radiation Division Director submitting Illinois'
revision to the ozone SIP.
[FR Doc. 96-6007 Filed 3-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6005 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Colorado; Basic Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11149-11153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6005]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CO37-2-6290(a); FRL-5417-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Colorado; Basic Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA approves the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Colorado. This revision establishes and
requires the implementation of a basic motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program in the urbanized areas of El Paso (Colorado
Springs), Larimer (Fort Collins), and Weld Counties (Greeley). The
intended effect of this action is approval of a basic motor vehicle I/M
program. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air
Act.
DATES: This action is effective on May 20, 1996, unless adverse or
critical comments are received by April 18, 1996. If the effective date
is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Douglas Skie,
Chief, Air Programs Branch (8ART-AP), USEPA Region 8, 999 18th Street,
Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. Copies of the documents
relevant to this action are available for public inspection during
normal business hours at the address listed above. Anyone wanting to
view these documents must make an appointment at least 24 hours in
advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott P. Lee, Air Programs Branch,
State Implementation Plan Section (8ART-AP), USEPA, Region 8, Denver,
Colorado 80202, (303) 293-1887.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Clean Air Act Requirements
The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAAA or Act), requires
states to make changes to improve existing I/M programs or implement
new ones. Section 182(a)(2)(B) requires any ozone nonattainment area
which has been classified as ``marginal'' (pursuant to section 181(a)
of the Act) or worse with an existing I/M program that was part of a
SIP, or any area that was required by the 1977 Amendments to the Act to
have an I/M program, to immediately submit a SIP revision to bring the
program up to the level required in past EPA guidance or to what had
been committed to previously in the SIP whichever was more stringent.
All carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment areas were also subject to this
requirement to improve existing or previously required programs to this
level.
In addition, Congress directed the EPA in section 182(a)(2)(B) to
publish updated guidance for state I/M programs, taking into
consideration findings of the Administrator's audits and investigations
of these programs. The states were to incorporate this guidance into
the SIP for all areas required by the Act to have an I/M program.
On November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950), the EPA published a final
regulation establishing the I/M requirements, pursuant to sections 182
and 187 of the Act. The I/M regulation was codified at 40 CFR part 51,
subpart S, and requires states to submit an I/M SIP revision which
includes all necessary legal authority and the items specified in 40
CFR 51.372 (a)(1) through (a)(8) by November 15, 1993. The State of
Colorado has met these requirements.
The nonattainment designations for CO and ozone were published in
the Federal Register (FR) on November 6, 1991, and November 30, 1992,
and have been codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). See 56
FR 56694 (November 6, 1991) and 57 FR 56762 (November 30, 1992),
codified at 40 CFR 81.300 through 81.437. Based on these nonattainment
designations, basic I/M programs are required in three of Colorado's
Front Range Counties. These are: El Paso County (Colorado Springs area
nonattainment for CO); Larimer County (Fort Collins area nonattainment
for CO); and Weld County (Greeley area nonattainment for CO).
By this action, the EPA is approving this submittal. The EPA has
reviewed the State submittal against the statutory requirements and for
consistency with the EPA regulations. EPA summarizes the requirements
of the Federal I/M regulations as found in 40 CFR 51.350 through 51.373
and its analysis of the State submittal below. Parties desiring
additional details on the Federal I/M regulation are referred to the
November 5, 1992 Federal Register document (57 FR 52950) or 40 CFR
51.350 through 51.373.
II. Background
On January 14, 1994, and on June 24, 1994, the State of Colorado
submitted its
[[Page 11150]]
basic I/M SIP revision for the Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, and
Greeley urbanized areas.
The January 14, 1994, submittal included authorizing legislation
(HB1340 adopted by the House and Senate and signed by the Governor);
Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) Regulation Number 11;
Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program, adopted and effective as an
emergency rule December 16, 1993, and the SIP narrative with appendices
entitled, ``State of Colorado Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection and
Maintenance State Implementation Plan'', adopted by the AQCC on
November 12, 1993, and again on December 16, 1993, with no substantive
changes. EPA reviewed the January 14, 1994, submittal and identified
aspects which the State would need to address prior to EPA approval.
EPA's primary concerns concentrated on: the need for the State to
submit a final binding regulation to replace the since-lapsed, December
16, 1993, emergency rule. Governor Romer's June 24, 1994, submittal
included a binding regulation adopted by the State on March 17, 1994.
III. State Submittal
The State submittal provides for the upgrading of the existing I/M
program to an EPA approved basic I/M program in the Colorado Springs,
Fort Collins, and Greeley urbanized areas. Colorado is implementing
annual test-and-repair I/M programs which meet the requirements of
EPA's performance standard and other requirements contained in the
Federal I/M rule in the applicable urbanized areas. Testing will be
performed by independent inspection stations with state oversight.
Other aspects of the Colorado I/M program include: testing of all
model-year gasoline-powered vehicles, a test fee to ensure the State/
Counties have adequate resources to implement the program, enforcement
by registration denial, a repair effectiveness program, a commitment to
testing convenience, quality assurance, data collection, three percent
(3%) waiver rate, reporting, test equipment and test procedure
specifications, a commitment to ongoing public information and consumer
protection programs, inspector training and certification, and
penalties against inspector incompetence. An analysis of how the
Colorado I/M programs meet the Federal SIP requirements by section of
the Federal I/M rule is provided below.
A. Applicability
The SIP needs to describe the applicable areas in detail and,
consistent with 40 CFR 51.372, needs to include the legal authority or
rules necessary to establish program boundaries. Colorado's I/M
program, as authorized by Section 42-4-309(3) C.R.S. are to be
implemented in the western half of El Paso County; Southeastern \2/3\
of Larimer County; and the Greeley metropolitain area including the
cities of Evans, LaSalle, and Garden City. [Boundaries simplified--see
C.R.S. for exact boundary deliniation].
B. Basic I/M Performance Standard
The I/M programs provided for in the SIP are required to meet a
performance standard for basic I/M for the pollutants that caused the
affected area to come under I/M requirements. The performance standard
sets an emission reduction target that must be met by a program in
order for the SIP to be approvable. The SIP must also provide that the
program will meet the performance standard in actual operation, with
provisions for appropriate adjustments if the standard is not met. The
State has submitted a modeling demonstration using the EPA computer
model, MOBILE 5a, showing that the basic performance standard is met in
all of the affected urbanized areas.
C. Network Type
The SIP needs to include a description of the network to be
employed, the required legal authority, and, in the case of areas
making claims for case-by-case equivalency, the required demonstration.
Colorado has chosen to implement decentralized, test-and-repair basic
I/M programs, which are comprised of independently operated facilities.
The Colorado I/M programs, in each of the affected urbanized areas,
allow fleet self-testing programs with oversight by Department of
Revenue employees. Legal authority which is contained in Sections 42-4-
306.5 thru 42-4-316 C.R.S., authorizes the State Departments of Health
and Revenue to implement and oversee these programs.
D. Adequate Tools and Resources
The SIP needs to include a description of the resources that will
be used for program operation, which include: (1) A detailed budget
plan which describes the source of funds for personnel, program
administration, program enforcement, purchase of necessary equipment,
and any other requirements discussed throughout, for the period prior
to the next biennial self-evaluation required in Federal I/M rule; and
(2) a description of personnel resources, the number of personnel
dedicated to overt and covert auditing, data analysis, program
administration, enforcement, and other necessary functions and the
training attendant to each function.
The SIP narrative and Regulation No. 11, and the authorizing
legislation contained in the submittal, describe the budget, staffing
support, and equipment and resources dedicated to the program meeting
the requirements of the Federal Rule.
E. Test Frequency and Convenience
The SIP needs to include the test schedule in detail, including the
test year selection scheme if testing is other than annual. Also, the
SIP needs to include the legal authority necessary to implement and
enforce the test frequency requirement and explain how the test
frequency will be integrated with the enforcement process.
The Colorado basic I/M program requires annual inspections for all
subject motor vehicles. For new vehicles the first test is required for
re-registration four years after initial registration.
F. Vehicle Coverage
The SIP needs to include a detailed description of the number and
types of vehicles to be covered by the program, and a plan for how
those vehicles are to be identified, including vehicles that are
routinely operated in the area, but which may not be registered in the
area. Also, the SIP needs to include a description of any special
exemptions which will be granted by the program, and an estimate of the
percentage and number of subject vehicles which will be impacted. Such
exemptions need to be accounted for in the emission reduction analysis.
In addition, the SIP needs to include the legal authority or rule
necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle coverage requirement.
Colorado's basic I/M program area vehicle coverage includes all
model year gasoline-powered light-duty cars and trucks, and heavy-duty
gasoline powered trucks registered or required to be registered within
the affected urbanized areas. Additionally, all vehicles operated in
the program area more than ninety days per year are required to comply
with the program requirements. Vehicles are identified through random
parking lot surveys and motor vehicles registration database queries.
Vehicles exempted from the program include: motorcycles, farm
plated vehicles, collector series vehicles, electric vehicles, two-
cycle powered vehicles, vehicles registered as horseless carriages, and
diesel vehicles (required
[[Page 11151]]
to be inspected in diesel emission program). The exempted vehicles are
accounted for in the modeling submitted by the State and documented in
the SIP narrative as required.
G. Test Procedures and Standards
The SIP needs to include a description of each test procedure used.
The SIP also needs to include the rule, ordinance or law describing and
establishing the test procedures.
Colorado's I/M programs use EPA's Preconditioned two-speed idle
test as specified in EPA-AA-TSA-I/M-90-3 March 1990, Technical Report,
``Recommended I/M Short Test Procedures for the 1990's: Six
Alternatives.'' The Colorado95 Analyzer calibration specifications and
emissions test procedures meet the minimum standard established in
Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 51 Subpart S. Test procedures are established
in Regulation No. 11 as contained in the SIP.
H. Test Equipment
The SIP needs to include written technical specifications for all
test equipment used in the program and shall address each of the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.358 of the Federal I/M rule. The
specifications need to describe the emission analysis process, the
necessary test equipment, the required features, and written acceptance
testing criteria and procedures.
The Colorado I/M SIP commits to meeting the California BAR 90
accuracy standards at a minimum. The Colorado SIP addresses the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.358 and includes descriptions of performance
features and functional characteristics of the Colorado95 computerized
test systems. The necessary test equipment, required features, and
acceptance testing criteria are also contained in the SIP.
I. Quality Control
The SIP needs to include a description of quality control and
recordkeeping procedures. The SIP also needs to include the procedures
manual, rule, and ordinance or law describing and establishing the
quality control procedures and requirements. The Colorado I/M SIP
narrative contains descriptions and requirements establishing the
quality control procedures in accordance with the Federal I/M rule.
These requirements will help ensure that equipment calibrations are
properly performed and recorded, as well as maintaining compliance
document security. Additional requirements are documented in the SIP
narrative, Regulation No. 11., and the authorizing legislation.
J. Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection
The SIP needs to include a maximum waiver rate expressed as a
percentage of initially failed vehicles. This waiver rate needs to be
used for estimating emission reduction benefits in the modeling
analysis. Also, the State needs to take corrective action if the waiver
rate exceeds that estimated in the SIP or revise the SIP and the
emission reductions claimed accordingly.
In addition, the SIP needs to describe the waiver criteria and
procedures, including cost limits, quality assurance methods and
measures, and administration. Lastly, the SIP shall include the
necessary legal authority, ordinance, or rules to issue waivers, set
and adjust cost limits as required, and carry out any other functions
necessary to administer the waiver system, including enforcement of the
waiver provisions. The Colorado basic I/M program commits to a waiver
rate of 3 percent or less. Waiver procedures are detailed in the
Appendices to the SIP submittal, Regulation No. 11, and the authorizing
legislation. Legal authority for waivers is contained in Section 42-4-
312 C.R.S.
K. Motorist Compliance Enforcement
The SIP needs to provide information concerning the enforcement
process, including: (1) A description of the existing compliance
mechanism if it is to be used in the future and the demonstration that
it is as effective or more effective than registration-denial
enforcement; (2) an identification of the agencies responsible for
performing each of the applicable activities in this section; (3) a
description of and accounting for all classes of exempt vehicles; and
(4) a description of the plan for testing fleet vehicles, rental car
fleets, leased vehicles, and any other special classes of subject
vehicles, e.g. those operated in (but not necessarily registered in)
the program area. Also, the SIP needs to include a determination of the
current compliance rate based on a study of the system that includes an
estimate of compliance losses due to loopholes, counterfeiting, and
unregistered vehicles. Estimates of the effect of closing such
loopholes and otherwise improving the enforcement mechanism need to be
supported with detailed analyses. In addition, the SIP needs to include
the legal authority to implement and enforce the program. Lastly, the
SIP needs to include a commitment to an enforcement level to be used
for modeling purposes and to be maintained, at a minimum, in practice.
The motorist compliance enforcement program will be implemented, by
the Department of Revenue Motor Vehicles Division, which will take the
lead in ensuring that owners of all subject vehicles are denied
registration unless they provide valid proof of having received a
certificate indicating they passed an emissions test or been granted a
compliance waiver. State and local police agencies have the authority
to cite motorists with expired registration tags and out-dated
emissions windshield stickers.
Current compliance rates are estimated at greater than 96 percent
in the each of the urbanized areas. The SIP commits to a level of
motorist enforcement necessary to ensure a compliance rate of no less
than 96 percent among subject vehicles.
L. Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight
The SIP needs to include a description of enforcement program
oversight and information management activities. Penalties for failure
to comply with the program are described in the authorizing legislation
and the Colorado Revised Statutes. Fines of up to $1,000 can be imposed
in cases where motorists are involved in fraudulently obtaining
certificates of compliance, stickers, or registrations. Failure to
register a vehicle also results in significant penalties, as described
in the Colorado Revised Statutes regarding registration penalties. The
State of Colorado has met EPA's requirements for the imposition of
mandatory fines. The State commits to corrective action if a compliance
rate of 96 percent is not maintained in practice.
M. Quality Assurance
The SIP needs to include a description of the quality assurance
program, and written procedures manuals covering both overt and covert
performance audits, record audits, and equipment audits. This
requirement does not include materials or discussion of details of
enforcement strategies that would ultimately hamper the enforcement
process.
The Colorado I/M SIP includes a description of its quality
assurance program. The program includes operation and progress reports,
and overt and covert audits of all emission inspectors and emission
inspections. Overt and covert audits, and remote inspector audits will
be performed by the Department of Revenue. Procedures and techniques
for overt and covert
[[Page 11152]]
performance, recordkeeping, and equipment audits are given to auditors
and updated as needed. Current auditor procedures are contained in the
Appendices to the SIP.
N. Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors
The SIP needs to include the penalty schedule and the legal
authority for establishing and imposing penalties, civil fines, license
suspension, and revocations. In the case of state constitutional
impediments to immediate suspension authority, the state Attorney
General shall furnish an official opinion for the SIP explaining the
constitutional impediment, as well as relevant case law. Also, the SIP
needs to describe the administrative and judicial procedures and
responsibilities relevant to the enforcement process, including which
agencies, courts, and jurisdictions are involved; who will prosecute
and adjudicate cases; and other aspects of the enforcement of the
program requirements, the resources to be allocated to this function,
and the source of those funds. In states without immediate suspension
authority, the SIP needs to demonstrate that sufficient resources,
personnel, and systems are in place to meet the three day case
management requirement for violations that directly affect emission
reductions.
The Colorado submittal includes the legal authority to establish
and impose penalties against stations, contractors and inspectors. The
I/M SIP and regulations include penalty provisions for stations,
contractors, and inspectors. These penalty schedules meet the Federal
I/M regulation requirements and are approvable. The I/M program
legislative authority gives the state auditors the authority to
temporarily suspend station and inspector licenses or certificates
immediately upon finding a violation. The submittal includes a
description of administrative and judicial procedures relevant to the
enforcement process which meet Federal I/M regulations and are
approvable.
O. Data Analysis and Reporting
The SIP needs to describe the types of data to be collected. The
State regulation requires the collection of data on each individual
test conducted and describes the type of data to be collected. The type
of test data collected meets the Federal I/M regulation requirements
and is approvable. The appendices to the I/M SIP submittal contain a
procedure manual that details the gathering and reporting requirements
of the State required under 40 CFR Part 51.359 and is approvable. The
Colorado I/M SIP provides reporting summary data based upon program
activities taking place in the previous year. The report will provide
statistics for the testing program, the quality control program, the
quality assurance program, and the enforcement program. At a minimum,
Colorado commits to address all of the data elements listed in section
51.366 of the Federal I/M rule.
P. Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification
The SIP needs to include a description of the training program, the
written and hands-on tests, and the licensing or certification process.
The Colorado I/M SIP provides for the implementation of training,
certification, and refresher programs for emission inspectors. Training
will include all elements required by 51.367(a) of the EPA I/M rule.
All inspectors will be required to be certified to inspect vehicles in
the Colorado I/M program.
Q. Improving Repair Effectiveness
The SIP needs to include a description of the technical assistance
program to be implemented, a description of the procedures and criteria
to be used in meeting the performance monitoring requirements of this
section for enhanced I/M programs, and a description of the repair
technician training resources available in the community.
The Colorado SIP commits the program technical and supervisory
staff to continue to work with both motor vehicle owners and the
automotive service industry regarding their vehicles failing to meet
the exhaust emission levels. These direct contacts are normally either
by telephone or person-to-person. Customers with vehicles that present
unusual testing problems or situations are referred to a State-run
Technical Center for further testing and diagnostics.
IV. This Action
In this action, the EPA is approving the SIP revision submitted by
the State of Colorado for purposes of implementing a Basic I/M program
in the urbanized areas of El Paso (Colorado Springs), Larimer (Fort
Collins), and Weld Counties (Greeley). The EPA has reviewed this
revision to the Colorado SIP and is approving it as submitted. The
State's Basic I/M program revisions meet requirements pursuant to
sections 182 and 187 of the Act and 40 CFR part 51, subpart S.
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be filed. Thus, today's direct
final action will be effective May 20, 1996, unless, by April 18, 1996,
adverse or critical comments are received.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is
advised that this action will be effective May 20, 1996.
The EPA has reviewed this request for revision of the federally-
approved SIP for conformance with the provisions of the CAA. The EPA
has determined that this action conforms with those requirements.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. Each request for revision to a SIP shall be considered separately
in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and
in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., the
EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact
of any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).
Alternatively, the EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations that are
less than 50,000.
SIP revision approvals under Section 110 and Subchapter I, Part D,
of the CAA do not create any new requirements, but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, the EPA
certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact
on any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the
Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a regulatory
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the
[[Page 11153]]
economic reasonableness of State actions. The CAA forbids the EPA to
base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v.
U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-266 (S. Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. section
7410(a)(2).
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated today does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves
pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b), petitions
for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 20, 1996. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory
action from Executive Order 12866 review.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental Protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control for hydrocarbons, Incorporation by Reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Motor vehicle pollution, Nitrogen oxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 28, 1995.
Jack W. McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart G--Colorado
2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(73) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(73) On January 14, 1994 and on June 24, 1994, Roy Romer, the
Governor of Colorado, submitted SIP revisions to the State
Implementation Plan for the Control of Air Pollution. This revisions
requires the implementation of a basic motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance program in the urbanized areas of El Paso (Colorado
Springs), Larimer (Fort Collins), and Weld (Greeley) Counties meeting
the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. This material
is being incorporated by reference for the enforcement of Colorado's
basic I/M program only.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Colo. Rev. Stat. Secs. 42-4-306.5--42-4-316 adopted June 8,
1993 as House Bill 93-1340, effective July 1, 1993.
(B) Regulation No. 11 (Inspection/Maintenance Program) as adopted
by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) on March 17,
1994, effective April 30, 1994.
[FR Doc. 96-6005 Filed 3-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6004 Clean Air Act Approval and Promulgation of PMINF10 Implementation Plan for Montana
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11153-11162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6004]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MT7-1-5487a; MT26-2-6874a; FRL-5438-9]
Clean Air Act Approval and Promulgation of PM10
Implementation Plan for Montana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA approves the state implementation plan (SIP) for the
Kalispell, Montana nonattainment area, the Flathead County Air
Pollution Program, and a Board Order setting emission limits at nine
Kalispell area stationary sources, submitted with letters dated
November 25, 1991, January 11, 1994, August 26, 1994 and July 18, 1995,
to achieve attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than
or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10). The SIP was submitted
to satisfy certain federal Clean Air Act requirements for an approvable
moderate nonattainment area PM10 SIP for Kalispell. In addition,
EPA also approves the SIP revisions submitted by the State of Montana
on August 26, 1994, and July 18, 1995, to satisfy the Federal Clean Air
Act requirement to submit contingency measures for the Kalispell and
Columbia Falls moderate PM10 nonattainment areas. The Columbia
Falls submittal also incorporates minor revisions to the attainment and
maintenance demonstrations for the Columbia Falls moderate PM10
nonattainment area SIP into the Montana SIP. Since the SIP still
adequately demonstrates timely attainment and maintenance of the
PM10 standard, EPA approves these revisions.
EPA is also deleting an obsolete section of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) which applied to further requirements for the Butte
total suspended particulates (TSP) plan.
DATES: This action is effective on May 20, 1996 unless adverse comments
are received by April 18, 1996. If the effective date is delayed,
timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to: Richard R. Long, Director,
Air Program, EPA Region VIII, at the address listed below. Copies of
the State's submittal and other information are available for
inspection during normal business hours at the following locations: Air
Program, Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th Street,
Suite 500, Denver, Colorado
[[Page 11154]]
80202-2466; and Montana Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences, Air Quality Bureau, 826 Front Street, Helena, Montana 59620-
0901. The information may be inspected between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., on
weekdays, except for legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged
for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Callie Videtich, 8P2-A, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver,
Colorado 80202-2466, (303) 312-6434.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Kalispell and Columbia Falls, Montana areas were designated
nonattainment for PM10 and classified as moderate under sections
107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the Clean Air Act, upon enactment of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.\1\ See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991)
and 40 CFR 81.327 (specifying designation for Flathead County). The air
quality planning requirements for moderate PM10 nonattainment
areas are set out in Subparts 1 and 4 of Title I of the Act.\2\ (EPA
took action on the Columbia Falls PM10 SIP on April 14, 1994 (see
59 FR 17700)).
\1\ The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act made significant
changes to the Act. See Public Law No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399.
References herein are to the Clean Air Act, as amended (``the
Act''). The Clean Air Act is codified, as amended, in the U.S. Code
at 42 U.S.C. Sections 7401, et seq.
\2\ Subpart 1 contains provisions applicable to nonattainment
areas generally and Subpart 4 contains provisions specifically
applicable to PM10 nonattainment areas. At times, Subpart 1 and
Subpart 4 overlap or conflict. EPA has attempted to clarify the
relationship among these provisions in the ``General Preamble'' and,
as appropriate, in today's notice and supporting information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing EPA's
preliminary views on how EPA intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions
submitted under Title I of the Act, including those State submittals
containing moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP requirements (see
generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28,
1992)). Because EPA is describing its interpretations here only in
broad terms, the reader should refer to the General Preamble for a more
detailed discussion of the interpretations of Title I advanced in this
final action and the supporting rationale. In this rulemaking action on
the Montana moderate PM10 SIP, EPA is applying its interpretations
considering the specific factual issues presented.
Those States containing initial moderate PM10 nonattainment
areas were required to submit, among other things, the following
provisions by November 15, 1991:
1. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures
(RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in
the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
reasonably available control technology (RACT)) shall be implemented no
later than December 10, 1993;
2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than December 31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment by
that date is impracticable;
3. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years
and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward
attainment by December 31, 1994; and
4. Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM10 also apply to major stationary
sources of PM10 precursors except where the Administrator
determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to
PM10 levels which exceed the NAAQS in the area. See sections
172(c), 188, and 189 of the Act.
Some provisions were due at a later date. States with initial
moderate nonattainment areas were required to submit a permit program
for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary
sources of PM10 by June 30, 1992, [see section 189(a)]. States
containing initial moderate PM10 nonattainment areas were also
required to submit contingency measures by November 15, 1993 (see 57 FR
13543). These measures must become effective, without further action by
the State or EPA, upon a determination by EPA that the area has failed
to achieve reasonable further progress (RFP) or to attain the PM10
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by the applicable
statutory deadline. The contingency measures for Kalispell and Columbia
Falls, which are described in Section II.2.A and II.2.B of this
document, were submitted to fulfill this requirement. See Section
172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13510-13512 and 13543-13544.
II. This Action
EPA is taking five actions with this document. 1) Approval of the
Kalispell PM10 nonattainment area control plan including the
Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program. (EPA earlier took action
on certain portions of the Program with the approval of the Columbia
Falls PM10 SIP on April 14, 1994 (see 59 FR 17700). In this
action, EPA is approving the Program as re-submitted by the Governor on
August 26, 1994 with further modifications submitted on July 18, 1995).
2) Approval of the Kalispell PM10 Contingency Measure Plan. 3)
Approval of the Columbia Falls PM10 Contingency Measure Plan. 4)
Deletion of an obsolete section of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) which applied to further requirements for the Butte total
suspended particulates (TSP) plan. 5) Approval of Montana's New Source
Review rules for Kalispell since precursors are determined to not
contribute significantly. Below is a description of each of these
actions.
1. Kalispell PM10 SIP. EPA is approving the Kalispell
PM10 nonattainment area control plan and rules of the Flathead
County Air Pollution Control Plan found in the Flathead County Air
Pollution Control Program originally submitted by the Governor on
November 25, 1991, with revisions submitted on January 11, 1994, August
26, 1994 and July 18, 1995. Flathead County contains two PM10
nonattainment areas for which SIPs were due in November 1991: Columbia
Falls and Kalispell. The Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program
regulations apply to both areas and were submitted with the attainment
demonstration for Kalispell on November 25, 1991. EPA initially took
final approval action on all aspects of the Flathead County Air
Pollution Control Program, except rules 501 through 506, with the
Columbia Falls SIP on April 14, 1994 (see 59 FR 17700). The August 26,
1994, submittal contained minor modifications to the Flathead county
Air Pollution Control Program regulations that had been adopted through
Board Order on May 20, 1994. Thus, EPA is taking action on the entire
Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program submitted on August 26,
1994, in order to assure that the most recent version of the rules is
approved into the SIP. The July 18, 1995 submittal contained revised
control effectiveness calculations.
Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing EPA's
review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). In today's action,
EPA is granting approval of those elements of the Kalispell PM10
plan that were due on November 15, 1991, and submitted by the State on
November 25, 1991, January 11, 1994, August 26, 1994, and July 18,
1995. EPA believes that the Kalispell plan meets the applicable
requirements of the Act.
[[Page 11155]]
A. Analysis of State Submission
1. Procedural Background. The Act requires States to observe certain
procedural requirements in developing implementation plans and plan
revisions for submission to EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides
that each implementation plan submitted by a State must be adopted
after reasonable notice and public hearing.3 Section 110(l) of the
Act similarly provides that each revision to an implementation plan
submitted by a State under the Act must be adopted by such State after
reasonable notice and public hearing. The EPA also must determine
whether a submittal is complete and therefore warrants further EPA
review and action (see section 110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565). The EPA's
completeness criteria for SIP submittals are set out at 40 CFR Part 51,
Appendix V. The EPA attempts to make completeness determinations within
60 days of receiving a submission. However, a submittal is deemed
complete by operation of law if a completeness determination is not
made by EPA six months after receipt of the submission.
\3\ Also Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan
provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of
Section 110(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To entertain public comment on the PM10 implementation plan
for Kalispell, the State of Montana held a public hearing on November
15, 1991. The State supplied evidence that adequate public notice for
these hearings was provided. Following the public hearings, the Board
of Health and Environmental Sciences adopted the Flathead County Air
Pollution Control Program and the Kalispell PM10 Control Plan. The
submittal for the Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program and
Kalispell PM10 SIP were signed by the Governor on November 25,
1991. The final plan was received by EPA on December 4, 1991, as a
proposed revision to the SIP.
The SIP revision and subsequent submittals from the Governor were
reviewed by EPA to determine completeness in accordance with the
completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V. The
November 25, 1991 submittal was found to be complete and a letter,
dated April 29, 1992, was forwarded to the Governor indicating the
completeness of the submittal and the next steps to be taken in the
review process. The January 11, 1994 submittal was found complete by
default on July 11, 1994. The August 26, 1994 submittal was found
complete and a letter was forwarded to the Governor of that finding on
November 1, 1994. The July 18, 1995, submittal was found complete in a
letter forwarded to the Governor on July 18, 1995.
2. Accurate Emission Inventory. Section 172(c)(3) of the Act
requires that nonattainment plan provisions include a comprehensive,
accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of
relevant pollutants in the nonattainment area. The emission inventory
also should include a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of
allowable emissions in the area. Because the submission of such
inventories is a necessary adjunct to an area's attainment
demonstration (or demonstration that the area cannot practicably
attain), the emission inventories must be received with the submission
(see 57 FR 13539).
Kalispell's base year emission inventory was developed for
September 1, 1986, through August 31, 1987. The results were segregated
into seasonal emissions (winter, spring, summer, fall.) Area sources
comprise over 90% of the PM10 emissions on an annual basis.
Annually, paved road dust accounts for 80.16% of the PM10
emissions, with unpaved road dust responsible for 7.45%. Industrial
sources and residential woodburning account for 5.54% and 4.69% of the
total emissions respectively. Re-entrained road dust is the primary
source of emissions in all four seasons.
EPA is approving the emission inventory because it is accurate and
comprehensive, and provides a sufficient basis for determining the
adequacy of the attainment demonstration for this area consistent with
the requirements of sections 172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) of the
Act.4 For further details see the Kalispell PM10 SIP TSD for
this action.
\4\ EPA issued guidance on PM-10 emissions inventories prior to
the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments in the form of the
1987 PM-10 SIP Development Guideline. The guidance provided in this
document appears to be consistent with the revised Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. RACM (Including RACT). As noted, the initial moderate PM10
nonattainment areas must submit provisions to assure that RACM
(including RACT) are implemented no later than December 10, 1993, (see
sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)). The General Preamble contains a
detailed discussion of EPA's interpretation of the RACM (including
RACT) requirement (see 57 FR 13539-13545 and 13560-13561).
Five sources/source categories were identified as contributing to
the PM10 nonattainment problem in Kalispell. In the following
table, an outline is presented on these sources, their control measures
and associated emissions reduction credit, and effective dates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Control PM10 emissions reduction Effective
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\5\----
Re-entrained road dust................. Flathead County Rules:
501 Sanding & chip sealing 62% (credit taken only 5/20/94
standards and 505 Street for winter & spring.
Sweeping and Flushing.
502 Construction and (no credit taken)........ 5/20/94
Demolition Activity.
503 Pavement of Roads Required (no credit taken)........ 5/20/94
504 Pavement of Parking Lots (no credit taken)........ 5/20/94
Required.
506 Clearing of land greater (no credit taken)........ 5/20/94
than 1/4 acre in size
(requires measures to control
dust when clearing areas
larger than 1/4 acre).
Prescribed burning..................... Flathead County Rules:
201 (Open Burning) Definitions (no credit taken)........ 5/20/94
202 Materials Prohibited...... (no credit taken)........ 5/20/94
203 Minor Open Burning Source (no credit taken)........ 5/20/94
Requirements.
204 Major Open Burning Source (no credit taken)........ 5/20/94
Requirements.
205 Special Open Burning (no credit taken)........ 5/20/94
Periods.
206 Fire Fighter Training..... (no credit taken)........ 5/20/94
207 Conditional Air Quality (no credit taken)........ 5/20/94
Open Burning Permits.
208 Emergency Open Burning (no credit taken)........ 5/20/94
Permits.
209 Permit Fees............... (no credit taken)........ 5/20/94
[[Page 11156]]
Residential wood combustion............ Flathead County Air Pollution (no credit taken)........ 5/20/94
Control Program, CHAPTER
VIII, Sub-chapter 3,
Voluntary Solid Fuel Burning
Device Curtailment Program
and Sub-chapter 4, Prohibited
Materials for Wood or Coal
Residential Stoves
Industry............................... Board Order, limiting (no credit taken)........ 9/17/93
allowable emissions, based
upon signed stipulations
between the following sources
and the State: A-1 Paving;
Equity Supply Company;
Flathead Road Dept. (two
stipulations issued);
Klingler Lumber Co.; McElroy
and Wilkins; Montana Mokko;
Pack and Company, Inc.; Pack
Concrete; and Plum Creek Inc.
(Evergreen)..
Motor vehicle exhaust.................. Federal tailpipe standards.... (no credit taken)........ Ongoing due
to fleet
turnover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Note that the effective date of most of the following regulations is past the RACM/RACT implementation date
of December 10, 1993. The majority of these regulations were effective in 1991. However, as indicated
elsewhere in this action, minor revisions were made to some of the regulations. The table lists the most
recent effective date of these regulations.
A more detailed discussion of the source/source category
contributions and their associated control measures (including
available control technology) can be found in the Kalispell PM10
SIP TSD for this action. EPA has reviewed the State's documentation and
concluded that it adequately justifies the control measures to be
implemented. The implementation of Montana's PM10 nonattainment
plan resulted in the attainment of the PM10 NAAQS by December 31,
1994. By this action EPA is approving the Kalispell PM10 plan's
RACM (including RACT) in its entirety.
4. Attainment and Maintenance Demonstrations. As noted, the initial
moderate PM10 nonattainment areas must submit a demonstration
(including air quality modeling) showing that the plan will provide for
attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December
31, 1994, or the State must show that attainment by December 31, 1994,
is impracticable (see section 189(a)(1)(B) of the Act). The 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS is 150 micrograms/cubic meter (g/m3), and
the standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar
year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 g/m3
is equal to or less than one (see 40 CFR 50.6). The annual PM10
NAAQS is 50 g/m3, and the standard is attained when the
expected annual arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to
50 g/m3 (id.)
The Kalispell attainment and maintenance demonstrations are based
upon both CMB analysis with rollback for area sources and dispersion
modeling for stationary sources. The 1991 SIP submittal contained an
attainment and maintenance demonstration based upon CMB. However, at
the time of the CMB study, stationary sources were operating far below
their allowable emission rates, and meteorological (wind) conditions
did not allow for a reliable analysis of potential stationary source
impacts. To supplement the receptor modeling-based analysis, the State
agreed to evaluate industrial sources at their allowable emission rates
using dispersion modeling.
The industrial sources are removed, for the most part, from the
downtown area and are not believed to impact the monitors used for the
CMB analyses. Significant concentrations from industrial sources are
expected to occur only in the immediate area around the industrial
sources because of low stacks and fugitive type emissions. The intent
of the dispersion modeling was to see if violations of the standard
would occur in the immediate vicinity of the industrial sources.
Therefore, the Kalispell attainment and maintenance demonstrations are
based upon both CMB analysis for area sources and dispersion modeling
for industrial sources.
CMB: The attainment and maintenance demonstrations using CMB
analysis for Kalispell indicate that the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS would
be attained by December 31, 1994, at 137.2 g/m3, and it
would be maintained in future years. The demonstration indicated that
an annual concentration of 47.9 g/m3 would be achieved by
1995, 6 showing attainment of the annual PM10 NAAQS. The
annual NAAQS was also demonstrated to be maintained in future years. In
the July 18, 1995 submittal, the Governor provided a revised 24-hour
attainment demonstration which used a revised background concentration
number and higher credits for the re-entrained road dust program based
upon the expanded Kalispell Air Pollution Control District boundaries
outlined in the August 26, 1994 submittal. Through the implementation
of the controls in the expanded area, the attainment analysis indicated
that the 24-hour value attained in the year 1995 would be 124.3
g/m3 instead of the 137.2 g/m3 calculated
in the November 25, 1991 submittal.
\6\ The Clean Air Act calls for attainment by December 31, 1994.
Section 188(c)(1). EPA interprets the State's demonstration as
providing for attainment by January 1, 1995. EPA is approving the
State's demonstration on the basis of the de minimis differential
between the two dates. The State should promptly inform EPA if EPA
has in any manner misinterpreted the date by which the State has
demonstrated attainment in the Kalispell nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned above, a maintenance demonstration was contained in
the November 25, 1991, submittal which showed maintenance of the 24-
hour standard through 1997. The July 18, 1995, submittal did not
contain a revised maintenance demonstration. However, based upon the
revised attainment year value of 124.3 g/m3 and the
projected 2.1% annual population growth rate, EPA has calculated the
maintenance demonstration to be 132.3 g/m3 in 1998.
Monitored values reported through 1994 have shown attainment. EPA
accepts this analysis for demonstrating attainment and maintenance of
the 24-hour standard.
The July 18, 1995, submittal did not revise the attainment and
maintenance calculations for the annual PM10 standard which were
contained in the original November 25, 1991, submittal. However, EPA
expects that since the July 1995 revised 24-hour values are
significantly lower than 1991 values, the annual values would show
similar reductions and that attainment and maintenance of the annual
PM10 standard would result. Monitored annual values reported
through 1994 have shown attainment. EPA accepts this analysis for
demonstrating attainment of the annual standard.
Dispersion Modeling: As pointed out earlier, because of its concern
that the majority of the stationary sources within
[[Page 11157]]
the Kalispell area were operating far below their allowable permit
limits during the CMB study and thus their potential impact on air
quality was not being properly calculated, EPA asked the State to
perform dispersion modeling to demonstrate attainment and maintenance
of the PM10 standard. The Montana Department of Health and
Environmental Services (MDHES) conducted dispersion modeling using
stationary source allowable emission rates to determine if violations
of the PM10 NAAQS would result in future years. Based upon the
results of the dispersion modeling, several stationary source permits
were revised to reduce allowable emission rates.
Dispersion modeling, using stationary source allowable emission
rates, was used to determine maximum concentrations related to
stationary source emissions. The results were used to demonstrate
attainment of the standard by December 31, 1994. The 24-hour PM10
NAAQS allows one expected exceedance of the standard per year. Thus, in
modeling five years of data, attainment is demonstrated when the sixth
highest predicted concentration is less than 150 g/m3.
The 6th highest modeled concentration in the 1998 maintenance run was
139 g/m3. Total concentrations would be lower in 1995
owing to lower emissions from nearby background sources. This shows
attainment of the 24-hour standard of 150 g/m3. In
addition, the Kalispell dispersion modeling results indicated
attainment of the annual PM10 standard. The predicted
concentration in the maintenance year (1998) is 50.0 g/
m3. Because emissions from nearby background sources would be
lower in 1995 than in 1998, predicted 1995 concentrations would be less
than 50 g/m3.
5. PM10 Precursors. The control requirements that are
applicable to major stationary sources of PM10 also apply to major
stationary sources of PM10 precursors, unless EPA determines such
sources do not contribute significantly to PM10 levels over the
NAAQS in that area (see section 189(e) of the Act). An analysis of air
quality and emissions data for the Kalispell nonattainment area
indicates that exceedances of the NAAQS are attributable chiefly to
direct particulate emissions from re-entrained road dust, with a small
contribution from stationary sources and residential wood burning. The
emission inventory for Kalispell revealed that industrial processes
contributed 5.54% to the annual PM10 emissions. However, the
inventory did not differentiate between PM10 or precursor
emissions. Based upon the types of sources in the area, EPA believes
that the overall contribution of PM10 precursors is insignificant.
Therefore, EPA is making the determination that PM10 precursors do
not contribute significantly to PM10 levels that exceed the
standard in Kalispell. The consequences of this determination is to
exclude these sources from the applicability of PM10 nonattainment
area control requirements.
On July 18, 1995, EPA partially approved the State's nonattainment
new source review (NSR) permitting regulations for the Kalispell
moderate PM10 nonattainment area because the State did not submit
NSR permitting regulations for sources of PM10 precursors in
Kalispell and because EPA had not yet found that such sources did not
contribute significantly to PM10 exceedances in Kalispell (see 60
FR 36715-36722). The consequence of this determination that PM10
precursors are insignificant is to exclude major stationary sources of
PM10 precursors in Kalispell from the applicability of PM10
nonattainment area control requirements, including nonattainment NSR
permitting. Thus, based on this determination, the State's
nonattainment NSR regulations for Kalispell are considered fully
approved.
Further discussion of the analyses and supporting rationale for
EPA's finding are contained in the TSD accompanying this action. Note
that while EPA is making a general finding for this area, this finding
is based on the current character of the area including, for example,
the existing mix of sources in the area. It is possible, therefore,
that future growth could change the significance of precursors in the
area. The EPA intends to issue future guidance addressing such
potential changes in the significance of precursor emissions in an
area.
6. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress. The
PM10 nonattainment area plan revisions demonstrating attainment
must contain quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3
years until the area is redesignated attainment and which demonstrate
RFP, as defined in section 171(1), toward attainment by December 31,
1994, (see section 189(c) of the Act). The State of Montana's PM10
SIP indicates that the MDHES and the Flathead County Health Department
(FCHD) will submit to EPA a reasonable further progress/milestone
report consistent with federal guidelines by December 31, 1994.7
\7\ Technically the first milestone would fall on November 15,
1994--three years after the deadline for submittal of this SIP.
However, the de minimis timing differential between the first
milestone submittal date and the attainment date (December 31, 1994)
make it administratively impracticable to require separate
submittals. See generally 57 FR 13539. Using December 31, 1994 as
the first milestone, EPA has identified March 31, 1995 as the actual
deadline for the submittal of the milestone report (per section
189(c)(2) of the Act). The State of Montana submitted the milestone
report on April 12, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, FCHD will prepare less detailed annual progress
reports for the prior year by August 1st each year. These annual
progress reports shall provide information on the effectiveness of the
control strategies.
To monitor the progress of the road dust control rules, a report
will be completed on the type and amount of de-icing and sanding
material applied, the number of applications of de-icing and sanding
materials, the dates of application of each material, and where and
when the street sweeping and flushing occurred during the winter
season. The sanding material test results for the percent silt and
durability also will be submitted.
All exceedances of the PM10 standard will be evaluated and a
determination made as to the source of the exceedance. Changes in the
air quality program to prevent further exceedances and a timetable for
implementation will be developed. Any other EPA requirements for RFP
reports will be incorporated as necessary.
7. Contingency Measures. See Section II.2. below for requirements.
8. Enforceability Issues. All measures and other elements in the
SIP must be enforceable by the State and EPA (see sections 172(c)(6)
and 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 57 FR 13556). The EPA criteria
addressing the enforceability of SIPs and SIP revisions were stated in
a September 23, 1987, memorandum (with attachments) from J. Craig
Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, et al. (see 57
FR 13541). Nonattainment area plan provisions also must contain a
program to provide for enforcement of control measures and other
elements in the SIP (see section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act).
The specific control measures contained in the SIP are addressed
above in Section 3, ``RACM (including RACT).'' The Flathead County Air
Pollution Control regulations, as included in the SIP, are legally
enforceable by FCHD. Any person who violates any provision or rule,
with the exception of the voluntary solid-fuel burning device rule, or
order under this program shall be subject to a civil penalty not to
exceed $500.00.
The Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program and the
associated
[[Page 11158]]
local regulations are also enforceable by the MDHES, if the FCHD fails
to administer the program. Since the program has been approved by the
Montana Board of Health and Environmental Sciences (MBHES) in
accordance with section 75-2-301 of the Montana Code Annotated and
effectuated by a MBHES Order, and since the MDHES can enforce MBHES
Orders, the MDHES has independent enforcement powers. Enforcement
provisions are found in the Clean Air Act of Montana, sections 75-2-401
through 75-2-429, Montana Code Annotated.
The allowable emission limits for the stationary sources being
regulated under this plan are enforceable by the MDHES through the
issuance of a Board Order. MDHES and the Kalispell sources agreed to
emission limitations in stipulations which were enforceable upon
approval and adoption by the MBHES through the issuance of a Board
Order on September 17, 1993. The stipulations contained emission
limitations for the following nine sources: A-1 Paving; Equity Supply
Company; Flathead Road Dept. (two stipulations issued); Klingler Lumber
Co.; McElroy and Wilkins; Montana Mokko; Pack and Company, Inc.; Pack
Concrete; and Plum Creek Inc. (Evergreen).
If a State relies on a local government for the implementation of
any plan provision, then, according to section 110(a)(2)(E)(iii) of the
Act, the State must provide necessary assurances that the State has
responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan
provision. A State would have responsibility to ensure adequate
implementation when, for example, the State has the authority and
resources to implement the provision, and the local entity has failed
to do so.
The Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program was established
in accordance with the requirements of section 75-2-301 of the Montana
Code Annotated, as amended (1991). On November 15, 1991, the MBHES
issued a Board Order approving the local program and regulations. A
stipulation between the MDHES and the Flathead County Air Pollution
Control Board that delineates responsibilities and authorities between
the MDHES and the local authorities was signed November 15, 1991. The
regulations, Board Order, and stipulation were submitted to EPA as a
revision to the Montana SIP.
The State also submitted a state Attorney General's opinion
interpreting the authority of the MDHES to enforce any state and local
air quality provisions if a local air quality program fails to do so.
In practice, the MBHES issues a Board Order when it approves a local
program or amendments to a program. Since the Montana Clean Air Act
authorizes the MDHES to enforce Board Orders issued by the MBHES, the
MDHES has the authority to assume jurisdiction over, and implement, a
local program so approved. However, the Montana Clean Air Act also
requires a hearing before the MBHES before such an assumption of
jurisdiction and authority can be taken.
The Flathead County rules are in effect now, as is the Board Order
for the nine stationary sources. The State of Montana has a program
that will ensure that the measures contained in the Kalispell PM10
SIP are adequately enforced. EPA believes that the State's and
Kalispell's existing air enforcement program will be adequate. The TSD
for the Kalispell PM10 plan contains further information on
enforceability requirements, responsibilities, and a discussion of the
personnel and funding intended to support effective implementation of
the control measures.
2. Contingency Measures. The Clean Air Act requires states
containing PM10 nonattainment areas to adopt contingency measures
that will take effect without further action by the State or EPA upon a
determination by EPA that an area failed to make reasonable further
progress or to timely attain the applicable NAAQS, as described in
section 172(c)(9). See generally 57 FR 13510-13512 and 13543-13544.
Pursuant to section 172(b), the Administrator has established a
schedule providing that states containing initial moderate PM10
nonattainment areas shall submit SIP revisions containing contingency
measures no later than November 15, 1993. (See 57 FR 13543, n. 3.)
The General Preamble further explains that contingency measures for
PM10 should consist of other available control measures, beyond
those necessary to meet the core moderate area control requirement to
implement reasonably available control measures (see Clean Air Act
sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)). Based on the statutory structure,
EPA believes that contingency measures must, at a minimum, provide for
continued progress toward the attainment goal during the interim period
between the determination that the SIP has failed to achieve RFP/
provide for timely attainment of the NAAQS and the additional formal
air quality planning following the determination (57 FR 13511).
Section 172(c)(9) of the Act specifies that contingency measures
shall ``take effect * * * without further action by the State or the
[EPA] Administrator.'' EPA has interpreted this requirement (in the
General Preamble at 57 FR 13512) to mean that no further rulemaking
activities by the State or EPA would be needed to implement the
contingency measures. In general, EPA expects all actions needed to
effect full implementation of the measures to occur within 60 days
after EPA notifies the State of its failure to attain the standard or
make RFP.
EPA recognizes that certain actions, such as notification of
sources, modification of permits, etc., may be needed before some
measures could be implemented. However, States must show that their
contingency measures can be implemented with minimal further
administrative action on their part and with no additional rulemaking
action such as public hearing or legislative review.
A. Kalispell PM10 Contingency Measures
The State failed to submit the contingency measures by the November
15, 1993, due date. On January 19, 1994, EPA made a finding that the
State failed to submit the contingency measures. Based upon that
finding, the 18 month sanctions and 24 month FIP clocks were activated.
In response to this finding, the Governor of Montana submitted
revisions to the SIP for Kalispell with letters dated August 26, 1994,
and July 18, 1995. The revisions address contingency measures for the
Kalispell moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP.
1. Procedural Background (see Section II.1.A.1). The PM10
contingency measures for Kalispell were developed by the FCHD and the
MDHES. On October 18, 1993, after a local public hearing on October 4,
1993, the Kalispell City Council adopted the measures. On October 12,
1993, the Flathead County Commissioners held a public hearing and
adopted the contingency measures (Resolution 867A). This county
resolution also had included expanding the Columbia Falls area of
sanding and sweeping. Subsequent to further discussion, the County
Commissioners held another public hearing on April 4, 1994, at which
time they removed mention of this expanded area (Resolution 867B).
After the May 20, 1994, MBHES public hearing, the Board adopted the
local rules which constitute the contingency measures. The Governor
submitted the contingency measure rule 507 to EPA with a letter dated
August 26, 1994. However, that submittal did not contain the necessary
technical analysis and related information.
On July 10, 1995, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality
[[Page 11159]]
(MDEQ, formerly MDHES) held a properly noticed public hearing for the
purpose of adopting the local rules and technical analysis information
into the Montana SIP. The Governor subsequently submitted the
outstanding portions of the Kalispell PM10 contingency measure SIP
revision to EPA with a letter dated July 18, 1995. After reviewing the
submittal for conformance with the completeness criteria in 40 CFR 51,
Appendix V, EPA determined the submittal to be administratively and
technically complete and notified the Governor of such determination in
a letter dated July 18, 1995.
2. Contingency Measures. The PM10 contingency measure plan for
Kalispell was submitted by the Governor to EPA with letters dated
August 26, 1994, and July 18, 1995. The contingency measure requires
mandatory use of liquid de-icer instead of sand, except under special
circumstances.
a. Re-entrained Road Dust Contingency Measure. On April 4, 1994,
the Flathead County Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution No.
867B which amended the Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program.
The amendments include Rule 507 which is a contingency plan that
implements the mandatory use of liquid de-icer on all roads, with the
exception of priority routes with extraordinary circumstances, within
the Kalispell Air Pollution Control District. Rule 507 provides that
within 60 days of notification by EPA that the SIP for the Kalispell
moderate PM10 nonattainment area failed to timely attain the
PM10 NAAQS or make reasonable further progress the following will
occur:
Within the Kalispell Air Pollution Control District, only liquid
de-icer shall be placed on any road or parking lot with the exception
of priority routes with extraordinary circumstances existing. During
extraordinary circumstances, priority routes must use sanding material
which has a durability (as defined by the Montana Modified L.A.
Abrasion test) of less than or equal to seven or other testing method
which the Control Board deems suitable, and has a content of material
less than 200 mesh, as determined by standard wet sieving methods,
which is less than three percent oven dry weight.
b. Effectiveness of the Contingency Measure. If the re-entrained
road dust contingency measure is implemented, the control efficiency of
the re-entrained road dust measures will be 81% in the 24-hour
attainment demonstration. This calculation takes into account the use
of liquid de-icer, the current requirements for use of washed sand, and
the existing street sweeping measures (see the TSD for the Kalispell
PM10 SIP for further details on the existing re-entrained road
dust strategies). Total reduction from the contingency measure is
calculated to be 10632 more pounds of PM10 reduced per day than
without the contingency measure.
EPA believes this contingency measure is approvable. The control
measures implemented in the PM10 SIP are projected to achieve more
emissions reductions than needed to demonstrate attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS, as indicated by the State's predicted 24-hour
attainment concentration of 124.3 g/m3. Furthermore, the
predicted 24-hour ambient concentration resulting if the contingency
measure is implemented is 94.0 g/m3. Since the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS is 150 g/m3, this established safety
margin further supports the reasonableness of this contingency measure.
3. Enforceability Issues. The Flathead County Air Pollution Control
Program was established in accordance with the requirements of Section
75-2-301 of the Montana Clean Air Act, as amended (1991). A stipulation
between the MDHES, the Flathead County Commission, and the Kalispell
and Columbia Falls City Councils was signed on November 15, 1991, to
delineate responsibilities and authorities between the MDHES and the
local authorities. On November 15, 1991, the MBHES issued a Board Order
effectuating the program. On May 20, 1994, the MBHES issued a Board
Order approving the Kalispell PM10 contingency measures. The
related regulation, and the May 20, 1994, Board Order were submitted to
EPA in the August 26, 1994, submittal as a revision to the Montana SIP.
The Flathead County regulation is in effect now. The State of Montana
has a program that will ensure that the contingency measures contained
in the Kalispell PM10 SIP are adequately enforced. EPA believes
that the State's and Kalispells' existing air enforcement program will
be adequate. The Kalispell Contingency Measure SIP TSD contains further
information on enforceability requirements, responsibilities, and a
discussion of the personnel and funding intended to support effective
implementation of the control measures.
B. Columbia Falls PM10 Contingency Measures, Control Strategy and
Attainment Demonstration Revisions
The State failed to submit the contingency measures by the November
15, 1993, due date. On January 19, 1994, EPA made a finding that the
State failed to submit the contingency measures. Based upon that
finding, the 18 month sanctions and 24 month FIP clocks were activated.
In response to this finding, the Governor of Montana submitted
revisions to the SIP for Columbia Falls with a letters dated August 26,
1994. The revision addressed contingency measures for the Columbia
Falls moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP.
1. Procedural Background (see Section II.1.A.1)
The PM10 contingency measures for Columbia Falls were
developed by the FCHD and the Montana (MDHES). After a local public
hearing on October 4, 1993, the Columbia Falls' City Council adopted
the measures. On October 12, 1993, the Flathead County Commissioners
held a public hearing and adopted the contingency measures (Resolution
867A). This county resolution also had included expanding the Columbia
Falls area of sanding and sweeping. Subsequent to further discussion,
the County Commissioners held another public hearing on April 4, 1994,
at which time they removed mention of this expanded area (Resolution
867B). After the May 20, 1994, MBHES public hearing, the Board adopted
the local rules which constitute the contingency measures and minor
revisions to the attainment and maintenance demonstration for the SIP.
The Governor submitted the contingency measure rule 607 to EPA with a
letter dated August 26, 1994. After reviewing the submittal for
conformance with the completeness criteria in 40 CFR 51, Appendix V,
EPA determined the submittal to be administratively and technically
complete and notified the Governor of such determination in a letter
dated November 1, 1994.
The Governor of Montana submitted revisions to the SIP for Columbia
Falls with a letter dated August 26, 1994. The revisions address
contingency measures and incorporate minor modifications to the
attainment and maintenance demonstrations into the State SIP for the
Columbia Falls moderate PM10 nonattainment area.
2. Control Strategy (see Section II.1.A.3 for general requirements)
On April 14, 1994 (59 FR 17700), EPA approved the control measures
in the Columbia Falls moderate PM10 nonattainment area SIP as
satisfying the requirement to provide for the implementation of RACM,
including RACT. The measures targeted re-entrained road dust,
residential wood burning, prescribed burning, industry, and motor
vehicle exhaust. Please see
[[Page 11160]]
that final rule and associated Technical Support Document (TSD) for
further details on the specific control measures in the approved SIP.
3. Revisions to Attainment and Maintenance Demonstrations (see Section
II.1.A.4 for General Requirements)
CMB receptor modelling in combination with rollback was chosen as
the best tool for the attainment and maintenance demonstrations of the
24-hour standard. EPA approved Montana's attainment and maintenance
demonstrations for the Columbia Falls moderate PM 10 nonattainment
area on April 14, 1994 (59 FR 17700). The 24-hour attainment value
(i.e., the ambient PM10 air quality level expected to be achieved
by 1995 8) was 136.28 g/m \3\, and the annual attainment
value was 31.1 g/m \3\. The maintenance values (i.e., ambient
PM10 air quality levels maintained through January 1, 1998) are
equal to the attainment values.
\8\ The Clean Air Act calls for attainment by December 31, 1994.
Section 188(c)(1). EPA interprets the State's demonstration as
providing for attainment of the PM10 NAAQS by January 1, 1995.
EPA approved the State's demonstration on the basis of the de
minimis differential between the two dates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As was discussed in the TSD accompanying EPA's approval action for
the Columbia Falls SIP, technical corrections to the attainment
demonstration were made subsequent to the Governor's submittal. With
the August 26, 1994, contingency measure SIP submittal, the Governor is
also incorporating the revised attainment demonstration (contained in
the technical corrections noted above) into the SIP narrative. There is
a minor additional revision to the street sweeping & sanding control
calculation. The revised control credit calculation separates the
background particulate emissions prior to applying reductions due to
the street sweeping program. The revised calculation yields a minor
increase of 32 lbs per day PM10 emissions over the original
demonstration, an amount approximately equal to 1% of the uncontrolled
daily emissions from paved road dust re-entrainment. EPA has evaluated
and approves the revised control efficiency calculations. The final
attainment demonstration being incorporated and approved by this action
predicts a 24-hour attainment value of 136.9 g/m \3\, and an
annual attainment value of 31.1 g/m \3\, both well below the
respective NAAQS. The SIP continues to adequately demonstrate timely
attainment and maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS in Columbia Falls and
satisfies the requirement to provide for the implementation of RACM
(including RACT). For further detail concerning the calculations, see
the TSD for this action.
4. Contingency Measures
The PM10 contingency measure plan for Columbia Falls was
submitted by the Governor to EPA with a letter dated August 26, 1994.
The contingency measure requires mandatory use of liquid de-icer
instead of sand, except under special circumstances.
a. Re-entrained Road Dust Contingency Measure. On April 4, 1994,
the Flathead County Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution No.
867B which amended the Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program.
The amendments include Rule 607 which is a contingency plan that
implements the mandatory use of liquid de-icer on all roads, with the
exception of priority routes with extraordinary circumstances, within
the Columbia Falls Air Pollution Control District. Rule 607 provides
that within 60 days of notification by EPA that the SIP for the
Columbia Falls moderate PM10 nonattainment area failed to timely
attain the PM10 NAAQS or make reasonable further progress the
following will occur:
Within the Columbia Falls Air Pollution Control District, only
liquid de-icer shall be placed on any road or parking lot with the
exception of priority routes with extraordinary circumstances existing.
During extraordinary events, priority routes must use sanding material
which has a durability, as defined by the Montana Modified L.A.
Abrasion test, of less than or equal to 7, or other testing method
which the Control Board deems suitable, and has a content of material
less than 200 mesh, as determined by standard wet sieving methods,
which is less than 3.0% oven dry weight.
b. Effectiveness of the Contingency Measure. If the re-entrained
road dust contingency measure is implemented, the control efficiency of
the re-entrained road dust measures will be 58% in the 24-hour
attainment demonstration (an increase of 28% over the control
efficiency of the re-entrained road dust measures in the original SIP
attainment demonstration). This calculation takes into account the use
of the liquid de-icer, the current requirements for use of washed sand,
and the existing street sweeping measures (see the TSD accompanying
EPA's approval, 59 FR 17700, of the Columbia Falls PM10 SIP,
available at the EPA address at the beginning of this document, for
further details on the existing re-entrained road dust strategies).
Total reduction from the contingency measure is calculated to be 605
more pounds of PM10 reduced per day than without the contingency
measure.
EPA believes that this contingency measure is approvable. The
control measures implemented in the PM10 SIP are projected to
achieve more emissions reductions than needed to demonstrate attainment
of the PM10 NAAQS, as indicated by the State's predicted 24-hour
attainment concentration of 135.9 g/m3 (see Section
II.A.2. above and the TSD). Furthermore, the predicted 24-hour ambient
concentration resulting if the contingency measure is implemented is
122.5 g/m3. Since the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is 150
g/m3, this established safety margin further supports the
reasonableness of these contingency measures.
5. Enforceability Issues
The Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program was established
in accordance with the requirements of Section 75-2-301 of the Montana
Clean Air Act, as amended (1991). A stipulation between the MDHES, the
Flathead County Commission, and the Kalispell and Columbia Falls City
Councils was signed on November 15, 1991 to delineate responsibilities
and authorities between the MDHES and the local authorities. On
November 15, 1991, the MBHES issued a Board Order effectuating the
program. On January 24, 1992, the MBHES approved the Columbia Falls
PM10 plan and local program. The stipulation, Board Order, and
resolution were incorporated into the SIP on April 14, 1994 (59 FR
17700).
On May 20, 1994, the MBHES issued a Board Order approving the
Columbia Falls PM10 contingency measures. The related regulation,
and the May 20, 1994, Board Order were submitted to EPA in the August
26, 1994 submittal as a revision to the Montana SIP.
The Flathead County Program is in effect now. The State of Montana
has a program that will ensure that the contingency measures contained
in the Columbia Falls PM10 SIP are adequately enforced. EPA
believes that the State's and Columbia Falls' existing air enforcement
program will be adequate. The TSD for this action contains further
information on enforceability requirements, responsibilities, and a
discussion of the personnel and funding intended to support effective
implementation of the control measures.
3. Deletion of Butte TSP Requirement. 40 CFR 52.1380 contains a
conditional approval of a total suspended particulate (TSP) plan for
Butte. The condition required that the State submit,
[[Page 11161]]
by February 15, 1981, a revised airborne particulate regulation as
specified in its October 4, 1979, submittal to EPA. Since the time that
this requirement was put in place, EPA has revised the particulate
matter standard to be based on PM10 rather than TSP. Furthermore,
Montana has submitted and EPA approved a SIP revision providing for
attainment and maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS for the Butte
moderate PM10 nonattainment area (March 11, 1994, 59 FR 11550).
Thus, since TSP is no longer the regulated form of particulate matter
and has been replaced by PM10, and since Montana has a federally
approved SIP meeting all requirements of the CAA for the Butte
PM10 nonattainment area, EPA finds 40 CFR 52.1380 obsolete and is
deleting the section.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving Montana's Kalispell SIP revision submitted on
November 25, 1991 with additional submittals, critical to the Kalispell
SIP, made on January 11, 1994, August 26, 1994, and July 18, 1995.
These submittals address PM10 requirements which were due on
November 15, 1991. Among other things, the State of Montana has
demonstrated that the Kalispell moderate PM10 nonattainment area
will attain the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. EPA is also
approving the Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program submitted
on November 25, 1991 and resubmitted on August 26, 1994. In addition,
EPA is approving Montana's SIP revisions for Kalispell and Columbia
Falls which address PM10 contingency measure plans, which were due
on November 15, 1993. The plan for the Kalispell PM10
nonattainment area was submitted by the Governor with a letter dated
August 26, 1994 with additional materials submitted on July 18, 1995.
The plan for the Columbia Falls PM10 nonattainment area was
submitted by the Governor with a letter dated August 26, 1994. This
submittal also included minor revisions to the attainment and
maintenance demonstrations for Columbia Falls.
EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be submitted. Under the procedures
established in the May 10, 1994 Federal Register (59 FR 24054), this
action will be effective May 20, 1996 unless, within 30 days of its
publication, adverse or critical comments are received.
If such comments are received, this action will be withdrawn before
the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is
advised that this action will be effective on May 20, 1996.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to a SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600, et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000.
Approvals of SIP submittals under section 110 and subchapter I,
part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements, but
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.
Therefore, because the Federal SIP-approval does not impose any new
requirements, I certify that it does not have a significant impact on
small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-state
relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of a regulatory
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base
its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.
E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
V. Petition Language
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 20, 1996. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review must be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
VI. Executive Order (EO) 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
VII. Unfunded Mandates
Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22,
1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed
or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of this state implementation plan or plan
revision, the State and any affected local or tribal governments have
elected to adopt the program provided for under Section 110 and
subchapter I, part D, of the Clean Air Act. These rules may bind State,
local and tribal governments to perform certain actions and also
require the private sector to perform certain duties. The rules being
approved by this action will impose no new requirements; such sources
are already subject to these regulations under State law. Accordingly,
no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action. EPA has also determined that
this final action does not include a mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate or to the private sector.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur dioxide, and Volatile organic compounds.
[[Page 11162]]
Dated: September 29, 1995.
Jack W. McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart BB--Montana
2. Section 52.1370 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(40) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1370 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(40) The Governor of Montana submitted a PM10 plan for
Kalispell, Montana in a letter dated November 25, 1991. The Governor of
Montana later submitted additional materials in letters dated January
11, 1994, August 26, 1994, and July 18, 1995. The August 26, 1994, and
July 18, 1995 submittals also contain the Kalispell Contingency Measure
Plan. The August 26, 1994, submittal also contains the Columbia Falls
PM10 contingency measures and minor revisions to the attainment
and maintenance demonstrations for the moderate PM10 nonattainment
area SIP for Columbia Falls. Finally, the August 26, 1994, submittal
contains revisions to the Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program
regulations.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Stipulations signed September 15, 1993 between the Montana
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences and the following
industries: A-1 Paving; Equity Supply Company; Flathead Road Dept. (two
stipulations issued); Klingler Lumber Co.; McElroy and Wilkins; and
Montana Mokko.
(B) Stipulations signed September 17, 1993 between the Montana
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences and the following
industries: Pack and Company, Inc.; Pack Concrete; and Plum Creek Inc.
(Evergreen).
(C) Board Order issued on September 17, 1993, by the Montana Board
of Health and Environmental Sciences enforcing emissions limitations
specified by stipulations signed by both the Montana Department of
Health and Environmental Services and participating facilities. The
participating facilities included: A-1 Paving; Equity Supply Company;
Flathead Road Dept. (two stipulations issued); Klingler Lumber Co.;
McElroy and Wilkins; Montana Mokko; Pack and Company, Inc.; Pack
Concrete; and Plum Creek Inc. (Evergreen).
(D) Flathead County Board of Commissioners Resolution No. 867B,
dated April 4, 1994, adopting the Flathead County Air Pollution Control
Program.
(E) Board Order issued May 20, 1994, by the Montana Board of Health
and Environmental Sciences approving the Flathead County Air Pollution
Control Program.
(F) Flathead County Air Pollution Control Program, including all
regulations found in Chapter VIII, Sub-Chapters 1-6, effective May 20,
1994.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) Montana Smoke Management Plan, effective April 28, 1988, which
addresses prescribed burning requirements.
(B) Federal tailpipe standards, which provide an ongoing benefit
due to fleet turnover.
Sec. 52.1380 [Removed and reserved]
3. Section 52.1380 is removed and reserved.
[FR Doc. 96-6004 Filed 3-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6002 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Tennessee: Approval of Revisions to the Tennessee State Implementation Plan
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11136-11137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6002]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TN 130-1-9601a; TN 116-1-9602a; TN 114-1-9603a; FRL-5345-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Tennessee:
Approval of Revisions to the Tennessee State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Tennessee State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on June 21, 1993, and June 22,
1993, by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation (DEC). The submittal of June 21, 1993
revises Chapter 1200-3-14 Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions and the
submittal of June 22, 1993 revises Chapter 1200-3-10 Required Sampling,
Recording and Reporting. On December 17, 1993, the Memphis Shelby
County Health Department, through the Tennessee DEC, submitted
revisions to Section 16-85 of the Memphis Shelby County Portion of the
Tennessee SIP which adopt by reference revisions to Chapter 1200-3-10
of the Tennessee SIP. The intended effect of this revision is to
clarify certain provisions and ensure consistency with the Clean Air
Act.
DATES: This action is effective May 20, 1996 unless notice is received
by April 18, 1996 that someone wishes to submit adverse or critical
comments. If the effective date is delayed, timely notice will be
published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Scott M. Martin,
Regulatory Planning and Development Section, Air Programs Branch, Air,
Pesticides & Toxics Management Division, Region 4 Environmental
Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
Copies of the documents relative to this action are available for
public inspection during normal business hours at the following
locations. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with appropriate office at least 24 hours
before the visiting day.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Programs Branch, 345
Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Air
Pollution Control, 9th Floor L & C Annex, 401 Church Street, Nashville,
Tennessee 37243-1531.
Memphis and Shelby County Health Department, 814 Jefferson Avenue,
Memphis, Tennessee 38105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott M. Martin, Regulatory Planning
and Development Section, Air Programs Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics
Management Division, Region 4 Environmental Protection Agency, 345
Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365. The telephone number is
404/347-3555 extension 4216.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 21, 1993, the State of Tennessee,
through the Tennessee DEC, submitted revisions to Chapter 1200-3-14
Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions. The changes are as follows: 1.)
Paragraph 1200-3-14-.03(4) was amended by inserting after the second
sentence the following: ``This document will be incorporated into the
State Implementation Plan. The cost of the legal notice involved must
be paid by the requesting source.''
On June 22, 1993, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee
DEC, submitted revisions to Chapter 1200-3-10 Required Sampling,
Recording and Reporting. The changes are as follows: 1.) Paragraph
1200-3-10.02(1)(c)2 is amended by deleting the text and inserting the
word ``(Reserved)''. This deletion removes the authority for the
Technical Secretary to approve alternate monitoring standards.
On December 17, 1993, the Memphis Shelby County Health Department,
through the Tennessee DEC, submitted revisions to Section 16-85 of the
Memphis Shelby County Portion of the Tennessee SIP. This revision
adopts by reference changes to Chapter 1200-3-10 of the Tennessee SIP
identified in the previous paragraph.
Final Action
EPA is approving the above referenced revisions to the Tennessee
State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action is being taken without
prior proposal because the EPA views this as a noncontroversial
amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in a separate
document in this Federal Register publication, the EPA is proposing to
approve the SIP revision should adverse or critical comments be filed.
This action will be effective May 20, 1996 unless, by April 18, 1996,
adverse or critical comments are received.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is
advised that this action will be effective May 20, 1996.
Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C.
7607(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed
in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by
May 20, 1996. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this
rule for purposes of judicial review nor does it
[[Page 11137]]
extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607
(b)(2)).
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
Nothing in this action shall be construed as permitting or allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for a revision to
any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to the state
implementation plan shall be considered separately in light of specific
technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to
relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq, EPA must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of any
proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not
create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that the
State is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP-approval
does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does not have a
significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the
nature of the federal-state relationship under the CAA, preparation of
a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute federal inquiry into
the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA to
base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v.
U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)
and 7410(k)(3).
Unfunded Mandates
Under Sections 202, 203 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995,
EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to State,
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of this state implementation plan or plan
revision, the State and any affected local or tribal governments have
elected to adopt the program provided for under section 110 of the CAA.
These rules may bind State, local and tribal governments to perform
certain duties. EPA has examined whether the rules being approved by
this action will impose any mandate upon the State, local or tribal
governments either as the owner or operator of a source or as a
regulator, or would impose any mandate upon the private sector. EPA's
action will impose no new requirements; such sources are already
subject to these regulations under State law. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action. Therefore, this final action
does not include a mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate
or to the private sector.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: December 4, 1995.
Patrick M. Tobin,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart RR--Tennessee
2. Section 52.2220, is amended by adding paragraph (c)(134) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(134) Revisions to the State of Tennessee Air Pollution Control
Regulations submitted by the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation on June 21, 1991, and June 22, 1993. These consist of
revisions to Chapter 1200-3-10 Required Sampling, Recording and
Reporting, and Chapter 1200-3-14 Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions.
Revisions to section 16-85 of the Memphis/Shelby County portion of the
Tennessee SIP which adopt by reference changes made to Chapter 1200-3-
10 of the Tennessee SIP.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Chapter 1200-3-14, effective March 21, 1993.
(B) Chapter 1200-3-10, effective March 13, 1993.
(C) Section 16-85 of the Memphis/Shelby County Health Department,
Air Pollution Control Regulations effective October 23, 1993.
(ii) Other material. None.
[FR Doc. 96-6002 Filed 3-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-5188 International Accounting Rates Reform
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11163-11164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5188]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Chapter I
[FCC 96-37]
International Accounting Rates Reform
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; policy statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 31, 1996, the Federal Communications Commission
adopted a Policy Statement (FCC 96-37) which sets forth a shift in its
policies on international accounting rates. With these changes the
Commission seeks to encourage competition in the U.S. market for global
telecommunications services and technological innovation.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 19, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maureen C. McLaughlin, Attorney-
Advisor, Policy and Facilities Branch, Telecommunications Division,
International Bureau, (202) 418-1470.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Policy
Statement adopted and released on January 31, 1996. The full text of
this Policy Statement is available for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC's International Bureau's Public
Reference Center, Room 102 of the Federal Communications Commission,
2000 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.
In light of this Policy Statement, the Commission also released a
Public Notice wherein requested the submission of supplemental comments
[[Page 11164]]
and reply comments. (FCC Public Notice, DA 96-105, released January 31,
1996.) (In response to requests for extension of time, the Commission
subsequently revised the supplemental comment and reply period. (FCC
Public Notice DA 96-177 and FCC Public Notice DA 96-291, published
elsewhere in this issue.)) In the Public Notice, the Commission
requested that these supplemental comments should be filed in CC Docket
No. 90-337, Phase II, In the Matter of Regulation of International
Accounting Rates (Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) (58 FR
3522, Jan. 11, 1993).
Summary of Policy Statement
1. With this Policy Statement the Commission introduces flexibility
into its approach to the regulation of international accounting rates.
Specifically, the Commission is refocusing its regulatory approach to
accounting rates in three ways:
2. First, it will increase regulatory support for new services that
increase competitive pressure in the international market.
3. Second, it plans to tailor its accounting rates policies to
reflect different market conditions such as: 1) monopoly or highly
concentrated markets, 2) effectively competitive markets, and 3)
developing countries' markets. In countries where a monopoly supplier,
or supplier with significant market power, provides telecommunications
services, the Commission will strengthen its existing accounting rates
policies to encourage lower accounting rates. In countries with
effective competition, the Commission will give U.S. carriers the
flexibility to negotiate alternative settlement arrangements, even if
they require a waiver of traditional Commission accounting rate
policies. The Commission will also explore mechanisms specifically
designed to assist developing countries during the transition to more
competitive markets and lower accounting rates.
4. Finally it plans to restructure the benchmarks by which it
measures progress in this area and will invite carriers to identify
those foreign administrations most reluctant to lower accounting rates.
Ordering Clause
1. It is ordered that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 201-205, 211,
215, 218-220, and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. Sections 151, 154, 201-205, 211, 215, 218-220, and 303, this
Policy Statement is Adopted, and March 19, 1996.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-5188 Filed 3-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.