issue-1996-04-10•Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-10
Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-10
issue-1996-04-10Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-10Regulation
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. 96-8946 Hexaconazole; Pesticide Tolerance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15895-15896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8946]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 0E3853/R2223; FRL-5358-6]
RIN 2070-AC78
Hexaconazole; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is establishing a time-limited tolerance, to expire on
March 26, 1999, for residues of the fungicide hexaconazole, [alpha-
butyl-alpha-(2,4-dichloro-phenyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol)], in or
on the imported raw agricultural commodity bananas at 0.1 part per
million (ppm). Zeneca Agrochemicals Products (Zeneca) petitioned for
this regulation to establish a maximum permissible level for residues
of the fungicide.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 26, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
document control number, [PP 0E3853/RR2223], may be submitted to:
Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M
St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Fees accompanying objections and
hearing requests shall be labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees'' and
forwarded to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, OPP
(Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy of any
objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be
identified by the document control number and submitted to: Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring a copy of
objections and hearing requests to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson
Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202.
A copy of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing
Clerk may also be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail
(e-mail) to: [email protected]. Copies of objections and
hearing requests must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of
special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of objections and
hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1
file format or ASCII file format. All copies of objections and hearing
requests in electronic form must be identified by the docket number [PP
0E3853/RR2223]. No Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be
submitted through e-mail. Electronic copies of objections and hearing
requests on this rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository
Libraries. Additional information on electronic submissions can be
found below in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Connie B. Welch, Product
Manager (PM 21), Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm. 227, CM #2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Highway., Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 305-6900, e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of January 31, 1996
(61 FR 3363) EPA proposed to establish a time-limited tolerance for
residues of the fungicide hexaconazole, [(alpha-butyl-alpha-(2,4-
dichlorophenyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol)], in or on the raw
agricultural commodity bananas at 0.1 part per million (ppm). The
proposed regulation to establish a maximum permissible level of the
fungicide pursuant to section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, by amending 40 CFR part 180 to
include this commodity was requested in a pesticide petition (PP
0E3853) submitted by Zeneca, New Murphy Road, Concord Pike, Wilmington,
DE 19897.
There were no comments received in response to the notice of
proposed rulemaking.
[[Page 15896]]
There are presently no actions pending against the continued
registration of this chemical.
Based on the information and data considered, the Agency has
determined that the tolerance established by amending 40 CFR part 180
will protect the public health. Therefore, the tolerance is established
as set forth below.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections to the regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed with
the Hearing Clerk, at the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy
of the objections and/or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk
should be submitted to the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The
objections submitted must specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). Each objection must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40
CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a
statement of the factual issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the
requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence
relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing
will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material
submitted shows the following: There is genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence
identified by the requestor would, if established, resolve one or more
of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the
factual issue(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be
adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
EPA has established a record for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 0E3853/RR2223] (including any comments and data submitted
electronically). A public version of this record, including printed,
paper versions of electronic comments, which does not include any
information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public
record is located in Room 1132 of the Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments may be sent directly to EPA at:
[email protected].
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer any copies of objections and hearing requests
received electronically into printed, paper form as they are received
and will place the paper copies in the official rulemaking record which
will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The
official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the
address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order
(i.e., Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines
``significant'' as those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and
materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local or tribal governments or communities (also known as
``economically significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 26, 1996.
Daniel M. Barolo,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. By adding new Sec. 180.488 to read as follows:
Sec. 180.488 Hexaconazole; tolerance for residues.
A tolerance is established for residues of the fungicide
hexaconazole, [alpha-butyl-alpha-(2,4-dichloro-phenyl)-1H-1,2,4-
triazole-1-ethanol)], in or on the imported raw agricultural commodity
bananas at 0.1 part per million. This tolerance will expire on [insert
date 3 years after the signature date]. There are no U.S. registrations
as of March 26, 1996 for use on bananas.
[FR Doc. 96-8946 Filed 4-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8945 Sulfonium, trimethyl-salt with N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine (1:1) (formerly glyphosate-trimesium/sulfosate); Pesticide Tolerances and Food/Feed Additive Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15896-15900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8945]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 180 and 185
[PP 0F3860, 3F4238; FAP 6H5740 and 6H5742/R2227; FRL-5361-1]
RIN 2070-AB78
Sulfonium, trimethyl-salt with N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine (1:1)
(formerly glyphosate-trimesium/sulfosate); Pesticide Tolerances and
Food/Feed Additive Regulations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes permanent tolerances for the
residues of the herbicide sulfonium, trimethyl- salt with N-
(phosphonomethyl)glycine (1:1) (formerly glyphosate- trimesium/
sulfosate) in or on the raw agricultural commodity stone fruit group
and a food additive regulation for the processed commodity prunes. In
addition, this regulation establishes a 2-year time limited tolerance
for the residue of this herbicide in or on the raw agricultural
commodities soybean forage, soybean
[[Page 15897]]
aspirated grain fractions, soybean hay, and soybean seed and
establishes a feed additive regulation for this herbicide in or on
soybean hulls. The regulations to establish maximum permissible levels
for residues of the pesticide in or on the commodities were requested
in petitions submitted by Zeneca Ag Products.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective April 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
document control number, [PP 0F3860 and 3F4238; FAP 6H5740 and 6H5742/
R2227], may be submitted to: Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. A
copy of any objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing
Clerk should be identified by the document control number and submitted
to: Public Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations
Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person,
bring a copy of objections and hearing requests to Rm. 1132 CM #2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. Fees accompanying
objections shall be labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees'' and forwarded
to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, OPP (Tolerance
Fees), P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251.
An electronic copy of objections and hearing requests filed with
the Hearing Clerk may be submitted to OPP by sending electronic mail
(e-mail) to: [email protected]
Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests must be
submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and
any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing
requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format
or ASCII file format. All copies of electronic objections and hearing
requests must be identified by the docket number [PP 0F3860 and 3F4238;
FAP 6H5740 and 6H5742/]. No Confidential Business Information (CBI)
should be submitted through e-mail. Copies of electronic objections and
hearing requests on this rule may be filed online at many Federal
Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic submissions
can be found below in this document.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information''. CBI should not be submitted
through e-mail. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
comment that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in
the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed
publicly by EPA without prior notice. All written comments will be
available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the address given above,
from 8 a. m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Robert J. Taylor, Product
Manager (PM) 25, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St. SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm. 241, CM #2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202 (703) 305-6027; e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA issued the following notices in the
Federal Register which announced that Zeneca Ag Products, 1800 Concord
Pike, P.O. Box 15458, Wilmington, DE 19850-5458, had submitted
pesticide petitions (PP 0F3860 and 3F4238) and food additive petitions
(FAP) to EPA requesting that the Administrator, pursuant to section
408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d), amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing tolerances for residues
of the herbicide sulfonium, trimethyl-salt with N-
(phosphonomethyl)glycine (1:1), in or on certain raw agricultural
commodities (RACs).
1. FAPs 6H5740 and 6H5742. FAPs 6H5740 and 6H5742 requests that the
Administrator, pursuant to section 409(e) of the FFDCA (21 U.S.C. 348),
amend 40 CFR part 185 by establishing food additive regulations for the
residues of the herbicide sulfonium, trimethyl-salt with N-
(phosphonomethyl) glycine (1:1) in or on the processed food
commodities: prunes, (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is
trimethylsulfonium) at 0.2 ppm and soybean, hulls (of which no more
than 2 ppm is trimethylsulfonium) at 7.0 ppm.
2. PP 0F3860. Published in the Federal Register (PF-638; FRL-4986-
8) of November 15, 1995 (60 FR 57423), the notice proposed establishing
a regulation to permit the residues of the herbicide sulfonium,
trimethyl-salt with N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine (1:1) in or on the raw
agricultural commodities soybean forage at 2.00 ppm (of which no more
than 1 ppm is trimethylsulfonium (TMS)), soybean aspirated grain
fractions at 210.0 ppm (of which no more than 60 ppm is TMS), soybean
hay at 5.00 ppm (of which no more than 2 ppm is TMS) and soybean seed
at 3.00 ppm (of which no more than 1 ppm is TMS).
3. PP 3F4238. Published in the Federal Register (PF-581; FRL-4645-
7) of October 21, 1993 (58 FR 54355), the notice proposed establishing
a regulation to permit residues of the herbicide sulfonium, trimethyl-
salt with N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine (1:1) in or on the raw
agricultural commodities stone fruit group at 0.05 ppm.
4. PP 6H5740. Published in the Federal Register (PF-642; FRL-4992-
9) of January 31, 1996 (61 FR 3401), the notice proposed establishing a
regulation to permit residues of the herbicide, sulfonium, trimethyl-
salt with N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine (1:1) in or on feed commodity
soybean hulls at 7.0 ppm (of which no more than 2 ppm is TMS).
5. PP 6H5742. Published in the Federal Register (PF-642; FRL-4992-
9) of January 31, 1996 (61 FR 3401), the notice proposed establishing a
regulation to permit the residues of the herbicide, sulfonium,
trimethyl-salt with N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine (1:1) in or on the
processed commodity prunes at 0.2 ppm (of which no more than 0.05 ppm
is TMS).
There were no comments or requests for referral to an advisory
committee received in response to these notices of filing.
The scientific data submitted in the petitions and other relevant
material have been evaluated. The toxicological data considered in
support of the tolerances include:
1. Several acute toxicology studies placing technical grade
sulfonium, trimethyl-salt with N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine (1:1) in
Toxicity Category III and Toxicity Category IV.
2. A subchronic feeding study with dogs fed dosage levels of 0, 2,
10 and 50 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) with a no observable
effect level (NOEL) of 10/mg/kg/day.
3. A chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study in male and female rats
fed dosage levels of 0, 100, 500, and 1,000 parts per million (ppm) (0,
4.2, 21.2 or 41.8 mg/kg/day in males and 0, 5.4 27.0 or 55.7 mg/kg/day
in females) with no carcinogenic effects observed under the conditions
of the study at dose levels up to and including the 1,000 ppm highest
dose tested (HDT) and a systemic NOEL of 1,000 ppm. There were no
biologically significant effects observed
[[Page 15898]]
in the study. The study was considered to be acceptable because the
highest dose level tested was approaching one half of what would be
considered an adequate dose level for carcinogenicity testing and
because there was no indication of any carcinogenic response to warrant
repeat of the study. This assessment was based on toxic effects
observed in the subchronic and reproductive toxicity studies in rats at
higher dose levels.
4. A chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study in male and female mice
fed dosage levels of 0, 100, 1,000, and 8,000 ppm (0, 11.7, 118 or 991
mg/kg/day in males and 0, 16, 159 or 1,341 mg/kg/day in females) with
no carcinogenic effects observed under the conditions of the study at
dose levels up to and including the 8,000 ppm HDT (highest dose may
have been excessive) and systemic NOEL of 1,000 ppm based on decreases
in body weight and feed consumption (both sexes), increases in the
incidences of white matter degeneration in the lumbar spinal cord
(males only), and increased incidences of duodenal epithelial
hyperplasia (females only).
5. A developmental toxicity study in rats given doses of 0, 30,
100, and 333 mg/kg/day with a developmental NOEL of 100 mg/kg/day based
on significant decreases in fetal body weight, and a maternal NOEL of
100 mg/kg/day based on undetermined deaths of two dams at HDT;
decreases in bodyweight, bodyweight gain and feed intake; and increased
salivation, chromorhinorrhea and lethargy (HDT).
6. A developmental toxicity study in rabbits given doses of 0, 10,
40, and 100 mg/kg/day with a developmental NOEL of 40 mg/kg/day based
on four abortions and a reduction in the number of live fetuses/doe. In
addition, there were only seven litters available for examination. This
was not a sufficiently high number of animals to absolutely conclude
that no developmental toxicity was occurring at the highest dose level.
The maternal NOEL was 40 mg/kg/day based on 6 deaths/17 pregnant does,
4 abortions in 11 survivors and decreased body weight, body weight
gain, food consumption.
7. A two generation reproduction study with rats fed dosage rates
of 0, 150, 800, and 2,000 ppm (0, 6.1, 35 or 88.5 mg/kg/day in males
and 0, 8, 41 or 98 mg/kg/day in females) with a reproductive/
developmental NOEL of 150 ppm based on decreased litter size in the F0a
and F1b litters at 2,000 ppm and on decreased mean pup weights during
lactation in the second litters at 800 ppm and in all litters at 2,000
ppm; and a systemic NOEL of 150 ppm based on reduced feed intake, body
weights and body weight gains and reduced absolute and sometimes
relative thymus, heart, liver and kidney weights.
8. Mutagenicity data included two Ames tests with Salmonella
typhimurium; a sex linked recessive lethal test with Drosophila
melanoga; a forward mutation (mouse lymphoma) test; an in vivo bone
marrow cytogenetics test in rats; a micronucleus assay in mice; an in
vitro chromosomal aberration test in Chinese hamster ovary cells (CHO)
(no aberrations were observed either with or without S9 activation and
there were no increases in sister chromatid exchanges); and a
morphological transformation test in mice (all negative).
The reference dose (RfD) based on a chronic dog feeding study (NOEL
of 10 mg/kg body weight(bwt)/day) and using a hundred-fold safety
factor is calculated to be 0.1 mg/kg bwt/day. The theoretical maximum
residue contribution (TMRC) for all proposed tolerances (almond hulls;
bananas; citrus fruit group; corn; eggs; grapes; fat, meat by-products,
meat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses and sheep; pome fruit group;
poultry fat, poultry liver, poultry meat by-products and poultry meat;
soybeans; stone fruit group; tree nut group; and wheat; and food
regulations (prunes, raisins, and soybean hulls) is 0.019760 mg/kg/day
or 19.760 percent of the RfD for the overall U.S. population. For U.S.
subgroup populations, nonnursing infants and children 1 to 6 years of
age, the current action, previously proposed tolerances and the food
additive regulations utilize a total of 0.044461 mg/kg/day and 44.461
percent of the RfD, assuming that residue levels are at the established
tolerance levels and that 100 percent of the crop is treated.
The RfD/Peer Review Committee, in a consensus review dated July 26,
1994, classified sulfonium, trimethyl-salt with N-
(phosphonomethyl)glycine (1:1) as a Group E carcinogen: no evidence of
carcinogenicity in rat and mouse studies.
An adequate analytical method, gas chromatography for the cation
and liquid chromatography for the anion and its metabolite AMPA, is
available for enforcement purposes and the methodology will be
published in the ``Pesticide Analytical Manual'' (PAM), Vol. II.
There are presently no actions pending against the continued
registration of this chemical.
Based on the information and data considered, the Agency has
determined that the tolerances established by amending 40 CFR part 180
would protect the public health, and the establishment of food additive
regulations by amending 40 CFR part 185 would be safe. Therefore, the
tolerances are established as set forth below.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections to the regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed with
the Hearing Clerk, at the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy
of the objections and/or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk
should be submitted to the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The
objections submitted must specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR
180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a
statement of the factual issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the
requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence
relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing
will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material
submitted shows the following: There is genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence
identified by the requestor would, if established, resolve one or more
of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the
factual issue(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be
adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 0F3860 and 3F4238; FAP 6H5740 and 6H5742/R2227] (including
comments and data submitted electronically). A public version of this
record, including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which
does not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for
inspection from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking
[[Page 15899]]
record which will also include all comments submitted directly in
writing. The official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained
at the address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order (i.e.,
Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines ``significant'' as
those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an annual effect on
the economy of
100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting a sector
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or
communities (also known as ``economically significant''); (2) creating
serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary
impacts of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4)
raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive
Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance
requirements, or establishing or raising food additive regulations do
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. A certification statement to this effect was published in the
Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 185
Environmental protection, Food additive, Pesticides and pests
Dated: March 27, 1996.
Sstephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. In part 180:
a. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
b. Section 180.489 is amended by adding an entry for stone fruit
group to the table in paragraph (a), and by revising paragraph (b) to
read as follows:
Sec. 180.489 Sulfonium, trimethyl-salt with N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine
(1:1); tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodities million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Stone fruit group.......................................... 0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Time-limited tolerances are established for the residues of the
herbicide sulfonium, trimethyl-salt with N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine
(1:1) in or on the following raw agricultural commodities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodities million Expiration date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat....................... 0.10 March 9, 1998
Cattle, mbyp...................... 1.00 Do.
Cattle, meat...................... 0.20 Do.
Corn, fodder (of which no more
than 0.20 ppm is
trimethylsulfonium).............. 0.30 Do.
Corn, forage...................... 0.10 Do.
Corn, grain (of which no more than
0.10 is trimethylsulfonium)...... 0.20 Do.
Eggs.............................. 0.02 Do.
Goats, fat........................ 0.10 Do.
Goats, mbyp....................... 1.00 Do.
Goats, meat....................... 0.20 Do.
Hogs, fat......................... 0.10 Do.
Hogs, mbyp........................ 1.00 Do.
Hogs, meat........................ 0.20 Do.
Horses, fat....................... 0.10 Do.
Horses, mbyp...................... 1.00 Do.
Horses, meat...................... 0.20 Do.
Milk.............................. 0.20 Do.
Poultry, fat...................... 0.05 Do.
Poultry, liver.................... 0.05 Do.
Poultry, mbyp..................... 0.10 Do.
Poultry, meat..................... 0.05 Do.
Sheep, fat........................ 0.10 Do.
Sheep, mbyp....................... 1.00 Do.
Sheep, meat....................... 0.20 Do.
Soybean, forage (of which no more
than 1 ppm is trimethylsulfonium) 2.00 April 10, 1998
Soybean, aspirated grain fractions
(of which no more than 60 ppm is
trimethylsulfonium).............. 210.00 Do.
Soybean, hay (of which no more
than 2 ppm is trimethylsulfonium) 5.00 Do.
Soybean, seed (of which no more
than 1 ppm is trimethylsulfonium) 3.00 Do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15900]]
PART 185--[AMENDED]
2. In part 185:
a. The authority citation for part 185 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 348.
b. In Sec. 185.5375, the table in paragraph (a) is amended by
adding entries for prunes, and soybean, hulls to read as follows:
Sec. 185.5375 Sulfonium, trimethyl-salt with N-
(phosphonomethyl)glycine (1:1).
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodities million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prunes, (of which no more than 0.05 ppm is
trimethylsulfonium)....................................... 0.2
* * * * *
Soybean, hulls (of which no more than 2 ppm is
trimethylsulfonium)....................................... 7.0
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-8945 Filed 4-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8944 Avermectin BINF1 and Its Delta-8,9-Isomer; Pesticide Tolerance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15900-15902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8944]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 180 and 186
[PP 1F3973, PP 4F4345, FAP 1H5611 and 4H5693/R2227; FRL-5361-9]
RIN 2070-AB78
Avermectin B1 and Its Delta-8,9-Isomer; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule establishes tolerances for combined residues of the
insecticide Avermectin B1 and its delta-8,9-isomer in or on the
raw agricultural commodities (RACs) almonds, apples, and walnuts; and
in or on processed feed items apples, wet pomace and almonds, hulls.
The regulation to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of
the insecticide was requested in a petition submitted by the Merck
Research Laboratories, Division of Merck Co., Inc.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective April 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
docket number, [PP 1F3973, PP 4F4345, FAP 1H5611 and 4H5693/R], may be
submitted to: Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency,
Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. A copy of any
objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be
identified by the docket number and submitted to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring copy of objections and hearing
requests to Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA
22202. Fees accompanying objections shall be labeled ``Tolerance
Petition Fees'' and forwarded to: EPA Headquarters Accounting
Operations Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh,
PA 15251. An electronic copy of objections and hearing requests filed
with the Hearing Clerk may be submitted to OPP by sending electronic
mail (e-mail) to:[email protected].
Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests must be
submitted as a ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and
any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing
requests will also be accepted on disk in WordPerfect 5.1 file format
or ASCII file format. All copies of electronic objections and hearing
requests must be identified by the docket number [PP 1F3973, PP 4F4345,
FAP 1H5611 and 4H5693/R]. No Confidential Business Information (CBI)
should be submitted through e-mail. Copies of electronic objections and
hearing requests on this rule may be filed online at many Federal
Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic submissions
can be found below in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: George LaRocca, Product
Manager (PM) 13, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St. SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm. 204, CM #2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. (703) 305-6100; e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA issued notices published in the Federal
Register of May 29, 1991 (56 FR 24189) and July 13, 1994 (59 FR 35720),
which announced that Merck Research Laboratories had submitted
pesticide petitions (PPs) 1F3973 and 4F4345 to EPA requesting the that
Administrator, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), amend 40 CFR 180.449 by
establishing tolerances for the combined residues of the insecticide
avermectin B1 and its delta-8,9-isomer, in or on the RACs almonds
at 0.005 parts per million (ppm); apples at 0.02 ppm; and walnuts at
0.005 ppm. In the same notices, Merck Research Laboratories submitted
feed additive petitions (FAPs) 1H5611 and 4H5693 requesting that the
Administrator, pursuant to section 409(e) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 348(b), amend 40 CFR 186.300 by
establishing a feed additive regulations for the combined residues of
the insecticide avermectin B1 and its delta-8,9-isomer, in or on
processed feed commodities apples, wet pomace at 0.10 ppm and almonds,
hulls at 0.10 ppm.
There were no comments received in response to the notice of
filing.
The data submitted in support of this tolerance and other relevant
material have been reviewed. The toxicological and metabolism data and
analytical methods for enforcement purposes considered in support of
this tolerance are discussed in detail in related documents published
in the Federal Register of May 31, 1989 (54 FR 23209) on cottonseed,
and August 2, 1989 (54 FR 31836) on citrus.
The Agency used a two-generation rat reproduction study with an
uncertainty factor of 300 to establish a Reference Dose (RfD). The 300-
fold uncertainty factor was utilized for (1) inter- and intra-species
differences, (2) the extremely serious nature (pup death) observed in
the reproduction study, (3) maternal toxicity (lethality) no-
observable-effect level (NOEL) (0.05 mg/kg/day), and (4) cleft palate
in the mouse developmental toxicity study with isomer (NOEL = 0.06 mg/
kg/day). Thus, based on a NOEL of 0.12 mg/kg/day from the two-
generation rat reproduction and an uncertainty factor of 300, the RfD
is 0.0004 mg/kg body weight(bwt)/day.
A chronic dietary exposure/risk assessment has been performed for
avermectin B1 using the above RfD. Available information on
anticipated residues and 100% crop treated was incorporated into the
analysis to estimate the Anticipated Residue Contribution (ARC). The
ARC is generally considered a more realistic estimate than an estimate
based on the tolerance-level residues. The ARC for established
tolerances and the current actions are estimated at 0.000017 mg/kg bwt/
day and utilizes 4.3% of the RfD for the U.S. population. For non-
nursing infants less than 1 year old (the sub-group population with the
highest exposure level) the ARC for established tolerances and the
current actions are estimated at 0.000040 mg/kg bwt/day and utilizes
10.0% of the RfD. Generally
[[Page 15901]]
speaking, the Agency has no cause for concern if anticipated residues
contribution for all published and proposed tolerances is less than the
RfD.
Because of the developmental effects seen in animal studies, the
Agency used the mouse teratology study (with a NOEL of 0.06 mg/kg/day
for developmental toxicity for the delta-8,9-isomer) to assess acute
dietary exposure and determine a margin of exposure (MOE) for the
overall U.S. population and certain subgroups. Since the toxicological
end point pertains to developmental toxicity, the population group of
interest for this analysis is women aged 13 and above, the subgroup
which most closely approximates women of child bearing ages. The MOE is
calculated as the ratio of the NOEL to the exposure. For this analysis,
the Agency calculated the MOE for the high-end exposures for women ages
13 and above. The MOE is 500. Generally speaking, MOEs greater than 100
for developmental toxicity do not raise concerns.
The metabolism of the chemical in plants and animals for these uses
are adequately understood. Any secondary residues occurring in meat,
meat-byproducts of cattle or milk will be covered by existing
tolerances for those commodities. There is no reasonable expectation of
finite residues in poultry and swine, therefore no tolerances are
necessary at this time. Adequate analytical methodology (HPLC-
Fluorescence Methods) is available for enforcement purposes. Prior to
publication in the Pesticide Analytical Manual, Vol II, the enforcement
methodology is being made available in the interim to anyone who is
interested in pesticide enforcement when requested from Calvin Furlow,
Public Response and Program Resource Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and
telephone number: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson-Davis Hwy.,
Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 305-5232.
The tolerances established by amending 40 CFR parts 180 and 186
will be adequate to cover residues in or on almonds, apples and
walnuts. There are presently no actions pending against the continued
registration of this chemical.
The pesticide is considered useful for the purpose for which the
tolerances are sought and capable of achieving its physical or
technical effect.
Based on the information and data considered, the Agency has
determined that the tolerance established by amending 40 CFR part 180
would protect the public health, and that the establishment of a feed
additive regulation by amending 40 CFR part 186 would be safe.
Therefore, the tolerances are established as set forth below.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections to the regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed with
the Hearing Clerk, at the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy
of the objections and/or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk
should be submitted to the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The
objections submitted must specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). Each objection must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40
CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a
statement of the factual issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the
requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence
relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing
will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material
submitted shows the following: There is genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence
identified by the requestor would, if established, resolve one or more
of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the
factual issue(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be
adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
A record has been established for this rulemaking under the docket
number [PP 1F3973, PP 4F4345, FAP 1H5611 and 4H5693/R] (including any
comments and data submitted electronically). A public version of this
record, including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which
does not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for
inspection from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer any copies of objections and hearing requests
received electronically into printed, paper form as they are received
and will place the paper copies in the official rule-making record
which will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The
official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the
Virginia address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order (i.e.,
Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines ``significant'' as
those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially
affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities (also known as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user
fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the
principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 186
Animal feeds, Pesticides and pests.
[[Page 15902]]
Dated: March 29, 1996.
Peter Caulkins,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, chapter I of title 40 Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
1. In part 180:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
a. The authority citation of part 180 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
b. In Sec. 180.449, the table in paragraph (b) is amended by adding
alphabetically entries for the commodities almonds, apples and walnuts
to read as follows:
Sec. 180.449 Avermectin B1 and its delta-8,9-isomer; tolerances
for residues.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almonds.................................................... 0.005
Apples..................................................... 0.020
* * * * *
Walnuts.................................................... 0.005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. In part 186:
PART 186--[AMENDED]
a. The authority citation of part 186 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 348.
b. In Sec. 186.300 the table in paragraph (b) is amended by adding
alphabetically entries for the commodities almonds, hulls; and apples,
wet pomace to read as follows:
Sec. 186.300 Avermectin B1 and its delta-8,9-isomer; tolerances
for residues.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almonds, hulls............................................. 0.10
Apples, wet pomace........................................ 0.10
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-8944 Filed 4-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8930 Grading and Inspection, General Specifications for Approved Plants and Standards for Grades of Dairy Products; United States Standards for Grades of Monterey (Monterey Jack) Cheese
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15875-15881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8930]
========================================================================
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. 70 / Wednesday, April 10, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 15875]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 58
[DA-91-010B]
Grading and Inspection, General Specifications for Approved
Plants and Standards for Grades of Dairy Products; United States
Standards for Grades of Monterey (Monterey Jack) Cheese
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document revises the United States Standards for Grades
of Monterey (Monterey Jack) Cheese. The final rule action revises the
standards to recognize differences in cheese characteristics resulting
from technological changes in manufacturing practices and to more
accurately describe consumer-acceptable product. The revision expands
the permissible range of open body characteristics to include monterey
(monterey jack) cheese manufactured using automated equipment. The
revision was initiated at the request of the National Cheese Institute
(NCI) and was developed in cooperation with NCI and other dairy trade
associations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 10, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roland S. Golden, Dairy Products
Marketing Specialist, Dairy Standardization Branch, USDA/AMS/Dairy
Division, Room 2750-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, (202)
720-7473.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule has been reviewed under
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform. This action is not
intended to have retroactive effect. This rule does not preempt any
State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an
irreconcilable conflict with this rule. There are no administrative
procedures which must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to
the provisions of this rule.
The final rule also has been reviewed in accordance with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The Administrator,
Agricultural Marketing Service, has determined that the final rule does
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities because use of the standards is voluntary and the revision
does not increase costs to those utilizing the standards.
The Department is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive
Order 12866.
To recognize differences in cheese characteristics resulting from
technological changes in the manufacture of monterey (monterey jack)
cheese and to permit the assignment of U.S. grade to cheese
manufactured utilizing this technology, USDA has revised the U.S.
Standards for Grades of Monterey (Monterey Jack) Cheese. The revised
standards have received general support from many manufacturers of
monterey (monterey jack) cheese and dairy trade associations
representing the cheese industry.
In view of the need for revised standards, the Department published
on March 3, 1995 (60 FR 11919) a proposal to revise the United States
Standards for Grades of Monterey (Monterey Jack) Cheese. The standards
contained in this final rule are the same as those set forth in the
proposal. The new standards establish the following:
1. Expand Body and Texture Criteria To Permit U.S. Grade Assignment to
Monterey (Monterey Jack) Cheese That Contains Less Than Numerous
Mechanical Openings
The current U.S. Standards for Grades of Monterey (Monterey Jack)
Cheese became effective in 1973. When these standards were established,
production procedures encouraged the formation of numerous small
mechanical openings evenly distributed throughout the cheese. Since
then, automated manufacturing processes have been developed which have
altered traditional body characteristics. Monterey (monterey jack)
cheese that is produced using automated production technology has
resulted in cheese that no longer exhibits numerous mechanical
openings. Cheese produced in this manner is readily available and is
capturing an increasing share of the monterey cheese market. Changes in
body characteristics have not altered the flavor or reduced the
useability of the cheese.
Changes in the standards provide for the assignment of U.S. grades
to monterey (monterey jack) cheese that contains less than numerous
mechanical openings or that may be completely devoid of mechanical
openings. These changes do not disallow mechanical openings in cheese
produced using traditional production methods.
2. Modify the Body Characteristics by Allowing ``Very Slight Weak'' in
U.S. Grade AA Monterey (Monterey Jack) Cheese
Compositional standards permit monterey (monterey jack) cheese to
contain up to 44 percent moisture. Cheese that contains this moisture
content is classified as a semisoft cheese. A very slight weak body is
an acceptable characteristic in this class of cheese. The final rule
adds ``very slight weak'' to the list of permissible body
characteristics for U.S. Grade AA Monterey (Monterey Jack) Cheese.
3. Increase the Minimum Aging Period Before Monterey (Monterey Jack)
Cheese Can Be Graded From 5 to 10 Days
In order to accurately evaluate cheese quality, the cheese must
have completed an aging period during which quality characteristics
develop. All U.S. grade standards for various other varieties of cheese
require an aging period to be at least 10 days. Changes established in
the final rule increase the accuracy in determining U.S. grade for
monterey (monterey jack) cheese by allowing cheese quality
characteristics to develop to a greater extent. This change provides
consistency with the age requirements prescribed for other types of
cheese.
4. Permit the Use of Safe and Suitable Antimycotics on the Surface of
Monterey (Monterey Jack) Cheese, as Sanctioned by the Food and Drug
Administration
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has amended the Standards of
Identity for Monterey Cheese and Monterey Jack cheese (21 CFR Part 133,
Cheese and Related Cheese Products,'' as issued by the Food and Drug
Administration) to permit the use of
[[Page 15876]]
antimycotics on the surface of the cheese. The National Cheese
Institute, a trade association representing U.S. cheese manufacturers,
had petitioned FDA to permit the broader use of safe and suitable
antimycotics. Previously, use was permitted only on cuts and slices in
consumer-size packages for a number of standardized cheeses.
The provision for the use of antimycotics is beneficial in
preventing or inhibiting mold development on the surface of monterey
(monterey jack) cheese.
5. Redefine Packaging Requirements
Changes in packaging requirements provide greater clarity and
expands the types of packaging methods permitted. The general-type
packaging requirements outlined recognize the packaging methods (such
as rinded and paraffin-dipped, rindless and wrapped, and rindless and
paraffin-dipped) that are used in the cheese industry today, and
provide latitude for future developments in packaging technology.
6. Update the Terminology and Format of the Standards
The U.S. Standards for Grades of Monterey (Monterey Jack) Cheese
were established in 1973. Since that time, changes in terminology and
formatting of standards have taken place. This revision updates the
standards to provide consistency among the various U.S. grade standards
for cheeses.
USDA grade standards are voluntary standards that are developed
pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et
seq.) to facilitate the marketing process. Manufacturers of dairy
products are free to choose whether or not to use these grade
standards. USDA grade standards for dairy products have been developed
to identify the degree of quality in the various products. Quality in
general refers to usefulness, desirability, and value of the product--
its marketability as a commodity. When monterey (monterey jack) cheese
is officially graded, the USDA regulations and standards governing the
grading of manufactured or processed dairy products are used. These
regulations also require a charge for the grading service provided by
USDA. The Agency believes this revision more accurately identifies the
useful quality characteristics of monterey (monterey jack) cheese.
Public Comments
On March 3, 1995, the Department published a proposed rule (60 FR
11919) to revise the United States Standards for Grades of Monterey
(Monterey Jack) Cheese. The public comment period closed May 2, 1995.
Comments were received from one monterey (monterey jack) cheese
manufacturer.
Discussion of Comments
1. The commenter is concerned that expanding the body and texture
criteria to permit U.S. Grade assignment to monterey (monterey jack)
cheese which has altered traditional body characteristics due to
automated manufacturing process lowers the standards for monterey
(monterey jack) cheese.
United States grade standards assist the orderly marketing of dairy
products by establishing requirements to describe quality in monterey
(monterey jack) cheese. To be of greatest value, these standards must
accurately describe quality in monterey (monterey jack) cheese
available in the market. Changes in manufacturing procedures have
resulted in monterey (monterey jack) cheese that does not exhibit the
numerous mechanical openings found in monterey (monterey jack) cheese
produced according to traditional manufacturing procedures. Cheese
without numerous mechanical openings is currently available and
consumer acceptance is evident by its increasing availability. Changes
in the U.S. grade standards will more accurately define quality in
consumer-acceptable product and permit the assignment of U.S. grade to
more cheese currently available in the market. Cheese made by
traditional methods with numerous mechanical openings is still accepted
in the market and will meet the U.S. grade standards.
2. The commenter is concerned that allowing ``very slight weak''
body in U.S. Grade AA Monterey (Monterey Jack) Cheese would alter the
high moisture cheese classification of the cheese.
Monterey (Monterey jack) cheese is allowed a maximum moisture
content of 44 percent by weight. Cheese with this amount of moisture
content will naturally have a very slight weak body. By allowing a very
slight weak body in U.S. Grade AA Monterey (Monterey Jack) Cheese,
cheese made by traditional methods or made by other methods that
produce a similar cheese would be acceptable.
3. The commenter expressed concern that accepting monterey
(monterey jack) cheese made by automated manufacturing processes would
put the small manufacturers at an economic disadvantage.
United States grade standards define quality in manufactured dairy
products and do not require particular manufacturing procedures. The
value of monterey (monterey jack) cheese is established by the
manufacturer based on cost of production and its market value. This
action expands the scope of the U.S. Standards for Grades of Monterey
(Monterey Jack) Cheese to include expanded high-quality monterey
(monterey jack) cheese produced for today's market.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 58
Dairy products, Food grades and standards, Food labeling, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Part 58 is amended
as follows:
PART 58--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 58 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.
2. Subpart I--United States Standards for Grades of Monterey
(Monterey Jack) Cheese is revised to read as follows:
Subpart I--United States Standards for Grades of Monterey (Monterey
Jack) Cheese
Definitions
Sec.
58.2465 Monterey (Monterey Jack) cheese.
58.2466 Types of surface protection.
U.S. Grades
58.2467 Nomenclature of U.S. grades.
58.2468 Basis for determination of U.S. grade.
58.2469 Specifications for U.S. grades.
58.2470 U.S. grade not assignable.
Explanation of Terms
58.2471 Explanation of terms.
Subpart I--United States Standards for Grades of Monterey (Monterey
Jack) Cheese 1
\1\ Compliance with these standards does not excuse failure to
comply with the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions
Sec. 58.2465 Monterey (Monterey Jack) cheese.
Monterey (Monterey Jack) cheese is cheese made by the monterey
process or by any other procedure which produces a finished cheese
having the same organoleptic, physical, and chemical properties as the
cheese produced by the monterey process. The cheese is made from
pasteurized cow's milk. It may contain added common salt and contains
not more than 44 percent moisture, its total solids content is not less
than 50 percent milkfat, and it conforms to the applicable provisions
of
[[Page 15877]]
21 CFR Part 133, ``Cheeses and Related Cheese Products,'' as issued by
the Food and Drug Administration.
Sec. 58.2466 Types of surface protection.
The following are the types of surface protection for monterey
(monterey jack) cheese:
(a) Rinded and paraffin-dipped.
The cheese that has formed a rind is dipped in a refined paraffin,
amorphous wax, microcrystalline wax, or other suitable substance. Such
coating is a continuous, unbroken, and uniform film adhering tightly to
the entire surface of the cheese rind.
(b) Rindless.
(1) Wrapped. The cheese is completely enveloped in a tight-fitting
wrapper or other protective covering, which is sealed with sufficient
overlap or satisfactory closure. The wrapper or covering shall not
impart color or objectionable taste or odor to the cheese. The wrapper
or covering shall be of sufficiently low permeability to air so as to
prevent the formation of a rind.
(2) Paraffin-dipped. The cheese is dipped in a refined paraffin,
amorphous wax, microcrystalline wax, or other suitable substance. The
paraffin shall be applied so that it is continuous, unbroken, and
uniformly adheres tightly to the entire surface. If a wrapper or
coating is applied to the cheese prior to paraffin dipping, it shall
completely envelop the cheese and not impart color or objectionable
taste or odor to the cheese.
(c) If antimycotics are used, they shall be used in accordance with
the provisions of Food and Drug Administration regulations (21 CFR Part
133).
U.S. Grades
Sec. 58.2467 Nomenclature of U.S. grades.
The nomenclature of U.S. grades is as follows:
(a) U.S. Grade AA.
(b) U.S. Grade A.
(c) U.S. Grade B.
Sec. 58.2468 Basis for determination of U.S. grade.
(a) The cheese shall be graded no sooner than 10 days of age.
(b) The rating of each quality factor shall be established on the
basis of characteristics present in any vat of cheese.
(c) The U.S. grades of monterey (monterey jack) cheese are
determined on the basis of rating the following quality factors:
(1) Flavor.
(2) Body and Texture.
(3) Color.
(4) Finish and Appearance.
(d) The final U.S. grade shall be determined on the basis of the
lowest rating of any one of the quality factors.
Sec. 58.2469 Specifications for U.S. grades.
The general requirements for the U.S. Grades of Monterey (Monterey
Jack) Cheese are as follows:
(a) U.S. Grade AA. U.S. Grade AA Monterey (Monterey Jack) Cheese
shall conform to the following requirements (See Tables I, II, III, and
IV of this section):
(1) Flavor. The cheese shall possess a fine and highly pleasing
monterey (monterey jack) cheese flavor which is free from undesirable
tastes and odors; or may be lacking in flavor development. The cheese
may possess a very slight acid or feed flavor. See Table I of this
section.
(2) Body and Texture. A plug drawn from the cheese shall be
reasonably firm. Dependent upon the method of manufacture, a
satisfactory plug may exhibit evenly distributed small mechanical
openings or a close body. The cheese shall be free from sweet holes,
yeast holes, or other gas holes. The body may be very slightly weak,
and the texture may be definitely curdy. See Table II of this section.
(3) Color. The color shall be natural, uniform, and bright. See
Table III of this section.
(4) Finish and appearance.
(i) Rinded and paraffin-dipped. The bandage shall be evenly placed
over the entire surface of the cheese and be free from unnecessary
overlapping and wrinkles, and not burst or torn. The rind shall be
sound, firm, smooth, and provide good protection to the cheese. The
surface shall be smooth, bright, and have a good coating of wax or
coating of paraffin that adheres firmly to all surfaces. The cheese
shall be free from mold under the paraffin. The cheese shall be free
from high edges, huffing, or lopsidedness, but may possess soiled
surface to a very slight degree. See Table IV of this section.
(ii) Rindless and wrapped. The wrapper or covering shall be
practically smooth and properly sealed with adequate overlapping at the
seams or sealed by any other satisfactory type of closure. The wrapper
or covering shall be neat and shall adequately and securely envelop the
cheese, but may be slightly wrinkled. Allowance should be made for
slight wrinkles caused by crimping or sealing when vacuum packaging is
used. The cheese shall be free from mold under the wrapper or covering
and shall not be huffed or lopsided. See Table IV of this section.
(iii) Rindless and paraffin-dipped. The cheese surface shall be
smooth, bright, and have a good coating of paraffin that adheres
firmly. If a wrapper or coating is applied prior to paraffin dipping,
it shall completely envelop the cheese. The cheese shall be free from
high edges, huffing, lopsidedness, or mold. The cheese may possess
soiled surface to a very slight degree. The wrapper may be wrinkled to
a slight degree. See Table IV of this section.
(b) U.S. Grade A. U.S. Grade A Monterey (Monterey Jack) Cheese
shall conform to the following requirements (See Tables I, II, III, and
IV of this section):
(1) Flavor. The cheese shall possess a pleasing monterey (monterey
jack) cheese flavor which is free from undesirable tastes and odors; or
may be lacking in flavor development. The cheese may possess bitter or
flat flavor to a very slight degree; and acid or feed flavor to a
slight degree. See Table I of this section.
(2) Body and texture. A plug drawn from the cheese shall be
reasonably firm. Dependent upon the method of manufacture, a
satisfactory plug may exhibit evenly distributed mechanical openings or
a close body. The plug shall be free from sweet holes, yeast holes, or
other gas holes. The body and texture may be very slightly weak or
loosely knit, and definitely curdy. See Table II of this section.
(3) Color. The color shall be natural, fairly uniform, and bright.
The cheese may possess waviness to a very slight degree. See Table III
of this section.
(4) Finish and appearance.
(i) Rinded and paraffin-dipped. The bandage shall be evenly placed
over the entire surface of the cheese and not be burst or torn. The
rind shall be sound, firm, smooth, and provide good protection to the
cheese. The surface shall be practically smooth, bright, and have a
good coating of paraffin that adheres firmly to all surfaces. The
cheese shall be free from mold under the paraffin. The cheese may
possess the following characteristics to a very slight degree: Soiled
surface or surface mold; and to a slight degree: High edges, irregular
press cloth, lopsided, or rough surface. See Table IV of this section.
(ii) Rindless and wrapped. The wrapper or covering shall be
practically smooth, properly sealed with adequate overlapping at the
seams or sealed by any other satisfactory type of closure. The wrapper
or covering shall be neat and adequately and securely envelop the
cheese but may be slightly wrinkled. Allowance should be made for
slight wrinkles caused by crimping or sealing when vacuum packaging is
used. The cheese shall be free from mold under
[[Page 15878]]
the wrapper or covering and shall not be huffed but may possess to a
slight degree: High edges, irregular press cloth, lopsided, or rough
surface. See Table IV of this section.
(iii) Rindless and paraffin-dipped. The cheese surface shall be
bright and have a good coating of paraffin that adheres firmly. If a
wrapper or coating is applied prior to paraffin dipping, it shall
completely envelop the cheese and have a good coating of paraffin that
adheres firmly. The cheese may possess soiled surface to a very slight
degree but shall be free from mold, and it may possess to a slight
degree: High edges, irregular press cloth, lopsided, rough surface, or
wrinkled wrapper or covering. See Table IV of this section.
(c) U.S. Grade B. U.S. Grade B Monterey (Monterey Jack) Cheese
shall conform to the following requirements (See Tables I, II, III, and
IV of this section):
(1) Flavor. The cheese may possess a fairly pleasing monterey
(monterey jack) cheese flavor; or it may be lacking in flavor
development. The cheese may possess onion or sour flavor to a very
slight degree; barny, bitter, flat, fruity, malty, old milk, rancid,
utensil, weedy, whey-taint, or yeasty flavor to a slight degree; and
acid or feed flavor to a definite degree. See Table I of this section.
(2) Body and texture. A plug drawn from the cheese shall be
moderately firm. Dependent upon the method of manufacture, a
satisfactory plug may exhibit mechanical openings or a close body. The
cheese may possess the following characteristics to a slight degree:
Coarse, corky, crumbly, gassy, loosely knit, mealy, pasty, short,
slitty, sweet holes, or weak; and the following to a definite degree:
Curdy. See Table II of this section.
(3) Color. The cheese may possess the following characteristics to
a slight degree: Acid-cut, dull, faded, mottled, salt spots, unnatural,
or wavy. In addition, rindless monterey cheese may have a bleached
surface to a slight degree. See Table III of this section.
(4) Finish and appearance.
(i) Rinded and paraffin-dipped. The bandage shall be placed over
the entire surface of the cheese and may be uneven and wrinkled, but
not burst or torn. The rind shall be reasonably sound and free from
soft spots, rind rot, cracks, or openings of any kind. The surface may
be rough and unattractive but shall possess a fairly good coating of
paraffin. The paraffin may be scaly or blistered, with very slight mold
under the bandage or paraffin, but there shall be no indication that
mold has entered the cheese. The cheese may possess the following
characteristics to a slight degree: Checked rind, defective coating,
soiled surface, sour rind, surface mold, or weak rind; and to a
definite degree: High edges, irregular press cloth, lopsided, or rough
surface. See Table IV of this section.
(ii) Rindless and wrapped. The wrapper or covering shall be
unbroken and shall adequately and securely envelop the cheese. The
following may be present to a very slight degree: Mold under the
wrapper but not entering the cheese; to a slight degree: Soiled surface
or surface mold; and to a definite degree: High edges, irregular press
cloth, lopsided, rough surface, or wrinkled wrapper or cover. See Table
IV of this section.
(iii) Rindless and paraffin-dipped. The wrapper or coating applied
prior to paraffin dipping shall adequately and securely envelop the
cheese and have a coating of paraffin that adheres firmly to the cheese
wrapper and shall be unbroken but may be definitely wrinkled. The
paraffin may be scaly or blistered, with very slight mold under the
paraffin, but there shall be no indication that mold has entered the
cheese. The cheese may possess the following characteristics to a
slight degree: Defective coating, soiled surface, or surface mold; and
the following to a definite degree: High edges, irregular press cloth,
lopsided, rough surface, or wrinkled wrapper or covering. See Table IV
of this section.
Table I.--Classification of Flavor With Corresponding U.S. Grade
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flavor characteristics AA A B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acid................................ VS S D
Barny............................... - - S
Bitter.............................. - VS S
Feed................................ VS S D
Flat................................ - VS S
Fruity.............................. - - S
Malty............................... - - S
Old milk............................ - - S
Onion............................... - - VS
Rancid.............................. - - S
Sour................................ - - VS
Utensil............................. - - S
Weedy............................... - - S
Whey-taint.......................... - - S
Yeasty.............................. - - S
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- = Not permitted VS = Very Slight S = Slight D = Definite.
Table II.--Classification of Body and Texture With Corresponding U.S. Grade
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Body and texture characteristics AA A B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coarse.............................. - - S
Corky............................... - - S
Crumbly............................. - - S
Curdy............................... D D D
Gassy............................... - - S
Loosely knit........................ - VS S
Mealy............................... - - S
Pasty............................... - - S
Short............................... - - S
[[Page 15879]]
Slitty.............................. - - S
Sweet holes......................... - - S
Weak................................ VS VS S
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- = Not permitted VS = Very Slight S = Slight D = Definite.
Table III.--Classification of Color With Corresponding U.S. Grade
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Color characteristics AA A B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acid-cut............................ - - S
Bleached surface (rindless)......... - - S
Dull or faded....................... - - S
Mottled............................. - - S
Salt spots.......................... - - S
Unnatural........................... - - S
Wavy................................ - VS S
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- = Not permitted VS = Very Slight S = Slight D = Definite.
Table IV.--Classification of Finish and Appearance With Corresponding U.S. Grade
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finish and appearance
characteristics AA A B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rindless:
Defective coating (paraffin- - - S
dipped: scaly, blistered, and
checked)..
High edges...................... - S D
Irregular press cloth (uneven, - S D
wrinkled, and improper
overlapping).
Lopsided........................ - S D
Mold under wrapper or covering.. - - VS
Rough surface................... - S D
Soiled surface.................. - - S
Soiled surface (paraffin-dipped) VS VS S
Surface mold.................... - - S
Wrinkled wrapper or covering.... S S D
Rinded:
Checked rind.................... - - S
Defective coating (scaly, - - S
blistered, and checked).
High edges...................... - S D
Irregular press cloth (uneven, - S D
wrinkled, and improper
overlapping).
Lopsided........................ - S D
Mold under paraffin............. - - VS
Rough surface................... - S D
Soiled surface.................. VS VS S
Sour rind....................... - - S
Surface mold.................... - VS S
Weak rind....................... - - S
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- = Not permitted VS = Very Slight S = Slight D = Definite.
Sec. 58.2470 U.S. grade not assignable.
Monterey (Monterey Jack) cheese shall not be assigned a U.S. grade
for one or more of the following reasons:
(a) The cheese fails to meet or exceed the requirements for U.S.
Grade B.
(b) The cheese is produced in a plant that is rated ineligible for
USDA grading service or is not USDA-approved.
Explanation of terms
Sec. 58.2471 Explanation of Terms.
(a) With respect to types of surface protection:
(1) Paraffin. Refined paraffin, amorphous wax, microcrystalline
wax, or any combination of such or any other suitable substance.
(2) Paraffin dipped. Cheese that has been coated with paraffin.
(3) Rind. A hard coating caused by the dehydration of the surface
of the cheese.
(4) Rinded. A protection developed by the formation of a rind.
(5) Rindless. Cheese which has not formed a rind due to the
impervious type of wrapper, covering, or container, enclosing the
cheese.
(6) Wrapped. Cheese that has been covered with a transparent or
opaque material (plastic film type or foil) next to the surface of the
cheese.
(7) Wrapper or covering. A plastic film or foil material next to
the surface of the cheese, used as an enclosure or covering of the
cheese.
(b) With respect to flavor:
(1) Very slight. Detected only upon very critical examination.
(2) Slight. Detected only upon critical examination.
(3) Definite. Not intense but detectable.
(4) Undesirable. Those listed in excess of the intensity permitted
or those characterizing flavors not listed.
(5) Acid. Sharp and puckery to the taste, characteristic of lactic
acid.
(6) Barny. A flavor characteristic of the odor of a poorly
ventilated cow barn.
(7) Bitter. Distasteful, similar to the taste of quinine.
(8) Feed. Feed flavors (such as alfalfa, sweetclover, silage, or
similar feed) in
[[Page 15880]]
milk which have carried through into the cheese.
(9) Flat. Insipid, practically devoid of any characteristic
monterey (monterey jack) cheese flavor.
(10) Fruity. A fermented, sweet, fruit-like flavor resembling
apples.
(11) Lacking in flavor development. No undesirable and very little,
if any, monterey (monterey jack) cheese flavor development.
(12) Malty. A distinctive, harsh flavor suggestive of malt.
(13) Old milk. Lacks freshness.
(14) Onion. A flavor recognized by the peculiar taste and aroma
suggestive of its name. Present in milk or cheese when the cows have
eaten onions, garlic, or leeks.
(15) Rancid. A flavor suggestive of rancidity or butyric acid;
sometimes associated with bitterness.
(16) Sour. An acid, pungent flavor resembling vinegar.
(17) Utensil. A flavor that is suggestive of improper or inadequate
washing and sterilization of milking machines, utensils, or factory
equipment.
(18) Weedy. A flavor present in cheese when cows have eaten weedy
hay or grazed on weed-infested pasture.
(19) Whey-taint. A slightly acid flavor characteristic of fermented
whey.
(20) Yeasty. A flavor indicating yeast fermentation.
(c) With respect to body and texture:
(1) Very slight. Detected only upon very critical examination and
present only to a minute degree.
(2) Slight. Barely identifiable and present only to a small degree.
(3) Definite. Readily identifiable and present to a substantial
degree.
(4) Coarse. Feels rough, dry, and sandy.
(5) Corky. Hard, tough, over-firm cheese which does not readily
break down when rubbed between the thumb and fingers.
(6) Crumbly. Tends to fall apart when rubbed between the thumb and
fingers.
(7) Curdy. Smooth but firm; when worked between the fingers is
rubbery and not waxy or broken down.
(8) Firm. Feels solid, not soft or weak.
(9) Gassy. Gas holes of various sizes and may be scattered.
(10) Loosely knit. Curd particles which are not well-matted and
fused together.
(11) Mealy. Short body, does not mold well and looks and feels like
corn meal when rubbed between the thumb and fingers.
(12) Mechanical openings. Irregular shaped openings that are caused
by variations in make procedure and not caused by gas fermentation.
(13) Pasty. Is usually a weak body and when the cheese is rubbed
between the thumb and fingers becomes sticky and smeary.
(14) Pinny. Numerous very small gas holes.
(15) Reasonably firm. Somewhat less firm but not to the extent of
being weak.
(16) Short. No elasticity in the cheese plug and when rubbed
between the thumb and fingers, the cheese tends toward mealiness.
(17) Slitty. Narrow, elongated slits generally associated with a
cheese that is gassy or yeasty. These slits may sometimes be referred
to as ``fish-eyes.''
(18) Sweet holes. Spherical gas holes which are glossy in
appearance and usually about the size of BB shots. These gas holes are
sometimes referred to as ``shot holes.''
(19) Weak. The cheese plug is soft but is not necessarily sticky
like a pasty cheese and requires little pressure to crush.
(d) With respect to color:
(1) Very slight. Detected only upon very critical examination and
present only to a minute degree.
(2) Slight. Barely identifiable and present only to a small degree.
(3) Acid-cut. A bleached or faded color which sometimes varies
throughout the cheese and appears most often around mechanical
openings.
(4) Bleached surface. A faded color beginning at the surface and
progressing inward.
(5) Dull or faded. A color condition lacking in luster or
translucency.
(6) Mottled. Irregular shaped spots or blotches in which portions
are not uniform in color. Also an unevenness of color due to combining
the curd from two different vats, sometimes referred to as ``mixed
curd.''
(7) Natural. White to light cream in color.
(8) Salt spots. Large light-colored spots or areas.
(9) Unnatural. Any color which is not white to light cream.
(10) Wavy. An unevenness of color which appears as layers or waves.
(e) With respect to finish and appearance:
(1) Very slight. Detected only upon very critical examination and
present to a minute degree.
(2) Slight. Barely identifiable and present to a small degree.
(3) Definite. Readily identifiable and present to a substantial
degree.
(4) Adequately and securely enveloped. The wrapper or covering is
properly sealed and entirely encloses the cheese with sufficient
adherence to the surface of the cheese to protect it from contamination
or dehydration.
(5) Bandage. Cheese cloth used to wrap cheese prior to dipping in
paraffin.
(6) Bandage evenly placed. Placement of the bandage so that it
completely envelops the cheese and overlaps evenly about one inch.
(7) Bright surface. Clean, glossy surface.
(8) Burst or torn bandage. A severance of the bandage usually
occurring at the side seam; or when the bandage is otherwise snagged or
broken.
(9) Checked rind. Numerous small cracks or breaks in the rind which
sometimes follows the outline of curd particles.
(10) Defective coating. A brittle coating of paraffin that breaks
and peels off in the form of scales or flakes; flat or raised blisters
or bubbles under the surface of the paraffin; checked paraffin,
including cracks, breaks or hairline checks in the paraffin or coating
of the cheese.
(11) Firm sound rind. A rind possessing a firmness and thickness
(not easily dented or damaged) consistent with the size of the cheese
and which is dry, smooth, and closely knit, sufficient to protect the
interior quality from external defects; free from checks, cracks,
breaks, or soft spots.
(12) High edge. A rim or ridge on the side of the cheese.
(13) Huffed. A block of cheese which is swollen because of gas
fermentation. The cheese becomes rounded or oval in shape instead of
having flat surfaces.
(14) Irregular press cloth. Press cloth improperly placed in the
hoop resulting in too much press cloth on one end and insufficient on
the other causing overlapping; wrinkled and loose fitting.
(15) Lopsided. One side of the cheese is higher than the other
side.
(16) Mold under bandage and paraffin. Mold spots or areas under the
paraffin.
(17) Mold under wrapper or covering. Mold spots or areas under the
wrapper or covering.
(18) Rind rot. Soft spots on the rind that have become discolored
and are decayed or decomposed.
(19) Rough Surface. Lacks smoothness.
(20) Smooth surface. Not rough or uneven.
(21) Soft spots. Areas soft to the touch and which are usually
faded and moist.
(22) Soiled surface. Milkstone, rust spots, or other discoloration
on the surface of the cheese.
(23) Sour rind. A fermented rind condition, usually confined to the
faces of the cheese.
(24) Surface mold. Mold on the exterior of the paraffin or wrapper.
(25) Wax or paraffin that adheres firmly to the surface of the
cheese. A
[[Page 15881]]
coating with no cracks, breaks, or loose areas.
(26) Weak rind. A thin rind which possesses little or no resistance
to pressure.
Dated: April 4, 1996.
Lon Hatamiya,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-8930 Filed 4-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8928 1995-Crop Sugarcane and Sugar Beet Price Support Loan Rates
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8928]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Commodity Credit Corporation
7 CFR Part 1435
RIN 0560-AE44
1995-Crop Sugarcane and Sugar Beet Price Support Loan Rates
AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Sugar Price-Support Program is conducted by the Commodity
Credit Corporation (CCC) in accordance with section 206 of the
Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (the 1949 Act). This final rule
amends the regulation by setting forth 1995-crop loan rates to be used
in administering the Sugar Price-Support Program. The national
(weighted-average) loan rate for 1995-crop raw cane sugar shall be
18.00 cents per pound. The national (weighted-average) loan rate for
1995-crop refined beet sugar shall be 22.90 cents per pound.
EFFECTIVE DATES: April 10, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Colacicco, Farm Service Agency,
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Ag Box 0516, P.O. Box
2415, Washington, DC 20013-2415, telephone 202-690-0734.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866
This rule has been determined to be economically significant and
was reviewed by OMB under Executive Order 12866.
Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
The Final Regulatory Impact Analysis describing the impact of
implementation of this rule is available on request from the above-
named individual.
Federal Assistance Program
The title and number of the Federal Assistance Program, as found in
the catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance, to which this final rule
applies are Commodity Loans and Purchases--10.051.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
It has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not
applicable because the CCC is not required by 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other
provision of law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with
respect to the subject matter of this rule.
Environmental Evaluation
An Environmental Evaluation with respect to the price-support loan
program has been completed. It has been determined that this action
will not adversely affect environmental factors such as wildlife
habitat, water quality, air quality, land use, and appearance.
Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental
Impact Statement is needed.
Executive Order 12372
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order
12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and
local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V,
published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).
Paperwork Reduction Act
The amendments to 7 CFR part 1435 set forth in this final rule do
not contain information collection requirements that require clearance
by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 35).
Executive Order 12778
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive
Order 12778. The provisions of this final rule preempt State laws to
the extent such laws are inconsistent with the provisions of this final
rule; are not retroactive; and are not subject to administrative appeal
remedies.
Background
This final rule amends 7 CFR part 1435 to set forth the 1995
national price-support levels for use in administering CCC sugar price-
support programs. Section 206 of the 1949 Act provides that the
Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) shall support the price of the
1991 through 1997 domestically grown crops of sugarcane and sugar beets
through nonrecourse loans. Section 206 further provides that the
Secretary shall support the price of domestically grown sugarcane at
such level as the Secretary determines appropriate, but not less than
18 cents per pound for raw cane sugar. The Secretary also is required
to support the price of domestically grown sugar beets at a level equal
to the sugarcane support level multiplied by the ratio of producer
returns for sugar beets to producer returns for sugarcane, for the most
recent 5-year period for which data are available, plus an amount that
covers sugar beet processor fixed marketing expenses.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1435
Loan programs/agriculture, Price-support programs, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sugar.
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 1435 is amended as follows:
PART 1435--SUGAR
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1435 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1421, 1423, 1446g; 15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c.
2. Section 1435.4 is amended by redesignating paragraph (e) as
paragraph (f) and adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1435.4 Method of support and loan rates.
* * * * *
(e) The basic (weighted average) loan rates for the 1995 crops of
domestically grown:
(1) Sugarcane shall be 18 cents per pound of raw cane sugar; and
(2) Sugar beets shall be 22.90 cents per pound of refined beet
sugar.
* * * * *
Signed in Washington, DC, on April 4, 1996.
Bruce R. Weber,
Acting Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation.
[FR Doc. 96-8928 Filed 4-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8920 Indiana Regulatory Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15891-15895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8920]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 914
[SPATS No. IN-133-FOR; Amendment No. 95-11]
Indiana Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSM is approving, with additional requirements, a proposed
amendment to the Indiana regulatory program (hereinafter referred to as
the ``Indiana program'') under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). Indiana proposed revisions to the
Indiana Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act (ISCMRA) as enacted by
the Indiana General Assembly (1995) in House Enrolled Act 1575 (HEA
1575). The proposed amendment concerns lands eligible for remining,
responsibilities of the director of Indiana Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR), and surface and underground tonnage fees. The
amendment is intended to revise the Indiana program to be consistent
with SMCRA and to incorporate State initiatives. The proposed revisions
concerning lands eligible for remining are intended to provide
incentives for the remining and reclamation of previously mined and
inadequately reclaimed lands eligible for expenditures under section
402(g)(4) or 404 of SMCRA as provided for by the Energy Policy Act of
1992.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger W. Calhoun, Director,
Indianapolis Field Office, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, Minton-Capehart Federal Building, 575 North Pennsylvania
[[Page 15892]]
Street, Room 301, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-1521, Telephone (317)
226-6700.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Indiana Program
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
III. Director's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. Director's Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Indiana Program
On July 29, 1982, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally
approved the Indiana program. Background information on the Indiana
program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of
comments, and the conditions of approval can be found in the July 26,
1982, Federal Register (47 FR 32107). Subsequent actions concerning the
conditions of approval and program amendments can be found at 30 CFR
914.10, 914.15, and 914.16.
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
By letter dated September 11, 1995 (Administrative Record No. IND-
1509), Indiana submitted a proposed amendment to its program pursuant
to SMCRA. Indiana submitted the proposed amendment at its own
initiative. HEA 1575 amends ISCMRA by adding new sections and revising
existing sections to recodified Indiana Code (IC) 14-8 and 14-34. The
proposed amendment adds new definitions for lands eligible for remining
at IC 14-8-2-144.5 and unanticipated event or condition at IC 14-8-2-
285.5; amends recodified IC 14-34-2-4, Responsibilities of the director
of IDNR; adds IC 14-34-4-8.5, Permit finding concerning an
unanticipated event or condition on lands eligible for remining; adds
IC 14-34-4-10.5, Permit application requirement concerning
unanticipated events or conditions; amends recodified IC 14-34-10-
2(b)(23), Revegetation responsibility periods; amends recodified IC 14-
34-13-1, Reclamation fee requirement for surface coal mining
operations; amends recodified IC 14-34-13-2, Reclamation fee
requirement for underground coal mining operations; and amends
recodified IC 14-34-19-2, Lands and water eligible for reclamation or
drainage abatement expenditures. The recodification of the current
provisions of ISCMRA is proposed in Indiana's Program Amendment No. 95-
10, and it is discussed in a separate final rule.
OSM announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the January 22,
1996, Federal Register (61 FR 1549), and in the same document opened
the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public
hearing on the adequacy of the proposed amendment. The public comment
period closed on February 21, 1996.
III. Director's Findings
Set forth below, pursuant to SMCRA and the Federal regulations at
30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17, are the Director's findings concerning the
proposed amendment.
Revisions not specifically discussed below concern nonsubstantive
wording changes, or revised cross-references and paragraph notations to
reflect organizational changes resulting from this amendment.
1. IC 14-8-2-144.5 Definition of ``Lands Eligible for Remining''
Indiana proposed a definition at IC 14-8-2-144.5 to define the term
``lands eligible for remining'' to mean those lands that are eligible
for funding under IC 14-34-19 or section 402(g)(4) of SMCRA.
Section 701(34) of SMCRA defines the term ``lands eligible for
remining'' to mean those lands that would otherwise be eligible for
expenditures under section 404 or 402(g)(4) of SMCRA. Indiana's statute
at IC 14-34-19 that is referenced in its definition is the State
counterpart provision to section 404 of SMCRA in the Federal
definition. Therefore, the Director finds that Indiana's proposed
definition of ``lands eligible for remining'' at IC 14-8-2-144.5 is no
less stringent than the definition at section 701(34) of SMCRA.
2. IC 14-8-2-285.5 Definition of ``Unanticipated Event or Condition''
Indiana proposed a definition of ``unanticipated event or
condition'' at IC 14-8-2-285.5 that is substantively identical to the
Federal definition at section 701(33) of SMCRA. Therefore, the Director
finds that the proposed definition at IC 14-8-2-285.5 is no less
stringent than SMCRA.
3. IC 14-34-2-4(a)(7) and (b) Responsibilities of the Director of IDNR
Indiana proposed to amend recodified IC 14-34-2-4 [previously IC
13-4.1-2-2(b)] by adding new paragraph (7) to subsection (a) and adding
new subsection (b). At IC 14-34-2-4(a)(7) and (b), Indiana is proposing
to allow the Director of IDNR to submit formal state program amendments
to OSM only after the amendment has been approved by the governor of
Indiana or has become law.
Section 503 of SMCRA provides that a State may not exercise
jurisdiction under SMCRA unless the State program is approved by the
Secretary. Similarly, the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 732.17(g)
requires that proposed changes to laws or regulations that make up the
approved State program be submitted to the Director as an amendment and
that they shall not take effect for purposes of a State program until
approved as an amendment. However, neither SMCRA nor the Federal
regulations contain specific requirements regarding the administrative
or legislative procedures in the State for rulemaking. Therefore, since
the Director of IDNR must still submit formal State program amendments
to OSM, the Director finds the proposed revisions at IC 14-34-2-4(a)(7)
and (b) do not render the Indiana program less stringent than SMCRA or
less effective than the Federal regulations.
4. IC 14-34-4-8.5 Permit Findings
Indiana is proposing that the finding required by IC 14-34-4-
7(a)(6) and prohibition on the issuance of a permit in IC 14-34-4-8 do
not apply to a violation resulting from an unanticipated event or
condition at a surface coal mining operation on lands eligible for
remining under a permit held by the applicant.
The proposed provision at IC 14-34-4-8.5 is consistent with the
provisions in section 510(e) of SMCRA, which establishes an exemption
from the permit blocking provisions of section 510(c) of SMCRA for any
violation resulting from an unanticipated event or condition occurring
on a remining site, with two exceptions. First, Indiana did not propose
a counterpart to SMCRA's limiting language ``after the date of
enactment of this subsection'' that specified when a violation must
have occurred to be eligible for the exemption. The permit block
exemption in section 510(e) of SMCRA applies to violations that
occurred subsequent to October 24, 1992. Second, Indiana did not limit
the authority of IC 14-34-4-8.5 to September 30, 2004. Section 510(e)
of SMCRA specifies that its authority terminates on September 30, 2004.
The Federal implementing regulation at 30 CFR 773.15(b)(4)(i)(C)
qualified this termination requirement by specifying that the
prohibitions do not apply to permits issued before September 30, 2004,
or any renewals thereof.
Since IC 14-34-4-8.5 is consistent with the other provisions and
the intent of section 510(e) of SMCRA, the Director is approving it
with the requirement that Indiana propose implementing regulations that
include the two limiting provisions. Indiana is to propose implementing
regulations consistent
[[Page 15893]]
with the Federal regulation at 30 CFR 773.15(b)(4)(i), as added on
November 27, 1995 (60 FR 58480), that limits the permit block exemption
to those violations that occur after October 24, 1992, and to those
permits issued before September 30, 2004, or any renewals thereof.
5. IC 14-34-4-10.5 Permit Application Requirement for Remining
Operations
The proposed statute at IC 14-34-4-10.5 authorizes Indiana to
require identification of potential problems in a permit application
for lands eligible for remining. Indiana proposed to add subsection (a)
to require that an applicant make a good faith effort to identify
potential problems that may result in an unanticipated event or
condition in the permit application. Subsection (b) specifies that ``an
event or condition that arises despite substantial adherence to the
applicable operation and reclamation plan may be considered
unanticipated if it was not identified in the application for the
governing permit.''
There is no direct counterpart language in section 510(e) of SMCRA.
However, the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 773.15(b)(4), 773.15(c)(13),
and 785.25 were developed to implement the ``unanticipated event or
condition'' provisions of section 510(e) of SMCRA pertaining to permit
applications for lands eligible for remining. Sections
773.15(c)(13)(ii) and 785.25(b)(1) contain language similar to IC 14-
34-4-10.5(a) by requiring the permit application to identify potential
environmental and safety problems related to prior mining activity at
the site. Therefore, the Director finds that the proposed statute at IC
14-34-4-10.5 is not inconsistent with SMCRA. However, the Federal
regulations contain additional requirements not considered in the
Indiana statute, and he is approving it with the requirement that
Indiana amend its program to provide implementing regulations
consistent with the Federal regulations.
The Director is requiring Indiana to amend its regulations at 310
IAC 12-3-112 consistent with 30 CFR 773.15(b)(4), pertaining to review
of violation requirements and with 30 CFR 773.15(c)(13), pertaining to
written findings for permit application approval, as added on November
27, 1995 (60 FR 58480). He is also requiring Indiana to amend its
regulations at 310 IAC 12-3 consistent with 30 CFR 785.25 (a) through
(c), pertaining to permitting requirements for lands eligible for
remining, as added on November 27, 1995 (60 FR 58480).
6. IC 14-34-10-2(b)(23) Revegetation Responsibility Periods
a. IC 14-34-10-2(b)(23)(A). Indiana proposed to amend recodified IC
14-34-10-2(b)(23) [previously IC 13-4.1-8-1(20)] by limiting the
requirement for 5 years of revegetation responsibility to those lands
not eligible for remining by adding the language ``on lands not
eligible for remining'' to the existing provision pertaining to a 5-
year responsibility period. This provision was designated subdivision
(23)(A). Although not specifically stated, the 5-year revegetation
responsibility period requirement in section 515(20)(A) of SMCRA also
pertains to lands not eligible for remining. Therefore, the Director
finds IC 14-34-10-2(b)(23)(A) is no less stringent than section
515(20)(A) of SMCRA.
b. IC 14-34-10-2(b)(23)(B). Indiana proposed to add new subdivision
(23)(B) that allows a 2-year responsibility period for lands eligible
for remining. Section 515(20)(B) of SMCRA and the amended implementing
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816/817.116(c)(2)(ii) also allow a 2-year
responsibility period for lands eligible for remining. However, section
510(e) of SMCRA specifies that the authority of section 515(b)(20)(B)
shall terminate on September 30, 2004. The Federal implementing
regulations at 30 CFR 816/817.116(c)(2)(ii) qualify this termination
requirement by specifying permits issued before September 30, 2004, or
any renewals thereof. The proposed Indiana statute does not contain
this termination language.
Since IC 14-34-10-2(b)(23)(B) is consistent with the other
provision language and the intent of section 515(b)(20)(B) of SMCRA,
the Director is approving it with the requirement that Indiana propose
implementing regulations that contain the termination language. Indiana
is to amend its regulations at 310 IAC 12-4-7, period of liability, by
proposing provisions consistent with the Federal regulations at 30 CFR
816/817.116(c)(2)(ii), as added on November 27, 1995 (60 FR 58480),
pertaining to the 2-year revegetation period of responsibility for
lands eligible for remining and to the limitation of the provisions to
permits issued before September 30, 2004, or any renewals thereof.
7. IC 14-34-13-1 Reclamation Fee for Surface Coal Mining Operations
and IC 14-34-13-2 Reclamation Fee for Underground Coal Mining
Operations
Indiana proposed to amend recodified IC 14-34-13 [previously IC 13-
4.1-3-2]. Indiana proposed to limit the provision at IC 14-34-13-1 to
surface coal mining operations, to change the reclamation fee for
surface coal mining operations from five and one-half cents per ton of
coal produced to three cents, and to remove the language which required
fees to be paid only until July 1, 1995. Indiana proposed to add a new
provision at IC 14-34-13-2(a) pertaining to reclamation fees for
underground coal mining operations with support facilities located
within Indiana and to change the reclamation fee for these operations
from five and one-half cents per ton of coal produced to two cents.
Indiana also proposed to remove the language which required fees to be
paid only until July 1, 1995, from its existing provision in IC 14-34-
13-2 and to redesignate it as subsection (b). This provision requires
underground coal mining operations that have no support facilities
located within Indiana but produce coal from reserves located within
Indiana to pay a reclamation fee of one cent per ton of coal produced.
The fees from surface and underground coal mining operations are
deposited into the natural resources reclamation division fund for
administration of the Indiana program.
Section 507(a) of SMCRA provides that an application for a surface
coal mining and reclamation permit shall be accompanied by a fee
determined by the regulatory authority. Such fee may be less than, but
shall not exceed the actual or anticipated cost of reviewing,
administering, and enforcing the permit. The regulatory authority may
develop procedures to allow the fee to be paid over the term of the
permit. After a review of the projected income from the proposed fees,
the Director finds that the income will be less than the anticipated
cost of reviewing, administering, and enforcing permits under the
Indiana program. Therefore, the proposed changes in Indiana's
provisions at IC 14-34-13-1 and IC 14-34-13-2 pertaining to permit fee
amounts do not render these previously approved sections less stringent
than section 507(a) of SMCRA.
8. IC 14-34-19-2 Eligibility of Lands for Reclamation and Restoration
Under the Abandoned Mine Land Program
Indiana proposed to amend recodified IC 14-34-19-2 [previously IC
13-4.1-15-2] by designating the existing language as subsection (a) and
by adding new subsection (b). New subsection (b) specifies that
``surface coal mining operations on lands eligible for remining do not
affect the eligibility of the lands for reclamation and restoration
under this chapter after the
[[Page 15894]]
release of the bond or deposit for the operation under IC 14-34-6.''
The language in the new provision at IC 14-34-19-2(b) is
substantively identical to the Federal counterpart provision in section
404 of SMCRA. Therefore, the Director finds the proposed revisions to
IC 14-34-19-2 do not render it less stringent than section 404 of
SMCRA, and he is approving them.
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Public Comments
The Director solicited public comments and provided an opportunity
for a public hearing on the proposed amendment. No public comments were
received, and because no one requested an opportunity to speak at a
public hearing, no hearing was held.
Federal Agency Comments
Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), the Director solicited
comments on the proposed amendment from various Federal agencies with
an actual or potential interest in the Indiana program (Administrative
Record No. IND-1514). No comments were received.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), OSM is required to obtain the
written concurrence of the EPA with respect to those provisions of the
proposed program amendment that relate to air or water quality
standards promulgated under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
None of the revisions that Indiana proposed to make in this amendment
pertain to air or water quality standards. Therefore, OSM did not
request EPA's concurrence.
Pursuant to 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM solicited comments on the
proposed amendment from EPA (Administrative Record No. IND-1514). EPA
did not respond.
State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), OSM is required to solicit
comments on proposed amendments which may have an effect on historic
properties from the SHPO and ACHP. OSM solicited comments on the
proposed amendment from the SHPO and ACHP (Administrative Record No.
IND-1514). Neither SHPO nor ACHP responded to OSM's request.
V. Director's Decision
Based on the above findings, the Director approves, with additional
requirements, the proposed amendment as submitted by Indiana on
September 11, 1995.
The Director approves, as discussed in: finding No. 1, IC 14-8-2-
144.5, concerning a definition of ``lands eligible for remining'';
finding No. 2, IC 14-8-2-285.5, concerning a definition of
``unanticipated event or condition''; finding No. 3, IC 14-34-2-4(a)(7)
and (b), concerning responsibilities of the director of IDNR; finding
No. 6.a., IC 14-34-10-2(b)(23)(A), concerning a 5-year revegetation
responsibility period; finding No. IC 14-34-13-1 and 2, concerning
reclamation fees for surface and underground coal mining operations;
and finding No. 8, IC 14-34-19-2, concerning eligibility of lands for
reclamation and restoration under the abandoned mine land program.
With the requirement that Indiana further revise its rules, the
Director approves, as discussed in: finding No. 4, IC 14-34-4-8.5,
concerning violations resulting from an unanticipated event or
condition occurring on a remining site; finding No. 5, IC 14-34-4-10.5,
concerning identification of potential problems in a permit application
for lands eligible for remining; and finding No. 6.b, IC 14-34-10-
2(b)(24), concerning a 2-year revegetation responsibility period for
lands eligible for remining.
In accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(f)(1), the Director is also taking
this opportunity to clarify in the requirement amendment section at 30
CFR 914.16 that, within 60 days of the publication of this final rule,
Indiana must either submit a proposed written amendment, or a
description of an amendment to be proposed that meets the requirements
of SMCRA and 30 CFR Chapter VII and a timetable for enactment that is
consistent with Indiana's established administrative or legislative
procedures.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 914, codifying decisions
concerning the Indiana program, are being amended to implement this
decision. This final rule is being made effectively immediately to
expedite the State program amendment process and to encourage States to
bring their programs into conformity with the Federal standards without
undue delay. Consistency of State and Federal standards is required by
SMCRA.
Effect of Director's Decision
Section 503 of SMCRA provides that a State may not exercise
jurisdiction under SMCRA unless the State program is approved by the
Secretary. Similarly, 30 CFR 732.17(a) requires that any alteration of
an approved State program be submitted to OSM for review as a program
amendment. The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(g) provide that an
amendment shall not take effect for purposes of a State program until
approved by OSM. In the oversight of the Indiana program, the Director
will recognize only the statutes, regulations and other materials
approved by OSM, together with any consistent implementing policies,
directives and other materials, and will require the enforcement by
Indiana of only such provisions.
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12866
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review).
Executive Order 12778
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 2 of Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform) and has
determined that, to the extent allowed by law, this rule meets the
applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section.
However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of
State regulatory programs and program amendments since each such
program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM.
Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30
CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State
regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must
be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is
consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and
whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have
been met.
National Environmental Policy Act
No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since
section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency
decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the
[[Page 15895]]
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior has determined that this 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 State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon
corresponding Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In
making the determination as to whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and
assumptions for the corresponding Federal regulations.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 914
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: April 3, 1996.
Brent Wahlquist,
Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII,
Subchapter T of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth
below:
PART 914--INDIANA
1. The authority citation for Part 914 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
2. Section 914.15 is amended by adding paragraph (ppp) to read as
follows:
Sec. 914.15 Approval of regulatory program amendments.
* * * * *
(ppp) The amendment submitted by Indiana to OSM by letter dated
September 11, 1995, is approved effective April 10, 1996.
3. Section 914.16 is revised to add paragraph (hh) to read as
follows:
Sec. 914.16 Required program amendments.
* * * * *
(hh) By June 10, 1996, Indiana shall submit either a proposed
amendment or a description of an amendment to be proposed, together
with a timetable for adoption of proposed revisions to the Indiana
program to provide implementing regulations for IC 14-34-4-8.5,
concerning violations resulting from an unanticipated event or
condition occurring on a remining site; IC 14-34-4-10.5, concerning
identification of potential problems in a permit application for lands
eligible for remining; and IC 14-34-10-2(b)(24), concerning a 2-year
revegetation responsibility period for lands eligible for remining.
Specifically, Indiana shall amend 310 IAC 12-3-112 by adding a
counterpart to 30 CFR 773.15(b)(4) and 30 CFR 773.15(c)(13), as added
on November 27, 1995 (60 FR 58480); shall amend 310 IAC 12-3 by adding
a counterpart to 30 CFR 785.25, as added on November 27, 1995 (60 FR
58480); and shall amend 310 IAC 12-4-7 by adding counterpart to 30 CFR
816/817.116(c)(2)(ii), as added on November 27, 1995 (60 FR 58480).
[FR Doc. 96-8920 Filed 4-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8911 Determination of Interest Expense Deduction of Foreign Corporations; Correction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8911]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[TD 8658]
RIN 1545-AL84
Determination of Interest Expense Deduction of Foreign
Corporations; Correction
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Correction to final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final regulations [TD
8658] which were published in the Federal Register for Friday, March 8,
1996 (61 FR 9326). The final regulations relate to the determination of
the interest expense deduction of foreign corporations and apply to
foreign corporations engaged in a trade or business within the United
States.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ahmad Pirasteh or Richard Hoge (202)
622-3870 (not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The final regulations that are subject to these corrections are
under sections 882, 864(e), 988(d), and 7701(l) of the Internal Revenue
Code.
Need for Correction
As published, the final regulations [TD 8658] contain errors that
are in need of clarification.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the publication of final regulations which are the
subject of FR Doc. 96-5262 is corrected as follows:
Sec. 1.882-0 [Corrected]
1. On page 9329, column 1, Sec. 1.882-0, the section heading entry
for Sec. 1.882-1, ``Sec. 1.882-1 Taxation of foreign corporations
engaged in U.S. business or of foreign corporations treated as having
effectively connected income.'' is corrected to read
Sec. 1.882-1 Taxation of foreign corporations engaged in U.S. business
or of foreign corporations treated as having effectively connected
income.
Sec. 1.882-5 [Corrected]
2. On page 9330, column 3, Sec. 1.882-5, paragraph (a)(6), line 7
from the bottom of the paragraph, the language ``respect to U.S.-booked
liabilities that'' is corrected to read ``respect to U.S. booked
liabilities that''.
3. On page 9331, column 1, Sec. 1.882-5, paragraph (a)(8),
paragraph (ii) of Example 1, line 12, the language ``(c)(2)(vi), and
(d)(2)(vii) or (e)(1)(ii) this'' is corrected to read ``(c)(2)(vi), and
(d)(2)(vii) or (e)(1)(ii) of this''.
4. On page 9332, column 2, Sec. 1.882-5, paragraph (b)(3), last
four lines of the paragraph, the language ``less frequently than
monthly by a large bank (as defined in section 585(c)(2)) and semi-
annually by any other taxpayer'' is corrected to read ``less frequently
than monthly (beginning of taxable year and monthly thereafter) by a
large bank (as defined in section 585(c)(2)) and semi-annually
(beginning, middle and end of taxable year) by any other taxpayer''.
5. On page 9332, column 2, Sec. 1.882-5, paragraph (c)(2)(i), lines
3 and 2 from the bottom of the paragraph, the language ``annually by a
large bank (as defined in section 585(c)(2)) and annually by any'' is
corrected to read ``annually (beginning, middle and end of taxable
year) by a large bank (as defined in section 585(c)(2)) and annually
(beginning and end of taxable year) by any''.
6. On page 9334, column 3, Sec. 1.882-5, paragraph (d)(6),
paragraph (i) of Example 1, the table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asset 1......................................... $2,000 ..........
Asset 2......................................... 2,500 ..........
Asset 3......................................... 5,500 ..........
Amount Interest
Liability 1..................................... $800 56
Liability 2..................................... 3,200 256
Capital......................................... 6,000 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
is corrected to read
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asset 1......................................... $2,000 ..........
Asset 2......................................... 2,500 ..........
Asset 3......................................... 5,500 ..........
Amount Interest
Expense
Liability 1..................................... $800 56
Liability 2..................................... 3,200 256
Capital......................................... 6,000 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael L. Slaughter,
Acting Chief, Regulations Unit Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 96-8911 Filed 4-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8903 Validated Brucellosis-Free States; Georgia
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15881-15882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8903]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 78
[Docket No. 95-074-2]
Validated Brucellosis-Free States; Georgia
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim
rule that amended the brucellosis regulations concerning the interstate
movement of swine by adding Georgia to the list of validated
brucellosis-free States. We have determined that Georgia meets the
criteria for classification as a validated brucellosis-free State. The
interim rule relieved certain restrictions on the
[[Page 15882]]
interstate movement of breeding swine from Georgia.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The interim rule was effective on December 29, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Arnold Taft, Senior Staff
Veterinarian, National Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, suite 3B08,
4700 River Road Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, (301) 734-4916; or
e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In an interim rule effective and published in the Federal Register
on December 29, 1995 (60 FR 67320-67321, Docket No. 95-074-1), we
amended the brucellosis regulations in 9 CFR Part 78 by adding Georgia
to the list of validated brucellosis-free States in Sec. 78.43.
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or
before February 27, 1996. We did not receive any comments. The facts
presented in the interim rule still provide a basis for the rule.
This action also affirms the information contained in the interim
rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12778, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Further, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has
waived the review process required by Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 78
Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Hogs, Quarantine, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
PART 78--BRUCELLOSIS
Accordingly, we are adopting as a final rule, without change, the
interim rule that amended 9 CFR Part 78 and that was published at 60 FR
67320-67321 on December 29, 1995.
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111-114a-1, 114g, 115, 117, 120, 121, 123-
126, 134b, and 134f; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
Done in Washington, DC, this 4th day of April 1996.
Lonnie J. King,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-8903 Filed 4-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8663 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8663]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-5454-1]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan; National
Priorities List Update
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of Deletion of the Folkertsma Refuse Site Superfund Site
from the National Priorities List (NPL).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the
deletion of the Folkertsma Refuse site in Michigan from the National
Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which
is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP),
which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended. This action is being taken by EPA and the State
of Michigan, because it has have been determined that Responsible
Parties have implemented all appropriate response actions required.
Moreover, EPA and the State of Michigan have determined that remedial
actions conducted at the site to date remain protective of public
health, welfare, and the environment.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 10, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Sikora at (312) 886-1843 (SR-
6J), Remedial Project Manager or Gladys Beard at (312) 886-7253,
Associate Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Division, U.S. EPA--
Region V, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604. Information on the
site is available at the local information repository located at: Kent
County Public Library, 4293 Remembrance N. W., Walker, Michigan, 49554.
Requests for comprehensive copies of documents should be directed
formally to the Regional Docket Office. The contact for the Regional
Docket Office is Jan Pfundheller (H-7J), U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 W.
Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353-5821.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to be deleted from the NPL is:
Folkertsma Refuse Site located in Walker, Michigan. A Notice of Intent
to Delete for this site was published January 29, 1996 (61 FR 2772).
The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was
February 29, 1996. EPA received comments and therefore has prepared a
Responsiveness Summary.
The EPA identifies sites which appear to present a significant risk
to public health, welfare, or the environment and it maintains the NPL
as the list of those sites. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of
Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund (Fund-) financed remedial
actions. Any site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-
financed remedial actions in the unlikely event that conditions at the
site warrant such action. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that
Fund-financed actions may be taken at sites deleted from the NPL in the
unlikely event that conditions at the site warrant such action.
Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party
liability or impede agency efforts to recover costs associated with
response efforts.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous Waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Dated: March 26, 1996.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region V.
40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
PART 300--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp.; p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.; p. 193.
Appendix B--[Amended]
2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the
Site `` Folkertsma Refuse Site, Walker, Michigan''.
[FR Doc. 96-8663 Filed 4-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8583 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15882-15884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8583]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-NM-55-AD; Amendment 39-9562; AD 96-07-51]
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document publishes in the Federal Register an amendment
adopting Airworthiness Directive (AD) T96-07-51 that was sent
previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of McDonnell Douglas
Model DC-9 series airplanes by individual telegrams. This AD requires
repetitive inspections to detect corrosion and cracking of the fuselage
upper skin and frames in the area of the loop antenna assemblies of the
automatic direction finder (ADF), and repair, if necessary. This
amendment is prompted by reports of severe corrosion and cracking found
in that area. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent
rapid decompression of the fuselage, significant structural damage, and
subsequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane, due to
problems associated with corrosion and fatigue cracking in the subject
area.
DATES: Effective April 15, 1996, to all persons except those persons to
whom it was made immediately effective by telegraphic AD T96-07-51,
issued March 22, 1996, which contained the requirements of this
amendment.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of April 15, 1996.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before June 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM-56-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056.
The applicable service information may be obtained from McDonnell
Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California
90846, Attention: Technical Publications Business Administration, Dept.
C1-L51 (2-60). This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at
the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the
Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite
700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wahib Mina, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120l, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (310) 627-5324; fax (310) 627-
5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 22, 1996, the FAA issued
telegraphic AD T96-07-51, which is applicable to certain McDonnell
Douglas Model DC-9 series airplanes. That action was prompted by a
recent report indicating that severe corrosion and a 39-inch crack of
the forward fuselage upper skin was found during scheduled maintenance
on a McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-31 series airplane. The crack
originated under the loop antenna assemblies of the forward and aft
automatic direction finders (ADF). Subsequent inspection of the
adjacent structure revealed cracking of the fuselage frame at fuselage
station 275. The cracking found has been attributed to fatigue.
Corrosion and fatigue cracking in these areas, if not detected and
corrected in a timely manner, could result in rapid decompression of
the fuselage, significant damage to adjacent structure, and subsequent
reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Alert Service
Bulletin DC9-53A282, dated March 20, 1996, which describes procedures
for repetitive internal visual inspections to detect corrosion and
cracking of the fuselage forward upper skin, and to detect cracking of
the fuselage frames in the area of the loop antenna assemblies of the
forward and aft ADF. This alert service bulletin refers to the DC-9
Structural Repair Manual (SRM) for procedures to repair certain
corrosion or cracking.
Since the unsafe condition described is likely to exist or develop
on other airplanes of the same type design, the FAA issued Telegraphic
AD T96-07-51 to prevent rapid decompression of the fuselage,
significant structural damage, and subsequent reduced structural
integrity of the airplane, due to problems associated with corrosion
and fatigue cracking in the area of the loop antenna assemblies of the
forward and aft ADF. The AD requires repetitive internal visual
inspections to detect corrosion and cracking of the fuselage
[[Page 15883]]
forward upper skin and to detect cracking of the fuselage frames in the
subject area. This AD also requires repair of any corrosion or cracking
found. The inspections are required to be accomplished in accordance
with the alert service bulletin described previously. If cracking or
corrosion that is found that is within specified limits, it is required
to be repaired in accordance with the DC-9 SRM. However, if corrosion
or cracking is found that is outside specified limits, it is required
to be repaired in accordance with a method approved by the FAA.
Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required,
notice and opportunity for prior public comment thereon were
impracticable and contrary to the public interest, and good cause
existed to make the AD effective immediately by individual telegrams
issued on March 22, 1996, to all known U.S. owners and operators of
McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 series airplanes. These conditions still
exist, and the AD is hereby published in the Federal Register as an
amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
39.13) to make it effective to all persons.
This is considered to be interim action. The manufacturer has
advised that it is currently developing a modification that will
positively address the unsafe condition identified by this AD. Once
this modification is developed, approved, and available, the FAA may
consider further rulemaking.
Comments Invited
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves
requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by
notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on
this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire.
Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted
in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments will
be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments
received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and
suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the
AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be
needed.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be
available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the
Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that
summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this
AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 96-NM-55-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency
regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe
condition in aircraft, and that it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further
that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is
determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be
significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final
regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket.
A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the
location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-07-51 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-9562. Docket 96-NM-55-AD.
Applicability: Model DC-9 series airplanes having fuselage
numbers 001 through 631, inclusive; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent rapid decompression of the fuselage, significant
structural damage, and subsequent reduced structural integrity of
the airplane, due to problem associated with corrosion and fatigue
cracking, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 15 days after the effective date of this AD: Perform
an internal visual inspection to detect corrosion and cracking of
the fuselage forward upper skin and to detect cracking of the
fuselage frame in the area of the loop antenna assemblies of the
forward and aft automatic direction finder (ADF), in accordance with
McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-53A282, dated March 20,
1996.
(1) If no corrosion or cracking is detected: Repeat the
inspections required by paragraph (a) of this AD thereafter at
intervals not to exceed six months.
(2) If any corrosion or cracking is detected that is within the
limits specified in Chapter 53-04, Figure 29, of the DC-9 Structural
Repair Manual (SRM): Prior to further flight, repair in accordance
with Chapter 53-04, Figure 29, of the SRM. Repeat the inspection
required by paragraph (a) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to
exceed six months.
(3) If any corrosion or cracking is detected in the fuselage
forward upper skin, or if any cracking is detected in the fuselage
frame, and that corrosion or cracking is outside the limits
specified in Chapter 53-04, Figure 29, of the SRM: Prior to further
flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager,
Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their requests through
an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may
[[Page 15884]]
add comments and then send it to the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) The inspections shall be done in accordance with McDonnell
Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC9-53A282, dated March 20, 1996.
This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Copies may be obtained from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855
Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention:
Technical Publications Business Administration, Dept. C1-L51 (2-60).
This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North
Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on April 15, 1996, to all
persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately
effective by telegraphic AD T96-07-51, issued on March 22, 1996,
which contained the requirements of this amendment.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 28, 1996.
Bill R. Boxwell,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-8583 Filed 4-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8494 Small Takes of Marine Mammals; Harassment Takings Incidental to Specified Activities in Arctic Waters; Regulation Consolidation; Update of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Approval Numbers
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15884-15891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8494]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
15 CFR Part 902
50 CFR Parts 216 and 228
[Docket No. 950504128-6085-02; I.D. 031095A]
RIN 0648-AG80
Small Takes of Marine Mammals; Harassment Takings Incidental to
Specified Activities in Arctic Waters; Regulation Consolidation; Update
of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Approval Numbers
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Interim final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Amendments of 1994
established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States
can apply for an authorization to take incidentally, but not
intentionally, small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. This rule
sets forth the process for applying for, and obtaining, an
authorization in Arctic waters. This rule also makes minor
modifications to the existing regulations that clarify the requirements
for petitioning for and obtaining a small take authorization.
This rule also updates OMB approval numbers for application and
reports of incidental small takes.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on May 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the Environmental Assessment (EA), and/or the
results of a February 8-9, 1994 meeting cited in the preamble may be
obtained by writing to the Chief, Marine Mammal Division, Office of
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226 or by telephoning the person
below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Comments regarding the burden-hour estimate or any other aspect of
the collection of information requirement contained in this rule should
be sent to the above individual and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: NOAA Desk Officer, Washington, D.C.
20503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth R. Hollingshead, Office of
Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2055.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), directs
the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request by U.S. citizens
engaged in a specific activity (other than commercial fishing) in a
specified geographical region, the incidental, but not intentional,
taking of small numbers of marine mammals, if certain findings are made
and regulations are issued. Under the MMPA, the term ``taking'' means
to harass, hunt, capture or kill. Pursuant to part 228 of title 50,
permission may be granted for periods up to 5 years if NMFS finds,
after notice and opportunity for public comment, that the taking will
have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) of marine mammals
and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of
the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses. In addition, NMFS must
prescribe activity-specific regulations that include permissible
methods of taking and other means effecting the least practicable
adverse impact on the species and its habitat, and on the availability
of the species for subsistence uses, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds and areas of similar significance. These
regulations must include requirements pertaining to the monitoring and
reporting of such taking.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994 amended section
101(a)(5) of the MMPA to establish an expedited process by which
citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to
incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. It
established specific time limits for public notice and comment on any
requests for authorization under this new provision.
The legislative history notes that NMFS should use the general
rulemaking authority available under section 112 of the MMPA to
establish a process for granting authorization in the case of small
takes by harassment in the Arctic Ocean (H.R. Rep. No. 439, 103d Cong.,
2d Sess. 29, 30 (Mar. 21, 1994)). As a result of that mandate, NMFS has
expedited this rulemaking process in order to have incidental
harassment regulations effective for Arctic activities prior to the
1996 open water season in the Beaufort Sea.
This rule will result in a more streamlined and cost-effective
method for obtaining small take by incidental harassment authorizations
in Arctic waters, without lessening the MMPA's protection of species
and stocks of marine mammals. This rule does not cover incidental
harassment authorizations for non-Arctic waters. A final rule, which
will include an expanded discussion on what constitutes harassment for
purposes of issuing authorizations under this subpart, remains under
development. Until that final rule is published, NMFS will continue to
process and grant incidental harassment authorizations under the
statutory provisions and requirements.
Comments and Responses
On May 31, 1995 (60 FR 28379), NMFS issued a proposed rule to
modify regulations found at 50 CFR part 228, subpart A to include the
simplified process for authorizing the incidental taking of small
numbers of marine mammals by harassment without the need to issue
specific regulations governing the taking of marine mammals for each
and every activity. The proposed rule set forth: (1) The process for
obtaining an authorization;
[[Page 15885]]
(2) the specific time limits imposed by the statute for NMFS review and
publication, and public notice and comment, on any requests for
authorization that would be granted under this paragraph; and (3) the
requirements for scientific peer review of an applicant's monitoring
plans and submission of a plan of cooperation (if the subject activity
may affect the availability of a species or stock of marine mammal for
taking for subsistence purposes). The proposed rule also made minor
changes to the existing regulations to clarify the requirements for
petitioning and obtaining a small take authorization under section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Based on a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy), the comment period
was extended until October 16, 1995 (60 FR 35891, July 12, 1995).
During the comment period, NMFS received eight letters commenting on
the proposed rule. An additional 41 letters were received in response
to an Internet message but without review of the proposed rule.
Comments regarding incidental harassment authorizations in the Arctic
are discussed below. Response to comments outside the scope of Arctic
activities are reserved for a future rule.
Arctic Subsistence Concerns
Comment: The USCG recommends that Sec. 228.4(a)(7) (revised as
Sec. 216.104(a)(7)) be modified to clarify that the only subsistence
uses that are at issue are those defined in the MMPA.
Response: The term ``subsistence'' that applies to this rule, was
previously defined in Sec. 216.3; no changes to that definition are
considered necessary at this time. That definition makes any additional
clarifying language unnecessary.
Arctic Subsistence Concerns-Plans of Cooperation
Comment: The USCG believes that submitting a plan of cooperation is
not required by the MMPA, and, while it may be an ideal way to
implement the statutory requirements for determining impacts to Arctic
subsistence users, such an extensive plan of cooperation is not
necessary in every case.
Response: NMFS agrees that a formal plan of cooperation may not be
necessary for all activities that might result in the incidental
harassment of marine mammal species that are also sought for
subsistence purposes. As a result of the comment, NMFS has modified the
final rule accordingly. However, in order for NMFS to determine that
there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of
marine mammals for taking for subsistence purposes, the information
items specified in Sec. 216.104(a)(11) (previously Sec. 228.4(a)(11))
will still need to be provided. If neither a plan of cooperation has
been submitted nor meetings with subsistence communities have been
scheduled, and if during the comment period evidence is provided
indicating that an adverse impact to subsistence needs will result from
the activity, an authorization may be delayed to resolve this
disagreement.
Comment: The AEWC noted that the plan of cooperation submitted by
an applicant must be based on mitigation measures that have been
approved by the affected communities and their representatives. The
MMPA requires NMFS to prescribe, where applicable, the measures NMFS
determines are necessary to ensure that there is no unmitigable adverse
impact on the availability of the species or stock for subsistence
uses. As a result, the commenter believes, NMFS should take a more
proactive role in developing plans of cooperation; consult with the
subsistence community as directed by the NOAA-AEWC Cooperative
Agreement for bowheads; and resolve disagreements between parties.
Response: While it is preferable for a plan of cooperation to
contain mitigation measures that are agreed to by the involved parties,
a final determination on necessary marine mammal mitigation measures
remains with NMFS. It is not mandatory under the MMPA that a plan of
cooperation meet with total approval by affected Alaskan communities
and their representatives. However, NMFS emphasizes that plans of
cooperation should contain more than a simple schedule of meetings with
affected communities. With little time provided by the MMPA to make a
determination on whether to issue an authorization, unless applicants
have either met with Native American groups or have scheduled a meeting
with them to discuss the plan of cooperation prior to submission of an
application (with its plan of cooperation), processing the application
may be delayed. The final rule clarifies this meeting requirement and
requires the draft plan of cooperation to be made available to affected
communities at the same time the application is submitted to NMFS.
However, the MMPA does not, as the commenter suggests, require NMFS to
resolve disagreements related to the plan of cooperation prior to
issuance of an authorization. Initiation of the NOAA-AEWC Cooperation
Agreement consultation process begins when NMFS forwards a proposed
authorization to the AEWC.
Because the rule requires an applicant to submit either a plan of
cooperation for any Arctic activities that will have an impact on those
species or stocks of marine mammals that are also sought for
subsistence uses, or a description of planned mitigation measures,
Native Americans (and others) may submit comments to NMFS on the
adequacy of a plan of cooperation or planned mitigation measures and
any disagreements the two parties may have on necessary mitigation.
NMFS will give full consideration to these comments, to any previously
agreed measures for the protection of marine mammals, and the success
of those measures, when determining appropriate mitigation measures for
a new authorization.
Arctic Subsistence Concerns-Monitoring Plans
Comment: The USCG questions the requirement for peer-review of
monitoring plans under the provision for activity-specific regulations,
since the statute only mentions it under provisions for incidental
harassment authorizations.
Response: Paragraph 216.105(b)(3) (previously Sec. 228.5(b)(3))
does not mandate peer-review of monitoring plans; it only notes that
under activity-specific regulations a peer-review process may be
established, if warranted. The need for peer-review would be determined
through notice and comment on the proposed rule for the applicant's
activity.
Comment: The USCG believes that Sec. 228.8(d) (previously
Sec. 216.108(d)) places NMFS in control of the independent peer-review
process called for by the statute. However, they believe that Federal
agencies should have the discretion to use the NMFS peer-review process
or to develop their own process.
Response: Although NMFS remains responsible for accepting or
rejecting a monitoring plan, NMFS does not control the peer-review
process but only serves as its facilitator. While NMFS would not object
to a different process for peer-review of monitoring plans, applicants
should recognize that a peer-review process may take some time to
establish independently. As a result, under an independent peer-review
process, NMFS could no longer assure the applicant that the statutory
time requirements for issuing an authorization would be met.
Comment: The AEWC also noted the need for reliable scientific
research on interactions between marine mammals and oil and gas
exploration activities. In
[[Page 15886]]
the interest of promoting both reliability and consistency in this
research, the AEWC recommended that the process for monitoring and
reporting agreed to at the February 1994 meeting between NMFS, AEWC,
the North Slope Borough and the oil and gas industry, be incorporated
into the regulations. In addition, the AEWC wanted to see the results
of that meeting discussed in the preamble to the final regulations.
Response: NMFS agrees that, to the extent possible, a prior year's
research results should be reviewed by the present-year, peer-review
committee. This would provide some consistency in research objectives.
However, because the referenced 1994 meeting was specific to Beaufort
Sea oil and gas exploration, incorporating those agreements (e.g.,
number and independence of reviewers) into these regulations would
limit flexibility to modify them for different activities and changing
conditions, and readers would be unlikely to benefit sufficiently from
summarizing the meeting, detailed discussion of the results of that
meeting are not warranted in these procedural regulations. A copy of
the final minutes to the February 8-9, 1994 meeting is available from
NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and will be available for reference for future
U.S. Arctic oil and gas activities.
Comment: The North Slope Borough notes that there are species in
addition to bowhead whales in Arctic waters and NMFS should more
clearly define how the authorization process applies to beluga whales
and the seal species found in Arctic waters. The commenter also wants
the agency to consult directly with the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee
and the Indigenous People's Council for Marine Mammals to establish
mechanisms for subsistence user involvement in decisions affecting
these species.
Response: When an applicant requests an authorization for the
incidental harassment of marine mammals, that person is expected to
apply for all marine mammals that can be reasonably expected to be
taken by harassment and/or be affecting those species availability for
subsistence purposes. The MMPA requires NMFS to announce receipt of an
application, issuance of a proposed authorizations, and to request
public comment in the Federal Register, newspapers of general
circulation, appropriate electronic media and to all locally affected
communities. NMFS will also provide copies of the proposed
authorization for review directly to those organizations that NMFS
knows to have an interest.
Discussion
Background and rationale on processing applications for Arctic
activities, monitoring and reporting requirements and peer review of
monitoring plans, were published on May 31, 1995 (60 FR 28379) and are
not repeated here. Reviewers should refer to the notice of proposed
rulemaking for additional information.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
1. Based upon comment, a requirement is being added that applicants
with activities in the Arctic that might result in a take of species or
stocks that are also taken for subsistence purposes, need to either
schedule a meeting prior to submitting the application or meet prior to
the close of the comment period and provide the affected subsistence
community with a draft plan of cooperation.
2. A new definition for the term ``Arctic waters'' is provided.
3. A new paragraph has been added at Sec. 216.104(a)(5) to include
in one location information requested on assessing incidental takes of
marine mammals by the applicant's activity.
4. The mandatory provision that applicants affecting Arctic
subsistence needs must provide a plan of cooperation has been modified.
5. The interim rule clarifies that reports are required to be
submitted, within 90 days of completion of any individual components of
the activity (if any), or within 90 days of completion of the activity,
but no later than 120 days prior to expiration of the incidental
harassment authorization, whichever is earlier.
6. The interim rule clarifies that incidental harassment
authorizations will be valid for a period of time not to exceed 1 year
but may be renewed for additional periods of time not to exceed 1 year
for each reauthorization.
National Environmental Policy Act
The amended regulations in Part 216 subpart I of chapter 50
implement section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, as it pertains to
incidental harassment authorizations in Arctic waters. This rule,
mandated by the 1994 Amendments, provides a mechanism to authorize the
incidental, but not intentional, taking by harassment of small numbers
of marine mammals by U.S. citizens engaged in a specified activity in a
specified geographic region. The AA has determined, based upon a
programmatic EA prepared for this action under NEPA, that
implementation of these general regulations will not have a significant
impact on the human environment. As a result of this determination, an
environmental impact statement is not required. A copy of the EA is
available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
In addition, while each proposed incidental harassment
authorization will be reviewed independently to determine its impact on
the human environment, NMFS believes that, because the finding required
for incidental harassment authorizations is that the taking (by
harassment) would not result in any serious injury or death to a marine
mammal, would have no more than a negligible impact on marine mammals
and their habitat, and would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on
the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, the
majority of the authorizations should be ``categorically excluded'' (as
defined in 40 CFR 1508.4) from the preparation of either environmental
impact statements or EAs under NEPA and section 6.02.c.3(i) of NOAA
Administrative Order 216-6 for Environmental Review Procedures
(published August 6, 1991).
Classification
This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes
of E.O. 12866.
The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the
Department of Commerce certified to the Small Business Administration
at the proposed rule stage that, if adopted, this action would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
since it would simply establish an expedited process for the review and
issuance of authorizations for the incidental taking of small numbers
of marine mammals by harassment while conducting activities (other than
commercial fishing) in and near marine waters. Without authorization,
the taking of marine mammals, even by harassment, is prohibited.
This rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject
to the Paperwork Reduction Act and which has been approved by OMB under
OMB Control No. 0648-0151. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that
collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
The average burden for this collection is estimated to be
approximately 214 hours per activity (range 80-483 hours depending upon
complexity) for applications and 32.5 hours per activity
[[Page 15887]]
(range 16-80 hours) for reporting. These hours include the time for
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information including annual reports. It does not
include time for monitoring the activity by observers. Send comments
regarding these reporting burden estimates or any other aspect of the
collections of information, including suggestions for reducing the
burdens, to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).
Under NOAA Administrative Order 205-11, 7.01, dated December 17,
1990, the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere has delegated
authority to sign material for publication in the Federal Register to
the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA.
List of Subjects
15 CFR Part 902
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
50 CFR Part 216
Administrative practice and procedure, Imports, Indians, Marine
mammals, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
50 CFR Part 228
Marine mammals, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 28, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 15 CFR chapter IX and
under the authority of 16 U.S.C 1361 et seq. 50 CFR chapter II are
amended as follows:
15 CFR Chapter IX
PART 902--NOAA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: OMB CONTROL NUMBERS
1. The authority citation for part 902 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 44 U.S.C, 3501 et seq.
2. In Sec. 902.1, paragraph (b) the table is amended by removing in
the left column under 50 CFR, the entries ``228.4'', ``228.6'',
``228.14'', ``228.25'', ``228.37'', and ``228.55'', and in the right
column, in corresponding positions, the control numbers ``-0151''; and
by adding, in numerical order, the following entries to read as
follows:
Sec. 902.1 OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current OMB
control
CFR part or section where the information collection number (all
requirement is located numbers
begin with
0648-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
50 CFR
* * * * *
216.104.................................................. -0151
216.106.................................................. -0151
216.108.................................................. -0151
216.114.................................................. -0151
216.125.................................................. -0151
216.145.................................................. -0151
216.155.................................................. -0151
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Chapter II
PART 228--REGULATIONS GOVERNING SMALL TAKES OF MARINE MAMMALS
INCIDENTAL TO SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES
3. Subpart B (Sec. 228.11 through Sec. 228.14), subpart C
(Sec. 228.21 through Sec. 228.26), subpart E (Sec. 228.41 through
Sec. 228.48), and subpart F (Sec. 228.51 through Sec. 228.57) of part
228 are redesignated as subpart J (Sec. 216.111 through Sec. 216.114),
subpart K (Sec. 216.121 through Sec. 216.126), subpart M (Sec. 216.141
through Sec. 216.148) and subpart N (Sec. 216.151 through
Sec. 216.157), respectively, in part 216.
PART 228--[REMOVED]
4. Part 228 is removed.
PART 216--REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKING AND IMPORTING OF MARINE
MAMMALS
5. The authority citation for part 216 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless otherwise noted.
6. In Sec. 216.3, a new definition for ``Director, Office of
Protected Resources is added, in alphabetical order, to read as
follows:
Sec. 216.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Director, Office of Protected Resources means Director, Office of
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
* * * * *
7. A new subpart I is added to read as follows:
Subpart I--General Regulations Governing Small Takes of Marine Mammals
Incidental to Specified Activities
Sec.
216.101 Purpose.
216.102 Scope.
216.103 Definitions.
216.104 Submission of requests.
216.105 Specific regulations.
216.106 Letter of authorization.
216.107 Incidental harassment authorization for Arctic waters.
216.108 Requirements for monitoring and reporting under incidental
harassment authorizations for Arctic waters.
Subpart I--General Regulations Governing Small Takes of Marine
Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities
Sec. 216.101 Purpose.
The regulations in this subpart implement section 101(a)(5) (A)
through (D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended, 16
U.S.C. 1371(a)(5), which provides a mechanism for allowing, upon
request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers
of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity
(other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographic region.
Sec. 216.102 Scope.
The taking of small numbers of marine mammals under section
101(a)(5) (A) through (D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act may be
allowed only if the National Marine Fisheries Service:
(a) Finds, based on the best scientific evidence available, that
the total taking by the specified activity during the specified time
period will have a negligible impact on species or stock of marine
mammal(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of those species or stocks of marine mammals intended for
subsistence uses;
(b) Prescribes either regulations under Sec. 216.106, or
requirements and conditions contained within an incidental harassment
authorization issued under Sec. 216.107, setting forth permissible
methods of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable
adverse impact on the species or stock of marine mammal and its habitat
and on the availability of the species or stock of marine mammal for
subsistence uses, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating
grounds, and areas of similar significance; and
(c) Prescribes either regulations or requirements and conditions
contained within an incidental harassment authorization, as
appropriate, pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.
The specific regulations governing certain specified activities are
contained in subsequent subparts of this part.
[[Page 15888]]
Sec. 216.103 Definitions.
In addition to definitions contained in the MMPA, and in
Sec. 216.3, and unless the context otherwise requires, in subsequent
subparts to this part:
Arctic waters means the marine and estuarine waters north of
60 deg. N. lat.
Citizens of the United States and U.S. citizens mean individual
U.S. citizens or any corporation or similar entity if it is organized
under the laws of the United States or any governmental unit defined in
16 U.S.C. 1362(13). U.S. Federal, state and local government agencies
shall also constitute citizens of the United States for purposes of
this part.
Incidental harassment, incidental taking and incidental, but not
intentional, taking all mean an accidental taking. This does not mean
that the taking is unexpected, but rather it includes those takings
that are infrequent, unavoidable or accidental. (A complete definition
of ``take'' is contained in Sec. 216.3).
Negligible impact is an impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Small numbers means a portion of a marine mammal species or stock
whose taking would have a negligible impact on that species or stock.
Specified activity means any activity, other than commercial
fishing, that takes place in a specified geographical region and
potentially involves the taking of small numbers of marine mammals.
Specified geographical region means an area within which a
specified activity is conducted and that has certain biogeographic
characteristics.
Unmitigable adverse impact means an impact resulting from the
specified activity:
(1) That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a
level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by:
(i) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas;
(ii) Directly displacing subsistence users; or
(iii) Placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the
subsistence hunters; and
(2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to
increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs
to be met.
Sec. 216.104 Submission of requests.
(a) In order for the National Marine Fisheries Service to consider
authorizing the taking by U.S. citizens of small numbers of marine
mammals incidental to a specified activity (other than commercial
fishing), or to make a finding that an incidental take is unlikely to
occur, a written request must be submitted to the Assistant
Administrator. All requests must include the following information for
their activity:
(1) A detailed description of the specific activity or class of
activities that can be expected to result in incidental taking of
marine mammals;
(2) The date(s) and duration of such activity and the specific
geographical region where it will occur;
(3) The species and numbers of marine mammals likely to be found
within the activity area;
(4) A description of the status, distribution, and seasonal
distribution (when applicable) of the affected species or stocks of
marine mammals likely to be affected by such activities;
(5) The type of incidental taking authorization that is being
requested (i.e., takes by harassment only; takes by harassment, injury
and/or death) and the method of incidental taking;
(6) By age, sex, and reproductive condition (if possible), the
number of marine mammals (by species) that may be taken by each type of
taking identified in paragraph (a)(5) of this section, and the number
of times such takings by each type of taking are likely to occur;
(7) The anticipated impact of the activity upon the species or
stock of marine mammal;
(8) The anticipated impact of the activity on the availability of
the species or stocks of marine mammals for subsistence uses;
(9) The anticipated impact of the activity upon the habitat of the
marine mammal populations, and the likelihood of restoration of the
affected habitat;
(10) The anticipated impact of the loss or modification of the
habitat on the marine mammal populations involved;
(11) The availability and feasibility (economic and technological)
of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other
means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the
affected species or stocks, their habitat, and on their availability
for subsistence uses, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating
grounds, and areas of similar significance;
(12) Where the proposed activity would take place in or near a
traditional Arctic subsistence hunting area and/or may affect the
availability of a species or stock of marine mammal for Arctic
subsistence uses, the applicant must submit either a plan of
cooperation or information that identifies what measures have been
taken and/or will be taken to minimize any adverse effects on the
availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses. A plan must
include the following:
(i) A statement that the applicant has notified and provided the
affected subsistence community with a draft plan of cooperation;
(ii) A schedule for meeting with the affected subsistence
communities to discuss proposed activities and to resolve potential
conflicts regarding any aspects of either the operation or the plan of
cooperation;
(iii) A description of what measures the applicant has taken and/or
will take to ensure that proposed activities will not interfere with
subsistence whaling or sealing; and
(iv) What plans the applicant has to continue to meet with the
affected communities, both prior to and while conducting the activity,
to resolve conflicts and to notify the communities of any changes in
the operation;
(13) The suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring
and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species,
the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that
are expected to be present while conducting activities and suggested
means of minimizing burdens by coordinating such reporting requirements
with other schemes already applicable to persons conducting such
activity. Monitoring plans should include a description of the survey
techniques that would be used to determine the movement and activity of
marine mammals near the activity site(s) including migration and other
habitat uses, such as feeding. Guidelines for developing a site-
specific monitoring plan may be obtained by writing to the Director,
Office of Protected Resources; and
(14) Suggested means of learning of, encouraging, and coordinating
research opportunities, plans, and activities relating to reducing such
incidental taking and evaluating its effects.
(b)(1) The Assistant Administrator shall determine the adequacy and
completeness of a request and, if determined to be adequate and
complete, will begin the public review process by publishing in the
Federal Register either:
(i) A proposed incidental harassment authorization; or
(ii) A notice of receipt of a request for the implementation or
reimplementation of regulations governing the incidental taking.
(2) Through notice in the Federal Register, newspapers of general
[[Page 15889]]
circulation, and appropriate electronic media in the coastal areas that
may be affected by such activity, NMFS will invite information,
suggestions, and comments for a period not to exceed 30 days from the
date of publication in the Federal Register. All information and
suggestions will be considered by the National Marine Fisheries Service
in developing, if appropriate, the most effective regulations governing
the issuance of letters of authorization or conditions governing the
issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
(3) Applications that are determined to be incomplete or
inappropriate for the type of taking requested, will be returned to the
applicant with an explanation of why the application is being returned.
(c) The Assistant Administrator shall evaluate each request to
determine, based upon the best available scientific evidence, whether
the taking by the specified activity within the specified geographic
region will have a negligible impact on the species or stock and, where
appropriate, will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses. If the
Assistant Administrator finds that the mitigating measures would render
the impact of the specified activity negligible when it would not
otherwise satisfy that requirement, the Assistant Administrator may
make a finding of negligible impact subject to such mitigating measures
being successfully implemented. Any preliminary findings of
``negligible impact'' and ``no unmitigable adverse impact'' shall be
proposed for public comment along with either the proposed incidental
harassment authorization or the proposed regulations for the specific
activity.
(d) If, subsequent to the public review period, the Assistant
Administrator finds that the taking by the specified activity would
have more than a negligible impact on the species or stock of marine
mammal or would have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability
of such species or stock for subsistence uses, the Assistant
Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register the negative
finding along with the basis for denying the request.
Sec. 216.105 Specific regulations.
(a) For all petitions for regulations under this paragraph,
applicants must provide the information requested in Sec. 216.104(a) on
their activity as a whole, which includes, but is not necessarily
limited to, an assessment of total impacts by all persons conducting
the activity.
(b) For allowed activities that may result in incidental takings of
small numbers of marine mammals by harassment, serious injury, death or
a combination thereof, specific regulations shall be established for
each allowed activity that set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of taking;
(2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the
species and its habitat and on the availability of the species for
subsistence uses; and
(3) Requirements for monitoring and reporting, including
requirements for the independent peer-review of proposed monitoring
plans where the proposed activity may affect the availability of a
species or stock for taking for subsistence uses.
(c) Regulations will be established based on the best available
information. As new information is developed, through monitoring,
reporting, or research, the regulations may be modified, in whole or in
part, after notice and opportunity for public review.
Sec. 216.106 Letter of Authorization.
(a) A Letter of Authorization, which may be issued only to U.S.
citizens, is required to conduct activities pursuant to any regulations
established under Sec. 216.105. Requests for Letters of Authorization
shall be submitted to the Director, Office of Protected Resources. The
information to be submitted in a request for an authorization will be
specified in the appropriate subpart to this part or may be obtained by
writing to the above named person.
(b) Issuance of a Letter of Authorization will be based on a
determination that the level of taking will be consistent with the
findings made for the total taking allowable under the specific
regulations.
(c) Letters of Authorization will specify the period of validity
and any additional terms and conditions appropriate for the specific
request.
(d) Notice of issuance of all Letters of Authorization will be
published in the Federal Register within 30 days of issuance.
(e) Letters of Authorization shall be withdrawn or suspended,
either on an individual or class basis, as appropriate, if, after
notice and opportunity for public comment, the Assistant Administrator
determines that:
(1) The regulations prescribed are not being substantially complied
with; or
(2) The taking allowed is having, or may have, more than a
negligible impact on the species or stock or, where relevant, an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock
for subsistence uses.
(f) The requirement for notice and opportunity for public review in
Sec. 216.106(e) shall not apply if the Assistant Administrator
determines that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to
the wellbeing of the species or stocks of marine mammals concerned.
(g) A violation of any of the terms and conditions of a Letter of
Authorization or of the specific regulations shall subject the Holder
and/or any individual who is operating under the authority of the
Holder's Letter of Authorization to penalties provided in the MMPA.
Sec. 216.107 Incidental harassment authorization for Arctic waters.
(a) Except for activities that have the potential to result in
serious injury or mortality, which must be authorized under
Sec. 216.105, incidental harassment authorizations may be issued,
following a 30-day public review period, to allowed activities that may
result in only the incidental harassment of a small number of marine
mammals. Each such incidental harassment authorization shall set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of taking by harassment;
(2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the
species, its habitat, and on the availability of the species for
subsistence uses; and
(3) Requirements for monitoring and reporting, including
requirements for the independent peer-review of proposed monitoring
plans where the proposed activity may affect the availability of a
species or stock for taking for subsistence uses.
(b) Issuance of an incidental harassment authorization will be
based on a determination that the number of marine mammals taken by
harassment will be small, will have a negligible impact on the species
or stock of marine mammal(s), and will not have an unmitigable adverse
impact on the availability of species or stocks for taking for
subsistence uses.
(c) An incidental harassment authorization will be either issued or
denied within 45 days after the close of the public review period.
(d) Notice of issuance or denial of an incidental harassment
authorization will be published in the Federal Register within 30 days
of issuance of a determination.
(e) Incidental harassment authorizations will be valid for a period
of time not to exceed 1 year but may be
[[Page 15890]]
renewed for additional periods of time not to exceed 1 year for each
reauthorization.
(f) An incidental harassment authorization shall be modified,
withdrawn, or suspended if, after notice and opportunity for public
comment, the Assistant Administrator determines that:
(1) The conditions and requirements prescribed in the authorization
are not being substantially complied with; or
(2) The authorized taking, either individually or in combination
with other authorizations, is having, or may have, more than a
negligible impact on the species or stock or, where relevant, an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock
for subsistence uses.
(g) The requirement for notice and opportunity for public review in
paragraph (f) of this section shall not apply if the Assistant
Administrator determines that an emergency exists that poses a
significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of marine
mammals concerned.
(h) A violation of any of the terms and conditions of an incidental
harassment authorization shall subject the holder and/or any individual
who is operating under the authority of the holder's incidental
harassment authorization to penalties provided in the MMPA.
Sec. 216.108 Requirements for monitoring and reporting under
incidental harassment authorizations for Arctic waters.
(a) Holders of an incidental harassment authorization in Arctic
waters and their employees, agents, and designees must cooperate with
the National Marine Fisheries Service and other designated Federal,
state, or local agencies to monitor the impacts of their activity on
marine mammals. Unless stated otherwise within an incidental harassment
authorization, the holder of an incidental harassment authorization
effective in Arctic waters must notify the Alaska Regional Director,
National Marine Fisheries Service, of any activities that may involve a
take by incidental harassment in Arctic waters at least 14 calendar
days prior to commencement of the activity.
(b) Holders of incidental harassment authorizations effective in
Arctic waters may be required by their authorization to designate at
least one qualified biological observer or another appropriately
experienced individual to observe and record the effects of activities
on marine mammals. The number of observers required for monitoring the
impact of the activity on marine mammals will be specified in the
incidental harassment authorization. If observers are required as a
condition of the authorization, the observer(s) must be approved in
advance by the National Marine Fisheries Service.
(c) The monitoring program must, if appropriate, document the
effects (including acoustical) on marine mammals and document or
estimate the actual level of take. The requirements for monitoring
plans, as specified in the incidental harassment authorization, may
vary depending on the activity, the location, and the time.
(d) Where the proposed activity may affect the availability of a
species or stock of marine mammal for taking for subsistence purposes,
proposed monitoring plans or other research proposals must be
independently peer-reviewed prior to issuance of an incidental
harassment authorization under this subpart. In order to complete the
peer-review process within the time frames mandated by the MMPA for an
incidental harassment authorization, a proposed monitoring plan
submitted under this paragraph must be submitted to the Assistant
Administrator no later than the date of submission of the application
for an incidental harassment authorization. Upon receipt of a complete
monitoring plan, and at its discretion, the National Marine Fisheries
Service will either submit the plan to members of a peer review panel
for review or within 60 days of receipt of the proposed monitoring
plan, schedule a workshop to review the plan. The applicant must submit
a final monitoring plan to the Assistant Administrator prior to the
issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
(e) At its discretion, the National Marine Fisheries Service may
place an observer aboard vessels, platforms, aircraft, etc., to monitor
the impact of activities on marine mammals.
(f)(1) As specified in the incidental harassment authorization, the
holder of an incidental harassment authorization for Arctic waters must
submit reports to the Assistant Administrator within 90 days of
completion of any individual components of the activity (if any),
within 90 days of completion of the activity, but no later than 120
days prior to expiration of the incidental harassment authorization,
whichever is earlier. This report must include the following
information:
(i) Dates and type(s) of activity;
(ii) Dates and location(s) of any activities related to monitoring
the effects on marine mammals; and
(iii) Results of the monitoring activities, including an estimate
of the actual level and type of take, species name and numbers of each
species observed, direction of movement of species, and any observed
changes or modifications in behavior.
(2) Monitoring reports will be reviewed by the Assistant
Administrator and, if determined to be incomplete or inaccurate, will
be returned to the holder of the authorization with an explanation of
why the report is being returned. If the authorization holder disagrees
with the findings of the Assistant Administrator, the holder may
request an independent peer review of the report. Failure to submit a
complete and accurate report may result in a delay in processing future
authorization requests.
(g) Results of any behavioral, feeding, or population studies, that
are conducted supplemental to the monitoring program, should be made
available to the National Marine Fisheries Service before applying for
an incidental harassment authorization for the following year.
8. In the list below, for each section indicated in the left
column, remove the reference indicated in the middle column from
wherever it appears in the section, and add the reference to the
section indicated in the right column.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Remove Add
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart J
Sec. 216.113 Sec. 228.13(a) Sec. 216.113(a)
Sec. 216.114 Sec. 228.14(c) Sec. 216.114(c)
Subpart K
Sec. 216.123 Sec. 228.6 Sec. 216.106
Sec. 216.123 Sec. 228.21 Sec. 216.121
Sec. 216.124 Sec. 228.23 Sec. 216.123
Sec. 216.124 Sec. 228.6 Sec. 216.106
Sec. 216.124 Sec. 228.21 Sec. 216.121
Sec. 216.125 Sec. 228.6 Sec. 216.106
Sec. 216.125 Sec. 228.21 Sec. 216.121
Sec. 216.126 Sec. 228.6 Sec. 216.106
Sec. 216.126 Sec. 228.26(b) Sec. 216.126(b)
Sec. 216.126 Sec. 228.21 Sec. 216.121
Subpart M
Sec. 216.143 Sec. 228.41 Sec. 216.141
Sec. 216.143 Sec. 228.45(b)(1) Sec. 216.145(b)(1)
Sec. 216.144 Sec. 228.43 Sec. 216.143
Sec. 216.144 Sec. 228.6 Sec. 216.106
Sec. 216.144 Sec. 228.46 Sec. 216.146
Sec. 216.146 Sec. 228.41 Sec. 216.141
Sec. 216.146 Sec. 228.6 Sec. 216.106
Sec. 216.147 Sec. 228.6 Sec. 216.106
Sec. 216.147 Sec. 228.41 Sec. 216.141
Sec. 216.147 Sec. 228.45(d) Sec. 216.145(d)
Sec. 216.147 Sec. 228.41(b) Sec. 216.141(b)
Sec. 216.147 Sec. 228.43(b) Sec. 216.143(b)
Sec. 216.148 Sec. 228.6 Sec. 216.106
Sec. 216.148 Sec. 228.47 Sec. 216.147
Sec. 216.148 Sec. 228.41(b) Sec. 216.141(b)
Subpart N
Sec. 216.153 Sec. 228.6 Sec. 216.106
Sec. 216.153 Sec. 228.51(a) Sec. 216.151(a)
Sec. 216.154 Sec. 228.53 Sec. 216.153
Sec. 216.154 Sec. 228.6 Sec. 216.106
Sec. 216.154 Sec. 228.56 Sec. 216.156
Sec. 216.156 Sec. 228.6 Sec. 216.106
Sec. 216.156 Sec. 228.51(a) Sec. 216.151(a)
[[Page 15891]]
Sec. 216.156 Sec. 228.55(f) Sec. 216.155(f) and (g)
and (g)
Sec. 216.156 Sec. 228.51(b) Sec. 216.151(b)
Sec. 216.156 Sec. 228.53(b) Sec. 216.153(b)
Sec. 216.156 Sec. 228.55(g) Sec. 216.155(g)
Sec. 216.157 Sec. 228.6 Sec. 216.106
Sec. 216.157 Sec. 228.46 Sec. 216.146
Sec. 216.157 Sec. 228.51 Sec. 216.151
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. In part 216, subpart L (Sec. 216.131 through Sec. 216.138),
subpart O (Sec. 216.161 through Sec. 216.169), subpart P (Sec. 216.170
through Sec. 216.179), subpart Q (Sec. 216.180 through Sec. 216.189)
and subpart R (Sec. 216.190 through Sec. 216.199) are added and
reserved.
[FR Doc. 96-8494 Filed 4-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.