issue-1996-04-09•Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-09
Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-09
issue-1996-04-09Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-09Regulation
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. 96-8925 Collection of Canadian Province of Manufacture Information for Softwood Lumber on Customs Entry Records
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15697-15699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8925]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of the Census
15 CFR Part 30
[Docket No. 960329093-6093-01]
RIN 0607-XX13
Collection of Canadian Province of Manufacture Information for
Softwood Lumber on Customs Entry Records
AGENCY: Bureau of the Census, Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of the Census (Census) has directed the U.S.
Customs Service (Customs) to begin immediate collection of information
on the province of manufacture on imports of softwood lumber from
Canada. This action is taken to assist in carrying out an agreement
reached between the United States and Canada concerning trade in
softwood lumber.
DATES: Final rule effective April 5, 1996. Comments due on or before
May 6, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to the Director, Bureau of the
Census, Room 2049, Federal Building 3, Washington, DC 20233.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: C. Harvey Monk, Jr., Bureau of the
Census, Washington, D.C. 20233, by telephone on (301) 457-2255 or by
fax (301) 457-2645. For information on the U.S.-Canada agreement on
softwood lumber: Gordana Earp, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade
Representative for Industry, by telephone on (202) 395-6160.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 19, 1996, the United States and Canada concluded an
agreement in principle on trade on certain softwood lumber products.
Upon completion of the agreement text, the agreement is to enter into
force, in fact, on April 1, 1996. The agreement includes commitments by
Canada that are linked to the amount of softwood lumber exported
annually to the United States from particular provinces. To carry out
the agreement, it is necessary to determine accurately the amount of
softwood lumber entering the United States on a province-by-province
basis.
Currently, U.S. Customs entry records include information on the
Identification of the Foreign Manufacturer. This information is not
satisfactory because it frequently represents the corporate
headquarters or Canadian vendor, and not the location in which the
goods were actually produced.
Effective April 5, 1996 unless notified by the United States Trade
Representative of a later effective date, the Bureau of the Census will
require the two-letter designation of the Canadian province of
manufacture to be reported on U.S. entry summary records for shipments
released on or after April 5, 1996. The province of manufacture is to
be determined on a first mill basis (i.e., the point at which the item
was first manufactured into a covered lumber product (described
below)). Further processing (e.g., planing or kiln drying) and/or
transformation from one covered lumber product into another covered
lumber product (e.g., remanufactured products) in another province does
not constitute a change in the province of manufacture. For purposes of
this rule, province of manufacture is the province where the subject
merchandise underwent a change in tariff classification to tariff items
4407.1000, 4409.1010, 4409.1090, or 4409.1020 from any other tariff
items except a tariff item within that group.
The reporting of province of manufacture will apply to the non-ABI
as well as ABI entry summaries. For those reporting on paper forms the
province of manufacture code will replace the Country of Origin on the
CF 7501 Entry Summary form. This requirement would apply only for
imports of softwood lumber with Country of Origin Canada.
[[Page 15698]]
All electronic ABI Entry Summaries transmitted with the Country of
Origin Canada would also require the new Canadian province of
manufacture code. The Country of Origin is transmitted for each entry
summary line item in the A 40 record positions 6-7. For imports of
softwood lumber from Canada, the province of manufacture code should
replace Country of Origin in positions 6-7 of the A 40 record.
Valid Canadian province/territory codes are:
XA--Alberta
XB--New Brunswick
XC--British Columbia
XM--Manitoba
XN--Nova Scotia
XO--Ontario
XP--Prince Edward Island
XQ--Quebec
XS--Saskatchewan
XT--Northwest Territories
XW--Newfoundland
XY--Yukon Territory
The authority to collect this information is provided under Title
13, United States Code, Section 301, which authorizes the Secretary of
Commerce to collect information from persons importing into, or
exporting from the United States, as he deems necessary or appropriate
to foster, promote, develop, and further the commerce, domestic and
foreign, of the United States.
The information is to be collected as part of that required on the
Customs CF 7501 paper or ABI automated entry record. This reporting is
required by the Customs Service for each importation of foreign
merchandise and occurs at the time of importation.
The products covered by this rule are certain softwood lumber
products. These lumber products include: (1) Coniferous wood, sawn or
chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, sanded or
finger-jointed, of a thickness exceeding six millimeters; (2)
coniferous wood siding (including strips and friezes for parquet
flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped (tongued, grooved,
rabbetted, chamfered, V-jointed, beaded, molded, rounded or the like)
along any of its edges or faces, whether or not planed, sanded, or
finger-jointed; and (3) other coniferous wood (including strips and
friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled) continuously shaped
(tongued, grooved, rabbetted, chamfered, V-jointed, beaded, molded,
rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces, whether or not
planed, sanded or finger-jointed; and (4) coniferous wood flooring
(including strips and friezes for parquet flooring, not assembled)
continuously shaped (tongued, grooved, rabbetted, chamfered, V-jointed,
beaded, molded, rounded or the like) along any of its edges or faces,
whether or not planed, sanded, or finger-jointed. Such products are
currently provided for under subheading 4407.1000, 4409.1010, 4409.1090
and 4409.1020, respectively of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS).
Rulemaking Requirements
1. This final rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive
Order 12866.
2. This rule involves a collection of information subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This collection has been approved by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control number 1515-
0065. The United States Customs Service form CF 7501 and the associated
electronic reporting form A 40 are estimated to average 20 minutes per
response. This estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collections of information.
Send comments regarding this estimate to Phillip Metzger, Director of
Trade Compliance, U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury,
1301 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20229-0001.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person is required to
respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under
Executive Order 12612.
4. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for
public comment are not required to be given for this rule under 5
U.S.C. 553(a)(1) or by any other law, under section 3(a) and 4(a) of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a)) no initial
or final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has to be or will be prepared.
5. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, (5 U.S.C.
553), requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for
public participation, and a delay in effective date, are inapplicable
because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function
of the United States (see 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). No other law requires
that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public
comment be given for this rule.
However, because of the importance of the issues raised by this
regulation, this rule is issued in final and comments will be
considered. The period for submission of comments will close May 6,
1996. Direct all written comments to the Director, Bureau of the
Census, Room 2049, Federal Building 3, Washington, DC 20233.
List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 30
Economic statistics, Foreign trade, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For reasons set out in the preamble, 15 CFR part 30 is amended as
follows:
PART 30--FOREIGN TRADE STATISTICS
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 30 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 13 U.S.C. 301-307; Reorganization Plan
No. 5 of 1950 (3 CFR 1949-1953 Comp., p. 1004); Department of
Commerce Organization Order No. 35-2A, August 4, 1975, 40 CFR 42765.
Subpart F--Special Provision for Particular Types of Import
Transactions
2. Section 30.80 is added to subpart F to read as follows:
Sec. 30.80 Imports from Canada.
When certain softwood lumber products described under Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 4407.1000,
4409.1010, 4409.1090, and 4409.1020, are imported from Canada; import
entry records are required to show a valid Canadian Province of
Manufacture Code. The Canadian Province of Manufacture is determined on
a first mill basis (the point at which the item was first manufactured
into a covered lumber product). For purposes of determination, Province
of Manufacture is the first province where the subject merchandise
underwent a change in tariff classification to the tariff classes cited
above. The Province of Manufacture Code should replace the Country of
Origin on the CF 7501 Summary Entry form. For Automated Commercial
System entry summaries the Canadian Province Code should be transmitted
in lieu of the Country of Origin in positions 6-7 of the A 40 record.
These requirements would apply only for imports of softwood products
with Country of Origin Canada. Valid Canadian Province/Territory Codes
are:
XA--Alberta
XB--New Brunswick
XC--British Columbia
[[Page 15699]]
XM--Manitoba
XN--Nova Scotia
XO--Ontario
XP--Prince Edward Island
XQ--Quebec
XS--Saskatchewan
XT--Northwest Territories
XW--Newfoundland
XY--Yukon Territory
Dated: March 29, 1996.
Martha Farnsworth Riche,
Director, Bureau of the Census.
[FR Doc. 96-8925 Filed 4-5-96; 4:14 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8826 Chlorofluorocarbon Propellants in Self-Pressurized Containers; Addition to List of Essential Uses
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15699-15700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8826]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 2
[Docket No. 92P-0403]
Chlorofluorocarbon Propellants in Self-Pressurized Containers;
Addition to List of Essential Uses
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted the
petition of Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (BIPI), to add
metered-dose albuterol sulfate and ipratropium bromide in combination
for oral inhalation to the list of products containing a
chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellant for an essential use. Essential use
products are exempt from FDA's ban on the use of CFC propellants in
FDA-regulated products and the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) ban on the use of CFC's in pressurized dispensers. This
document amends FDA's regulations governing use of CFC's to include
metered-dose albuterol sulfate and ipratropium bromide in combination
for oral inhalation as an essential use.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne H. Mitchell, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (HFD-097), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-594-1049.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In response to a citizen petition submitted by BIPI, in the Federal
Register of October 17, 1995 (60 FR 53725), FDA published a proposed
rule to amend 1A2.125 (21 CFR 2.125) to add metered-dose albuterol
sulfate and ipratropium bromide in combination for oral inhalation to
the list of productscontaining a CFC propellant for an essential use.
Under 1A2.125, any food, drug, device, or cosmetic in a self-
pressurized container that contains a CFC propellant for a nonessential
use is adulterated or misbranded, or both, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This prohibition is based on scientific
research indicating that CFC's may reduce the amount of ozone in the
stratosphere and thereby increase the amount of ultraviolet radiation
reaching the earth. An increase in ultraviolet radiation may increase
the incidence of skin cancer, change the climate, and produce other
adverse effects of unknown magnitude on humans, animals, and plants.
Section 2.125(d) exempts from the adulteration and misbranding
provisions of 1A2.125(c) certain products containing CFC propellants
thatFDA determines provide unique health benefits that would not be
available without the use of a CFC. These products are referred to in
the regulation as essential uses of CFC's and are listed in 1A2.125(e).
Under 1A2.125(f), any person may petition the agency to request
additions to the list of uses considered essential. To demonstrate that
the use of a CFC is essential, the petition must be supported by an
adequate showing that: (1) There are no technically feasible
alternatives to the use of a CFC in the product; (2) the product
provides a substantial health, environmental, or other public benefit
unobtainable without the use of the CFC; and (3) the use does not
involve a significant release of CFC's into the atmosphere or, if it
does, the release is warranted by the consequence if the use were not
permitted.
EPA regulations implementing provisions of the Clean Air Act
contain a general ban on the use of CFC's in pressurized dispensers,
such as metered-dose inhalers (MDI's) (40 CFR 82.64(c) and 82.66(d)).
These regulations exempt from the general ban ``medical devices'' that
FDA considers essential and that are listed in 1A2.125(e). Section
601(8) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7671(8)) defines ``medical
device'' as any device (as defined in the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act), diagnostic product, drug (as defined in the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act), and drug delivery system, if such
device, product, drug, or drug delivery system uses a class I or class
II ozone-depleting substance for which no safe and effective
alternative has been developed (and where necessary, approved by the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner)); and if such device,
product, drug, or drug delivery system has, after notice and
opportunity for public comment, been approved and determined to be
essential by the Commissioner in consultation with the Administrator of
EPA (the Administrator). Class I substances include CFC's, halons,
carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and other
chemicals not relevant to this document (see 40 CFR part 82, appendix A
to subpart A). Class II substances include hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFC's)(see 40 CFR part 82, appendix B to subpart A).
II. Petition Received by FDA
BIPI submitted a petition under 1A2.125(f) and 21 CFR part 10
requesting an addition to the list of CFC uses considered essential.
The petition is on file under the docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document and may be seen in the Dockets Management
Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm.
10923, Rockville, MD 20857. The petition requested that metered-dose
albuterol sulfate and ipratropium bromide in combination for oral
inhalation be included in 1A2.125(e) as an essential use of CFC's. The
petition contained a discussion supporting the position that there are
no technically feasible alternatives to the use of CFC's in the
product. It included information showing that no alternative delivery
systems (e.g., the dry powder inhaler) or other substitute propellants
(e.g., compressed gases) can dispense the drug for effective inhalation
therapy as safely and uniformly, in all situations, as CFC propellants.
Also, the petition stated that the product provides a substantial
health benefit that would not be obtainable without the use of CFC's.
In this regard, the petition contained information to support the use
of this product as a combination bronchodilator. The petition asserted
that metered-dose albuterol sulfate andipratropium bromide in
combination potentially reduces the amount of CFC's released into the
atmosphere attributable to patients using one MDI for the combination
product, rather than two MDI's, one for each of the two active
ingredients.
The agency has determined that, for some chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease patients, the use of metered-dose albuterol sulfate
and ipratropium bromide in combination provides a special benefit that
would be unavailable without the use of CFC's,
[[Page 15700]]
and that the use of the drugs in combination has the potential to
reduce the amount of CFC's released into the atmosphere. In this
regard, FDA notes that albuterol sulfate and ipratropium bromide are
currently listed separately (i.e., not in combination) in 1A2.125(e) as
essential uses of CFC's. Based on the evidence currently before it, FDA
also agrees that the use of a metered-dose delivery system for this
product does not involve asignificant release of CFC's into the
atmosphere. Therefore, FDA is amending 1A2.125(e) to include metered-
dose albuterol sulfate and ipratropium bromide in combination for oral
inhalation in the list of essential uses of CFC propellants.
A copy of the proposed rule was provided to the Administrator.
III. Comments on the Proposed Rule
Interested persons were given 30 days to comment on the proposed
rule. FDA received one comment regarding the proposed rule. The comment
pointed out that CFC-free MDI's for albuterol sulfate and other drugs
are generally expected to be developed and marketed in the near future,
and that the availability of alternative propellants will undercut the
factual basis for FDA's determination that the use of CFC's in MDI's is
medically necessary. The comment suggested that FDA's determination be
made conditionally, and that FDA reexamine the ``medical essentiality''
of the MDI if and when a CFC-free albuterol sulfate MDI is approved.
The comment also suggested that future rulemaking may be necessary to
provide for the transition between MDI's containing CFC's and CFC-free
MDI's.
FDA is aware of the development of CFC-free MDI's and shares the
comment's concerns that proper provision should be made for the
transition between MDI's containing CFC's and CFC-free MDI's. FDA,
working with EPA, is developing a policy on this matter at this time,
and anticipates that a rulemaking procedure may be necessary to
implement that policy. Section 2.125 does not provide for a
``conditional'' listing as an essential use and to provide for such a
``conditional'' listing in this rule would be beyond the scope of the
proposal. Any phase-out or reformulation requirement for MDI's
containing albuterol sulfate and ipratropium bromide in combination
undertaken because of the availability of alternative propellants will
be undertaken as part of a properly implemented general policy on the
elimination of CFC's from MDI's and other similar products.
IV. Analysis of Impacts
FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive
Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354).
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits
of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary,
to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that
this final rule is consistent with the regulatory philosophy and
principles identified in the Executive Order. In addition, the final
rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive
Order and so is not subject to review under the Executive Order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule
on small entities. Because the agency is not aware of any adverse
impact this final rule will have on any small entities, the agency
certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, no further analysis is required.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 2
Administrative practice and procedure, Cosmetics, Devices, Drugs,
Foods.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
2 is amended as follows:
PART 2--GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS AND DECISIONS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 2 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 301, 305, 402, 408, 409, 501, 502, 505,
507, 512, 601, 701, 702, 704 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 335, 342, 346a, 348, 351, 352, 355, 357,
360b, 361, 371, 372, 374); 15 U.S.C. 402, 409.
2. Section 2.125 is amended by adding new paragraph (e)(14) to read
as follows:
Sec. 2.125 Use of chlorofluorocarbon propellants in self-pressurized
containers.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(14) Metered-dose ipratropium bromide and albuterol sulfate, in
combination, administered by oral inhalation for human use.
* * * * *
Dated: March 29, 1996.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 96-8826 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8815 Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, Supplemental Delegation of Authority to the Commonwealth of Kentucky
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15721-15722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8815]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[FRL-5455-8]
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, Supplemental
Delegation of Authority to the Commonwealth of Kentucky
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Delegation of authority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 22, 1994, and January 25, 1995, the Commonwealth of
Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection requested that EPA
delegate authority for implementation and enforcement of additional and
revised categories of New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). Since
EPA's review of Kentucky's pertinent laws, rules, and regulations
showed them to be adequate for the implementation and enforcement of
these federal standards, the Agency has made the delegations as
requested.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of the delegation of authority was
November 29, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the request for delegation of authority and EPA's
letter of delegation are available for public inspection during normal
business hours at the following locations:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Programs Branch, 345
Courtland Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Department for
Environmental Protection, Division for Air Quality, 803 Schenkel Lane,
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601.
Effective immediately, all requests, applications, reports and
other correspondence required pursuant to the newly delegated standards
should not be submitted to the Region 4 office, but should instead be
submitted to the following address:
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Department for
Environmental Protection, Division for Air Quality, 803 Schenkel Lane,
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Southwick, Regulatory Planning
and Development Section, Air Programs Branch, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 345 Courtland Street NE,
Atlanta, Georgia, 30365, (404) 347-2864.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 301, in conjunction with Sections
110 and 111(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act as amended November 15, 1990,
authorizes EPA to delegate authority to implement and enforce the
standards set out in 40 CFR Part 60, NSPS.
On April 12, 1977, EPA initially delegated the authority for
implementation and enforcement of the NSPS programs to the Commonwealth
of Kentucky. On August 22, 1994 and January 25, 1995, Kentucky
requested a delegation of authority for implementation and enforcement
of the following NSPS categories found in 40 CFR part 60.
1. Subpart J--Standards of performance for petroleum refineries except
Sections 60.105(a)(13)(iii) and 60.106(i)(12) which the Administrator
shall retain and shall not be transferred to the Commonwealth.
2. Subpart K--Standards of Performance for Storage Vessels for
Petroleum Liquids for which Construction, Reconstruction, or
Modification Commenced after June 11, 1973, and prior to May 19, 1978.
3. Subpart Ka--Standards of Performance for Storage Vessels for
Petroleum Liquids for which Construction, Reconstruction, or
Modification Commenced after May 19, 1978, and prior to July 23, 1984.
4. Subpart O--Standards of Performance for Sewage Treatment Plants
except Section 60.153(e) which the Administrator shall retain and shall
not be transferred to the Commonwealth.
[[Page 15722]]
5. Subpart P--Standards of Performance for Primary Copper Smelters.
6. Subpart Q--Standards of Performance for Primary Zinc Smelters.
7. Subpart R--Standards of Performance for Primary Lead Smelters.
8. Subpart S--Standards of Performance for Primary Aluminum Reduction
Plants.
9. Subpart Y--Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation Plants.
10. Subpart Z--Standards of Performance for Ferroalloy Production
Facilities.
11. Subpart GG--Standards of Performance for Stationary Gas Turbines.
12. Subpart HH--Standards of Performance for Lime Manufacturing Plants.
13. Subpart KK--Standards of Performance for Lead-Acid Battery
Manufacturing Plants.
14. Subpart LL--Standards of Performance for Metallic Mineral
Processing Plants.
15. Subpart MM--Standards of Performance for Automobile and Light Duty
Truck Surface Coating Operations.
16. Subpart NN--Standards of Performance for Phosphate Rock Plants.
17. Subpart PP--Standards of Performance for Ammonium Sulfate
Manufacture.
18. Subpart RR--Standards of Performance for Pressure Sensitive Tape
and Label Surface Coating Operations.
19. Subpart SS--Standards of Performance for Industrial Surface
Coating: Large Appliances.
20. Subpart TT--Standards of Performance for Metal Coil Surface
Coating.
21. Subpart UU--Standards of Performance for Asphalt Processing and
Asphalt Roofing Manufacture.
22. Subpart VV--Standards of Performance for equipment leaks of VOC in
the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry.
23. Subpart WW--Standards of Performance for the Beverage Can Surface
Coating Industry.
24. Subpart XX--Standards of Performance for Bulk Gasoline Terminals.
25. Subpart BBB--Standards of Performance for the Rubber Tire
Manufacturing Industry except Section 60.543(c)(2)(ii)(B) which the
Administrator shall retain and shall not be transferred to the
Commonwealth.
26. Subpart DDD--Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Compound
(VOC) Emissions from the Polymer Manufacturing Industry except Section
60.562-2(c) which the Administrator shall retain and shall not be
transferred to the Commonwealth.
27. Subpart FFF--Standards of Performance for Flexible Vinyl and
Urethane Coating and Printing.
28. Subpart GGG--Standards for Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC
in Petroleum Refineries.
29. Subpart HHH--Standards of Performance for Synthetic Fiber
Production Facilities.
30. Subpart JJJ--Standards of Performance for Petroleum Dry Cleaners.
31. Subpart KKK--Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC
from Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants.
32. Subpart LLL--Standard of Performance for Onshore Natural Gas
Processing: SO2 Emissions.
33. Subpart PPP--Standard of Performance for Wool Fiberglass Insulation
Manufacturing Plants.
34. Subpart RRR--Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
(SOCMI) Reactor Processes except Section 60.703(e) which the
Administrator shall retain and shall not be transferred to the
Commonwealth.
35. Subpart UUU--Standards of Performance for Calciners and Dryers in
Mineral Industries.
After a thorough review of the request, the Regional Administrator
determined that such a delegation was appropriate for these source
categories with the conditions set forth in the original delegation
letter of April 12, 1977. Kentucky sources subject to the requirements
of these subparts will now be under the jurisdiction of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky. On November 29, 1995, EPA delegated the
authority for these source categories in a letter from Winston A.
Smith, Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division to
John E. Hornback, Director, Kentucky Division for Air Quality.
Action
Since review of the pertinent Kentucky laws, rules, and regulations
showed them to be adequate for the implementation and enforcement of
these categories of NSPS, the EPA granted the Commonwealth's request
for delegation. The EPA hereby notifies the public that it has
delegated the authority for the source categories listed above (except
those sections, as noted, that may not be delegated).
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive Order 12291.
This notice is issued under the authority of Sections 101, 110,
111, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, 7410,
7411, 7412, and 7601).
Dated: March 25, 1996.
Phyllis P. Harris,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-8815 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8772 Suspension of Community Eligibility
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15723-15724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8772]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 64
[Docket No. FEMA-7638]
Suspension of Community Eligibility
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), that are suspended on the effective dates listed within
this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management
requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the
required floodplain management measures prior to the effective
suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will be withdrawn by
publication in the Federal Register.
EFFECTIVE DATES: The effective date of each community's suspension is
the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of the following
tables.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to determine whether a particular community was
suspended on the suspension date, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional
Office or the NFIP servicing contractor.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Shea Jr., Division Director,
Program Implementation Division, Mitigation Directorate, 500 C Street
SW., Room 417, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3619.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management
aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding.
Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under
the National Flood Insurance Program, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., unless an
appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures
with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this
document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with
program regulations, 44 CFR part 59 et seq. Accordingly, the
communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third
column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in
the community. However, some of these communities may adopt and submit
the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management
measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual
suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will
continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice
withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the
Federal Register.
In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has identified
the special flood hazard areas in these communities by publishing a
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the FIRM if one has been
published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct
Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in
connection with a flood) may legally be provided for construction or
acquisition of buildings in the identified special flood hazard area of
communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than
a year, on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's initial flood
insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section
202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a),
as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal
assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date
shown in the last column.
The Acting Associate Director finds that notice and public comment
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because
communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives a 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
addressed to the Chief Executive Officer that the community will be
suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met
prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications have
been made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR
Part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact
assessment has been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Acting Associate Director has determined that this rule is
exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022,
prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body
adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective
enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the
statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the communities unless they take
remedial action.
Regulatory Classification
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the
criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not involve any collection of information for
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications
under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, October 26, 1987, 3 CFR, 1987
Comp., p. 252.
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12778, October 25, 1991, 56 FR 55195, 3 CFR, 1991
Comp., p. 309.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
PART 64--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.
[[Page 15724]]
Sec. 64.6 [Amended]
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec. 64.6 are
amended as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date certain Federal
Community Effective date of Current effective map assistance no longer
State/location No. eligibility date available in special
flood hazard areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region III
Delaware:
Middletown, town of, New 100024 June 13, 1974, April 17, 1996....... April 17, 1996.
Castle County. Emerg.; January 7,
1977, Reg.; April
17, 1996, Susp.
New Castle, city of, New 100026 June 6, 1970, Emerg.; ......do............. Do.
Castle County. December 26, 1975,
Reg.; April 17,
1996, Susp.
New Castle County, 105085 June 6, 1970, Emerg.; ......do............. Do.
unincorporated areas. December 3, 1970,
Reg.; April 17,
1996, Susp.
Newark, city of, New 100025 June 5, 1970, Emerg.; ......do............. Do.
Castle County. March 29, 1974,
Reg.; April 17,
1996, Susp.
Newport, town of, New 100054 May 28, 1974, Emerg.; ......do............. Do.
Castle County. June 15, 1978, Reg.;
April 17, 1996, Susp.
Wilmington, city of, New 100028 December 19, 1973, ......do............. Do.
Castle County. Emerg.; May 2, 1977,
Reg.; April 17,
1996, Susp.
Region V
Ohio:
Fairfield County, 390158 March 21, 1977, ......do............. Do.
unincorporated areas. Emerg.; April 17,
1989, Reg.; April
17, 1996, Susp.
Kenton, city of, Hardin 390253 August 15, 1975, ......do............. Do.
County. Emerg.; April 17,
1996, Reg.; April
17, 1996, Susp.
Region VI
Texas: Hardin County, 480284 November 12, 1973, ......do............. Do.
unincorporated areas. Emerg.; September
29, 1978, Reg.;
April 17, 1996, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Rein.-- Reinstatement; Susp.--Suspension.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, ``Flood
Insurance'')
Issued: March 29, 1996.
Richard W. Krimm,
Acting Associate Director, Mitigation Directorate.
[FR Doc. 96-8772 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-05-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8762 New Animal Drugs; Change of Sponsor Name
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8762]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
21 CFR Part 510
New Animal Drugs; Change of Sponsor Name
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect a change of sponsor name from A. L. Pharma,
Inc., to ALPHARMA INC.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. McKay, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-102), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0213.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. L. Pharma, Inc., One Executive Dr., Fort
Lee, NJ 07024, has informed FDA of a change of sponsor name to ALPHARMA
INC. Accordingly, FDA is amending the regulations in 21 CFR
510.600(c)(1) and (c)(2) to reflect the change of sponsor name.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 510
Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 510 is
amended as follows:
PART 510--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as
follows:
-Authority: Secs. 201, 301, 501, 502, 503, 512, 701, 721 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352,
353, 360b, 371, 379e).
Sec. 510.600 [Amended]
2. Section 510.600 Names, addresses, and drug labeler codes of
sponsors of approved applications is amended in the table in paragraph
(c)(1) by removing the entry for ``A. L. Pharma, Inc.'' and by
alphabetically adding a new entry for ``ALPHARMA INC.'' and in the
table in paragraph (c)(2) in the entry ``046573'' by removing the
sponsor name ``A. L. Pharma, Inc.'' and adding in its place ``ALPHARMA
INC.''
Dated: March 28, 1996.
Robert C. Livingston,
Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary
Medicine.
[FR Doc. 96-8762 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8761 Cold, Cough, Allergy, Bronchodilator, and Antiasthmatic Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use; Products Containing Diphenhydramine Citrate or Diphenhydramine Hydrochloride; Enforcement Policy
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15700-15703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8761]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
21 CFR Part 341
[Docket No. 76N-052G]
RIN 0910-AA01
Cold, Cough, Allergy, Bronchodilator, and Antiasthmatic Drug
Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use; Products Containing
Diphenhydramine Citrate or Diphenhydramine Hydrochloride; Enforcement
Policy
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
-ACTION: Final rule; enforcement policy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a final
rule, and a statement of its enforcement policy, providing for the use
of diphenhydramine citrate or diphenhydramine hydrochloride as an
antitussive and an antihistamine for treating concurrent symptoms in
either single-ingredient or combination drug products. The agency will
include the permitted combination products that may include
diphenhydramine citrate or diphenhydramine hydrochloride in the final
monograph for over-the-counter (OTC) cold, cough, allergy,
bronchodilator, and antiasthmatic (cough-cold) combination drug
products. The OTC marketing of combination drug products containing
diphenhydramine citrate or diphenhydramine hydrochloride is being
permitted pending completion under the OTC drug review of the final
monograph for OTC cough-cold combination drug products. This final rule
is part of the ongoing review of OTC drug products conducted by FDA.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305),
Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23, Rockville,
MD 20857.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William E. Gilbertson, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (HFD-105), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-2304.
[[Page 15701]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In the Federal Register of February 23, 1995 (60 FR 10286), FDA
proposed to amend the tentative final monograph for OTC cough-cold
combination drug products to classify combination drug products
containing the ingredients diphenhydramine citrate or diphenhydramine
hydrochloride. As part of that proposal, FDA discussed the use of a
single dose of diphenhydramine citrate or diphenhydramine hydrochloride
as an antitussive and antihistamine for treating concurrent symptoms
either in an OTC cough-cold single-ingredient or combination drug
product. The agency proposed specific labeling for drug products
containing diphenhydramine citrate or diphenhydramine hydrochloride for
concurrent antitussive and antihistamine use. At that time, the agency
did not allow marketing to occur because this was a new concept. The
agency stated that it wanted to receive public comment on the proposed
new concept and on the proposed labeling approach before marketing of
such products began. The agency added that it would issue a notice of
enforcement policy at a later date to state whether marketing may begin
prior to the issuance of the final monograph for OTC cough-cold
combination drug products.
In response to the proposed amendment, two drug manufacturers
submitted comments. Copies of the comments received are on public
display in the Dockets Management Branch (address above).
After carefully reviewing the comments received, the agency is
issuing a final rule containing the required labeling of drug products
containing diphenhydramine citrate or diphenhydramine hydrochloride for
concurrent antitussive and antihistamine use either as a single
ingredient product or as a single ingredient in combination with other
active ingredients. The agency is allowing the marketing of combination
products prior to the completion of the final monograph for OTC cough-
cold combination drug products, subject to the risk that the agency may
in the final monograph adopt a different position that could require
relabeling, recall, or other regulatory action. Marketing of any such
product with labeling not in accord with the final monograph may result
in regulatory action against the product, the manufacturer, or both.
II. The Agency's Conclusions on the Comments
1. One comment requested that the agency allow a broader dosage
range for a single-ingredient drug product containing diphenhydramine
hydrochloride for concurrent use as both an antitussive and an
antihistamine. The comment requested a dose of 25 milligrams (mg) every
4 to 6 hours (h), not to exceed 150 mg in 24 h, instead of restricting
the dose to every 4 h. The comment stated that the shorter antitussive
dosing interval (every 4 h) would limit other ingredients in a
combination product with a broader dosing interval (every 4 to 6 h).
The comment questioned whether restricting these combination products
to a 4-h dosing interval would increase the number of consumer
exposures to diphenhydramine over a 24-h period. The comment added that
a dosing regimen of 25 mg every 4 to 6 h, not to exceed 150 in 24 h,
would reduce exposure to both diphenhydramine and other ingredients in
the combination on a faster timing that may be consistent with a safe
yet satisfactory level of effectiveness.
When the agency included diphenhydramine citrate and
diphenhydramine hydrochloride in the OTC antitussive drug products
monograph (59 FR 29172 at 29174, June 3, 1994), the agency concluded
that diphenhydramine hydrochloride is generally recognized as safe and
effective in an antitussive dosage of 25 mg every 4 h, not to exceed
150 mg in 24 h. The agency stated that the available clinical data and
marketing history of products containing diphenhydramine citrate or
diphenhydramine hydrochloride for antitussive use do not support a
broader dosage range (4 to 6 h). The comment did not submit any data to
show that 25 mg diphenhydramine hydrochloride is effective over a 6-h
period. Without any supporting data, the agency has no basis to
establish such a dosage. While the proposed every 4 to 6 h dosage may
potentially be safer, there is no evidence that it is effective.
Therefore, in this final rule, the agency is including the following
adult dosage for diphenhydramine hydrochloride drug products for
concurrent antitussive and antihistamine use: 25 mg every 4 h, not to
exceed 150 mg in 24 h.
2. Both comments requested that marketing of diphenhydramine in the
same product as both an antitussive and antihistamine be allowed prior
to the issuance of the final monograph for OTC cough-cold combination
drug products. One comment noted that an OTC drug product in which
diphenhydramine citrate or diphenhydramine hydrochloride serves both as
the antitussive and antihistamine component for treating concurrent
symptoms would reduce the number of ingredients in the product. The
comment stated that allowing marketing of such a product would be
consistent with FDA's policy to expose the user of OTC drug products to
the smallest number of ingredients possible at the lowest possible
dosage consistent with a satisfactory level of effectiveness. The
comment added that permitting an antitussive indication on currently
marketed OTC drug products labeled with an antihistamine-only
indication would not be a safety concern.
The agency agrees with the comments and is permitting the OTC
marketing of such products pending completion under the OTC drug review
of a final monograph covering OTC cough-cold combination drug products.
The labeling required for these products appears in new Sec. 341.70 (21
CFR 341.70) of the cough-cold drug products monograph.
Specifically, when diphenhydramine citrate or diphenhydramine
hydrochloride is labeled for concurrent use, the statement of identity
is ``antihistamine/cough suppressant'' or ``antihistamine/antitussive
(cough suppressant).'' The indications are combined from
Secs. 341.72(b) and 341.74(b) (21 CFR 341.72(b) and 341.74(b)). The
warnings are combined from Sec. 341.72(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(4), and
(c)(6) and Sec. 341.74(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4). The warnings
for diphenhydramine for antitussive use in Sec. 341.74(c)(4) encompass
all of the same warnings for diphenhydramine for antihistamine use in
Sec. 341.72(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(4), and (c)(6). In addition, the
labeling must include the required warnings for antitussive use in
Sec. 341.74(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3), as applicable (depending on the
ages for which the product is labeled). Thus, when diphenhydramine
citrate or diphenhydramine hydrochloride as a single ingredient is
labeled for both antihistamine and antitussive use, all of the warnings
in Sec. 341.74 of the antitussive monograph must be used. At this time,
diphenhydramine citrate or diphenhydramine hydrochloride may only be
marketed for concurrent antitussive and antihistamine use in the
permitted combinations of active ingredients proposed in
Sec. 341.40(d), (e), and (f). (See 60 FR 10286 at 10292.) The agency
will discuss the other permitted combinations proposed in Sec. 341.40
in the final rule for OTC cough-cold combination drug products.
[[Page 15702]]
The agency recognizes there are other ingredients such as menthol
in the final monograph for OTC antitussive drug products (52 FR 30042,
August 12, 1987), and in the proposed rule for OTC oral health care
drug products (56 FR 48302, September 24, 1991), that may be used for
treating concurrent symptoms. The agency will address menthol for
treating concurrent symptoms in either a single-ingredient or
combination drug product in the final monograph for OTC cough-cold
combination drug products in a future issue of the Federal Register and
is reserving Sec. 341.70(b) for this ingredient at this time.
The agency proposed new combinations as well as single ingredients
with diphenhydramine labeled as both an antihistamine and antitussive
(60 FR 10286). The agency added Sec. 341.70 for labeling for
diphenhydramine-containing drug products for concurrent antitussive and
antihistamine use under the heading: Labeling of drug products
containing diphenhydramine citrate or diphenhydramine hydrochloride for
concurrent antitussive and antihistamine use either as a single
ingredient or as a single ingredient in combination with other active
ingredients. In order to provide a general heading for diphenhydramine,
menthol, and other OTC cough-cold ingredients that may be used for
treating concurrent symptoms (in either a single-ingredient or
combination drug product), the agency is revising the heading proposed
in Sec. 341.70 to read: Labeling of OTC drug products containing
ingredients that are used for treating concurrent symptoms (in either a
single-ingredient or combination drug product). The agency is placing
the labeling information for diphenhydramine citrate and
diphenhydramine hydrochloride in Sec. 341.70(a) and is reserving
Sec. 341.70(b) for menthol.
3. One comment requested monograph status for the combination of a
drug recognized as both an antitussive and an antihistamine (such as
diphenhydramine) with another oral antitussive (such as
dextromethorphan) and antihistamine when there is some advantage over
the active ingredients alone. The agency intends to address this matter
in the final monograph for OTC cough-cold combination drug products.
No comments were received in response to the agency's request for
specific comment on the economic impact of the proposed rule.
III. Analysis of Impacts
FDA has examined the impacts of this final rule and notice of
enforcement policy under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354). Executive Order 12866 directs
agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that the final
rule for OTC cough-cold combination products containing diphenhydramine
citrate or diphenhydramine hydrochloride for concurrent antitussive and
antihistamine use is consistent with the regulatory philosophy and
principles identified in the Executive Order. In addition, the rule is
not a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive Order
and, thus, is not subject to review under the Executive Order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule
on small entities. This final rule and notice of enforcement policy
allow the use of diphenhydramine citrate or diphenhydramine
hydrochloride as an active ingredient for concurrent antitussive and
antihistamine use in OTC cough-cold drug products.
The agency's enforcement policy, which is set out in Sec. 330.13
(21 CFR 330.13), relating to OTC marketing of drug products containing
certain ingredients that are under consideration in FDA's review of OTC
drug products, makes it clear that FDA may by notice in the Federal
Register permit interim marketing of these products. Manufacturers may
choose to market such products at their option. Accordingly, the agency
certifies that this final rule and notice of enforcement policy will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Therefore, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, no further
analysis is required.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
FDA concludes that the labeling requirements in this document are
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget because
they do not constitute a ``collection of information'' under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Rather, the
labeling is a ``public disclosure of information originally supplied by
the Federal government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure
to the public'' (5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)).
V. Environmental Impact
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.24(c)(6) that this action
is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
VI. Enforcement Status
The agency advises that any OTC drug product containing
diphenhydramine citrate or diphenhydramine hydrochloride intended for
concurrent use as an antitussive and antihistamine in either a single-
ingredient or combination drug product may be marketed pending
completion of the final monograph, subject to the risk that the agency
may, in the final monograph, adopt a different position that could
require relabeling, recall, or other regulatory action. Marketing of
such products with labeling not in accord with the labeling required by
Sec. 341.70 may result in regulatory action against the product, the
marketer, or both.
VII. Opportunity for Comments
Interested persons may submit written comments to the Dockets
Management Branch (address above). Such comments will be considered in
determining whether further amendments to or revisions of this
enforcement policy are warranted. Three copies of all comments are to
be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are
to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Dockets
Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 341
Labeling, Over-the-counter drugs.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
341 is amended as follows:
PART 341--COLD, COUGH, ALLERGY, BRONCHODILATOR, AND ANTIASTHMATIC
DRUG PRODUCTS FOR OVER-THE-COUNTER HUMAN USE
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 341 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 501, 502, 503, 505, 510, 701 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 353,
355, 360, 371).
[[Page 15703]]
2. New Sec. 341.70 is added to subpart C to read as follows:
Sec. 341.70 Labeling of OTC drug products containing ingredients that
are used for treating concurrent symptoms (in either a single-
ingredient or combination drug product).
The statements of identity, indications, warnings, and directions
for use, respectively, applicable to each ingredient in the product may
be combined to eliminate duplicative words or phrases so that the
resulting information is clear and understandable.
(a) For products containing diphenhydramine citrate and
diphenhydramine hydrochloride identified in Sec. 341.14(a)(5) and
(a)(6). The labeling of the product contains the established name of
the drug, if any, and identifies the product as an ``antihistamine/
cough suppressant'' or ``antihistamine/antitussive (cough
suppressant).'' The indications shall be combined from Secs. 341.72(b)
and 341.74(b). The warnings shall be combined from Secs. 341.72(c)(1),
(c)(2), (c)(4), and (c)(6) and 341.74(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and
(c)(4). Alternatively, all of the warnings in Sec. 341.74(c) shall be
used. The directions for OTC labeling shall follow
Secs. 341.74(d)(1)(iv) or (d)(1)(v), as applicable. The directions for
professional labeling shall follow Sec. 341.90(j) or (k), as
applicable.
(b) (Reserved)
Dated: March 28, 1996.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 96-8761 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8760 Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals; Formaldehyde
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15703-15704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8760]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
21 CFR Part 573
[Docket No. 90F-0297]
Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals;
Formaldehyde
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the food
additive regulations to provide for the safe use of formaldehyde (37
percent aqueous solution), at the rate of 5.4 pounds per ton (2.5
kilograms per ton) (lb/t) (kg/t) as an antimicrobial food additive for
maintaining complete poultry feeds salmonella negative for up to 14
days. This action is in response to a food additive petition filed by
Anitox Corp.
DATES: Effective April 9, 1996; written objections and requests for
hearing by May 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit written objections and requests for hearing to the
Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23, Rockville, MD 20857.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel G. McChesney, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-222), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-594-1728.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal
Register of October 18, 1990 (55 FR 42272), FDA announced that a food
additive petition (FAP 2215) had been filed by Anitox Corp., P.O. Box
1929, Buford, GA 30518. The petition proposed to amend the food
additive regulations in Sec. 573.460 Formaldehyde (21 CFR 573.460) to
provide for the safe use of formaldehyde as an antimicrobial agent
against bacteria, mold, and yeast in feed, at a level of 1.65 to 2.65
pounds per ton for fishmeal and animal byproduct meals, and at a level
of 0.66 to 1.32 pounds per ton for complete feeds or feed ingredients.
The notice of filing of FAP 2215 provided for a 60-day comment period.
No comments have been received.
The sponsor amended the petition since it was originally filed. The
amended petition proposed that Sec. 573.460 be amended to provide for
the safe use of formaldehyde (37 percent aqueous solution), at the rate
of 5.4 lb/t (2.5 kg/t), as an antimicrobial food additive for
maintaining complete poultry feeds salmonella negative for up to 14
days.
FDA has evaluated data in the petition and other relevant material.
FDA concludes that the proposed food additive use of formaldehyde (37
percent aqueous solution) as an antimicrobial for maintaining complete
poultry feeds salmonella negative for up to 14 days is safe. Therefore,
the food additive regulations in Sec. 573.460 is amended.
Formaldehyde can be life threatening if improperly handled. The
proposed label for formaldehyde (37 percent aqueous solution)
acknowledges this fact and identifies the product as a poison. The
label provides for worker safety and further minimizes safety concerns
for persons handling formaldehyde by containing adequate directions for
use, strong cautionary statements about potential adverse respiratory
effects, information about emergency aid in case of inhalation,
[[Page 15704]]
ingestion or skin or eye contact, statements reflecting requirements of
applicable sections of the National Environmental Protection Act
(NEPA), the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) human safety
guidance regulations, and a contact address and telephone number for
reporting adverse reactions experienced by users or to request a copy
of the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). These worker safety concerns
are required by other regulations.
In accordance with Sec. 571.1(h) (21 CFR 571.1(h)), the petition
and the documents that FDA considered and relied upon in reaching its
decision to approve the petition are available for inspection at the
Center for Veterinary Medicine by appointment with the information
contact person listed above. As provided in 21 CFR 571.1(h), the agency
will delete from the documents any materials that are not available for
public disclosure before making the documents available for inspection.
The agency has carefully considered the potential environmental
effects of this action. FDA has concluded that the action will not have
a significant impact on the human environment, and that an
environmental impact statement is not required. The agency's finding of
no significant impact and the evidence supporting that finding,
contained in an environmental assessment, may be seen in the Dockets
Management Branch (address above) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may at
any time on or before May 9, 1996, file with the Dockets Management
Branch (address above) written objections thereto. Each objection shall
be separately numbered, and each numbered objection shall specify with
particularity the provisions of the regulation to which objection is
made and the grounds for the objection. Each numbered objection on
which a hearing is requested shall specifically so state. Failure to
request a hearing for any particular objection shall constitute a
waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection. Each numbered
objection for which a hearing is requested shall include a detailed
description and analysis of the specific factual information intended
to be presented in support of the objection in the event that a hearing
is held. Failure to include such a description and analysis for any
particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a
hearing on the objection. Three copies of all documents shall be
submitted and shall be identified with the docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document. Any objections received in
response to the regulation may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 573
Animal feeds, Food additives.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 573 is
amended as follows:
PART 573--FOOD ADDITIVES PERMITTED IN FEED AND DRINKING WATER OF
ANIMALS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 573 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 402, 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348).
2. Section 573.460 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (a)
introductory text, (a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c) introductory text, (c)(1),
and (c)(2) as paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), (a)(2), (a)(3),
(a)(3)(i), and (a)(3)(ii) respectively; and by adding new paragraph (b)
to read as follows:
Sec. 573.460 Formaldehyde.
* * * * *
(b)(1) The food additive is formaldehyde (37 percent aqueous
solution). It is used at the rate of 5.4 pounds (2.5 kilograms) per ton
of poultry feed. At this level, it is an antimicrobial agent used to
maintain complete poultry feeds salmonella negative for up to 14 days.
(2) To assure safe use of the additive, in addition to the other
information required by the Act, the label and labeling shall contain:
(i) The name of the additive.
(ii) A statement that formaldehyde solution which has been stored
below 40 deg.F or allowed to freeze should not be applied to complete
poultry feeds.
(iii) Adequate directions for use including a statement that
formaldehyde should be thoroughly mixed into complete poultry feed and
that the finished poultry feed shall be labeled as containing
formaldehyde.
(3) To assure safe use of the additive, in addition to the other
information required by the Act, the label and labeling shall
contain:(i) Appropriate warnings and safety precautions concerning
formaldehyde.
(ii) Statements identifying formaldehyde as a poison with
potentials for adverse respiratory effects.
(iii) Information about emergency aid in case of accidental
inhalation, ingestion or skin or eye contact.
(iv) Statements reflecting requirements of applicable sections of
the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration's (OSHA) human safety guidance regulations.
(v) Contact address and phone number for reporting adverse
reactions or to request a copy of the Materials Safety Data Sheet
(MSDS).
Dated: March 11, 1996.
Stephen F. Sundlof,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 96-8760 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8757 Streamlining the International Section 214 Authorization Process and Tariff Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15724-15733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8757]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 61, and 63
[IB Docket No. 95-118, FCC 96-79]
Streamlining the International Section 214 Authorization Process
and Tariff Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 29, 1996, the Federal Communications Commission
adopted rules to streamline the international Section 214 authorization
process and tariff requirements. The Commission anticipates that the
elimination of unnecessary and outdated administrative obligations on
carriers will enable them to compete in an evolving global
telecommunications market with greater speed and flexibility. These
rules will lower the barriers to entry, which will encourage more
applicants to enter the international market, ensuring more competition
and lower prices for international services to consumers.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Sec. 61.23(c) will become effective May 9, 1996. All
other regulations take effect either May 9, 1996 or upon approval by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), whichever occurs later. When
approval is received, the agency will publish a document announcing the
effective date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For further information on the Report and Order contact: Helene T.
Schrier, Attorney-Advisor, Policy and Facilities Branch,
Telecommunications Division, International Bureau, (202) 418-1470.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order adopted February 29, 1996, and released March 13, 1996 (FCC
96-79). The full text of this Report and Order is available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20554.
The complete text of this Report and Order also may be purchased from
the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service,
Inc., 2100 M Street NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-
3800.
Summary of Report and Order
1. In response to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (60 FR 37980
(July 25, 1995)), the Commission adopted new rules to streamline the
international Section 214 authorization process and tariff
requirements. The new rules will facilitate international carriers
entrance, expansion and exit from the market.
2. The Commission anticipates that the new rules will make entry to
the U.S. telecommunications market easier as a facilities-based
applicant will need only one authorization to serve virtually all
points in the world using U.S.-licensed facilities. A facilities-based
applicant with a foreign carrier affiliation, however, may obtain only
a limited global Section 214 authorization to provide service to
destination markets where the carrier's affiliate does not possess
market power.
[[Page 15725]]
3. Global authorizations will be streamlined processed. That is,
once the Commission reviews the applications to determine eligibility
for streamlined processing, the Commission will place them on public
notice as accepted for filing, and state whether they will be
streamlined or not. Petitions to deny streamlined applications must be
filed within 21 days. If streamlined applications are unopposed, they
will be deemed granted 35 days after the date of the initial public
notice of acceptance for filing, and the applicants may commence
operations on the 36th day. Shortly after the streamlined application
has been granted, we will issue a second public notice that will be
published in the FCC Record and will serve as the applicants' Section
214 authorization. The second public notice will list the applications
granted and restrictions, if any, on providing service to particular
countries and on the use of certain facilities. Applications that are
contested or require the International Bureau to make a determination
as to the degree of market power possessed by a foreign carrier
affiliate will not be eligible for streamlined processing. Such
applications will be acted upon by written order.
4. This global Section 214 authorization will be subject to an
exclusion list that the International Bureau will maintain identifying
countries or facilities for which there are restrictions. The
International Bureau will include the exclusion list as part of each
public notice listing granted streamlined applications, or in the case
of non-streamlined grants, in the granting order. And, the
International Bureau's Reference Center will maintain a copy of the
exclusion list.
5. To further ease entry into the U.S. international services
market, the Commission's new rules simplify and accelerate the Section
214 and cable landing license application process. The rules reduce the
amount of information previously required in applications for Section
214 authorization and cable landing licenses. Applicants will have the
option of filing international Section 214 applications on computer
diskettes but must still file a paper copy of their application.
Applications in foreign languages must be accompanied with a certified
translation in English. And, the Commission instructs the International
Bureau to determine the practicality of creating a standardized form
for filing Section 214 applications. In addition, the Commission will
make available to the public through the Internet and other sources
filing aids such as checklists, instruction sheets or sample Section
214 applications.
6. The new rules will eliminate several regulatory requirements
that delay carriers from expanding their services. First, authorized
resellers no longer will need to obtain additional authorizations to
resell services of carriers not identified in their initial
authorization. Resellers may resell services of any authorized carrier
except U.S. facilities-based affiliates that are regulated as dominant
on routes the reseller seeks to serve. If a reseller desires to resell
service of an affiliated underlying carrier that is regulated as
dominant on some routes and not on others, the reseller is now
authorized to resell that carrier's services on those routes on which
the underlying carrier is non-dominant. The reseller should file a
separate Section 214 application, however, to provide resale service on
routes where the underlying carrier is deemed dominant. Second,
carriers that are authorized to resell interconnected private lines for
switched services to a designated ``equivalent'' country no longer will
need to obtain separate Section 214 authority to serve additional
equivalent countries. Once that carrier receives the initial
authorization, the carrier automatically may resell private lines to
provide switched service to all countries that are determined by the
Commission, currently or subsequently, to provide equivalent resale
opportunities for U.S.-based carriers. This procedure also will be
available to facilities-based carriers that wish to provide switched
service over their authorized facilities-based private lines. The only
limit on this flexibility is for those facilities-based carriers or
resellers that have an affiliation with a dominant carrier in the
equivalent country. In such a case, carriers will file a separate
Section 214 application. Third, non-dominant U.S. international
carriers, and U.S. international carriers regulated as dominant for
reasons other than having foreign affiliations, may add circuits on
U.S.-licensed non-common carrier satellite or submarine cable systems
without obtaining additional authority. Dominant carriers will still
file a Section 214 application if they seek to add circuits on a non-
common carrier system to a point where they have an affiliate that
possesses market power.
7. The new rules also are designed to ease carriers' exit from the
market. Dominant carriers are now authorized to simply notify the
Commission when they convey submarine cable capacity to other carriers
instead of obtaining prior Section 214 authority. And, non-dominant
carriers will be allowed to provide 60, as opposed to 120, days' notice
to their customers before discontinuing service or retiring facilities.
8. The Report and Order streamlines the tariff requirements for
non-dominant international carriers by permitting them to file their
international tariffed rates on one day's notice instead of the current
14 days' notice. The Commission will apply the same relaxed form and
content requirements used for non-dominant domestic carriers, including
the filing of the tariffs on computer diskettes and the inclusion of a
brief cover letter.
9. Finally, the Commission invites the public to make suggestions
regarding what, if any, Section 214 authorization requirements it
should forbear from applying.
Administrative Matters
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, will publish a separate document inviting the
general public and OMB to comment on the proposed information
collections contained in this Report and Order.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to section 603 of Title 5, United States Code, 5 U.S.C.
603, an initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was incorporated in the
Notice of Proposed Rule Making in IB Docket No. 95-118. Written
comments on the proposals in the Notice, including the Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, were requested.
A. Need and Purpose of Rules
This Report and Order streamlines the international Section 214
authorization process and tariff requirements in order to greatly
lessen the regulatory burdens on applicants, authorized carriers, and
the Commission to enable them to operate more efficiently and respond
better to customers' needs in a timely manner. These rules allow
international carriers to enter and exit the market more quickly with
greater flexibility to meet the evolving needs of the global
telecommunications market.
B. Issues Raised by the Public in Response to the Initial Analysis
We received one comment in response to the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis. The America's Carriers Telecommunications
Association (ACTA) completely supported the initiatives of the
Commission in seeking to reduce unnecessary regulation and to
streamline the regulation required to serve the interests of the
public. ACTA
[[Page 15726]]
raised one area of concern as the Commission replaces traditional
regulatory controls in favor of competition to regulate the
marketplace. ACTA states that effective enforcement of the remaining
regulations, which is both prompt and effective, is critical to
survival of the smaller competitors in the industry. ACTA states that
present complaint and tariff processes favor the established carriers,
as does commercial arbitration and/or the Alternative Dispute
Resolution proceedings of the Commission. ACTA states that the
Commission should provide small competitors a fair, unbiased and
competent forum to air their grievances and to obtain justice.
C. Significant Alternatives Considered
We have attempted to balance all the commenters' concerns with our
public interest mandate under the Act in order to adopt a clear and
administratively feasible approach to processing international Section
214 applications and tariffs. Where we have removed regulations, we
have been careful to consider the implications on small businesses and
the industry in general. We have considered and addressed all of the
alternatives offered. We rejected proposals to streamline dominant
carrier regulations where we believed such action would hinder our
ability to regulate dominant carriers, and safeguard against market
power abuses.
Ordering Clauses
1. Accordingly, it is ordered, that Sec. 61.23(c) will become
effective May 9, 1996. All other regulations take effect either May 9,
1996 or upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
whichever occurs later. When approval is received, the agency will
publish a document announcing the effective date.
2. This action is taken pursuant to sections 4, 214, 219, 303(r)
and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154,
214, 219, 303(r) and 403.
3. It is further ordered that this proceeding is hereby terminated.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure.
47 CFR Part 61
Communications common carriers.
47 CFR Part 63
Communications common carriers.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Rule Changes
Parts 1, 61 and 63 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations
are amended as follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 303, and 309(j) unless otherwise
noted.
2. Section 1.767 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
new paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.767 Cable landing licenses.
(a) Applications for cable landing licenses under 47 U.S.C. 34-39
and Executive Order No. 10530, dated May 10, 1954, should be filed in
duplicate and in accordance with the provisions of that Executive
Order. These applications should contain:
(1) The name, address and telephone number(s) of the applicant;
(2) The Government, State, or Territory under the laws of which
each corporate or partnership applicant is organized;
(3) The name, title, post office address, and telephone number of
the officer and any other contact point, such as legal counsel, to whom
correspondence concerning the application is to be addressed;
(4) A description of the submarine cable, including the type and
number of channels and the capacity thereof;
(5) A specific description of the cable landing location on the
shore of the United States and in foreign countries where the cable
will land (including a map). Applicants initially may file a general
geographic description of the landing points; however, grant of the
application will be conditioned on the Commission's final approval of a
more specific description of the landing points to be filed by the
applicant no later than 90 days prior to construction. The Commission
will give public notice of the filing of this description, and grant of
the license will be considered final if the Commission does not notify
the applicant otherwise in writing no later than 60 days after receipt
of the specific description of the landing points.
(6) A statement as to whether the cable will be operated on a
common carrier or non-common carrier basis, and if operation will be on
a non-common carrier basis, include the ownership information required
in Sec. 63.18 (e)(6) and (h) (1) through (2) of this chapter; and
(7) Any other information that may be necessary to enable the
Commission to act on their application.
* * * * *
(e) A separate application shall be filed with respect to each
individual cable system for which a license is requested, or for which
modification or amendment of a previous license is requested.
(f) Applicants shall disclose to any interested member of the
public, upon written request, accurate information concerning the
location and timing for the construction of a submarine cable system
authorized under this section. This disclosure shall be made within 30
days of receipt of the request.
PART 61--TARIFFS
1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i),
154(j), 201-205, and 403, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 61.20 is amended by revising its preceding centered
headings and paragraph (b) to read as follows:
General Rules
General Rules for Domestic and International Nondominant Carriers
Sec. 61.20 Method of filing publications.
* * * * *
(b)(1) In addition, for all tariff publications requiring fees as
set forth in part 1, subpart G of this chapter, issuing carriers must
submit the original of the cover letter (without attachments), FCC Form
159, and the appropriate fee to the Mellon Bank, Pittsburgh, PA at the
address set forth in Sec. 1.1105 of this chapter. Issuing carriers
should submit these fee materials on the same date as the submission in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) International carriers must certify in their original cover
letter that they are authorized under Section 214 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, to provide service, and reference the FCC file
number of that authorization.
* * * * *
3. Section 61.21 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 61.21 Cover letters.
(a)(1) Except as specified in Sec. 61.32(b), all publications filed
with the Commission must be accompanied by a cover letter, 8.5 by 11
inches (21.6 cm x 27.9 cm) in size. All cover letters should briefly
explain the nature of the
[[Page 15727]]
filing and indicate the date and method of filing of the original cover
letter, as required by Sec. 61.20(b)(1).
(2) International carriers must certify that they are authorized
under Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to
provide service, and reference the FCC file number of that
authorization.
* * * * *
4. Section 61.22 is amended by revising its preceding centered
headings and paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as follows:
Specific Rules for Domestic and International Nondominant Carriers
Sec. 61.22 Composition of tariffs.
* * * * *
(b) The tariff must contain the carrier's name, the international
Section 214 authorization FCC file number (when applicable), and the
information required by Section 203 of the Act.
* * * * *
(d) Domestic and international nondominant carriers subject to the
provisions of this section are not subject to the tariff filing
requirements of Sec. 61.54.
5. Section 61.23(c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 61.23 Notice requirements.
* * * * *
(c) Tariff filings of domestic and international non-dominant
carriers must be made on at least one-day notice.
PART 63--EXTENSION OF LINES AND DISCONTINUANCE, REDUCTION, OUTAGE
AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND GRANTS OF
RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS
1. The authority citation for Part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 218, and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and sec. 613 of the Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 15(j),
201-205, 218, 403, and 533 unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 63.01 is amended by removing paragraphs (k)(5) through
(k)(7), (r), (s) and Notes 1 through 4, and revising the section
heading and introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 63.01 Contents of applications for domestic common carriers.
Except as otherwise provided in this part, any party proposing to
undertake any construction of a new line, extension of any line,
acquisition, lease, or operation of any line or extension thereof or
engage in transmission over or by means of such line, and such line
originates and terminates in the United States, for which authority is
required under the provisions of Section 214 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, shall request such authority by formal application
which shall be accompanied by a statement showing how the proposed
construction, etc., will serve the public interest, convenience, and
necessity. Such statement must include the following information as
applicable:
* * * * *
3. Section 63.05 is amended by revising the section heading to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.05 Commencement and completion of construction for domestic
common carriers.
* * * * *
4. Section 63.10 is amended by revising the last sentence of
paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(3), and (a)(4), and (c)(3) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.10 Regulatory classification of U.S. international carriers.
(a) * * * For purposes of paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this
section, ``affiliation'' and ``foreign carrier'' are defined as set
forth in Sec. 63.18(h)(1) (i) and (ii), respectively.
* * * * *
(3) * * * Such a demonstration should address the factors that
relate to the scope or degree of the foreign affiliate's bottleneck
control, including those listed in Section Sec. 63.18(h)(8).
(4) * * * The existence of an affiliation with a U.S. facilities-
based international carrier shall be assessed in accordance with the
definition of affiliation contained in Sec. 63.18(h)(1)(i), except that
the phrase ``U.S. facilities-based international carrier'' shall be
substituted for the phrase ``foreign carrier.''
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Obtain Commission approval pursuant to Sec. 63.18 before adding
or discontinuing circuits; and
* * * * *
5. Section 63.11 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text, (a)(2), (c)(1) through (c)(3), (d), and the last sentence of
(e)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.11 Notification by and prior approval for U.S. international
carriers that have or propose to acquire ten percent investments by,
and/or an affiliation with, a foreign carrier.
(a) Any carrier authorized to provide international communications
service under this part that, as of the effective date of this rule as
amended in IB Docket No. 95-22, is, or has an affiliation with, a
foreign carrier within the meaning of Sec. 63.18(h)(1)(i)(A) or
(h)(1)(i)(B), or that as of such date knows of an existing ten percent
or greater interest, whether direct or indirect, in the capital stock
of the authorized carrier by a foreign carrier, or that after the
effective date of this rule becomes affiliated with a foreign carrier
within the meaning of Sec. 63.18(h)(1)(i)(A), shall notify the
Commission within thirty days of the effective date of this rule or
within thirty days of the acquisition of the affiliation, whichever
occurs later. For purposes of this section, ``foreign carrier'' is
defined as set forth in Sec. 63.18(h)(1)(ii).
* * * * *
(2) Any carrier that has previously notified the Commission of an
affiliation with a foreign carrier, as defined by Sec. 63.18(h)(1)
immediately prior to the rule's amendment in IB Docket No. 95-22, need
not notify the Commission again of the same affiliation.
* * * * *
(c) ***
(1) The carrier also should specify, where applicable, those
countries named in paragraph (c) of this section for which it provides
a specified international communications service solely through the
resale of the international switched or private line services of U.S.
facilities-based carriers with which the resale carrier does not have
an affiliation. Such an affiliation is defined in Sec. 63.18(h)(1)(i),
except that the phrase ``U.S. facilities-based international carrier''
shall be substituted for the phrase ``foreign carrier.''
(2) The carrier shall also submit with its notification:
(i) The ownership information as required to be submitted pursuant
to Sec. 63.18(h)(2);
(ii) Where the carrier is authorized as a private line reseller on
a particular route for which it has an affiliation with a foreign
carrier, as defined in Sec. 63.18(h)(1)(i), a certification as required
to be submitted pursuant to Sec. 63.18(h)(4); and
(iii) A ``special concessions'' certification as required to be
submitted pursuant to Sec. 63.18(i).
(3) The carrier is responsible for the continuing accuracy of the
certifications provided under this section. Whenever the substance of
any certification provided under this section is no longer accurate,
the carrier shall as promptly as possible, and in any event within
thirty days, file with the Secretary in duplicate a corrected
certification referencing the
[[Page 15728]]
FCC File No. under which the original certification was provided,
except that the carrier shall immediately inform the Commission if at
any time the representations in the ``special concessions''
certification provided under paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section are
no longer true. See Sec. 63.18(i))(2). This information may be used by
the Commission to determine whether a change in regulatory status may
be warranted under Sec. 63.10.
(d) Unless the carrier notifying the Commission of a foreign
carrier affiliation under paragraph (a) of this section qualifies for
the presumption of non-dominant regulation pursuant to
Sec. 63.10(a)(4), it should submit the information specified in
Sec. 63.18(h)(8) to retain its non-dominant status on any affiliated
route.
(e) * * *
(2) * * * If notified that the acquisition raises a substantial and
material question, then the carrier shall not consummate the planned
investment until it has filed an application under Sec. 63.18 and
submitted the information specified under Sec. 63.18 (h) (6) or (7) as
applicable, and Sec. 63.18(h)(8), and the Commission has approved the
application by formal written order.
6. Section 63.12 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.12 Streamlined processing of certain international facilities-
based and resale applications.
(a) Except as provided by paragraph (c) of this section, a complete
application seeking authorization under Sec. 63.18(e) (1) and (2) to
acquire facilities to provide international services shall be granted
by the Commission 35 days after the date of public notice listing the
application as accepted for filing.
(b) Issuance of public notice of the grant shall be deemed the
issuance of Sec. 214 certification to the applicant, which may commence
operation on the 36th day after the date of public notice listing the
application as accepted for filing, but only in accordance with the
operations proposed in its application and the rules, regulations, and
policies of the Commission.
(c) The streamlined processing procedures provided by paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section shall not apply where:
(1) The applicant seeks authority under either Sec. 63.18(e)(1) for
global Sec. 214 authority to operate as a facilities-based carrier or
Sec. 63.18(e)(2) to resell international services, and the applicant
has an affiliation within the meaning of Sec. 63.18(h)(1)(i) with a
facilities-based foreign carrier in a destination market, and the
Commission has not yet made a determination as to whether that foreign
carrier possesses market power in that market; or
(2) The applicant has an affiliation within the meaning of
Sec. 63.18(h)(1)(i) with a dominant U.S. facilities-based carrier whose
international switched or private line services the applicant seeks
authority to resell (either directly or indirectly through the resale
of another reseller's services); or
(3) The applicant seeks authority under Sec. 63.18(e)(2) to resell
international private line services to a country for which the
Commission has not determined as of the date of public notice of the
application that equivalent resale opportunities exist between the
United States and the destination country; or
(4) The application is formally opposed within the meaning of
Sec. 1.1202(e) of this chapter; or
(5) The Commission has informed the applicant in writing, including
by public notice, within 28 days after the date of public notice
accepting the application for filing, that the application is not
eligible for streamlined processing under this section.
(d) Any complete application that is subject to paragraph (c) of
this section will be acted upon only by formal written order and
operation for which such authorization is sought may not commence
except in accordance with such order.
Note to paragraph (c): The term ``facilities-based carrier''
means one that holds an ownership, indefeasible-right-of-user, or
leasehold interest in bare capacity in an international facility,
regardless of whether the underlying facility is a common or non-
common carrier submarine cable, or an INTELSAT or separate satellite
system.
7. Sec. 63.13 is amended by revising the last sentence of
paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(5), and revising (a)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.13 Streamlined procedures for modifying regulatory
classification of U.S. international carriers from dominant to non-
dominant.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(3) * * * For purposes of this paragraph, ``telecommunications
facilities'' are defined as in Sec. 63.18(h)(4).
(4) Any carrier filing a certified list pursuant to paragraph
(a)(2) of this section must also provide the ``special concessions''
certification as required to be submitted pursuant to Sec. 63.18(i).
(5) * * * See Sec. 63.18(i)(2).
* * * * *
8. Section 63.14 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Prohibition on agreeing to accept special concessions.
Any carrier authorized to provide international communications
service under this part shall be prohibited from agreeing to accept
special concessions directly or indirectly from any foreign carrier or
administration with respect to traffic or revenue flows between the
United States and any foreign country served under the authority of
this part and from agreeing to enter into such agreements in the
future. For purposes of this section, ``foreign carrier'' is defined as
in Sec. 63.18(h)(1)(ii) and ``special concession'' is defined as in
Sec. 63.18(i).
9. Section 63.15 is amended by removing paragraph (c) and revising
the section heading and paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.15 Special procedures for international service providers.
(a) Any party seeking to construct, acquire or operate lines in any
new major common carrier facility project or non-U.S. licensed
satellite or cable system for the provision of international common
carrier services shall file an application pursuant to
Sec. 63.18(e)(6). If a carrier has global Section 214 authority
pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 63.18(e)(1), and the carrier desires
to use non-U.S. licensed facilities pursuant to the provisions of
Sec. 63.18(e)(1)(ii)(B), this filing requirement does not apply.
* * * * *
10. Section 63.17 is amended by revising paragraphs (b),
introductory text, and (b)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.17 Special provisions for U.S. international common carriers.
* * * * *
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, a U.S.
common carrier, whether a reseller or facilities-based, may engage in
``switched hubbing'' to countries not found to offer equivalent resale
opportunities under Sec. 63.18(e) (3) and (4) under the following
conditions:
* * * * *
(4) No U.S. common carrier may engage in switched hubbing under
this section to a country where it has an affiliation with a foreign
carrier unless and until it receives specific authority to do so under
Sec. 63.18. For purposes of this paragraph, ``affiliation'' and
``foreign carrier'' are defined in Sec. 63.18(h)(1) (i)(B) and (ii),
respectively.
11. New Sec. 63.18 is added to read as follows:
[[Page 15729]]
Sec. 63.18 Contents of applications for international common carriers.
Except as otherwise provided in this part, any party seeking
authority pursuant to Section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, to construct a new line, or acquire or operate any line, or
engage in transmission over or by means of such additional line for the
provision of common carrier communications services between the United
States, its territories or possessions, and a foreign point shall
request such authority by formal application which shall be accompanied
by a statement showing how the grant of the application will serve the
public interest, convenience, and necessity. Such statement shall
consist of the following information, as applicable:
(a) The name, address, and telephone number of each applicant;
(b) The Government, State, or Territory under the laws of which
each corporate or partnership applicant is organized;
(c) The name, title, post office address, and telephone number of
the officer and any other contact point, such as legal counsel, to whom
correspondence concerning the application is to be addressed;
(d) A statement as to whether the applicant has previously received
authority under Section 214 of the Act and, if so, a general
description of the categories of facilities and services authorized
(i.e., authorized to provide international switched services on a
facilities basis);
(e) One or more of the following statements, as pertinent:
(1) If applying for authority to acquire interests in facilities
previously authorized by the Commission in order to provide
international basic switched, private line, data, television and
business services to all international points, the applicant shall:
(i) State that it is requesting Section 214 authority to operate as
a facilities-based carrier pursuant to the terms and conditions of
paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(ii) Comply with the following terms and conditions:
(A) Authority to provide services to all international points under
this part extends only to those countries for which the applicant
qualifies for non-dominant regulation as set forth in Sec. 63.10. If an
applicant is affiliated with a facilities-based foreign carrier in a
destination market and the Commission has not determined that the
foreign carrier does not possess market power in that market, the
applicant shall not commence service on any such route unless and until
it receives specific authority to do so under paragraph (e)(6) of this
section. If an applicant becomes dominant on a particular route after
receiving authority under this section, the terms and conditions of
Sec. 63.10(c) will apply to its provision of services on the dominant
route. An applicant should file separately under Section 63.18(e)(6) to
provide service on routes on which it may not qualify for regulation as
a non-dominant carrier.
(B) The applicant may only provide service using half-circuits on
appropriately licensed U.S. common and non-common carrier facilities
(either under Title III of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
or the Submarine Cable Landing License Act, 47 U.S.C. 34 et. al.)
provided that these facilities do not appear on an exclusion list
published by the Commission and any necessary overseas connecting
facilities. Applicants may not use non-U.S. licensed facilities unless
and until the Commission specifically approves their use and so
indicates on the exclusion list, and only then for service to the
countries indicated thereon.
(C) The applicant may provide service to any country not included
on an exclusion list published by the Commission.
(D) The applicant may provide international basic switched, private
line, data, television and business services.
(E) The authority granted under this paragraph shall be subject to
all Commission rules and regulations and any conditions stated in the
Commission's public notice or order that serves as the applicant's
Section 214 certificate. See Sec. 63.12.
(2) If applying for authority to resell the international services
of authorized U.S. common carriers for the provision of international
basic switched, private line, data, television and business services to
all international points, the applicant shall:
(i) State that it is requesting Section 214 authority to operate as
a resale carrier pursuant to the terms and conditions of
Sec. 63.18(e)(2).
(ii) Comply with the following the terms and conditions:
(A) The applicant may resell the international services of any
authorized common carrier, except affiliated carriers regulated as
dominant on the route to be served, pursuant to that carrier's tariff
or contract duly filed with the Commission, for the provision of
international basic switched, private line, data, television and
business services to all international points;
(B) The applicant may resell private line services for the
provision of international basic switched services only to countries
found by the Commission to provide equivalent resale opportunities,
except in circumstances where the applicant is affiliated with a
facilities-based foreign carrier in a destination market and the
Commission has not determined that the foreign carrier does not possess
market power in that market. In such circumstances, the applicant shall
not commence service on any such route unless and until it receives
specific authority to do so under paragraph (e)(6) of this section. The
Commission will provide public notice of its determinations.
(C) The authority granted under this paragraph shall be subject to
all Commission rules and regulations and any conditions stated in the
Commission's public notice or order that serves as the applicant's
Section 214 certificate. See Sec. 63.12.
(3) If applying for authority to resell private lines for the
purpose of providing international basic switched services to countries
not on the Commission's published list of equivalent countries,
applicant shall demonstrate for each country to which it seeks to
provide service that that country affords resale opportunities
equivalent to those available under U.S. law. In this regard, applicant
shall:
(i) Include evidence demonstrating that equivalent resale
opportunities exist between the United States and the subject country,
including any relevant bilateral agreements between the administrations
involved. Parties must demonstrate that the foreign country at the
other end of the private line provides U.S.-based carriers with:
(A) The legal right to resell international private lines,
interconnected at both ends, for the provision of switched services;
(B) Nondiscriminatory charges, terms and conditions for
interconnection to foreign domestic carrier facilities for termination
and origination of international services, with adequate means of
enforcement;
(C) Competitive safeguards to protect against anticompetitive and
discriminatory practices affecting private line resale; and
(D) Fair and transparent regulatory procedures, including
separation between the regulator and operator of international
facilities-based services.
(ii) The procedures set forth in paragraph (e)(3) of this section
are subject to Commission policies on resale of international private
lines in CC
[[Page 15730]]
Docket No. 90-337 as amended in IB Docket No. 95-22.
(4) Any carrier authorized under this section to acquire and
operate international private line facilities other than through resale
may use those private lines to provide switched basic services to
countries found by the Commission to provide equivalent resale
opportunities except in circumstances where the applicant is affiliated
with a facilities-based foreign carrier in the country at the foreign
end of the private line, and the Commission has not determined that the
foreign carrier does not possess market power in that market. In such
circumstances, the applicant shall not commence service on such route
unless and until it receives specific authority to do so under
paragraph (e)(6) of this section. The Commission will provide public
notice of its equivalency findings. The applicant is subject to all
applicable Commission rules and regulations and any conditions stated
in the Commission's public notice or order that serves as the
applicant's Section 214 certificate. See Sec. 63.12.
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this section, any
carrier that seeks to provide switched basic services over its
authorized private line facilities to countries not identified in the
Commission's published list of equivalent countries shall, for each
country for which it seeks to provide switched basic service over its
authorized private lines facilities, request such authority by formal
application. Such application shall be accompanied by a demonstration
that country affords resale opportunities equivalent to those available
under U.S. law. In this regard, applicant shall include the information
required by paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(ii) No formal application is required under paragraph (e)(4) of
this section in circumstances where the carrier's previously authorized
private line facility is interconnected to the public switched network
only on one end--either the U.S. or the foreign end--and where the
carrier is not operating the facility in correspondence with a carrier
that directly or indirectly owns the private line facility in the
foreign country at the other end of the private line.
(5) If applying for authority to acquire facilities through the
transfer of control of a common carrier holding international Section
214 authorization, or through the assignment of another carrier's
existing authorization, the applicant shall complete paragraphs (a)
through (d) of this section for both the transferor/assignor and the
transferee/assignee. Paragraph (g) of this section is not applicable,
and only the transferee/assignee needs to complete paragraphs (i) and
(j) of this section. At the beginning of the application, the applicant
should also include a narrative of the means by which the transfer or
assignment will take place. The Commission reserves the right to
request additional information as to the particulars of the transaction
to aid it in making its public interest determination.
(6) If applying for authority to acquire facilities or to provide
services not covered by Sec. 63.18(e) (1) through (5), the applicant
shall provide a description of the facilities and services for which it
seeks authorization. Such description also shall include any additional
information the Commission shall have specified previously in an order,
public notice or other official action as necessary for authorization.
Applicants for new submarine cable facilities also shall include a list
of the proposed owners of the cable, their voting interests and
ownership interests by segment in the cable.
(f) Applicants may apply for any or all of the authority provided
for in paragraph (e) of this section in the same application. The
applicant may want to file separate applications for those services not
subject to streamlined processing under Sec. 63.12.
(g) Where the applicant is seeking facilities-based authority under
paragraph (e)(6) of this section, a statement whether an authorization
of the facilities is categorically excluded as defined by Sec. 1.1306
of this chapter. If answered affirmatively, an environmental assessment
as described in Sec. 1.1311 of this chapter need not be filed with the
application.
(h) A certification as to whether or not the applicant is, or has
an affiliation with, a foreign carrier.
(1) The certification shall state with specificity each foreign
country in which the applicant is, or has an affiliation with, a
foreign carrier. For purposes of this certification:
(i) Affiliation is defined to include:
(A) A greater than 25 percent ownership of capital stock, or
controlling interest at any level, by the applicant, or by any entity
that directly or indirectly controls or is controlled by it, or that is
under direct or indirect common control with it, in a foreign carrier
or in any entity that directly or indirectly controls a foreign
carrier; or
(B) A greater than 25 percent ownership of capital stock, or
controlling interest at any level, in the applicant by a foreign
carrier, or by any entity that directly or indirectly controls or is
controlled by a foreign carrier, or that is under direct or indirect
common control with a foreign carrier; or by two or more foreign
carriers investing in the applicant in the same manner in circumstances
where the foreign carriers are parties to, or the beneficiaries of, a
contractual relation (e.g., a joint venture or market alliance)
affecting the provision or marketing of basic international
telecommunications services in the United States. A U.S. carrier also
will be considered to be affiliated with a foreign carrier where the
foreign carrier controls, is controlled by, or is under common control
with a second foreign carrier already found to be affiliated with that
U.S. carrier under this section.
(ii) Foreign carrier is defined as any entity that is authorized
within a foreign country to engage in the provision of international
telecommunications services offered to the public in that country
within the meaning of the International Telecommunication Regulations,
see Final Acts of the World Administrative Telegraph and Telephone
Conference, Melbourne, 1988 (WATTC-88), Art. 1, which includes entities
authorized to engage in the provision of domestic telecommunications
services if such carriers have the ability to originate or terminate
telecommunications services to of from points outside their country.
(2) In support of the required certification, each applicant shall
also provide the name, address, citizenship and principal businesses of
its ten percent or greater direct and indirect shareholders or other
equity holders and identify any interlocking directorates.
(3) Each applicant that proposes to acquire facilities through the
resale of the international switched or private line services of
another U.S. carrier shall additionally certify as to whether or not
the applicant has an affiliation with the U.S. carrier(s) whose
facilities-based service(s) the applicant proposes to resell (either
directly or indirectly through the resale of another reseller's
service). For purposes of this paragraph, affiliation is defined as in
paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this section, except that the phrase ``U.S.
facilities-based international carrier'' shall be substituted for the
phrase ``foreign carrier.''
(4) Each applicant that certifies under this section that it has an
affiliation with a foreign carrier and that proposes to resell the
international private line services of another U.S. carrier shall
additionally certify as to whether the affiliated foreign carrier owns
or controls telecommunications facilities in the particular
country(ies) to which
[[Page 15731]]
the applicant proposes to provide service (i.e., the destination
country(ies)). For purposes of this paragraph, telecommunications
facilities are defined as the underlying telecommunications transport
means, including intercity and local access facilities, used by a
foreign carrier to provide international telecommunications services
offered to the public.
(5) Each applicant and carrier authorized to provide international
communications service under this part is responsible for the
continuing accuracy of the certifications required by paragraphs (h)
(3) and (4) of this section. Whenever the substance of any such
certification is no longer accurate, the applicant/carrier shall as
promptly as possible and in any event within thirty days file with the
Secretary in duplicate a corrected certification referencing the FCC
File No. under which the original certification was provided. This
information may be used by the Commission to determine whether a change
in regulatory status may be warranted under Sec. 63.10.
(6) Each applicant that certifies that it is, or that it has an
affiliation with, a foreign carrier, as defined in paragraphs (h)(1)
(i)(B) and (ii) of this section, respectively, in a named foreign
country and that seeks to operate as a U.S. facilities-based
international carrier to that country from the United States shall
provide information in its application filed under this part to
demonstrate that either:
(i) The named foreign country (i.e., the destination foreign
country) provides effective competitive opportunities to U.S. carriers
to compete in that country's international facilities-based market; or
(ii) Its affiliated foreign carrier does not have the ability to
discriminate against unaffiliated U.S. international carriers through
control of bottleneck services or facilities in the destination
country.
(A) The demonstration specified in paragraph (h)(6)(i) of this
section should address the following factors:
(1) The legal ability of U.S. carriers to enter the foreign market
and provide facilities-based international services, in particular
international message telephone service (IMTS);
(2) Whether there exist reasonable and nondiscriminatory charges,
terms and conditions for interconnection to a foreign carrier's
domestic facilities for termination and origination of international
services;
(3) Whether competitive safeguards exist in the foreign country to
protect against anticompetitive practices, including safeguards such
as:
(i) Existence of cost-allocation rules in the foreign country to
prevent cross-subsidization;
(ii) Timely and nondiscriminatory disclosure of technical
information needed to use, or interconnect with, carriers' facilities;
and
(iii) Protection of carrier and customer proprietary information;
(4) Whether there is an effective regulatory framework in the
foreign country to develop, implement and enforce legal requirements,
interconnection arrangements and other safeguards; and
(5) Any other factors the applicant deems relevant to its
demonstration.
(B) The demonstration specified in paragraph (h)(6)(ii) of this
section should include the same information requested by paragraph
(h)(8) of this section.
(7) Each applicant that certifies that it is, or that it has an
affiliation with, a foreign carrier, as defined in paragraph (h)(1)
(i)(B) and (ii) of this section, respectively, in a named foreign
country and that proposes to resell the international switched or non-
interconnected private line services, respectively, of another U.S.
carrier for the purpose of providing international communications
services to the named foreign country from the United States shall
provide information in its application filed under this part to
demonstrate that either:
(i) The named foreign country (i.e., the destination foreign
country) provides effective competitive opportunities to U.S. carriers
to resell international switched or non-interconnected private line
services, respectively; or
(ii) Its affiliated foreign carrier does not have the ability to
discriminate against unaffiliated U.S. international carriers through
control of bottleneck services or facilities in the destination
country.
(A) The demonstration specified in paragraph (h)(7)(i) of this
section should address the following factors:
(1) The legal ability of U.S. carriers to enter the foreign market
and provide resold international switched services (for switched resale
applications) or non-interconnected private line services (for non-
interconnected private line resale applications);
(2) Whether there exist reasonable and nondiscriminatory charges,
terms and conditions for the provision of the relevant resale service;
(3) Whether competitive safeguards exist in the foreign country to
protect against anticompetitive practices, including safeguards such
as:
(i) Existence of cost-allocation rules in the foreign country to
prevent cross-subsidization;
(ii) Timely and nondiscriminatory disclosure of technical
information needed to use, or interconnect with, carriers' facilities;
and
(iii) Protection of carrier and customer proprietary information;
(4) Whether there is an effective regulatory framework in the
foreign country to develop, implement and enforce legal requirements,
interconnection arrangements and other safeguards; and
(5) Any other factors the applicant deems relevant to its
demonstration.
(B) The demonstration specified in paragraph (h)(7)(ii) of this
section should include the same information requested in paragraph
(h)(8) of this section.
(8) Each applicant that certifies that it has an affiliation with a
foreign carrier in a named foreign country and that desires to be
regulated as non-dominant for the provision of international
communications service to that country may provide information in its
application filed under this part to demonstrate that its affiliated
foreign carrier does not have the ability to discriminate against
unaffiliated U.S. international carriers through control of bottleneck
services or facilities in the named foreign country. See Sec. 63.10,
Regulatory Classification of U.S. International Carriers.
(i) Such a demonstration should address the factors that relate to
the scope or degree of the foreign affiliate's bottleneck control, such
as:
(A) The monopoly, duopoly, or oligopoly status of the destination
country; and
(B) Whether the foreign affiliate has the potential to discriminate
against unaffiliated U.S. international carriers through such means as
preferential operating agreements, preferential routing of traffic,
exclusive or more favorable transiting agreements, or preferential
domestic access and interconnection arrangements.
(ii) Such a demonstration may also address other factors the
applicant deems relevant, such as the effectiveness of regulation in
the destination country.
(i) Each applicant shall certify that the applicant has not agreed
to accept special concessions directly or indirectly from any foreign
carrier or administration with respect to traffic or revenue flows
between the U.S. and any foreign country which the applicant may serve
under the authority granted
[[Page 15732]]
under this part and will not enter into such agreements in the future.
(1) For purposes of paragraph (i) of this section, and of
Secs. 63.11(c)(2)(iii), 63.13(a)(4), and 63.14, special concession is
defined as any arrangement that affects traffic or revenue flows to or
from the United States that is offered exclusively by a foreign carrier
or administration to a particular U.S. international carrier and not
also to similarly situated U.S. international carriers authorized to
serve a particular route.
(2) The special concessions certification required by paragraph (i)
of this section and by Secs. 63.11(c)(2)(iii) and 63.13(a)(4) shall be
viewed as an ongoing representation to the Commission, and applicants/
carriers shall immediately inform the Commission if at any time the
representations in their certifications are no longer true. Failure to
so inform the Commission will be deemed a material misrepresentation to
the Commission.
(j) A certification pursuant to Secs. 1.2001 through 1.2003 of this
chapter that no party to the application is subject to a denial of
Federal benefits pursuant to Section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of
1988. See 21 U.S.C. 853a.
Note 1 to paragraph (h): The word ``control'' as used in this
section is not limited to majority stock ownership, but includes
actual working control in whatever manner exercised.
Note 2 to paragraph (h): The term ``facilities-based carrier''
as used in this section means one that holds an ownership,
indefeasible-right-of-user, or leasehold interest in bare capacity
in an international facility, regardless of whether the underlying
facility is a common or non-common carrier submarine cable, or an
INTELSAT or separate satellite system.
Note 3 to paragraph (h): The assessment of ``capital stock''
ownership will be made under the standards developed in Commission
case law for determining such ownership. See, e.g., Fox Television
Stations, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 8452 (1995). ``Capital stock'' includes
all forms of equity ownership, including partnership interests.
Note 4 to paragraph (h): Ownership and other interests in U.S.
and foreign carriers will be attributed to their holders and deemed
cognizable pursuant to the following criteria: Attribution of
ownership interests in a carrier that are held indirectly by any
party through one or more intervening corporations will be
determined by successive multiplication of the ownership percentages
for each link in the vertical ownership chain and application of the
relevant attribution benchmark to the resulting product, except that
wherever the ownership percentage for any link in the chain exceeds
50 percent, it shall not be included for purposes of this
multiplication. For example, if A owns 30 percent of company X,
which owns 60 percent of company Y, which owns 26 percent of
``carrier,'' then X's interest in ``carrier'' would be 26 percent
(the same as Y's interest because X's interest in Y exceeds 50
percent), and A's interest in ``carrier'' would be 7.8 percent (0.30
x 0.26). Under the 25 percent attribution benchmark, X's interest in
``carrier'' would be cognizable, while A's interest would not be
cognizable.
12. A new Sec. 63.19 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.19 Special procedures for discontinuances of international
services.
(a) Any non-dominant international carrier as this term is defined
in Sec. 63.10 that seeks to discontinue, reduce or impair service,
including the retiring of international facilities, dismantling or
removing of international trunk lines, shall be subject to the
following procedures in lieu of those specified in Secs. 63.61 through
63.601:
(1) The carrier shall notify all affected customers of the planned
discontinuance, reduction or impairment at least 60 days prior to its
planned action. Notice shall be in writing to each affected customer
unless the Commission authorizes in advance, for good cause shown,
another form of notice.
(2) The carrier shall file with this Commission a copy of the
notification on or after the date on which notice has been given to all
affected customers.
(b) Any dominant international carrier as this term is defined in
Sec. 63.10 that seeks to retire international facilities, dismantle or
remove international trunk lines, and the services being provided
through these facilities are not being discontinued, reduced or
impaired, shall only be subject to the notification requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section. If such carrier discontinues, reduces or
impairs service to a community or retires facilities that impair or
reduce service to a community, the dominant carrier shall file an
application pursuant to Secs. 63.62 and 63.500.
13. A new Sec. 63.20 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.20 Copies required; fees; and filing periods for international
service providers.
(a) Unless otherwise specified the Commission shall be furnished
with an original and five copies of applications filed for
international facilities and services under Section 214 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Provided, however, that where
applications involve only the supplementation of existing international
facilities, and the issuance of a certificate is not required, an
original and two copies of the application shall be furnished. Upon
request by the Commission, additional copies of the application shall
be furnished. Each application shall be accompanied by the fee
prescribed in subpart G of part 1 of this chapter.
(b) No application accepted for filing and subject to the
provisions of Secs. 63.02, 63.18, 63.62 or Sec. 63.505 shall be granted
by the Commission earlier than 28 days following issuance of public
notice by the Commission of the acceptance for filing of such
application or any major amendment unless said public notice specifies
another time period, or the application qualifies for streamlined
processing pursuant to Sec. 63.12.
(c) No application accepted for filing and subject to the
streamlined processing provisions of Sec. 63.12 shall be granted by the
Commission earlier than 21 days following issuance of public notice by
the Commission of the acceptance for filing of such application or any
major amendment unless said public notice specifies another time
period.
(d) Any interested party may file a petition to deny an application
within the 21 day or other time period specified in paragraphs (b) or
(c) of this section. The petitioner shall serve a copy of such petition
on the applicant no later than the date of filing thereof with the
Commission. The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact
sufficient to show that the petitioner is a party in interest and that
a grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with the
public interest, convenience and necessity. Such allegations of fact
shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be
supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge
thereof. The applicant may file an opposition to any petition to deny
within 14 days after the original pleading is filed. The petitioner may
file a reply to such opposition within seven days after the time for
filing oppositions has expired. Allegations of facts or denials thereof
shall similarly be supported by affidavit. These responsive pleadings
shall be served on the applicant or petitioner, as appropriate, and
other parties to the proceeding.
14. A new Sec. 63.21 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 63.21 Conditions applicable to international Section 214
authorizations.
International carriers authorized under Section 214 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, must follow the following
requirements and prohibitions:
(a) Carriers may not resell private lines for the provision of
international
[[Page 15733]]
switched services unless the country at the foreign end of the private
line is deemed equivalent. See Sec. 63.18(e) (3) through (4).
(b) Carriers must file copies of operating agreements entered into
with their foreign correspondents within 30 days of their execution,
and shall otherwise comply with the filing requirements contained in
Sec. 43.51 of this chapter.
(c) Carriers must file tariffs pursuant to Section 203 of the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 203, and part 61 of this chapter.
(d) Carriers must file annual reports of overseas
telecommunications traffic as required by Sec. 43.61 of this chapter.
(e) Carriers regulated as dominant must provide the Commission with
the following information within 30 days after conveyance of
transmission capacity on submarine cables to other U.S. carriers:
(1) The name of the party to whom the capacity was conveyed;
(2) The name of the facility in which capacity was conveyed;
(3) The amount of capacity that was conveyed; and
(4) The price of the capacity conveyed.
15. Section 63.52 is amended by revising the section heading to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.52 Copies required; fees; and filing periods for domestic
authorizations.
* * * * *
16. Section 63.53 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.53 Form.
(a) Applications under Section 214 of the Communications Act shall
be submitted on paper not more than 21.6 cm (8.5 in) wide and not more
than 35.6 cm (14 in) long with a left-hand margin of 4 cm (1.5 in).
This requirement shall not apply to original documents, or admissible
copies thereof, offered as exhibits or to specially prepared exhibits.
The impression shall be on one side of the paper only and shall be
double-spaced, except that long quotations shall be single-spaced and
indented. All papers, except charts and maps, shall be typewritten or
prepared by mechanical processing methods, other than letter press, or
printed. The foregoing shall not apply to official publications. All
copies must be clearly legible.
(b) Applications submitted under Section 214 of the Communications
Act for international services may be submitted on computer diskettes
pursuant to a filing manual compiled by the International Bureau, but a
paper copy of the application with the original signature must
accompany the diskette. The manual will specify the type and format of
the computer diskettes and the reporting and procedural requirements
for such applications.
(c) Applications submitted under Section 214 of the Communications
Act for international services and any related pleadings that are in a
foreign language shall be accompanied by a certified translation in
English.
17. Section 63.62 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.62 Type of discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of
telephone or telegraph service requiring formal application.
* * * * *
(a) The dismantling or removal of a trunk line (for contents of
application see Sec. 63.500) for all domestic carriers and for dominant
international carriers except as modified in Sec. 63.19;
* * * * *
18. Section 63.71 is amended by revising the section heading to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.71 Special procedures for discontinuance, reduction or
impairment of service by domestic non-dominant carriers.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-8757 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8746 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision; Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District; San Diego County Air Pollution Control District; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15719-15721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8746]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 102-14-0004a; FRL-5441-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California
State Implementation Plan Revision; Mojave Desert Air Quality
Management District; San Diego County Air Pollution Control District;
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions concern rules
from the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD), San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD), and San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD). The rules
control oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from gas turbines, fuel-burning
equipment, and glass manufacturing plants. This approval action will
incorporate these rules into the Federally approved SIP. The intended
effect of approving these rules is to regulate emissions of NOX in
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in
1990 (CAA or the Act). The EPA is finalizing the approval of these
revisions into the California SIP under provisions of the CAA regarding
EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for national primary and secondary
ambient air quality standards, and plan requirements for nonattainment
areas.
DATES: This action is effective on June 10, 1996, unless adverse or
critical comments are received by May 9, 1996. If the effective date is
delayed, a timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the rules and EPA's evaluation report of each rule
are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX office during
normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rules are also available
for inspection at the following locations:
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M'' Street
SW., Washington, DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, 15428 Civic Drive, Suite
200, Victorville, CA 92392.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1999
Tuolumne Street, Suite 200, Fresno, CA 93721.
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive,
San Diego, CA 92123-1096.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae Wang, Rulemaking Section (A-5-3),
Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, Telephone: (415)
744-1200.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicability
The rules being approved into the California SIP include: MDAQMD
Rule 1159, Stationary Gas Turbines; SDCAPCD Rule 68, Fuel-Burning
Equipment--Oxides of Nitrogen; and SJVUAPCD Rule 4354, Glass Melting
Furnaces.
Background
On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA or
the Act) were enacted. Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42
U.S.C. 7401-7671q. The air quality planning requirements for the
reduction of NOX emissions through reasonably available control
technology (RACT) are set out in section 182(f) of the CAA. On November
25, 1992, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled
``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General
Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I;
Proposed Rule,'' (the NOX Supplement) which describes and provides
preliminary guidance on the requirements of section 182(f). 57 FR
55620. The NOX Supplement should be referred to for further
information on the NOX requirements and is incorporated into this
notice of direct final rulemaking by reference.
Section 182(f) of the Clean Air Act requires States to apply the
same requirements to major stationary sources of NOX (``major'' as
defined in section 302 and section 182 (c), (d), and (e)) as are
applied to major stationary sources of volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions, in moderate or above ozone nonattainment areas. The
Southeast Desert Air Basin is classified as severe, and both the San
Diego Area and the San Joaquin Valley Area are classified as serious;
1 therefore these areas were subject to section 182(f), the RACT
requirements of section 182(b)(2), and the November 15, 1992 deadline,
cited below.
\1\ The Southeast Desert Air Basin, the San Diego Area, and the
San Joaquin Valley Area retained their designations of nonattainment
and were classified by operation of law pursuant to sections 107(d)
and 181(a) upon the date of enactment of the CAA. See 55 FR 56694
(November 6, 1991). The San Diego Area was reclassified from severe
to serious on February 21, 1995. See 60 FR 3771 (January 19, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 182(b)(2) requires submittal of RACT rules for major
stationary sources of VOC (and NOX) emissions not covered by
either a pre-enactment or post-enactment control techniques guideline
(CTG) document by November 15, 1992. There were no NOX CTGs issued
before enactment and EPA has not issued a CTG document for any NOX
sources since enactment of the CAA. The RACT rules covering NOX
sources and submitted as SIP revisions, are expected to require final
installation of the actual NOX controls as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than May 31, 1995.
MDAQMD Rule 1159 was adopted by MDAQMD on February 22, 1995, and
was submitted by CARB to EPA on March 31, 1995. SDCAPCD Rule 68 was
adopted on September 20, 1994, and submitted on October 19, 1994.
SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 was adopted on September 14, 1994, and submitted on
September 28, 1994. These submitted rules were found to be complete on
May 2, 1995, October 21, 1994, and October 21, 1994, respectively,
pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR
Part 51 Appendix V.2 By today's notice, EPA is taking direct final
[[Page 15720]]
action to approve these rules into the Federally approved SIP.
\2\ EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990
(55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA,
revised the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDAQMD Rule 1159 controls emissions of NOX from gas turbines.
SDCAPCD Rule 68 regulates fuel-burning equipment and SJVUAPCD Rule 4354
controls emissions from glass melting furnaces. NOX emissions
contribute to the production of ground level ozone and smog. The rules
were adopted as part of each district's efforts to achieve the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and in response to the CAA
requirements cited above. The following section contains EPA's
evaluation and final action for these rules.
EPA Evaluation
In determining the approvability of a NOX rule, EPA must
evaluate the rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and
EPA regulations, as found in section 110 and part D of the CAA and 40
CFR part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption and Submittal of
Implementation Plans). The EPA interpretation of these requirements,
which forms the basis for this action, appears in various EPA policy
guidance documents.3 Among these provisions is the requirement
that a NOX rule must, at a minimum, provide for the implementation
of RACT for stationary sources of NOX emissions.
\3\ Among other things, the pre-amendment guidance consists of
those portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987); and
``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations, Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal
Register Notice'' (Blue Book) (notice of availability was published
in the Federal Register on May 25, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purposes of assisting state and local agencies in
developing NOX RACT rules, EPA prepared the NOX Supplement to
the General Preamble. In the NOX Supplement, EPA provides guidance
on how RACT will be determined for stationary sources of NOX
emissions. While most of the guidance issued by EPA on what constitutes
RACT for stationary sources has been directed towards application for
VOC sources, much of the guidance is also applicable to RACT for
stationary sources of NOX (see section 4.5 of the NOX
Supplement). In addition, pursuant to section 183(c), EPA is issuing
alternative control technique documents (ACTs), which identify
alternative controls for all categories of stationary sources of
NOX. The ACT documents will provide information on control
technology for stationary sources that emit or have the potential to
emit 25 tons per year or more of NOX. However, the ACTs will not
establish a presumptive norm for what is considered RACT for stationary
sources of NOX. In general, the guidance documents cited above, as
well as other relevant and applicable guidance documents, have been set
forth to ensure that submitted NOX RACT rules meet Federal RACT
requirements and are fully enforceable and strengthen or maintain the
SIP.
MDAQMD Rule 1159, Stationary Gas Turbines, is a new rule which
applies to non-utility stationary gas turbines of 0.3 Megawatt and
larger. Gas-fired turbines must meet an emission limit of 42 ppmv, and
oil-fired turbines must meet an emission limit of 65 ppmv. Operators
are required to install, operate, and maintain equipment to monitor
control system operating parameters, and conduct annual compliance
tests.
SDCAPCD Rule 68, Fuel-Burning Equipment--Oxides of Nitrogen,
controls NOX emissions from non-vehicular fuel-burning equipment.
Rule 68 contains the following significant changes from the current SIP
rule:
Emission limits have been added to the criteria for
exemption.
Definitions, recordkeeping requirements, and test methods
have been added.
SJVUAPCD Rule 4354, Glass Melting Furnaces, is a new rule which
controls emissions from non-electric glass melting furnaces. Container
glass and fiberglass furnaces must meet an emission limit of 5.5 lbs of
NOX per ton of glass pulled. Flat glass furnaces must meet a
production-based limit as defined by an equation included in the rule.
Annual source tests are required, and records must be kept of operation
hours, fuel used, and glass pulled.
A more detailed discussion of the sources controlled, the controls
required, and the justification for why these controls represent RACT
can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for each rule,
available from the U.S. EPA Region IX office.
EPA has evaluated the submitted rules and has determined that they
are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations and EPA policy. Therefore,
MDAQMD Rule 1159, SDCAPCD Rule 68, and SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 are being
approved under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the requirements
of section 110(a), section 182(b)(2), section 182(f) and the NOX
Supplement to the General Preamble.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any State implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the State implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
EPA is publishing this notice without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revisions
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be
effective June 10, 1996, unless, by May 9, 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 notice that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is
advised that this action will be effective June 10, 1996.
Regulatory Process
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 revision, the
State and any affected local or tribal governments have elected to
adopt the program provided for under part D of the Clean Air Act. 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
because affected sources are already subject to these regulations under
State law. Therefore, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments or to the private sector result from this action. EPA has
also determined that this direct 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.
[[Page 15721]]
Regulatory Flexibility Act
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.
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 affected small entities. 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. section 7410 (a)(2).
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under 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 review under Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compound.
Dated: March 6, 1996.
Felicia Marcus,
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 F--California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)
(199)(i)(D)(2), (202)(i)(C)(4), and (216)(i)(A)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(199) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) * * *
(2) Rule 4354, adopted on September 14, 1994.
* * * * *
(202) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(4) Rule 68, adopted on September 20, 1994.
* * * * *
(216) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(3) Rule 1159, adopted on February 22, 1995.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-8746 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8719 Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Revision of the Salable Quantity and Allotment Percentage for Class 1 (Scotch) Spearmint Oil for the 1995-96 Marketing Year
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15695-15697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8719]
========================================================================
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. 69 / Tuesday, April 9, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 15695]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 985
[FV96-985-1IFR]
Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Revision of the Salable
Quantity and Allotment Percentage for Class 1 (Scotch) Spearmint Oil
for the 1995-96 Marketing Year
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim final rule increases the quantity of Class 1
(Scotch) spearmint oil produced in the Far West that handlers may
purchase from, or handle for, producers during the 1995-96 marketing
year. This rule was recommended by the Spearmint Oil Administrative
Committee (Committee), the agency responsible for local administration
of the marketing order for spearmint oil produced in the Far West. The
Committee recommended this rule to avoid extreme fluctuations in
supplies and prices and thus help to maintain stability in the Far West
spearmint oil market.
DATES: Effective on April 9, 1996 through May 31, 1996; comments
received by May 9, 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 sent in triplicate to the Docket
Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, room 2525, South
Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456; Fax: (202) 720-
5698. All comments should reference the 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: Robert J. Curry, Northwest Marketing
Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and
Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, 1220 SW Third Avenue, room 369,
Portland, Oregon 97204-2807; telephone: (503) 326-2724; or Caroline C.
Thorpe, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable
Division, AMS, USDA, room 2525, South Building, P.O. Box 96456,
Washington, DC 20090-6456; telephone: (202) 720-8139.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing Order
No. 985 (7 CFR Part 985), regulating the handling of spearmint oil
produced in the Far West (Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and designated
parts of California, Nevada, Montana, and Utah), hereinafter referred
to as the ``order.'' This 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 rule in
conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. Under the provisions of the marketing order now in
effect, salable quantities and allotment percentages may be established
for classes of spearmint oil produced in the Far West. This rule
increases the quantity of Scotch spearmint oil produced in the Far West
that may be purchased from or handled for producers by handlers during
the 1995-96 marketing year, which ends on May 31, 1996. This rule will
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 action 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 eight spearmint oil handlers subject to regulation under
the order and approximately 260 producers of spearmint oil in the
regulated production area. Of the 260 producers, approximately 160
(Scotch) spearmint oil allotment base, and approximately 145 producers
hold Class 3 (Native) spearmint oil allotment base. Small agricultural
service firms have been defined by the Small Business Administration
(13 CFR 121.601) as those having annual receipts of less than
$5,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those whose
annual receipts are less than $500,000. A minority of handlers and
producers of Far West spearmint oil may be classified as small
entities.
The Far West spearmint oil industry is characterized by producers
whose farming operations generally involve more than one commodity and
whose income from farming operations are not exclusively dependent on
the production of spearmint oil. The U.S. production of spearmint oil
is concentrated in the Far West, primarily Washington, Idaho, and
Oregon (part of the area covered by the order). Spearmint oil is also
produced in the Midwest. The production area covered by the order
normally accounts for
[[Page 15696]]
approximately 75 percent of the annual U.S. production of spearmint
oil.
This rule increases the quantity of Scotch spearmint oil that
handlers may purchase from, or handle for, producers during the 1995-96
marketing year, which ends on May 31, 1996. This rule increases the
salable quantity from 908,531 pounds to 997,317 pounds and the
allotment percentage from 51 percent to 56 percent for Scotch spearmint
oil for the 1995-96 marketing year.
The salable quantity is the total quantity of each class of oil
that handlers may purchase from, or handle for, producers during a
marketing year. The salable quantity calculated by the Committee is
based on the estimated trade demand. The total salable quantity is
divided by the total industry allotment base to determine an allotment
percentage. Each producer is allotted a share of the salable quantity
by applying the allotment percentage to the producer's individual
allotment base for the applicable class of spearmint oil.
The initial salable quantity and allotment percentages for Scotch
and Native spearmint oils for the 1995-96 marketing year were
recommended by the Committee at its October 5, 1994, meeting. The
Committee recommended salable quantities of 908,531 pounds and 906,449
pounds, and allotment percentages of 51 percent and 46 percent,
respectively, for Scotch and Native spearmint oils. A proposed rule was
published in the December 15, 1994, issue of the Federal Register (59
FR 64624). Comments on the proposed rule were solicited from interested
persons until January 17, 1995. No comments were received. Accordingly,
based upon analysis of available information, a final rule establishing
the salable quantities and allotment percentages for Scotch and Native
spearmint oils for the 1995-96 marketing year was published in the
February 15, 1995, issue of the Federal Register (60 FR 8524). The
Committee met again on February 22, 1995, to recommend an increase in
the salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint oil.
An interim final rule increasing the salable quantity and allotment
percentage for Native spearmint oil by 98,527 and 5 percent,
respectively, was published in the Federal Register on April 14, 1995
(60 FR 18950). Comments were solicited on the interim final rule until
May 15, 1995. No comments were received. Accordingly, based upon
analysis of available information, a final rule establishing as the
salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native spearmint oil for
the 1995-96 marketing year was published in the June 12, 1995, issue of
the Federal Register (60 FR 30785).
Pursuant to authority contained in sections 985.50, 985.51, and
985.52 of the order, at its February 27, 1996, meeting, the Committee
unanimously recommended that the allotment percentage for Scotch
spearmint oil for the 1995-96 marketing year be increased by 5 percent
from 51 percent to 56 percent. The 1995-96 marketing year salable
quantity of 908,531 pounds would therefore be increased by 89,046
pounds to 997,317 pounds.
However, some Scotch spearmint oil producers did not produce all of
their individual salable quantities for the 1995-96 marketing year, or
fill their deficiencies from the prior year's production. The marketing
order authorizes such producers to have their deficiencies filled by
other producers who have production in excess of their salable
quantities. This is optional for producers, but must be done before
November 1 of each marketing year. Although the Scotch spearmint oil
salable quantity for 1995-96 was established at 908,531 pounds, only
887,093 pounds were actually made available. Unfilled deficiencies
totaled 21,178 pounds.
In addition, for the Scotch spearmint oil the total industry
allotment base of 1,781,433 pounds was revised to 1,780,923 pounds to
reflect loss of base due to non-production of their total annual
allotments. This adjustment resulted in a 510 pound loss of total
industry base, which is reflected in the calculations for the revised
salable quantity.
This interim final rule makes an additional amount of Scotch
spearmint oil available by increasing the salable quantity which
releases oil from the reserve pool. Only producers with Scotch
spearmint oil in the reserve pool will be able to use this increase in
the salable quantity. Prior to November 1, 1995, producers without
reserve pool oil or producers with an insufficient supply of reserve
oil could have deficiencies in meeting their salable quantities filled
by producers having excess Scotch spearmint oil. If all producers could
use their salable quantity, this 5 percent increase in the allotment
percentage would have made an additional 89,046 pounds of Scotch
spearmint oil available. However, Scotch spearmint oil producers having
21,260 pounds of Scotch spearmint oil will not be able to use their
reserve pool deficiencies this marketing year. Thus, rather than 89,046
additional pounds being made available, this action makes 67,786
additional pounds of Scotch spearmint oil available to the market.
The following table summarizes the Committee recommendation:
Scotch Spearmint Oil Recommendation
(a) Actual Carry In on June 1, 1995: 150,637 pounds
(b) 1995-96 Salable Quantity: 908,531 pounds
(c) 1995-96 Available Supply: 1,059,168 pounds (a+b)
(d) Total Sales as of February 27, 1996: 883,959 pounds
(e) Calculated Available Supply as of February 27, 1996: 175,209
pounds (c-d)
(f) Unfilled Deficiencies in producers' salable quantities prior to
November 1, 1995: 21,178 pounds
(g) Unusable salable quantities due to producers not having reserve
pool oil: 21,260 pounds
(h) Total Deficiency Affecting Salable Quantity: 42,438 pounds (f+g)
(i) Actual Available Supply (2/27/96): 153,771 pounds (e-f)
(j) Revised Total Allotment Base: 1,780,923 pounds
(k) Recommended Allotment Percentage (2/27/96): 56 percent
(l) Calculated Revised Salable Quantity: 997,317 pounds (j x k)
(m) Actual Oil Available as Salable Quantity: 954,879 pounds (l-h)
In making this latest recommendation, the Committee considered all
available information on supply and demand. The 1996-97 marketing year
begins on June 1, 1996. Handlers have indicated that with this action,
the available supply of both Scotch and Native spearmint oils appears
adequate to meet anticipated demand through May 31, 1996. However, with
increases in Scotch spearmint oil production elsewhere over the past
two years, the Committee has embarked on a strategy of maintaining an
abundance of Scotch spearmint oil available for market in an attempt to
regain lost market share. With 153,771 pounds of Scotch spearmint oil
available as of February 27, 1996, the Committee, believes that the
increase would ensure that ample supplies of Scotch spearmint oil are
available throughout the remainder of the current marketing year. When
the Committee made its initial recommendation for the establishment of
the Scotch spearmint oil salable quantity and allotment percentage for
the 1995-96 marketing year, it had anticipated that the year would end
with an ample available supply. With this revision, 221,557 pounds of
Scotch spearmint oil is made available for market during the remainder
of the 1995-96 marketing year.
The Department, based on its analysis of available information, has
determined
[[Page 15697]]
that an allotment percentage of 56 percent should be established for
Scotch spearmint oil for the 1995-96 marketing year. This percentage
will provide an increased calculated salable quantity of 997,317
pounds, the actual additional amount of Scotch spearmint oil being made
available by this interim final rule is 67,786 pounds. This results in
an actual salable quantity of 954,879 pounds of Scotch spearmint oil.
Based on available information, the Administrator of the AMS has
determined that the issuance of this interim final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including
that contained in the prior proposed and final rules in connection with
the establishment of the salable quantities and allotment percentages
for Scotch and Native spearmint oils for the 1995-96 marketing year,
the Committee's recommendation and other available information, it is
found that to revise section 985.214 (60 FR 8524) to change the salable
quantity and allotment percentage for Scotch spearmint oil, 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 interim final rule increases the quantity of Scotch
spearmint oil that may be marketed during the marketing year beginning
on June 1, 1995; (2) The quantity of Scotch spearmint planted for the
1996-97 marketing year may be affected, thus handlers and producers
should be apprised as soon as possible of the salable quantity and
allotment percentage of Scotch spearmint oil contained in this interim
final rule; and (3) 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 985
Marketing agreements, Oils and fats, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Spearmint oil.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 985 is
amended as follows:
PART 985--SPEARMINT OIL PRODUCED IN THE FAR WEST
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 985 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. Section 985.214 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Note: This section will not appear in the annual Code of Federal
Regulations.
Sec. 985.214 Salable quantities and allotment percentages-1995-96
marketing year.
The salable quantity and allotment percentage for each class of
spearmint oil during the marketing year beginning on June 1, 1995,
shall be as follows:
(a) Class 1 (Scotch) oil--a salable quantity of 997,317 pounds and
an allotment percentage of 56 percent.
* * * * *
Dated: April 2, 1996.
James R. Rodeheaver,
Acting Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-8719 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8704 Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Reduction in Crew Size Limit; Correction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8704]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 650
[Docket No. 9602226047-6047-01; I.D. 020696B]
Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Reduction in Crew Size Limit;
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.
020696B) that were published Tuesday, March 5, 1996 (61 FR 8490). The
regulations related to Framework Adjustment 7 to the Atlantic Sea
Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP) that permanently reduced the
maximum crew size from nine to seven.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 11, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul H. Jones, 508-281-9273.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background
The final regulations that are the subject of this correction
related to Framework Adjustment 7 to the FMP that permanently reduced
the maximum crew size from nine to seven in response to very high
levels of recruitment being documented in the Mid-Atlantic resources
area. The New England Fishery Management Council recommended lowering
the maximum crew size from nine to seven, because a smaller crew lowers
shucked-scallop production.
Need for Correction
As published, the final regulations contained incorrect wording in
a sentence under the ``Classification'' heading and an incorrect
reference to the Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, in Sec. 650.21(c). This
reference should have been to the Regional Director.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the publication on March 5, 1996, of the final
regulations (I.D. 020696B), which were the subject of FR Doc. 96-5017,
is corrected as follows:
1. On page 8492, in the first column, in line two, insert
``notice'' after the word prior and in line three remove ``notice''
after the word comment.
2. On page 8492, in the first column, in Sec. 650.21, paragraph (c)
is corrected to read as follows:
Sec. 650.21 Gear and crew restrictions.
* * * * *
(c) Crew restrictions. Limited access vessels participating in or
subject to the scallop DAS allocation program may have no more than
seven people aboard, including the operator, when not docked or moored
in port, unless participating in the small dredge program specified in
paragraph (e) of this section, or otherwise authorized by the Regional
Director.
* * * * *
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: April 3, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-8704 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8440 Approval of Volatile Organic Compound Regulations for Oklahoma
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15713-15715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8440]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[OK-12-1-7079a; FRL-5438-4]
Approval of Volatile Organic Compound Regulations for Oklahoma
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Oklahoma for the purpose of removing
equivalent test method and alternative standard language from the
Oklahoma volatile organic compound regulations. The SIP revision was
submitted by the State in follow-up to an agreement between Oklahoma
and EPA in conjunction with the Tulsa ozone redesignation request
published in the Federal Register on January 31, 1991. The rationale
for the approval is set forth in this document; additional information
is available at the address indicated in the ADDRESSES section.
DATES: This final rule is effective on June 10, 1996 unless adverse or
critical comments are received by May 9, 1996. If the effective date is
delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr.
Thomas Diggs, Chief (6PD-L), Air Planning Section, at the EPA Regional
Office listed below. Copies of the documents relevant to this action
are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following locations. Interested persons wanting to examine these
documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at
least 24 hours before the visiting day.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Multimedia Planning &
Permitting Division (6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas
75202-2733.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Program, 4545
North Lincoln Blvd., Suite 250, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105-3483.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James F. Davis, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Multimedia Planning & Permitting Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733, Telephone (214) 665-7584.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On May 16, 1994, the State of Oklahoma submitted to the EPA rules
for Oklahoma SIP revisions removing equivalent test method and
alternative standard language from the Oklahoma volatile organic
compound regulations. In addition to the State regulations, Oklahoma
submitted a summary and justification documenting the basis for this
SIP revision.
This particular revision is based on the September 28, 1990,
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the State of Oklahoma and the
EPA. This MOU agreement was reached as a condition for the
redesignation of the Tulsa ozone nonattainment area to attainment.
Essentially, the MOU required the State to remove the State's
[[Page 15714]]
equivalency language in Oklahoma Air Pollution Control Regulation
(OAPCR) 3.7, Sections OAPCR 3.7.5-4(g)(7)(A)(i)(b), OAPCR 3.7.5-
4(g)(9)(A), OAPCR 3.7.5-4(i)(3)(B)(1), and OAPCR 3.7.5-4(i)(3)(B)(3),
and to submit any alternative process or test method to the EPA as a
revision to the Federally approved SIP.
II. Analysis
The State's submittal shows that the State has removed its
equivalency language in OAPCR 3.7, Sections OAPCR 3.7.5-
4(g)(7)(A)(i)(b), OAPCR 3.7.5-4(g)(9)(A), OAPCR 3.7.5-4(i)(3)(B)(1),
and OAPCR 3.7.5-4(i)(3)(B)(3). In Section OAPCR 3.7.5-4(g)(7)(A)(i)(b)
under ``Alternative Standards,'' the word ``process'' was revised to
``equipment.'' In OAPCR 3.7.5-4(g)(9)(A), the phrase ``or other
equivalent methods'' was deleted from the section on specified test
methods for coatings of parts and products. In OAPCR 3.7.5-
4(i)(3)(B)(1), and OAPCR 3.7.5-4(i)(3)(B)(3), ``or an equivalent method
as determined by the Commissioner'' was deleted under testing
requirements of vapor recovery systems.
III. Final Action
In this action, the EPA is approving the SIP revision submitted by
the State of Oklahoma to remove equivalent test method and alternative
standard language from the State's SIP.
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 June 10, 1996 unless, by May 9, 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 June 10, 1996.
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 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, 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 Act, preparation of a regulatory
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of State actions. The Act forbids the EPA to base its
actions concerning SIP's 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, the 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, the 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 the 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
preexisting 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. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted
this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
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 June 10, 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, Volatile organic compounds.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the SIP for the State of
Oklahoma was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on
July 1, 1982.
Dated: February 8, 1996.
Jane N. Saginaw,
Regional Administrator (6A).
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 LL--Oklahoma
2. Section 52.1920 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(47) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1920 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(47) A revision to the Oklahoma SIP to include revisions to
Oklahoma Air Pollution Control Regulation 3.7--Control of Emissions of
Organic Materials, adopted by the State on
[[Page 15715]]
October 2, 1990, effective May 11, 1991 and submitted by the Governor
on May 16, 1994.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Revisions to Oklahoma Air Pollution Control Regulations 3.7,
Sections 3.7.5-4(g)(7)(A)(i)(b), 3.7.5-4(g)(9)(A), 3.7.5-4(i)(3)(B)(1),
and 3.7.5-4(i)(3)(B)(3) effective May 11, 1991.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) State SIP revision entitled, ``Oklahoma Alternative Standards
SIP Revision,'' which includes a completeness determination, SIP
narrative, hearing records and other documentation relevant to the
development of this SIP.
[FR Doc. 96-8440 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8438 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15704-15706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8438]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IN52-1-6978a; FRL-5452-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 8, 1995, the State of Indiana submitted a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for rule changes specific to
Richmond Power and Light's (RPL's) Whitewater Generating Station
located in Wayne County in Richmond, Indiana. The submittal provides
for less stringent limits on particulate matter (PM) emissions than
those currently in the SIP from both of the generating station's two
primary boilers. The submittal also adds a combined PM limit for those
times when both boilers are operating, establishes a site-specific
opacity limit for the facility, and specifies a site-specific method
for evaluating PM stack test results. The submittal includes air
quality modeling which shows that the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) will still be protected under the new regulations.
DATES: The ``direct final'' rule is effective on June 10, 1996, unless
USEPA receives adverse or critical comments by May 9, 1996. If the
effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision request are available for inspection
at
[[Page 15705]]
the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5,
Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that you telephone David Pohlman at
(312) 886-3299 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Pohlman at (312) 886-3299.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Indiana's submittal of August 8, 1995, contains revisions to three
rules. These rules are: Title 326 Indiana Administrative Code (326 IAC)
3-2.1-5, 326 IAC 5-1-2, and 326 IAC 6-1-14. The purpose of these
changes is to revise emission limits and testing procedures for
Richmond Power and Light's Whitewater Generating Station.
The proposed rules were published in the Indiana Register on July
1, 1994. Public hearings were held on the rules on January 5, 1994, and
August 3, 1995, in Indianapolis, Indiana. The rules were adopted by the
Indiana Air Pollution Control Board on August 3, 1994, became effective
on July 15, 1995, and were published in the Indiana Register on August
1, 1995.
II. Analysis of State Submittal
326 IAC 3-2.1-5 contains specific testing procedures for
particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile
organic compounds. This rule was previously submitted to the USEPA on
January 11, 1991. On February 8, 1994 (59 FR 5742), the USEPA proposed
to disapprove this rule because it contained unacceptable
``Commissioner's discretion'' language. This language allowed the
Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(IDEM) to authorize alternate emission test methods, changes in test
procedures, and alternate operating load levels. At this time, IDEM has
begun rulemaking to address the ``Commissioner discretion'' issue. In
addition, in the cover letter to its August 8, 1995 submission, IDEM
stated that, until that rulemaking can be completed and approved by
USEPA, no alternate emission test method, changes in test procedures,
or alternate operating load levels during testing will be granted to
RPL. Based on this representation, the submitted revisions to 326 IAC
3-2.1-5 are approvable as they apply to RPL.
The revisions to 326 IAC 3-2.1-5 also add the option for RPL to use
a time-weighted averaging period when evaluating stack tests that
require sootblowing. The time-weighted averaging provision contains an
equation to be used when averaging stack test results to determine
compliance. The equation is from a March 6, 1979 USEPA memorandum
titled ``NSPS Determination--Subpart D.'' This same guidance was
restated in a May 7, 1982, Memorandum from the Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise and Radiation to the Directors of the Regional Air
Divisions. The time-weighted averaging provision is, therefore,
consistent with USEPA policy and is approvable.
326 IAC 5-1-2 has been amended to establish a site-specific opacity
limit of 30 percent for Richmond Power and Light. The opacity limit is
reduced to 25 percent in May, 1999. Since this revision represents a
tightening of the SIP opacity limit from its previous level of 40
percent, this provision is approvable by the USEPA.
326 IAC 6-1-14 has been amended to provide PM limits of 0.19 pounds
per million British Thermal Units (lb/MMBTU) and 0.22 lb/MMBTU for coal
boilers numbers 1 and 2, respectively, at RPL's Whitewater Generating
Station. This is an increase from the former limits of 0.040 and 0.070
for boilers 1 and 2, respectively. The rule also provides for a
combined limit of 0.22 lb/MMBTU when boilers 1 and 2 are operating
together. Further changes to this rule were made to update the source
names in the table of Wayne County emission limits. The State
conducted, and submitted, a dispersion modeling analysis to demonstrate
that the relaxation of these limits would not cause a violation of the
NAAQS for PM. The analysis showed that highest, sixth-highest 24-hour
concentrations of PM would be 87.4 micrograms per cubic meter, and that
the maximum annual concentration would be 42.5 micrograms per cubic
meter. The NAAQS for PM are 150 and 50 micrograms per cubic meter for
24-hour and annual averages, respectively. Thus, the requested SIP
revision will protect the PM NAAQS in Wayne County, Indiana.
III. Final Rulemaking Action
Indiana's submittal includes revisions to 326 IAC 3-2.1-5, 5-1-2,
and 6-1-14. The USEPA has undertaken an analysis of this SIP revision
request based on a review of the materials presented by IDEM and has
determined that it is approvable because it is consistent with
applicable Clean Air Act provisions, including protection of the NAAQS
for PM in the Wayne County area.
The USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
USEPA views this action as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, USEPA is publishing a separate document
in this Federal Register publication, which constitutes a ``proposed
approval'' of the requested SIP revision and clarifies that the
rulemaking will not be deemed final if timely adverse or critical
comments are filed. The ``direct final'' approval shall be effective on
June 10, 1996, unless USEPA receives adverse or critical comments by
May 9, 1996. If USEPA receives comments adverse to or critical of the
approval discussed above, USEPA will withdraw this approval before its
effective date by publishing a subsequent Federal Register document
which withdraws this final action. All public comments received will
then be addressed in subsequent rulemaking. Please be aware that USEPA
will institute another comment period on this action only if warranted
by significant revisions to the rulemaking based on any comments
received in response to today's action. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time. If no such
comments are received, USEPA hereby advises the public that this action
will be effective on June 10, 1996.
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 9, 1995, memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted
this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. 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.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the
USEPA prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule
that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private
sector, of
[[Page 15706]]
$100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires the USEPA to
establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing, educating, and
advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely
affected by the rule.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the USEPA must
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must
be prepared. The USEPA must select from those alternatives the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the USEPA explains why this
alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative is
inconsistent with law.
Because this final rule is estimated to result in the expenditure
by State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of less
then $100 million in any one year, the USEPA has not prepared a
budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the selection of
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative.
Because small governments will not be significantly or uniquely
affected by this rule, the USEPA is not required to develop a plan with
regard to small governments. This rule only approves the incorporation
of existing state rules into the SIP. It imposes no additional
requirements.
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 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 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 the
State action. The Clean Air Act forbids USEPA to base its actions
concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. USEPA., 427 U.S.
246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
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 June 10, 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, Incorporation by
reference.
Dated: March 22, 1996.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 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)(107) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.770 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(107) On August 8, 1995, Indiana submitted a site specific SIP
revision request for Richmond Power and Light in Wayne County Indiana.
The submitted revisions provide for revised particulate matter and
opacity limitations on the number 1 and number 2 coal fired boilers at
Richmond Power and Light's Whitewater Generating Station. The revisions
also allow for time weighted averaging of stack test results at
Richmond Power and Light to account for soot blowing. Indiana is making
revisions to 326 IAC 3-2-1, which currently allows Indiana to authorize
alternative emission test methods for Richmond Power and Light. Until
the rule is revised to remove this authority, and approved by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, no alternate emission
test method, changes in test procedures or alternate operating load
levels during testing is to be granted to Richmond Power and Light.
(i) Incorporation by reference. Indiana Administrative Code Title
326: Air Pollution Control Board, Article 3: Monitoring Requirements,
Rule 2.1: Source Sampling Procedures, Section 5: Specific Testing
Procedures; Particulate Matter; Sulfur Dioxide; Nitrogen Oxides;
Volatile Organic Compounds; Article 5: Opacity Regulations, Rule 1:
Opacity Limitations, Section 2: Visible Emission Limitations; and
Article 6: Particulate Rules, Rule 1: Nonattainment Area Limitations,
Section 14: Wayne County. Added at 18 In. Reg. 2725. Effective July 15,
1995.
(ii) Additional Information. (A) August 8, 1995 letter from the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management to USEPA Region 5
regarding submittal of a state implementation plan revision for
Richmond Power and Light.
[FR Doc. 96-8438 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8436 Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan; Wisconsin; Lithographic Printing SIP Revision
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15706-15708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8436]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[WI61-01-7144a; FRL-5426-2]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan;
Wisconsin; Lithographic Printing SIP Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA approves a revision to the Wisconsin State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone that was submitted on May 12, 1995,
and supplemented on June 14, 1995, and November 14, 1995. This revision
consists of a volatile organic compound (VOC) regulation which
establishes reasonably available control technology (RACT) for
lithographic printing facilities. This regulation was submitted to
address, in part, the requirement of section 182(b)(2)(C) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) that states revise their SIPs to establish RACT
regulations for major sources of VOCs for which the USEPA has not
issued a control technology guidelines (CTG) document. In addition,
emission reductions resulting from this rule are being used by the
State to fulfill, in part, the requirement of section 182(b)(1) of the
Act that States submit a plan that provides for a 15 percent reduction
in VOC emissions by 1996.
In the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is
proposing approval of, and soliciting comments on, this requested SIP
revision. If
[[Page 15707]]
adverse comments are received on this action, the EPA will withdraw
this final rule and address the comments received in response to this
action in a final rule on the related proposed rule, which is being
published in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register. A
second public comment period will not be held. Parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time. This approval
makes federally enforceable the State's rule that has been incorporated
by reference.
DATES: The ``direct final'' is effective on June 10, 1996, unless EPA
receives adverse or critical comments by May 9, 1996. If the effective
date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
Copies of the proposed SIP revision and EPA's analysis are
available for inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. (Please telephone Kathleen D'Agostino at (312)
886-1767 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois
60604, (312) 886-1767.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 182(b) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended on November 15, 1990, sets forth the requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas which have been classified as moderate or above. In
Wisconsin, the counties of Kewaunee, Manitowoc, and Sheboygan and the
Milwaukee area (including Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine,
Washington, and Waukesha Counties) are classified as moderate or above.
Section 182(b)(2)(C) requires that states submit revisions to the SIP
for major sources of VOCs for which the EPA has not issued a control
technology guidelines (CTG) document. The USEPA was required to develop
a CTG document for lithographic printing by November 15, 1993. However,
because the USEPA failed to do this, the requirement of section
182(b)(2)(C) is applicable. Because there are lithographic printing
facilities in the nonattainment areas which exceed major threshold
levels, the State of Wisconsin developed a non-CTG regulation for this
category. This regulation was submitted to USEPA on May 12, 1995, and
supplemented on June 14, 1995.
Additionally, section 182(b)(1)(A) requires those states with ozone
nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above to submit plans to
reduce VOC emissions by at least 15 percent from the 1990 baseline
emissions. The 1990 baseline, as described by EPA's emission inventory
guidance, is the amount of anthropogenic VOC emissions emitted on a
typical summer day. Wisconsin submitted its 15 percent plan on June 14,
1995. Included in this plan were reductions generated by the
lithographic printing rule.
Wisconsin's rule applies to all lithographic printing presses at
any facility which is located in the county of Kenosha, Kewaunee,
Manitowoc, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, Washington or
Waukesha and which has maximum theoretical emissions (MTE) of VOCs from
all lithographic printing presses at the facility greater than or equal
to 1666 pounds in any month. This is roughly equivalent to an
applicability threshold of 10 tons per year MTE, which is well below
the major source threshold of 100 tons per year for moderate areas and
25 tons per year for severe areas.
The following is a summary of the emission limitations contained in
the State's regulation.
Dryer exhaust. For heatset web presses, NR 422.142(2)(a) requires
that a dryer pressure lower than the press room pressure must be
maintained at all points inside the dryer. Additionally, VOC emissions
from the press dryer exhaust must be reduced by 90 percent by weight of
total organics, minus methane and ethane, or the maximum dryer exhaust
outlet concentration must not exceed 20 ppmv, as carbon. The State's
rule allows a source to reduce VOC emissions in the dryer exhaust by 85
percent if it is controlled by a catalytic incinerator installed or
modified before January 1, 1992.
Fountain solutions. NR 422.142(2)(b) contains the requirements for
fountain solutions. For heatset web presses, when printing on a
substrate other than metal, metal-foil or plastic, the fountain
solution must have an as applied VOC content of no more than one of the
following: (1) 1.6 percent by weight if the fountain solution contains
any restricted alcohol and is not refrigerated to 60 deg.F or less; (2)
3.0 percent by weight if the fountain solution contains any restricted
alcohol and is refrigerated to 60 deg.F or less; and 5.0 percent by
weight if the fountain solution contains no restricted alcohol.
(Restricted alcohol is defined as an alcohol which contains only one
hydroxyl (--OH) group and less than 5 carbon atoms.)
For non-heatset web presses, when printing on a substrate other
than metal, metal-foil or plastic, the fountain solution must have an
as applied VOC content of no more than 5.0 percent by weight and
contain no restricted alcohol.
For sheet-fed presses, when printing on a substrate other than
metal, metal-foil or plastic, the fountain solution must have an as
applied VOC content of no more than 5.0 percent by weight, or 8.5
percent by weight if the fountain solution is refrigerated to 60 deg.F
or less.
When printing on metal, metal-foil, or plastic substrates, the
fountain solution must have an as applied VOC content of no more than
13.5 percent by weight if the fountain solution contains any restricted
alcohol and is refrigerated to 60 deg.F or less or the VOC content
allowed above, as appropriate for the type of press operated.
Blanket or roller wash. The provisions related to blanket or roller
washes are found at NR 422.142(2)(c). In general, blanket or roller
washes must have an as applied VOC content of no greater than 30
percent by weight, or a vapor pressure for each VOC component of less
than or equal to 10 millimeters of mercury at 68 deg.F. The State does
allow an exemption from this requirement provided that the amount used
at the facility over any 12 consecutive months does not exceed 55
gallons, if the facility does not print on plastic substrates, or 165
gallons, if the facility does print on plastic substrates.
The State's regulation includes appropriate compliance testing,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements at NR 422.142 (4), (5) and
(6). Sources are required to comply with the State's regulation by July
1, 1996, and to submit written certification of compliance no later
than September 1, 1996.
A more detailed analysis of the State's submittal is contained in
EPA's technical support document dated November 22, 1995. In
determining the approvability of this VOC rule, EPA evaluated the rule
for consistency with Federal requirements, including section 110 and
part D of the Clean Air Act. In addition, EPA has reviewed the
Wisconsin rule in accordance with EPA policy guidance documents,
including: Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Offset
Lithographic Printing: Draft, September 1993, EPA's Offset Lithographic
Printing Model Rule, draft dated July 7, 1994; Alternative Control
Techniques Document: Offset
[[Page 15708]]
Lithographic Printing, June 1994; and a memorandum from G.T. Helms to
the Air Branch Chiefs, dated August 10, 1990, on the subject of
``Exemption for Low-Use Coatings.'' The EPA has found that this rule
meets the requirements applicable to ozone and is, therefore,
approvable for incorporation into the State's ozone SIP.
Because the EPA considers this action noncontroversial and routine,
we are approving it without prior proposal. This action will become
effective on June 10, 1996. However, if we receive adverse comments by
May 9, 1996, EPA will publish a document that withdraws this action.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. The EPA 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.
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.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 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. Secs. 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.
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 EPA to base its
actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.
EPA, 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 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, the 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 the EPA to establish a
plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
The 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 preexisting-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.
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 June 10, 1996. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review, nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 29, 1996.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
40 CFR part 52, Subpart YY, is amended as follows:
Subpart YY--Wisconsin
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. Section 52.2570 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(89) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2570 Identification of Plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(89) A revision to the ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) was
submitted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources on May 12,
1995, and supplemented on June 14, 1995 and November 14, 1995. This
revision consists of volatile organic compound regulations which
establish reasonably available control technology for lithographic
printing facilities.
(i) Incorporation by reference. The following sections of the
Wisconsin Administrative Code are incorporated by reference.
(A) NR 422.02(6), (18s), (21e), (24p), (24q), (28g), (37v), (41y)
and (50v) as created and published in the (Wisconsin) Register, June,
1995, No. 474, effective July 1, 1995.
(B) NR 422.04(4) as amended and published in the (Wisconsin)
Register, June, 1995, No. 474, effective July 1, 1995.
(C) NR 422.142 as created and published in the (Wisconsin)
Register, June, 1995, No. 474, effective July 1, 1995.
(D) NR 439.04(5)(d)1.(intro.) as renumbered from
439.04(5)(d)(intro.), amended, and published in the (Wisconsin)
Register, June, 1995, No. 474, effective July 1, 1995.
(E) NR 439.04(5)(d)1. a. and b. as renumbered from 439.04(5)(d)1.
and 2., and published in the (Wisconsin) Register, June, 1995, No. 474,
effective July 1, 1995.
(F) NR 439.04(5)(d)2 as created and published in the (Wisconsin)
Register, June, 1995, No. 474, effective July 1, 1995.
(G) NR 439.04(5)(e)(intro.) as amended and published in the
(Wisconsin) Register, June, 1995, No. 474, effective July 1, 1995.
(H) NR 439.06(3)(j) as created and published in the (Wisconsin)
Register, June, 1995, No. 474, effective July 1, 1995.
(I) NR 484.04(13m), (15e) and (15m) as created and published in the
(Wisconsin) Register, June, 1995, No. 474, effective July 1, 1995.
(J) NR 484.10(39m) as created and published in the (Wisconsin)
Register, June, 1995, No. 474, effective July 1, 1995.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-8436 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8435 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois: Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15715-15717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8435]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IL133-1-7125a; FRL-5434-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Illinois: Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
AGENCY: United States 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 June
26, 1995, by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). This
revision is a formal submittal of the 1992 motor vehicle emission
inspection and maintenance (I/M) program enhancements developed and
implemented, in part, as a response to the 1989 Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP) agreement between Illinois and Wisconsin, and USEPA. The
volatile organic compound (VOC) emission reduction from these
improvements are creditable reduction toward achieving the 15 percent
Reasonable Further Progress requirements toward attainment of the
public health based ozone air quality standard. Illinois estimates that
these program improvements achieve 8.4 tons per day (TPD) VOC reduction
in the Chicago area and 0.2 TPD reduction in the East St. Louis area.
The Chicago and East St. Louis ozone nonattainment 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 these program enhancements in the
areas stated above, have contributed to the further reduction of
vehicle emissions which contribute to the formation of urban smog in
Illinois. 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 will be effective on June 10, 1996 unless
adverse or critical comments are received by May 9, 1996. If the
effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Illinois' 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, 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 (5AR-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 (5AR-
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
Pursuant to the requirements of the 1977 Clean Air Act, the
Illinois General Assembly adopted legislation and signed into law in
September 1984 the legal authority and funding mechanism for an I/M
program in the State of Illinois. The State of Illinois contracted with
Systems Control, Inc., to develop and operate a centralized network of
testing facilities in both the Chicago and East St. Louis ozone
nonattainment areas. The Illinois vehicle I/M program officially began
testing vehicles on May 1, 1986.
In 1989, Illinois, Wisconsin, and USEPA entered into a settlement
agreement concerning various matters relating to compliance with
certain provisions of the Clean Air Act (Wisconsin v. Reilly, Case No.
87-C-0395, E.D. Wis.). Among other things, the agreement required that
Illinois develop and implement enhancements to its I/M program which
would make it equivalent in performance to the enhanced I/M-anti-
tampering program described in USEPA's November 24, 1987 proposal on
its post-1987 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Plan Revisions for Areas Not
Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, (52 FR 45044,
November 24, 1987). On October 30, 1989, Illinois submitted to USEPA a
preliminary design and implementation schedule of program enhancements
which would enable Illinois to meet the applicable standard. On October
4, 1990, USEPA gave final approval to Illinois' I/M program as part of
the State's 1982 ozone/CO SIP (55 FR 40658); however, USEPA noted at 55
FR 40660 that Illinois was continuing to work on necessary enhancements
to the I/M program and that USEPA would take action on these
enhancements at a future date.
On June 29, 1990, the General Assembly of the State of Illinois
adopted Public Act 86-1433, which consists of amendments to the
Illinois Vehicle Code, and the Illinois Motor Fuel Tax Law. These
amendments became law on September 12, 1990 when it was signed without
change by the Governor of the State. The legislation amended five
sections of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/13A-102, 13A-103,
14A-104, 15A-105, and 12A-106).
Based on the authority of the Illinois legislation, IEPA prepared
implementing procedural rules and published them for First Notice at
Volume 15, Issue #38, p. 13607 of the Illinois Register (September 20,
1991). The proposed rules subsequently became effective on June 15,
1992, and were published in the Illinois Register on June 26, 1992 at
Volume 16, Issue #26. These rules amended previous regulations on fleet
testing requirements, inspection procedures, sticker issuance
requirements, and requirements for low emission tuneups, and added a
new section for tamper check procedures.
II. Background
On June 26, 1995, IEPA submitted to USEPA a SIP revision containing
I/M enhancements implemented in the Illinois program between January 1,
1991 through December 31, 1992. The Illinois submittal seeks USEPA
approval of the 1992 program enhancements. The State is taking emission
reduction credits acquired from these enhancements for purposes of
meeting requirements related to the 15% Reasonable Further Progress
Plan for the Chicago and East St. Louis ozone nonattainment areas. In
addition, IEPA believes that all material submitted in
[[Page 15716]]
the Illinois SIP has undergone an appropriate level of public review
during the legislative and rulemaking processes and that all applicable
state and federal public hearing requirements for this SIP submittal
have been met.
III. EPA's Analysis of the Illinois 1992 Enhancements
The Illinois ozone SIP revision submitted to USEPA on June 26,
1995, contains the legal authority to implement the 1992 enhancements
to the Illinois I/M program. The legal authority to implement such
enhancements was submitted in the form of State legislative authority
approved on September 12, 1990 by Illinois Governor Edgar. In addition,
the state also prepared implementing procedural rules based on the
legislative authority and submitted such rules as part of this SIP.
Such rules were published in the Illinois Register on June 26, 1992 at
Volume 16, Issue #26.
The Illinois legislation established a ``hybrid'' test frequency
schedule which incorporated a three-year new vehicle exemption period,
a biennial frequency for three to seven year old vehicles, and annual
testing for eight year and older vehicles. In addition, the legislation
contained the authority to incorporate a three element anti-tampering
inspection into the inspection requirement for 1975 and later model
year vehicles beginning on July 1, 1991. Finally, the legislation
established the geographic expansion of the inspection area into
previously exempt portions of DuPage County; most of the previously
exempt portions of Lake county; and into portions of Kane and Will
Counties starting on January 1, 1992. In addition to the above
requirements, the legislation also included other minor provisions
affecting the I/M program including the ability for fleets of 15 or
more vehicles, which are subject to the inspection, to establish and
operate a Private Official Inspection Station. After review of the
Illinois I/M legislation and submittal USEPA finds the above provisions
approvable.
The procedural rules submitted along with the legislation in the
Illinois SIP includes two new sections and fifteen amended sections to
Part 276 of the Illinois Administrative Code Title 35. The procedural
rules include the tamper check procedures to be followed when
performing the tamper check as part of the emission inspection. The
rules prohibit the testing of any vehicle with apparent fuel or oil
leaks, as well as any vehicle missing tail pipe sections which prevent
the ability to test the vehicle properly. The tamper check consists of
the visual inspection of the catalytic converter in addition to a fuel
cap inspection and the fuel inlet restrictor inspection. In addition,
the rules prohibit vehicles from receiving a waiver or passing the
emission test unless the vehicle successfully passes the tamper check.
Other provisions in the rule includes a revision to the program's
procedures with regard to initial and corrected emission inspection
stickers; a revision to the program's fleet inspection station
operation requirements. The provision submitted in the Illinois SIP
were fully implemented by January 1, 1992 and are acceptable to USEPA.
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 June 10, 1996 unless, by May 9, 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 June 10, 1996.
Final Action
USEPA is approving this revision to the Illinois SIP for the 1992
enhancements to Illinois' vehicle 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
August 1, 1995. 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). [Page 28726]
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. To the extent that the
[[Page 15717]]
rules being approved by this action will impose any enforceable duty
upon the State, local, or tribal governments, or upon the private
sector, USEPA'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 not include a Federal mandate.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, 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)(122) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.720 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(122) On June 26, 1995, the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (IEPA) submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
containing the 1992 enhancements to the Illinois vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program. Such enhancements were originally developed
to meet the I/M performance standard as called for in the United States
Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA's) proposed `post-1987' I/M
SIP policy and specified in the settlement agreement entered into by
the parties in Wisconsin v. Reilly, Case No. 87-C-0395, E.D. Wis. The
submittal includes authorizing legislation P.A. 86-1433, signed into
law on September 12, 1990 and procedural rules published in the
Illinois Register on June 26, 1992 at Volume 16, Issue #16.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) 35 Illinois Administrative Code 276; Sections 276.101, 276.102,
276.204, 276.206, 276.301, 276.303, 276.304, 276.307, 276.308, 276.309,
276.310, 276.311, 276.401, 276.402, 276.701, 276.702, and 276.703
amended or added at 16 Ill. Reg. 10230, effective June 15, 1992.
(ii) Other material.
(A) Public Act 86-1433 adopted by the Illinois General Assembly on
June 29, 1990, signed into law by Governor Edgar on September 12, 1990
effective September 12, 1990 (Sections 2,3, and 4) and January 1, 1991
(Section 1). (B) June 26, 1995 letter and attachments from the IEPA's
Bureau of Air Chief to the USEPA's Regional Air and Radiation Division
Director submitting Illinois' revision to the ozone SIP.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-8435 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8432 Clean Air Act Approval and Promulgation of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and General Permitting Provisions Implementation Plan for Arizona State Pinal County Air Quality Control District
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15717-15719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8432]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[AZ 063-0001a; FRL-5443-7]
Clean Air Act Approval and Promulgation of Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and General Permitting Provisions
Implementation Plan for Arizona State Pinal County Air Quality Control
District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating direct final approval of portions of a
requested State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Arizona on behalf of Pinal County for the purpose of meeting
requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act)
with regard to general permitting and prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) programs in areas of Pinal County that are in
attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The
requested revision was submitted by the State to satisfy certain
Federal requirements for an approvable SIP.
EPA is taking this action to approve the portions of Pinal's rules
identified below into the SIP for the purpose of meeting the PSD and
preconstruction permitting requirements of 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164
and 51.166, under the authority granted by 40 CFR 51.105. Approval of
Pinal's rules for the purposes of meeting the nonattainment
preconstruction permitting requirements of 40 CFR 51.165 will take
place under a separate action. This action does not in any way imply
that Pinal's nonattainment permitting provisions meet the requirements
of Sec. Sec. 171, 172, 173, 181, 182, 187, or 189 of the CAA. Failure
on Pinal's part to submit rules which meet the requirements of 40 CFR
51.165 may trigger sanctions as provided for under Sec. 179 of the
Clean Air Act.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective on June 10, 1996 unless
adverse or critical comments are received by May 9, 1996. If the
effective date is delayed, a timely notice will be published in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's submittal and other information are
available for inspection during normal business hours at the following
locations: (1) EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105; (2) State of Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 3033
North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Gaylord (telephone: 415-744-
1290), or Steve Ringer (telephone: 415-744-1260), New Source Section,
Air & Toxics Division (A-5-1), EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The air quality planning requirements for
attainment areas are set out in 40 CFR 51.166. The general air quality
permitting requirements are set out in 40 CFR 51.160-51.164.
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) and section 110(l) of the Act provide that each
implementation plan or revision to an implementation plan submitted by
a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing.
ADEQ held a public hearing on August 9, 1994, to entertain public
comment on the proposal to submit portions of Pinal County's Code of
Regulations as a revision to the SIP. On August 16, 1994 the rules were
submitted to EPA as a proposed revision to the Arizona SIP. On May 31,
1995 and November 27, 1995, ADEQ submitted applicable portions of the
original submittal which had subsequently been revised by Pinal County
(the Pinal County portion of the August 16, 1994 submittal and its
subsequent revisions will hereafter be referred to as ``the submitted
rules'').
The November 27, 1995 SIP revision was reviewed by EPA and
determined to be complete on February 2, 1996. The submitted rules
contain all of the general permitting and PSD requirements but lack
certain nonattainment new source review (NSR) requirements that would
make them
[[Page 15718]]
fully approvable. In this action, EPA is therefore promulgating
approval of only those portions of the submitted rules which are
necessary to meet the general permitting and PSD requirements contained
in 40 CFR 51.160-51.164 and 51.166. The specific rules that EPA is
promulgating approval of are listed below. EPA believes that these
rules are separable and that their independent approval does not affect
their stringency. EPA will therefore act at a later date on the
portions of the submitted rules which are intended to satisfy the
requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.165.
EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, should adverse or critical comments be
filed, EPA is proposing in a separate document in this Federal Register
publication, approval of those portions of the submitted rules that are
necessary to meet the general permitting and PSD requirements.
If EPA receives adverse or critical 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 with this action serving
as the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment
period. 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 June 10, 1996.
Pinal County is currently designated as attainment or
unclassifiable for carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and
sulfur dioxide, and partial nonattainment for particulate matter
(PM10). The specific PM10 nonattainment areas is the planning
area Hayden/Miami, which is classified as moderate nonattainment for
PM10. The preconstruction requirements for PSD permitting are
found at section 165 of the Clean Air Act. The submitted rules satisfy
these requirements. For a detailed description of how the submitted
rules meet the applicable requirements, please refer to EPA's Technical
Support Document (TSD).
Proposed Action
EPA is promulgating direct final approval of the portions of the
submitted rules that contain the general and PSD permitting provisions.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the following sections of the
submitted rules into the Arizona SIP:
Chapter 1, General Provisions & Definitions, Articles 1
(Provisions), 2 (Incorporated Materials), and 3 (Definitions).
Chapter 2, Ambient Air Quality Standards, Articles 1 (Air Quality
Standards), 2 (Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Methods & Procedures), 3
(Interpretation of Ambient Air Quality Standards & Evaluation of Air
Quality Data), 4 (Attainment Area Classification), 5 (Limitation of
Pollutants in Attainment Areas), 6 (Violations), and 7 (Air Pollution
Emergency Episodes).
Chapter 3, Permits and Permit Revisions, Articles 1 (General
Provisions Relating to Permits & Permit Revisions), 2 (Permit
Amendments and Revisions), and the following sections of Article 3,
section 200 (Purpose), section 203 (Definitions), section 205
(Application Requirements), section 210 (Application Review Process),
section 250 (Permit and Permit Revision Requirements For Sources
Located In Attainment and Unclassifiable Areas), section 260 (Air
Quality Impact Analysis and Monitoring Requirements), section 270
(Innovative Control technology), section 275 (Air Quality Models), and
section 280 (Visibility Protections).
It should be noted here that approval of these sections does not
indicate that portions of the rule intended to meet requirements of
Title V of the CAA are now federally-enforceable. Approval of a Title V
program is a separate action.
EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of the requested SIP
revision and EPA's proposed rulemaking action. Comments received by the
date indicated above will be considered in the development of EPA's
final rule.
Administrative Review
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the 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 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 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).
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from
review under Executive Order 12866.
Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 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. EPA has determined that
the approval proposed in this document does not include such a federal
mandate, as this proposed federal action would approve pre-existing
requirements under state or local law, and would impose no new federal
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this
action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, New source review, Nitrogen dioxide,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: March 3, 1996.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
Subpart D of part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
[[Page 15719]]
Subpart D--Arizona
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(84) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(84) Amended regulations for the Pinal County Air Quality Control
District were submitted on November 27, 1995, by the Governor's
designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Pinal County Air Quality Control District Code of Regulations:
Chapter 1, Articles 1 through 3; Chapter 2, Articles 1 through 7;
Chapter 3, Articles 1, 2, and the following sections of Article 3,
Section 200, Section 203, Section 205, Section 210, Section 250,
Section 260, Section 270, Section 275, and Section 280. Adopted on
October 12, 1995.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-8432 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8430 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Approval of Source-Specific VOC and NOINFX RACT and Synthetic Minor Permit Conditions, and 1990 Baseyear Emissions for One Source
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15708-15713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8430]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15709]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[PA 52-2-7155a, 55-2-7137a, PA 58-1-7138a, PA 64-1-7139a, PA 66-2-
7140a, PA 071-4008a, PA 079-4009a; FRL-5442-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Approval of Source-Specific VOC and NOX RACT and
Synthetic Minor Permit Conditions, and 1990 Baseyear Emissions for One
Source
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This revision
establishes and requires reasonably available control technology (RACT)
on twenty major sources, establishes permit conditions to limit one
source's emissions to below major source levels, and establishes 1990
baseyear VOC and NOX emissions for one source. This action affects
a total of 21 sources. The intended effect of this action is to approve
source-specific plan approvals and operating permits and emission
inventory figures for emission units at one source, which establish the
above-mentioned requirements in accordance with the Clean Air Act. This
action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This action is effective June 10, 1996 unless notice is received
on or before May 9, 1996 that adverse or critical comments will be
submitted. If the effective date is delayed, timely notice will be
published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Marcia L. Spink, Associate
Director, Air Programs, Mailcode 3AT00, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19107. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available
for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air,
Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107;
the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control,
P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia H. Stahl, (215) 597-9337, at
the EPA Region III office or via e-mail at stahl.cynthia@epamail.
epa.gov. While information may be requested via e-mail, comments must
be submitted in writing to the above Region III address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 6, 1995, April 19, 1995, May 10,
1995, May 31, 1995, August 11, 1995, October 24, 1995, and December 8,
1995, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania submitted formal revisions to
its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revisions that are the
subject of this rulemaking consist of plan approvals and operating
permits for 20 individual sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and/or nitrogen oxides (NOX) located in Pennsylvania. This
rulemaking addresses those plan approvals and operating permits
pertaining to the following sources: (1) Tenneco Gas Pipeline Company--
Station 313, (2) Corning Asahi Video Products Company, (3) Pennsylvania
Power Company--New Castle plant, (4) Columbia Gas Transmission
Company--Easton, (5) Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation--
Bechtelsville, (6) Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation--Grantville,
(7) Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation--Shermans Dale, (8) Texas
Eastern Transmission Corporation--Bedford, (9) Texas Eastern
Transmission Corporation--Perulack/Leidy, (10) Texas Eastern
Transmission Corporation--Bernville, (11) Texas Eastern Transmission
Corporation--Marietta, (12) Hercules Cement Company, (13) Lone Star
Industries, (14) International Paper Company--Hammermill Papers
Division, (15) Pennsylvania Power & Light--Montour SES, (16)
Pennsylvania Electric Company--Shawville, (17) Zinc Corporation of
America--Monaca, (18) Procter and Gamble Paper Products--Mehoopany,
(19) Metropolitan Edison--Portland Generating Station, (20) Columbia
Gas Transmission Corporation--Union City. In addition, on August 11,
1995 (as amended on November 15, 1995), Pennsylvania submitted a RACT
determination and 1990 baseyear emission inventory figures for U.S.
Steel--Fairless Hills for EPA approval into the Pennsylvania SIP.
Therefore, this rulemaking will also address the approval of the RACT
determination for certain emission units at U.S. Steel--Fairless and
the establishment of 1990 baseyear emissions for these emission units.
The other plan approvals and operating permits submitted together with
these being approved today will be addressed in another rulemaking
action.
Pursuant to sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), Pennsylvania is required to implement RACT for all major VOC and
NOX sources by no later than May 31, 1995. The major source size
is determined by its location, the classification of that area and
whether it is located in the ozone transport region (OTR), which is
established by the CAA. The Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia
ozone nonattainment area consists of Bucks, Chester, Delaware,
Montgomery, and Philadelphia Counties and is classified as severe. The
remaining counties in Pennsylvania are classified as either moderate or
marginal nonattainment areas or are designated attainment for ozone.
However, under section 184 of the CAA, at a minimum, moderate ozone
nonattainment area requirements (including RACT as specified in
sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)) apply throughout the OTR. Therefore,
RACT is applicable statewide in Pennsylvania. The January 6, 1995,
April 19, 1995, May 10, 1995, May 31, 1995, August 11, 1995 (as amended
on November 15, 1995), and October 24, 1995 Pennsylvania submittals
that are the subject of this document, are meant to satisfy the RACT
requirements for 20 sources in Pennsylvania and to limit the potential
VOC emissions at one source to below the major source size threshold in
order to avoid the RACT requirement.
Summary of SIP Revision
The details of the RACT requirements for the source-specific plan
approvals and operating permits can be found in the docket and
accompanying technical support document and will not be reiterated in
this document. Briefly, EPA is approving eight plan approvals and
twenty operating permits and one compliance permit as RACT and one
operating permit as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP to limit a
source's emissions to below the major source threshold. Several of the
plan approvals and operating permits contain conditions irrelevant to
the determination of VOC or NOX RACT. Consequently, these
provisions are not being included in this approval for VOC or NOX
RACT. In addition, a correction to the 1990 baseyear emissions
inventory for one source is being made through this rulemaking action.
RACT
EPA is approving the plan approval (PA 53-0001), operating permit
(OP 53-0001), and compliance permit (CP 53-0001) for Tennessee Gas
Pipeline Company--Station 313, located in Potter County. Tennessee Gas
Pipeline Company--Station 313 is a natural gas
[[Page 15710]]
transmission and gas storage station and is considered a major source
of NOX emissions. The compliance permit allows the Company until
May 31, 1996 to comply with the RACT requirements for the installation
of nonselective catalytic reduction (NSCR) technology. EPA is approving
the operating permits (OP 14-0003, OP 14-309-010A, OP 14-309-010C and
OP 14-309-037A) for Corning Asahi Video Products Company, located in
Centre County. Corning Asahi Video Products Company is a glass
manufacturer and is considered a major source of NOX emissions.
EPA is approving the operating permit (OP 37-023) for Pennsylvania
Power Company--New Castle plant, located in Lawrence County.
Pennsylvania Power Company--New Castle is a utility and is considered a
major source of VOC and NOX emissions. EPA is approving the
operating permit (OP 48-0001) and plan approval (PA 48-0001A) for
Columbia Gas Transmission Company--Easton, located in Northampton
County. Columbia Gas Transmission Company--Easton is a natural gas
compressor station and is considered a major source of NOX
emissions. EPA is approving the operating permit (OP 06-1034) for Texas
Eastern Transmission Corporation--Bechtelsville, located in Berks
County. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.--Bechtelsville is a natural
gas compressor station and is considered a major source of NOX
emissions. EPA is approving the operating permit (OP 22-2010) for Texas
Eastern Transmission Corporation--Grantville, located in Dauphin
County. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.--Grantville is a natural gas
compressor station and is considered a major source of NOX
emissions. EPA is approving the operating permit (OP 50-2001) for Texas
Eastern Transmission Corporation--Shermans Dale, located in Perry
County. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.--Shermans Dale is a natural
gas compressor station and is considered a major source of NOX
emissions. EPA is approving the operating permit (OP 05-2007) for Texas
Eastern Transmission Corporation--Bedford, located in Bedford County.
Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.--Bedford is a natural gas compressor
station and is considered a major source of NOX emissions. EPA is
approving the operating permit (OP 34-2002) for Texas Eastern
Transmission Corporation--Perulack/Leidy, located in Juniata County.
Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.--Perulack/Leidy is a natural gas
compressor station and is considered a major source of NOX
emissions. EPA is approving the operating permit (OP 06-1033) for Texas
Eastern Transmission Corporation--Bernville, located in Berks County.
Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.--Bernville is a natural gas compressor
station and is considered a major source of NOX emissions. EPA is
approving the plan approval (PA 36-2025) for Texas Eastern Transmission
Corporation--Marietta, located in Lancaster County. Texas Eastern
Transmission Corp.--Marietta is a natural gas compressor station and is
considered a major source of NOX emissions. EPA is approving the
plan approval (PA 48-0005A) and operating permit (OP 48-005) for
Hercules Cement Company, located in Northampton County. Hercules Cement
Company is a cement manufacturer and is considered a major source of
NOX emissions. EPA is approving the operating permit (OP 48-0007)
for Lone Star Industries, located in Northampton County. Lone Star
Industries is a cement manufacturer and is considered a major source of
NOX emissions. EPA is approving the operating permit (OP 18-0005)
for International Paper Company - Hammermill Papers Division, located
in Clinton County. International Paper Company--Hammermill is a paper
manufacturer and is considered a major source of VOC and NOX
emissions. EPA is approving the plan approval (PA 47-0001A) and
operating permit (OP 47-0001) for Pennsylvania Power & Light (PP&L)--
Montour SES, located in Montour County. PP&L--Montour is a utility and
is considered a major source of VOC and NOX emissions. EPA is
approving the plan approval (PA 17-0001) for Pennsylvania Electric
Company (Penelec)--Shawville, located in Clearfield County. Penelec--
Shawville is a utility and is considered a major source of VOC and
NOX emissions. EPA is approving the operating permit (OP 04-000-
044) for Zinc Corporation of America--Monaca, located in Beaver County.
Zinc Corporation of America--Monaca is a zinc smelting facility and is
considered a major source of NOX emissions. EPA is approving the
plan approval (PA 66-0001A) and operating permit (OP 66-0001) for
Procter and Gamble Paper Products--Mehoopany, located in Wyoming
County. Procter and Gamble--Mehoopany is a pulp and paper making
facility and is considered a major source of VOC and NOX
emissions. EPA is approving the plan approval (PA 48-0006A) and
operating permit (48-0006) for Metropolitan Edison--Portland Generating
Station, located in Northampton County. Metropolitan Edison--Portland
is a utility and is considered a major source of NOX emissions.
The specific emission limitations and other RACT requirements for
these sources are summarized in the accompanying technical support
document, which is available from the EPA Region III office. Several of
the plan approvals/operating permits contain a provision that allows
for future changes to the emission limitations based on CEM or other
monitoring data. Since EPA cannot approve emission limitations that are
not currently before it, any changes to the emission limitations as
submitted on January 6, 1995, April 19, 1995, May 10, 1995, May 31,
1995, August 11, 1995 (as amended on November 15, 1995), October 24,
1995, and December 8, 1995, to EPA must be resubmitted to and approved
by EPA in order for these changes to be incorporated into the
Pennsylvania SIP. Consequently, the source-specific RACT emission
limitations that are being approved into the Pennsylvania SIP are those
that were submitted on the above-mentioned dates and are the subject of
this rulemaking action. These emission limitations will remain unless
and until they are replaced pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51 and approved by
the U.S. EPA. In addition, several of the plan approvals and operating
permits contain a general provision that would allow compliance date
extensions at the request of the source and approval by Pennsylvania
without EPA approval. While EPA does not automatically rule out the
possibility of compliance date extensions, EPA cannot pre-approve
compliance date extensions through a general provision such as that
which occurs in those plan approvals and operating permits.t
In addition, EPA is posthumously establishing RACT for the six, now
shutdown, sources at U.S. Steel--Fairless Hills. These six sources are
the no.3 blast furnace, no. 1 open hearth furnace, no.1 soaking pits
(20), no. 2 soaking pits (1-8), no. 2 soaking pits (9-16), and the 80
in. hot strip mill. All of these sources ceased operation and had their
permits revoked on August 1, 1991. Had the no. 1 and 2 soaking pits and
the 80 in. hot strip mill continued to operate, they would have been
required to install low excess air technology, which is expected to
result in a 13.5% emission reduction. RACT for the other sources is
determined to be no additional controls. The total post-RACT NOX
emissions for these six sources is 1301.7 tons per year. The total
post-RACT VOC emissions for these six sources is 18.1 tons per year.
The 1990 base year VOC and NOX
[[Page 15711]]
emissions for the above-named six sources are also being approved. The
VOC and NOX 1990 emissions from the no. 3 blast furnace are zero
for both pollutants. The VOC and NOX 1990 emissions from the no. 1
open hearth furnace are 6.9 TPY and 455.5 TPY, respectively. The VOC
and NOX emissions from the no.1 soaking pits are 6.6 TPY and 91.8
TPY, respectively. The VOC and NOX emissions from the no. 2
soaking pits (units 1-8) are 1.10 TPY and 21.0 TPY, respectively. The
VOC and NOX emissions from the no. 2 soaking pits (units 9-16) are
1.10 TPY and 21.0 TPY, respectively. The VOC and NOX emissions
from the 80 in. hot strip mill are 1.9 TPY and 688.6 TPY, respectively.
EPA is also using this document to recognize the emission reduction
credits created from the shutdown of these emission units; a total of
1301.7 tons of NOX per year and 18.1 tons of VOC per year.
Synthetic Minor Permit
EPA is approving the operating permit (OP 25-892) for Columbia Gas
Transmission Corporation--Union City, located in Erie County. Columbia
Gas Transmission Corp.--Union City is a natural gas compressor station
and had potential NOx emissions greater than 100 tons per year (TPY).
The approval of these conditions will limit the emissions at this
facility to less than 100 TPY and would allow Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation--Union City to avoid being considered a major NOX
source, subject to the major source RACT requirements of the Clean Air
Act and the Pennsylvania regulation.
The technical support document contains the details of each of the
RACT determinations, synthetic minor permit conditions, and 1990
baseyear emissions calculations. It is available at the EPA Region III
office listed in the Addresses section of this document.
EPA is approving this SIP revision without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be
effective June 10, 1996 unless, by May 9, 1996, adverse or critical
comments are received.
If 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. 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 June 10, 1996. If adverse
comments are received that do not pertain to all documents subject to
this rulemaking action, those documents not affected by the adverse
comments will be finalized in the manner described here. Only those
documents that receive adverse comments will be withdrawn in the manner
described here.
Final Action
EPA is approving eight plan approvals, twenty operating permits and
one compliance permit as RACT for nineteen individual sources, one
operating permit to limit emissions at Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation--Union City to below major source levels, and the RACT
determination and the 1990 baseyear emissions for six emission units at
U.S. Steel--Fairless.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
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, the
Administrator certifies that it does not have a significant impact on
any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the
Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a 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.
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 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 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.
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.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action, pertaining to the approval of 20
source-specific VOC and NOX RACT determinations, one synthetic
minor permit, and correction to the 1990 baseyear emissions inventory
in Pennsylvania, must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals
for the appropriate circuit by June 10, 1996. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 15, 1996.
Stanley L. Laskowski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 15712]]
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart NN--Pennsylvania
2. Section 52.2020 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(103) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(103) Revisions to the Pennsylvania Regulations, Chapter 129.91
pertaining to VOC and NOX RACT and 1990 base year emissions
inventory for one source, submitted on January 6, 1995, April 19, 1995,
May 10, 1995, May 31, 1995, August 11, 1995 (as amended on November 15,
1995), October 24, 1995, and December 8, 1995 by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources (now known as the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection):
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Ten letters: three dated January 6, 1995, and one each dated
April 19, 1995, May 10, 1995, May 31, 1995, August 11, 1995, October
24, 1995, November 15, 1995, and December 8, 1995 from the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources (now known as the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection) transmitting source specific
VOC and/or NOX RACT determinations in the form of plan approvals
or operating permits for the following sources: Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company--Station 313 (Potter Co.)--natural gas transmission and gas
storage station, Corning Asahi Video Products Company (Centre Co.)--
glass manufacturer, Pennsylvania Power Company--New Castle plant
(Lawrence Co.)--utility, Columbia Gas Transmission Company--Easton
station (Northampton Co.)--natural gas compressor station, Texas
Eastern Transmission Corporation--Bechtelsville (Berks Co.)--natural
gas compressor station, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation--
Grantville (Dauphin Co.)--natural gas compressor station, Texas Eastern
Transmission Corporation--Shermans Dale (Perry Co.)--natural gas
compressor station, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation--Bedford
(Bedford Co.)--natural gas compressor station, Texas Eastern
Transmission Corporation--Perulack/Leidy (Juniata Co.)--natural gas
compressor station, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation--Bernville
(Berks Co.)--natural gas compressor station, Texas Eastern
Transmission--Marietta (Lancaster Co.)--natural gas compressor station,
Hercules Cement Company (Northampton Co.)--cement manufacturer, Lone
Star Industries (Northampton Co.)--cement manufacturer, International
Paper Company-- Hammermill Papers Division (Clinton Co.)--paper making
facility, Pennsylvania Power and Light--Montour SES (Montour Co.)--
utility, Pennsylvania Electric Company--Shawville (Clearfield Co.)--
utility, Zinc Corporation of America--Monaca (Beaver Co.)--zinc
smelting, Procter and Gamble Paper Products--Mehoopany (Wyoming Co.)--
pulp and paper making facility, and Metropolitan Edison--Portland
Generating Station (Northampton Co.)--utility. In addition, the
operating permit for Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation--Union City
(Erie Co.), a natural gas compressor station, containing provisions
limiting this source as a synthetic minor source (below RACT threshold
level of 100 tons per year of potential NOX emissions) is being
approved.
(B) Plan approvals (PA), Operating permits (OP):
(1) Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company--Station 313--PA 53-0001,
effective November 27, 1995, except the expiration date of the plan
approval and the portion of condition #6 pertaining to CO emissions, OP
53-0001, effective November 27, 1995, except the expiration date of the
operating permit, condition #21 pertaining to prevention of significant
deterioration and the portions of condition #22 pertaining to CO
emissions, and Compliance permit (CP) 53-0001, effective November 27,
1995, except the expiration date of the compliance permit.
(2) Corning Asahi Video Products Company--OP 14-0003, effective
December 27, 1994, except the expiration date of the operating permit,
OP 14-309-010A, effective May 5, 1994, except the expiration date of
the operating permit and condition #6 and 7, pertaining to particulate
matter and arsenic, OP 14-309-009C, effective August 18, 1994, except
the expiration date of the operating permit and conditions #12 and 14,
pertaining to particulate matter and lead, and OP 14-309-037A,
effective May 5, 1994, except the expiration date of the operating
permit and conditions #10, 11, 12, and 15, pertaining to particulate
matter, fluorides and arsenic.
(3) Pennsylvania Power Company--New Castle plant--OP 37-023,
effective December 21, 1994.
(4) Columbia Gas Transmission Company--Easton--OP 48-0001,
effective May 19, 1995, except the expiration date of the operating
permit and PA 48-0001A, effective May 19, 1995, except the expiration
date of the plan approval.
(5) Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation--Bechtelsville--OP 06-
1034, effective May 15, 1995, except the expiration date of the
operating permit.
(6) Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation--Grantville--OP 22-2010,
effective May 16, 1995, except the expiration date of the operating
permit.
(7) Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation--Shermans Dale--OP 50-
2001, effective May 16, 1995, except the expiration date of the
operating permit.
(8) Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation--Bedford--OP 05-2007,
effective May 16, 1995, except the expiration date of the operating
permit.
(9) Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation--Perulack/Leidy--OP 34-
2002, effective May 16, 1995, except the expiration date of the
operating permit and condition #2, pertaining to compliance date
extensions.
(10) Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation--Bernville--OP 06-1033,
effective May 15, 1995, except the expiration date of the operating
permit.
(11) Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation--Marietta--PA 36-2025,
effective May 16, 1995, except the expiration date of the plan approval
and condition #2, pertaining to compliance date extensions.
(12) Hercules Cement Company--PA 48-0005A, effective December 23,
1994, except the expiration date of the plan approval and condition #4,
pertaining to compliance date extensions, and all the following
conditions that do not pertain to VOC or NOX RACT: #10 (a), (b)
and (d), #11 (a), (b) and (d), #12 (a), (b) and (d), #13 (a), (b) and
(d), #14, #15, #21 through 24, #30, pertaining to compliance date
extensions and OP 48-0005, effective December 23, 1994, except the
expiration date of the operating permit and conditions #8 and 9,
pertaining to particulate matter.
(13) Lone Star Industries--OP 48-0007, effective December 20, 1994,
except the expiration date of the operating permit.
(14) International Paper Company--Hammermill Papers Division--OP
18-0005, effective December 27, 1994, except the expiration date of the
operating permit.
(15) Pennsylvania Power & Light--Montour SES--PA 47-0001A,
effective December 27, 1994, except the expiration date of the plan
approval and condition #14, pertaining to compliance date extensions
and OP 47-0001, effective December 27, 1994, except the expiration date
of the operating permit.
(16) Pennsylvania Electric Company--Shawville--PA 17-0001,
effective December 27, 1994, except the expiration date of the plan
approval and condition #19, pertaining to compliance date extensions.
[[Page 15713]]
(17) Zinc Corporation of America--Monaca--OP 04-000-044, effective
December 29, 1994, except for the expiration date of the operating
permit and those portions of conditions #8 and 9 pertaining to CO and
PM10.
(18) Procter and Gamble Paper Products Company--Mehoopany--OP 66-
0001, effective December 20, 1994, except the expiration date of the
operating permit and PA 66-0001A, effective December 20, 1994, except
the expiration date of the plan approval and condition #4, pertaining
to compliance date extensions, those portions of condition #5,
pertaining to CO, SO2 or particulate matter, and condition #17,
pertaining to odor.
(19) Metropolitan Edison--Portland Generating Station--OP 48-0006,
effective December 14, 1994, except the expiration date of the
operating permit and PA 48-0006A, effective December 14, 1994, except
the expiration date of the plan approval and condition #11, pertaining
to compliance date extensions.
(20) Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation--Union City--OP 25-892,
effective April 11, 1995 and the portion of condition #8, pertaining to
compliance date extensions.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) Remainder of January 6, 1995, April 19, 1995, May 10, 1995, May
31, 1995, August 11, 1995, October 24, 1995, and December 8, 1995 State
submittals.
(B) Additional clarifying material submitted by Pennsylvania:
Letter dated July 18, 1995 from Matthew M. Williams, Air Pollution
Control Engineer, Pennsylvania DEP, to Steve H. Finch, Vice President,
Environmental Affairs, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, stating
that the effective date of the Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation--
Union City operating permit (OP 25-892) is April 11, 1995.
* * * * *
3. Section 52.2037 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2037 Control Strategy: Carbon monoxide and ozone
(hydrocarbons).
* * * * *
(c) VOC and NOX RACT determination for six emission units at
U.S. Steel--Fairless: no. 3 blast furnace, no. 1 open hearth furnace,
no. 1 soaking pits, no. 2 soaking pits (units 1-8), no. 2 soaking pits
(units 9-16), 80 in. hot strip mill. The NOX RACT determination
for all the soaking pits and the 80 in. hot strip mill is low excess
air (LEA), which is expected to result in a 13.5% emission reduction.
NOX RACT for the other sources is determined to be good operating
practices to minimize NOX emissions. VOC RACT for all the above
sources is determined to be good operating practices to minimize VOC
emissions.
4. Section 52.2036 is amended by revising the section heading, by
designating the existing text as paragraph (a), and by adding paragraph
(b) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2036 1990 Baseyear Emission Inventory.
* * * * *
(b) The U.S. Steel--Fairless Hills 1990 VOC and NOX emissions
for six emission units (no. 3 blast furnace, no.1 open hearth furnace,
no. 1 soaking pits and no. 2 soaking pits (units 1-8 and units 9-16),
and 80 in. hot strip mill), submitted August 11, 1995, are approved.
U.S. Steel--Fairless Hills is located in Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania, which is part of the Philadelphia severe ozone
nonattainment area. The VOC and NOX 1990 emissions from the no. 3
blast furnace are zero for both pollutants. The VOC and NOX 1990
emissions from the no. 1 open hearth furnace are 6.9 TPY and 455.5 TPY,
respectively. The VOC and NOX emissions from the no. 1 soaking
pits are 6.6 TPY and 91.8 TPY, respectively. The VOC and NOX
emissions from the no. 2 soaking pits (units 1-8) are 1.10 TPY and 21.0
TPY, respectively. The VOC and NOX emissions from the no. 2
soaking pits (units 9-16) are 1.10 TPY and 21.0 TPY, respectively. The
VOC and NOX emissions from the 80 in. hot strip mill are 1.9 TPY
and 688.6 TPY, respectively.
[FR Doc. 96-8430 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8401 Visual ResourceManagement (Reserved)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15722-15723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8401]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Group 8400
[WO-340-1220-00-24 1A]
RIN: 1004-AC52
Visual Resource--Management (Reserved)
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This administrative final rule removes 43 CFR Group 8400 in
its entirety regarding visual resource management (reserved). 43 CFR
Group 8400 consists solely of the heading, Visual Resource--Management
(Reserved), with no regulatory substance or guidance.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 9, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edna Taylor, 202-452-5068.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The specific regulatory guidelines anticipated by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) do not exist. The BLM does not intend to use this
Group for regulatory guidance on management of visual resources.
Therefore, Group 8400 is obsolete and without purpose. The BLM has
determined that this rule does not require a notice and an opportunity
for public comment pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 553(b)(A)).
This rule is an administrative action and is not subject to the
Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866.
Therefore, the rule does not require an environmental impact analysis.
The rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.). The rule does not contain information collection
requirements that need approval by the
[[Page 15723]]
Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The principal author of this final rule is Edna Taylor, Regulatory
Management Team, BLM.
Accordingly, under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301 Group 8400 is
removed.
Dated: March 29, 1996.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 96-8401 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.