issue-1996-04-22•Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-22
Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-22
issue-1996-04-22Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-22Regulation
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. 96-9913 Interim Final Determination That State Has Corrected the Deficiency; Ohio
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17576-17577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9913]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[OH97-1; FRL-5462-2]
Interim Final Determination That State Has Corrected the
Deficiency; Ohio
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Interim final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, USEPA
has proposed conditional approval of the State of Ohio's New Source
Review (NSR) program rules. Based on the proposed conditional approval,
USEPA is making an interim final determination by this action that Ohio
has corrected the deficiency for which a sanctions clock began on
October 21, 1994. This action will defer application of the offset
sanction and defer the application of the highway sanction. Although
this action is effective upon publication, USEPA will take comment and
will publish a final rule taking into consideration any comments
received on this interim final rule.
DATES: This action will be effective April 22, 1996. Comments must be
received by May 22, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, IL 60604. The State submittal and USEPA's analysis for that
submittal, which are the basis for this action, are available for
public review at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Genevieve Nearmyer, Permits and Grants
Section, Air Programs Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. (312) 353-4761.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On August 20, 1993 the State submitted an NSR plan revision request
which USEPA disapproved in full on September 24, 1994 (59 FR 48392).
The USEPA's disapproval action started an
[[Page 17577]]
18-month clock for the application of one sanction (followed by a
second sanction 6 months later) under section 179 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and a 24-month clock for promulgation of a Federal implementation
plan under section 110(c)(1) of the CAA. The State subsequently
submitted a revised program on April 12, 1996. In the proposed rules
section of this Federal Register, USEPA has proposed conditional
approval of the State of Ohio's submittal of its NSR requested State
Implementation Plan revision.
II. USEPA Action
Based on the proposed conditional approval set forth in the
proposed rules section of this Federal Register, USEPA believes that it
is more likely than not that the State has corrected the original
disapproval deficiency that started the sanction clock and, therefore,
is taking this interim final action finding that the State has
corrected the disapproval deficiency, effective on publication. This
action does not stop the sanction clock that started for this area on
October 21, 1994. However, this action will defer the application of
the offsets sanction and will defer the application of the highway
sanction. See 59 FR 39832 (Aug. 4, 1994) codified at 40 CFR 52.31. If
USEPA takes final action conditionally approving the State's submittal,
such action will continue any deferral of the offset and highway
sanctions. When the State meets its commitment and USEPA takes final
action fully approving the State's submittal meeting those commitments,
such action will permanently stop the sanctions clock and will
permanently lift any applied, stayed or deferred sanctions.
At this time, USEPA is also providing the public with an
opportunity to comment on this final action. If, based on the comments
on this action and the comments on USEPA's proposed conditional
approval of the State's submittal, USEPA determines that the State's
submittal is not approvable and this final action was inappropriate,
USEPA will take further action to disapprove the State's submittal and
to find that the State has not corrected the original disapproval
deficiency. Such action will retrigger the sanctions consequences as
described in the sanctions rule. See 59 FR 39832.
III. Administrative Requirements
Because USEPA has preliminarily determined that the State has an
approvable plan, relief from sanctions should be provided as quickly as
possible. Therefore, USEPA is invoking the good cause exception under
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in not providing an opportunity
for comment before this action takes effect.1 See 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B). The USEPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking before
the effective date of this action is impracticable and contrary to the
public interest. The USEPA has reviewed the State's submittal and,
through its proposed action, is indicating that it is more likely than
not that the State has corrected the deficiency that started the
sanctions clock. Therefore, it is not in the public interest to
initially apply sanctions or to keep applied sanctions in place when
the State has most likely done all that it can to correct the
deficiency that triggered the sanctions clock. Moreover, it would be
impracticable to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking on a finding
that the State has corrected the deficiency prior to the rulemaking
approving the State's submittal. Therefore, USEPA believes that it is
necessary to use the interim final rulemaking process to temporarily
stay or defer sanctions while USEPA completes its rulemaking process on
the approvability of the State's submittal. In addition, USEPA is
invoking the good cause exception to the 30-day notice requirement of
the APA because the purpose of this notice is to relieve a restriction.
See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As previously noted, however, by this action USEPA is
providing the public with a chance to comment on USEPA's
determination after the effective date and USEPA will consider any
comments received in determining whether to reverse such action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from
review under Executive Order 12866.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 600 et seq.,
USEPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the
impact of any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C.
sections 603 and 604. Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over
populations of less than 50,000.
This action temporarily relieves sources of an additional burden
potentially placed on them by the sanctions provisions of the CAA.
Therefore, I certify that it does not have an impact on any small
entities.
Under sections 202, 203 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into law on March 22, 1995,
USEPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to a State,
local and/or tribal government(s) in the aggregate. The USEPA must also
develop a plan with regard to small governments that would be
significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
Because this direct final rule is estimated to result in the
expenditure by State, local and tribal governments or the private
sector of less than $100 million in any one year, USEPA has not
prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the
selection of the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome
alternative because small governments will not be significantly or
uniquely affected by this rule, USEPA is not required to develop a plan
for small governments. Further, this final rule only defers the
imposition of sanctions; it imposes no new requirements.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Ozone, and Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: April 15, 1996.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-9913 Filed 4-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9833 Imported Fire Ant Quarantined Areas
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17550-17551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9833]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 301
[Docket No. 95-063-2]
Imported Fire Ant Quarantined Areas
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final rule, with one change, an interim
rule that amended the imported fire ant regulations by designating all
or portions of the following as quarantined areas: The entire State of
Mississippi; Mecklenburg County in North Carolina; Bradley, Hamilton,
McMinn, and Wayne Counties in Tennessee; and Brooks, Cameron, Delta,
Dimmit, Duval, Jack, Kenedy, Kinney, Lamar, Mason, McCulloch, Montague,
San Saba, Webb, Young, and Zavala Counties in Texas. As amended by this
document, the rule expands the quarantined areas and imposes certain
restrictions on the interstate movement of quarantined articles from
those areas. This action is necessary to prevent the artificial spread
of the imported fire ant to noninfested areas of the United States.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 22, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael B. Stefan, Operations
Officer, Domestic and Emergency Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road
Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236, (301) 734-7338; or e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The imported fire ant regulations (contained in 7 CFR 301.81
through 301.81-10, and referred to below as the regulations) quarantine
infested States or infested areas within States and impose restrictions
on the interstate movement of certain regulated articles for the
purpose of preventing the artificial spread of the imported fire ant.
Imported fire ants, Solenopsis invicta Buren and Solenopsis
richteri Forel, are aggressive, stinging insects that, in large
numbers, can seriously injure or even kill livestock, pets, and humans.
The imported fire ant feeds on crops and builds large, hard mounds that
damage farm and field machinery. The imported fire ant is not native to
the United States. The regulations prevent the imported fire ant from
spreading throughout its ecological range within this country.
The regulations in Sec. 301.81-3 provide that the Administrator of
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will list as a
quarantined area each State, or each portion of a State, that is
infested with imported fire ants. The Administrator will designate less
than an entire State only under the following conditions: (1) The State
has adopted and is enforcing restrictions on the intrastate movement of
the regulated articles listed in Sec. 301.81-2 that are equivalent to
the interstate movement restrictions imposed by the regulations; and
(2) designating less than the entire State will prevent the spread of
the imported fire ant. The Administrator may include uninfested acreage
within a quarantined area due to its proximity to an infestation or its
inseparability from the infested locality for quarantine purposes.
In an interim rule effective and published in the Federal Register
on October 11, 1995 (60 FR 52831-52833, Docket No. 95-063-1), we
amended the imported fire ant regulations by designating all or
portions of the following as quarantined areas: The entire State of
Mississippi; Mecklenburg County in North Carolina; Bradley, Hamilton,
McMinn, and Wayne Counties in Tennessee; and Brooks, Cameron, Delta,
Dimmit, Duval, Jack, Kenedy, Kinney, Lamar, Mason, McCulloch, Montague,
San Saba, Webb, Young, and Zavala Counties in Texas. This action
expanded the quarantined areas and imposed certain restrictions on the
interstate movement of quarantined articles from those areas. This
action was necessary because recent surveys conducted by APHIS and
State and county agencies revealed that the imported fire ant had
spread to these areas.
We solicited comments concerning the interim rule for 60 days
ending December 11, 1995. We received 1 comment by that date. The
comment was from a State Department of Agriculture.
The commenter stated that our description of the new quarantined
area in Wayne County, Tennessee, was not clear and could be misread to
describe a smaller portion of the county than what the commenter
believed we intended. We agree with the commenter and are, therefore,
amending the interim rule by revising the description of the
quarantined area in Wayne County, Tennessee, to make it clear that it
includes that portion of the county south of Highway 64 and that
portion of the county west of Longitude 87 deg. 55'.
Therefore, based on the rationale set forth in the interim rule and
in this document, we are adopting the provisions of the interim rule as
a final rule, with the changes discussed in this document.
This final rule also affirms the information contained in the
interim rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12778, the National
Environmental Policy Act, 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.
Effective Date
Pursuant to the administrative procedure provisions in 5 U.S.C.
553, we find good cause for making this rule effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. The interim rule
adopted as final by this rule was effective on October 11, 1995. This
rule revises the description of the quarantined area in the interim
rule. Immediate action is necessary in order to prevent the artificial
spread of imported fire ant to noninfested areas of the United States.
Therefore, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service has determined that this rule should be effective upon
publication in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 301 is amended as follows:
PART 301--DOMESTIC QUARANTINE NOTICES
1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150bb, 150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 161, 162, and
164-167; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).
[[Page 17551]]
2. In Sec. 301.81-3, paragraph (e), the list of quarantined areas
is amended by revising the entry for Wayne County, Tennessee, to read
as follows:
Sec. 301.81-3 Quarantined areas.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
* * * * *
TENNESSEE
* * * * *
Wayne County. That portion of the county lying south of U.S.
Highway 64 and also that portion of the county lying west of Longitude
87 deg. 55'.
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of April 1996.
Terry L. Medley,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-9833 Filed 4-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9828 Winter Pears Grown in Oregon, Washington, and California; Order Amending the Order
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17552-17555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9828]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17553]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 927
[Docket No. AO-99-A-6; FV-92-065]
Winter Pears Grown in Oregon, Washington, and California; Order
Amending the Order
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the marketing agreement and order for
winter pears grown in Oregon, Washington, and California. The
amendments were recommended by the Winter Pear Control Committee
(WPCC), the agency responsible for local administration of the
marketing order, and were favored by winter pear producers in a
referendum held from November 1 through November 30, 1995. The
amendments will: Redefine ``ship or handle'' to include shipments of
winter pears within the production area; update the definition of
``export market'' to recognize that there are now 50 states in the
United States; authorize the WPCC to accept voluntary contributions and
how such funds may be used; and revise the authority for exempting
certain shipments from regulation. These amendments are designed to
improve the administration, operation and function of the winter pear
marketing agreement and order program.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Britthany E. Beadle, Marketing
Specialist, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable
Division, AMS, USDA, PO Box 96456, Room 2522-S, Washington, DC 20090-
6456, telephone (202) 720-5127; or Teresa L. Hutchinson, Marketing
Specialist, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order
Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, 1220 SW
Third Avenue, room 369, Portland, Oregon 97204-2807, telephone: (503)
326-2724.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior documents in this proceeding: Notice
of Hearing issued on November 16, 1992, and published in the November
20, 1992, issue of the Federal Register (57 FR 54728). Recommended
Decision and Opportunity to File Written Exceptions issued on March 15,
1995, and published in the Federal Register on March 21, 1995, (60 FR
14914). Secretary's Decision and Referendum Order issued on June 22,
1995, and published in the Federal Register on June 29, 1995, (60 FR
3376).
This administrative action is governed by the provisions of section
556 and 557 of Title 5 of the United States Code and therefore, is
excluded from the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or
policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this
rule.
The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (Act), as amended
(7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) provides that administrative proceedings must be
exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section
608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with
the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provision of the
order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in
accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be
exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing
on the petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the
petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States
in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or
her principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review
the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided a bill in equity is
filed not later than 20 days after date of the entry of the ruling.
Preliminary Statement
This final rule was formulated on the record of a public hearing
held in Portland, Oregon, on December 2, 1992, to consider the proposed
amendment of Marketing Agreement and Order No. 927, regulating the
handling of winter pears grown in Oregon, Washington, and California,
hereinafter referred to collectively as the ``order.'' The hearing was
held pursuant to the provisions of the Act and the applicable rules of
practice and procedure governing proceedings to formulate marketing
agreements and marketing orders (7 CFR Part 900). The Notice of Hearing
contained several amendment proposals submitted by the WPCC established
under the order to assist in local administration of the marketing
order.
This final rule: (1) Redefines ``ship or handle'' to include
shipments of winter pears within the production area; (2) updates the
definition of ``export market'' to recognize that there are now 50
states in the United States; (3) authorizes the WPCC to accept
voluntary contributions and specifies how such funds may be used; and
(4) revises the authority for exempting certain shipments from
regulation.
Upon the basis of evidence introduced at the hearing and the record
thereof, the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
on March 21, 1995, filed with the Hearing Clerk, Department of
Agriculture, a Recommended Decision and Opportunity to File Written
Exceptions thereto by April 20, 1995. None were filed.
A Secretary's Decision and Referendum Order was issued on June 22,
1995, directing that a referendum be conducted during the period
November 1 through November 30, 1995, among winter pear producers to
determine whether they favored the proposed amendments to the order. In
that referendum, producers voted in favor of all four of the amendment
proposals listed on the referendum ballot. All of the proposed
amendments were favored by more then the requisite two-thirds of the
producers voting in the referendum by number and volume.
The amended marketing agreement was subsequently mailed to all
winter pear handlers throughout the production area for their approval.
The marketing agreement was signed by handlers of more than 50 percent
of the volume of winter pears handled by all handlers during the
representative period of July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1995.
Small Business Considerations
In accordance with the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Administrator of the AMS has
determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. Small agricultural producers
have been defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR
121.601) as those having annual receipts of less than $500,000. Small
agricultural service firms, which include handlers under this order,
are defined as those with annual receipts of less than $5 million.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders and
rules issued thereunder are unique in that they are brought about
through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own
behalf. Thus, both the RFA and the Act have small entity orientation
and compatibility. Interested persons were invited to present evidence
at the hearing on the probable impact that the
[[Page 17554]]
proposed amendments to the order would have on small businesses.
During the 1995-96 crop year, approximately 90 handlers were
regulated under Marketing Order No. 927. In addition, there are about
1,980 growers of winter pears in the regulated area. The Act provides
for the application of uniform rules on regulated handlers. Since
handlers covered under the winter pear marketing order are
predominantly small businesses, the order itself is tailored to the
size and nature of these small businesses. Marketing orders, and
amendments thereto, are unique in that they are normally brought about
through group action of essentially small entities for their own
benefit. Thus, both the RFA and the Act are compatible with respect to
small entities.
All of the order amendments are designed to enhance the
administration and functioning of the marketing agreement and order to
the benefit of the industry. The benefits are expected to outweigh any
costs associated with the amendments. Accordingly, it is determined
that the amendments to the order will not have a significant economic
impact on growers or handlers.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter
35), the reporting and recordkeeping requirements that may result from
the amendments will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for approval.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 929
Marketing agreements, Pears, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Order Amending the Order for Winter Pears Grown in Oregon, Washington,
and California
Findings and Determinations
The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth are
supplementary and in addition to the findings and determinations
previously made in connection with the issuance of the order; and all
of said previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and
affirmed, except insofar as such findings and determinations may be in
conflict with the findings and determinations set forth herein.
(a) Findings and Determinations Upon the Basis of the Hearing
Record. Pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and the
applicable rules of practice and procedure effective thereunder (7 CFR
part 900), a public hearing was held upon the proposed amendments to
Marketing Agreement and Order No. 927 (7 CFR part 927), covering winter
pears grown in Oregon, Washington, and California.
Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at such hearing and the
record thereof, it is found that:
(1) The marketing agreement and order, as amended, and as hereby
further amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, will tend
to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
(2) The marketing agreement and order, as amended, and as hereby
further amended, regulates the handling of winter pears grown in the
production area in the same manner as, and is applicable only to
persons in the respective classes of commercial and industrial activity
specified in the marketing agreement and order upon which hearings have
been held;
(3) The marketing agreement and order, as amended, and as hereby
further amended, is limited in application to the smallest regional
production area which is practicable, consistent with carrying out the
declared policy of the Act, and the issuance of several orders
applicable to subdivisions of the production area would not effectively
carry out the declared policy of the Act;
(4) The marketing agreement and order, as amended, and as hereby
further amended, prescribes, insofar as practicable, such different
terms applicable to different parts of the production area as are
necessary to give due recognition to the differences in the production
and marketing of winter pears grown in production area; and
(5) All handling of winter pears grown in the production area is in
the current of interstate or foreign commerce or directly burdens,
obstructs, or affects such commerce.
(b) Determinations. It is hereby determined that:
(1) Handlers (excluding cooperative associations of growers who are
not engaged in processing, distribution, or shipping of winter pears
covered by the said order, as hereby amended) who during the period of
July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1995, handled 50 percent or more of the
volume of such winter pears covered by the said order, as amended and
hereby further amended have signed a marketing agreement; and
(2) The issuance of this amendatory order, amending the aforesaid
order, is favored or approved by at least two-thirds of the producers
who participated in a referendum and represented at least two-thirds of
the volume of such commodity in the referendum, all such producers
during the period June 1, 1994, through June 30, 1995 (which has been
deemed to be a representative period), having been engaged within the
production area in the production of winter pears for fresh market.
Order Relative to Handling
It is therefore ordered, That on and after the effective date
hereof, all handling of winter pears grown in Oregon, Washington, and
California shall be in conformity to, and in compliance with, the terms
and conditions of the said order as hereby amended as follows:
The provisions of the proposed marketing agreement and order
amending the order contained in the Secretary's Decision issued on June
22, 1995, and published in the Federal Register on June 29, 1995, shall
be and are the terms and provisions of this order amending the order
and are set forth in full herein.
PART 927--WINTER PEARS GROWN IN OREGON, WASHINGTON, AND CALIFORNIA
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 927 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. Section 927.8 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 927.8 Ship or handle.
Ship or handle means to sell, deliver, consign or transport pears,
within the production area or between the production area and any point
outside thereof: Provided, That the term ``handle'' shall not include
the transportation of winter pear shipments within the production area
from the orchard where grown to a packing facility located within the
production area for preparation for market.
3. Section 927.10 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 927.10 Production area.
Production area means and includes the States of Oregon,
Washington, and California.
4. Section 927.12 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 927.12 Export market.
Export market means any destination which is not within the 50
states, or the District of Columbia, of the United States.
5. In Sec. 927.41, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 927.41 Assessments.
(a) Assessments will be levied only upon handlers who first handle
pears.
[[Page 17555]]
Each handler shall pay assessments on all pears handled by such handler
as the pro rata share of the expenses which the Secretary finds are
reasonable and likely to be incurred by the Control Committee during a
fiscal period. The payment of assessments for the maintenance and
functioning of the Control Committee may be required under this part
throughout the period such assessments are payable irrespective of
whether particular provisions thereof are suspended or become
inoperative.
* * * * *
6. Section 927.45 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 927.45 Contributions.
The Control Committee may accept voluntary contributions but these
shall only be used to pay expenses incurred pursuant to section 927.47.
Furthermore, such contributions shall be free from any encumbrances by
the donor and the Control Committee shall retain complete control of
their use.
7. Section 927.47 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 927.47 Research and development.
The Control Committee, with the approval of the Secretary, may
establish or provide for the establishment of production research, or
marketing research and development projects designed to assist,
improve, or promote the marketing, distribution, and consumption of
pears. Such projects may provide for any form of marketing promotion,
including paid advertising. The expense of such projects shall be paid
from funds collected pursuant to Secs. 927.41 and 927.45. Expenditures
for a particular variety of pears shall approximate the amount of
assessments and voluntary contributions collected for that variety of
pears.
8. In Sec. 927.52, paragraph (b)(1) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 927.52 Prerequisites to Control Committee recommendations.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) The basis of one vote for each 25,000 boxes (except 2,500 boxes
for Forelle and Seckel varieties) of the average quantity of such
variety produced in the particular district and shipped therefrom
during the immediately preceding three fiscal periods; or
* * * * *
9. In Sec. 927.65, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 927.65 Exemption from regulation.
* * * * *
(b) The Control Committee may prescribe rules and regulations, to
become effective upon the approval of the Secretary, whereby quantities
of pears or types of pear shipments may be exempted from any or all
provisions of this subpart.
* * * * *
Dated: April 16, 1996.
Michael V. Dunn,
Assistant Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 96-9828 Filed 4-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9827 Expenses and Assessment Rate for Marketing Order Covering Olives Grown in California
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17555-17556]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9827]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 932
[Docket No. FV96-932-1FIR]
Expenses and Assessment Rate for Marketing Order Covering Olives
Grown in California
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture (Department) is adopting without
change, the provisions of an interim final rule, that authorized
expenses and established an assessment rate for the California Olive
Committee (Committee) under Marketing Order No. 932 for the 1996 fiscal
year. The Committee is responsible for local administration of the
marketing order which regulates the handling of the California Olives.
Authorization of this budget enables the Committee to incur expenses
that are reasonable and necessary to administer the program. Funds to
administer this program are derived from assessments on handlers.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective beginning January 1, 1996, through December
31, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Vawter, California Marketing
Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey
Street, suite 102B, Fresno, California 93721, telephone 209-487-5901;
or Tershirra T. Yeager, Marketing Order Administration Branch, F&V,
AMS, USDA, PO Box 96456, room 2523-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456;
telephone 202-720-5127.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule is issued under Marketing
Agreement No. 148 and Marketing Order No. 932 (7 CFR part 932), as
amended, regulating the handling of olives grown in California,
hereinafter referred to as the ``order.'' The order is effective under
the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C.
601-674), hereinafter referred to as the ``Act.''
The Department of Agriculture is issuing this rule in conformance
with Executive Order 12866.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order provisions now in
effect, olives grown in California are subject to assessments. It is
intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable
to all assessable olives during the 1996 fiscal year, beginning January
1, 1996, through December 31, 1996. This final rule will not preempt
any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present
an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted
therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the
petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the petition.
The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any
district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her
principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review the
Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided a bill in equity is filed
not later than 20 days after date of the entry of the ruling.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small
entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that
they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are 5 handlers of olives grown in California who are subject
to regulation under the order and approximately 1,350 producers of
olives in the regulated area. Small agricultural producers have been
defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as those
having annual receipts of less than $500,000, and small agricultural
service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less
[[Page 17556]]
than $5,000,000. None of the olive handlers may be classified as small
entities, while the majority of olive producers may be classified as
small entities.
The order, administered by the Department, requires that the
assessment rate for a particular fiscal year apply to all assessable
olives handled during the appropriate crop year, which for this season
is August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1996. The budget of expenses for
the 1996 fiscal year was prepared by the Committee and submitted to the
Department for approval. The Committee consists of handlers and
producers. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the
costs for goods, services, and personnel in their local area and are
thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget. The budget was
formulated and discussed in public meetings. Thus, all directly
affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by
dividing anticipated expenses by actual receipts of olives by handlers
during the crop year. Because that rate is applied to actual receipts,
it must be established at a rate which will produce sufficient income
to pay the Committee's expected expenses.
The recommended budget and rate of assessment is usually acted upon
by the Committee after the crop year begins and before the fiscal year
starts, and expenses are incurred on a continuous basis. Therefore, the
budget and assessment rate approval must be expedited so that the
Committee will have funds to pay its expenses.
The Committee met on December 14, 1995, and recommended 1996
marketing order expenditures of $2,600,785 for its budget. This is
$280,865 less in expenses than the previous year. The major budget
categories for the 1996 fiscal year include administration ($388,350),
research ($213,000), and market development ($1,999,435).
The Committee also recommended an assessment rate of $28.26 per ton
covering olives from the appropriate crop year. This is $1.78 less than
last year's assessment rate of $30.04. The assessment rate, when
applied to actual handler receipts of 62,182 tons from the 1995 olive
crop year, would yield $1,757,726 in assessment income. This along with
approximately $829,000 from the Committee's authorized reserves will be
adequate to cover estimated expenses. Reserve funds forwarded from the
1995 fiscal year are estimated at $210,000 which is within the maximum
permitted by the order of one fiscal year's expenses.
An interim final rule was issued on February 12, 1996, and
published in the Federal Register (61 FR 6306; February 20, 1996). That
rule provided a 30-day comment period which ended March 21, 1996. No
comments were received.
While this action will impose some additional costs on handlers,
the costs are in the form of uniform assessments on all handlers. Some
of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these
costs will be offset by the benefits derived from the operation of the
marketing order. Therefore, the Administrator of the AMS has determined
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including
the Committee's recommendation, and other available information, it is
found that this final rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to
effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
It is further found that good cause exists for not postponing the
effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register because: (1) The Committee needs to have sufficient
funds to pay its expenses which are incurred on a continuous basis; (2)
the 1996 fiscal year began on January 1, 1996, and the marketing order
requires that the rate of assessment for the fiscal year apply to all
assessable olives handled during the fiscal year; (3) handlers are
aware of this rule which was recommended by the Committee at a public
meeting; and (4) an interim final rule was published in the Federal
Register providing a 30-day comment period, and no comments were
received.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932
Marketing agreements, Olives, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR parts 932 are
amended as follows:
PART 932--OLIVES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR part 932 which
was published at 61 FR 6306 on February 20, 1996, is adopted as a final
rule without change.
Dated: April 16, 1996.
Eric M. Forman,
Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-9827 Filed 4-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9826 Milk in the Central Arizona Marketing Area; Suspension of Certain Provisions of the Order
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17561-17562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9826]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 1131
[DA-96-03]
Milk in the Central Arizona Marketing Area; Suspension of Certain
Provisions of the Order
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Suspension of rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document continues to suspend certain provisions of the
Central Arizona Federal milk marketing order during April 1, 1996,
through March 31, 1997. The continued suspension eliminates the
requirement that a cooperative association ship at least 50 percent of
its receipts to other handler pool plants to maintain pool status of a
manufacturing plant operated by the cooperative. United Dairymen of
Arizona, a cooperative association that represents nearly all of the
producers who supply milk to the market, requested the suspension. The
suspension is necessary to prevent uneconomical and inefficient
movements of milk.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 1996, through March 31, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clifford M. Carman, Marketing
Specialist, USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room
2971, South Building, PO Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, (202)
720-9368.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior document in this proceeding:
Notice of Proposed Suspension: Issued March 7, 1996; published
March 13, 1996 (61 FR 10288).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires the
Agency to examine the impact of a proposed rule on small entities.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator of the Agricultural
Marketing Service has certified that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule lessens the regulatory impact of the order on certain milk
handlers and tends to ensure that dairy farmers will continue to have
their milk priced under the order and thereby receive the benefits that
accrue from such pricing.
The Department is issuing this final rule in conformance with
Executive Order 12866.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have a retroactive
effect. This rule will not preempt any state or local laws,
regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule.
The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7
U.S.C. 601-674), provides that administrative proceedings must be
exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section
608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with
the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provisions of the
order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in
accordance with the law and requesting a modification of an order or to
be exempted from the order. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a
hearing on the petition. After a hearing, the Secretary would rule on
the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United
States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has
its principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review
the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided a bill in equity is
filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This order of suspension is issued pursuant to the provisions of
the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act and of the order regulating
the handling of milk in the Central Arizona marketing area.
Notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register
on March 13, 1995 (61 FR 10288) concerning a proposed suspension of
certain provisions of the order. Interested persons were afforded
opportunity to file written data, views and arguments thereon. No
comments were received.
After consideration of all relevant material, including the
proposal in the notice and other available information, it is hereby
found and determined that for the months of April 1, 1996, through
March 31, 1997, the following provisions of the order do not tend to
effectuate the declared policy of the Act:
In Sec. 1131.7(c), the words ``50 percent or more of'',
``(including the skim milk and butterfat in fluid milk products
transferred from its own plant pursuant to this paragraph that is not
in excess of the skim milk and butterfat contained in member producer
milk actually received at such plant)'' and ``or the previous 12-month
period ending with the current month.''
Statement of Consideration
This rule continues to suspend certain provisions of the Central
Arizona order for the months of April 1996 through March 1997. The
suspension removes the requirement that a cooperative association that
operates a manufacturing plant in the marketing area must ship at least
50 percent of its milk supply during the current month or the previous
12-month period ending with the current month to other handlers' pool
plants to maintain the pool status of its manufacturing plant.
The order permits a cooperative association's manufacturing plant,
located in the marketing area, to be a pool plant if at least 50
percent of the producer milk of members of the cooperative association
is physically received at pool plants of other handlers during the
current month or the previous 12-month period ending with the current
month.
Continuation of the current suspension of this shipping requirement
was requested by United Dairymen of Arizona (UDA), a cooperative
association that represents nearly all of the dairy farmers who supply
the Central Arizona market. UDA states that the continued pool status
of their manufacturing plant is threatened if the suspension is not
continued. UDA contends that the same marketing conditions that
warranted the suspension last year still exist. UDA maintains that
members who increased their milk production to meet the projected
demands of fluid handlers for distribution into Mexico continue to
suffer the adverse impact of the collapse of the Mexican peso.
During the past year, there has been an increase in producer milk
while handler requirements for bulk milk deliveries has decreased. This
decrease is primarily a result of reduced Class I sales by Central
Arizona handlers in Mexico because of the continued devaluation of the
Mexican peso. Pool status of UDA's manufacturing plant will not be
maintained absent continuation of the suspension. Thus, costly and
inefficient movements of milk would have to be made to maintain pool
status of producers who have historically supplied the market and to
prevent disorderly marketing in the Central Arizona marketing area.
UDA again requested that the suspension be granted for an
indefinite period beginning in April 1996. After reviewing the
marketing conditions of the Central Arizona marketing area and their
relationship with the uncertain value of the Mexican peso, this
[[Page 17562]]
suspension will be for a one-year period.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to suspend the aforesaid provisions
beginning April 1, 1996, through March 31, 1997.
It is hereby found and determined that thirty days' notice of the
effective date hereof is impractical, unnecessary and contrary to the
public interest in that:
(a) The suspension is necessary to reflect current marketing
conditions and to assure orderly marketing conditions in the marketing
area, in that such rule is necessary to permit the continued pooling of
the milk of dairy farmers who have historically supplied the market
without the need for making costly and inefficient movements of milk;
(b) This suspension does not require of persons affected
substantial or extensive preparation prior to the effective date; and
(c) Notice of proposed rulemaking was given interested parties and
they were afforded opportunity to file written data, views or arguments
concerning this suspension. No comments were received.
Therefore, good cause exists for making this order effective less
than 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1131
Milk marketing orders.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the following provisions
in title 7, part 1131, are amended as follows:
PART 1131--MILK IN THE CENTRAL ARIZONA MARKETING AREA
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 1131 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
Sec. 1131.7 [Temporarily Suspended in Part]
2. In Sec. 1131.7(c), the words ``50 percent or more of'',
``(including the skim milk and butterfat in fluid milk products
transferred from its own plant pursuant to this paragraph that is not
in excess of the skim milk and butterfat contained in member producer
milk actually received at such plant)'' and ``or the previous 12-month
period ending with the current month.'' are suspended for the months of
April 1, 1996, through March 31, 1997.
Dated: April 16, 1996.
Michael V. Dunn,
Assistant Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 96-9826 Filed 4-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9825 Limes and Avocados Grown in Florida; Suspension of Certain Volume Regulations and Reporting Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17551-17552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9825]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 911 and 915
[Docket No. FV95-911-2IFR]
Limes and Avocados Grown in Florida; Suspension of Certain Volume
Regulations and Reporting Requirements
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comments; suspension.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule suspends indefinitely certain volume regulation
provisions of the marketing order covering limes grown in Florida. This
rule indefinitely suspends the pack-out reporting requirements for the
marketing orders covering limes and avocados grown in Florida. The
marketing orders regulate the handling of limes and avocados grown in
Florida and are administered by the Florida Lime Administrative
Committee and the Avocado Administrative Committee, respectively. These
provisions are not needed due to reduced Florida lime and avocado
production. This rule will also reduce handler reporting burdens for
both marketing orders.
DATES: Effective April 1, 1996. Comments which are received prior to
May 22, 1996, will be considered prior to issuance of any final action.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this action to: Docket Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Division,
AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room 2523-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456.
Three copies of all written material shall be submitted, and they will
be made available for public inspection at the office of the Docket
Clerk during regular business hours. All comments should reference the
docket number, date, and page number of this issue of the Federal
Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Britthany E. Beadle and Caroline C.
Thorpe, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable
Division, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room 2522-S, Washington, DC 20090-
6456; telephone: 202-720-5127; or Aleck J. Jonas, Southeast Marketing
Field Office, USDA/AMS, P.O. Box 2276, Winter Haven, Florida 33883;
telephone: 813-299-4770.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action is issued under the provisions
of section 8c(16)(A) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of
1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the
Act; and of Marketing Agreements and Marketing Orders No. 911 (7 CFR
part 911) and No. 915 (7 CFR part 915) regulating the handling of limes
grown in Florida and avocados grown in South Florida, respectively.
These agreements and orders are effective under the Agricultural
Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674),
hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this action
in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This action has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. It is intended that this action will be applicable for
the entire 1996 fiscal year which began April 1, 1996, and will
continue until amended, suspended, or terminated. This action will not
preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they
present an irreconcilable conflict with this action.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 8c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with law and requesting a modification of the order or to be exempted
therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the
petition. After the hearing, the Secretary would rule on the petition.
The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any
district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her
principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review the
Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided a bill in equity is filed
not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on
small entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that
they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are about 10 Florida lime handlers subject to regulation
under the marketing order covering limes grown in Florida, and about 30
lime producers in Florida. Also, there are approximately 35 handlers of
avocados and approximately 95 producers in the regulated area. Small
agricultural producers have been defined by the Small Business
Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as those having annual receipts of less
than $500,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as
those whose annual receipts are less than $5,000,000. A majority of
these handlers and producers may be classified as small entities.
The Florida Lime Administrative Committee (FLAC) met on December
13, 1995, and unanimously recommended a two year suspension of their
lime volume regulations and pack-out requirements. However, the
Department is revising the FLAC recommendation by suspending both of
these requirements indefinitely. The Department has determined that
since volume regulations have not been implemented for at least the
past five years and lime production has been reduced to low levels
these regulations should be suspended indefinitely. The Department does
not anticipate that such regulations will be needed in the near future.
Also, the Avocado Administrative Committee (AAC) met on January 10,
1996, and recommended indefinite suspension of their pack-out reporting
requirements.
The suspension of Secs. 911.53-59 and 911.111 of the lime marketing
order volume regulations and pack-out reporting requirements was
published in the Federal Register (59 FR 13429, March 22, 1994) and is
currently in
[[Page 17552]]
effect through March 31, 1996. The suspension of Sec. 915.150 paragraph
(d) of the avocado marketing order pack-out reporting requirements was
published in the Federal Register (59 FR 30866, June 16, 1994) and is
currently in effect through March 31, 1996. This rule suspends these
regulations indefinitely.
Sections 911.53-59 (7 CFR 911.53-59) of the lime marketing order
cover volume regulations and were used by FLAC to collect and maintain
information from handlers, so that it could recommend to the Department
that lime volume regulations be issued, when and if needed. FLAC
determined that volume regulations will not be needed in the near
future, and thus such information will not be needed, because of
reduced production due to hurricane damage in 1992.
Concerning pack-out reporting requirements, both FLAC and AAC
recommended suspension of their pack-out reporting requirements.
Section 911.111 (7 CFR 911.111) and Sec. 915.150 (7 CFR 915.150)
contain provisions requiring Florida handlers to file certain reports
with either the FLAC or the AAC concerning their Florida lime and
avocado shipments, respectively. This action continues the suspension
of these provisions since information collected under these provisions
is not needed because lime and avocado production is so low. These
provisions would require handlers to furnish information on types and
number of containers of limes and avocados they pack each day.
Sufficient information from other sources is available to meet
committee needs during future seasons. Information needed for committee
operations, marketing policies, and compliance is available from
inspection certificates collected on a daily basis by committee staff.
These resources are used to collect such information. Low lime and
avocado production has also resulted in a substantial reduction of the
both committees' staff and reduction of assessment income. Thus, the
continuation of the suspension will reduce administrative costs and
work load.
These continued suspensions are a result of damage to the lime and
avocado groves caused by Hurricane Andrew in August 1992. For limes,
Hurricane Andrew reduced production acreage from approximately 6,500
acres to approximately 1,500 acres with many non-producing trees in the
remaining acreage. Production in the 1991-92 season was 1,682,677
bushels. In the 1992-93 season, production prior to the hurricane was
1,146,000 bushels. After the hurricane, in the 1993-94 season,
production fell to 228,455 bushels and in the 1994-95 season, it was
283,977 bushels. This was well below the levels reached prior to the
hurricane.
For avocados, Hurricane Andrew reduced production acreage from
approximately 9,000 acres to less than 6,000 acres with many non-
producing trees in the remaining acreage. Production in the 1991-92
season was 1,110,105 bushels. In the 1992-93 season, production fell to
283,000 bushels and in the 1993-94 season it was 174,712 bushels.
Although the 1994-95 season recovered to 778,951 bushels, it is well
below the levels reached prior to the hurricane.
Therefore, this action reflects the committees' and the
Department's appraisal of the need to suspend certain volume
regulations and pack-out reporting requirements under the orders, as
specified. This rule indefinitely suspends certain reporting
requirements for Florida limes and avocados, and lessens the overall
reporting and recordkeeping burden under the orders. The Department's
view is that this suspension will have a beneficial impact on Florida
lime and avocado producers and handlers, since it lessens the reporting
burden on handlers and will reduce the committees' expenses incurred
under the orders.
Based on the above, the Administrator of the AMS has determined
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The information collection requirements have been previously
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
provisions of 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 and have been assigned OMB Numbers
0581-0091 and 0581-0078 for limes and avocados respectively.
This action indefinitely suspends the annual reporting burden
currently estimated at 210.4 hours for all regulated Florida lime
handlers to: (1) Apply for a prorate base and allotment; (2) report
daily the percentages, by size category, of the limes packed by them;
and (3) report daily the number of containers of limes sold and
delivered by them within the State of Florida.
This action also indefinitely suspends the annual reporting burden
currently estimated at 130 hours for all regulated Florida avocado
handlers who file such reports. Specifically, this would apply to
handlers who file: (1) The Avocado Handler Daily Size Report Form; and
(2) the Avocado Handlers Weekly Report Form.
After consideration of all relevant matter presented, the
information and recommendations submitted by the committees, and other
information, it is found that the provisions detailed below, at this
time, do not tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
It is also found and determined, upon good cause, that it is
impracticable, unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to give
preliminary notice prior to putting this action into effect, and that
good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this action
until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1)
This action relieves restrictions by suspending certain volume
regulation and pack-out reporting requirements under the orders for
fresh Florida limes and avocados; (2) Florida lime and avocado handlers
are aware of this suspension which was recommended by the committees at
public meetings, and they will need no additional time to comply; (3)
Florida fresh lime shipments are currently in progress, and they are
expected to continue throughout the year; (4) such requirements need to
be suspended promptly for both limes and avocados, so they are of
maximum benefit to handlers; and (5) this rule provides a 30-day
comment period, and any comments received will be considered prior to
any finalization of this interim final action.
List of Subjects
7 CFR part 911
Limes, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
7 CFR part 915
Avocados, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR parts 911 and 915
are amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for both 7 CFR parts 911 and 915
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
PART 911--[SUSPENDED IN PART]
2. In part 911, Secs. 911.53 through 911.59, and Sec. 911.111 are
suspended, indefinitely.
PART 915--[SUSPENDED IN PART]
3. In Sec. 915.150, paragraph (d) is suspended, indefinitely.
Dated: April 16, 1996.
Michael V. Dunn,
Assistant Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 96-9825 Filed 4-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9824 Hazelnuts Grown in Oregon and Washington; Order Further Amending Marketing Order
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17556-17561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9824]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 982
[Docket No. AO-205-A7; FV94-982-1FR]
Hazelnuts Grown in Oregon and Washington; Order Further Amending
Marketing Order
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule further amends the marketing agreement and
order for hazelnuts grown in Oregon and Washington (order). The
amendments change order provisions regarding: Volume control;
nomination and membership of the Hazelnut Marketing Board (Board);
fiscal operations; and the administration and operation of the program.
These changes were favored by hazelnut producers in a mail referendum
held from November 27 through December 15, 1995. The amendments will
improve the administration, operation, and functioning of the marketing
order program by bringing the program more in line with current
industry operating practices.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 22, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teresa L. Hutchinson, Marketing
Specialist, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable
Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, 1220 SW Third Avenue,
room 369, Portland, OR 97204; telephone 503-326-2724, FAX 503-326-7440;
or Tom Tichenor, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and
Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, room 2523-S, PO Box 96456, Washington,
DC 20090-6456; telephone 202-720-6862; FAX 202-720-5698.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior documents in this proceeding: Notice
of Hearing issued on February 24, 1994, and published in the Federal
Register on February 28, 1994 (59 FR 9425). Recommended Decision and
Opportunity to File Written Exceptions issued on May 24, 1995, and
published in the Federal Register on June 7, 1995 (60 FR 30170).
Secretary's Decision and Referendum Order issued October 23, 1995, and
published in the Federal Register on October 31, 1995 (60 FR 55333).
Preliminary Statement
This administrative action is governed by the provisions of
sections 556 and 557 of title 5 of the United States Code, and is
therefore excluded from the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice
[[Page 17557]]
Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive effect. This
rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or
policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this
action.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted
therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the
petition. After the hearing, the Secretary would rule on the petition.
The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any
district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her
principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review the
Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided a bill in equity is filed
not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
The final rule was formulated on the record of a public hearing
held in Newberg, Oregon, on March 8, 1994, to consider the proposed
amendment of the Marketing Agreement and Order No. 982, regulating the
handling of hazelnuts grown in Oregon and Washington, hereinafter
referred to collectively as the ``order.'' Notice of the hearing was
published in the February 28, 1994, issue of the Federal Register (59
FR 9425).
The hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural
Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
hereinafter referred to as the ``Act,'' and the applicable rules of
practice and procedure governing proceedings to formulate marketing
agreements and marketing orders (7 CFR part 900). The Notice of Hearing
contained several amendment proposals submitted by the Hazelnut
Marketing Board (Board), established under the order to assist in local
administration of the program.
The proposals pertained to: (1) Changing the name of the commodity
covered under the order from ``filberts'' to ``hazelnuts''; (2) for the
purposes of inshell volume regulation, allowing the Board, with USDA
approval, to make changes in the domestic market distribution area and
providing the Board with the flexibility to recommend appropriate
hazelnut releases for use until new crop hazelnuts are available for
marketing; (3) increasing Board members' terms of office to two years
and limiting the number of consecutive terms a member may serve from
six terms to three; (4) changing voting procedures for nominating
members to the Board, including changes to criteria used for nominating
handler members and for weighing handlers' votes when electing
nominees; (5) removing the ``verbatim'' reporting requirement on Board
marketing policy meetings, and allowing Board telephone votes to remain
unconfirmed until the next public Board meeting; (6) allowing the
Board, with USDA approval, to establish different identification
standards for inspected and certified hazelnuts; (7) changing
procedures for establishing bonding requirements for deferred
restricted obligations and allowing the Board to use defaulted bond
payments to purchase excess restricted credits from handlers; (8)
clarifying that mail order sales outside the production area are not
exempt from order requirements; and (9) allowing the Board to accept
advance assessment payments, provide discounts for such payments,
borrow money, and accept voluntary contributions.
Upon the basis of evidence introduced at the hearing and the record
thereof, the Acting Assistant Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory
Programs, on October 23, 1995, filed with the Hearing Clerk, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, a Secretary's Decision and Referendum Order,
directing that a referendum be conducted during the period November 27
through December 15, 1995, among producers of Oregon and Washington
hazelnuts to determine whether they favored the proposed amendments to
the order. In the referendum, all amendment proposals were favored by
more than two-thirds of the producers voting in the referendum.
Accordingly, all proposed amendments are included in this order further
amending the order.
The amended marketing agreement was subsequently mailed to all
hazelnut handlers in the production area for their approval. The
marketing agreement was signed by hazelnut handlers representing more
than 50 percent of the volume of hazelnuts handled by all handlers
during the representative period of July 1, 1994, to June 30, 1995.
Small Business Considerations
In accordance with the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Administrator of the Agriculture
Marketing Service has determined that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small agricultural service firms, which include handlers regulated
under this order, have been defined by the Small Business
Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.601) as those having annual receipts
of less than $5,000,000. Small agricultural producers are defined as
those having annual receipts of less than $500,000.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders and
rules issued thereunder are unique in that they are brought about
through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own
behalf. Thus, both the RFA and the Act have small entity orientation
and compatibility. Interested persons were invited to present evidence
at the hearing on the probable impact that the proposed amendments to
the order would have on small businesses.
There are approximately 25 handlers regulated under Marketing Order
No. 982. In addition, there are approximately 1,000 producers of
hazelnuts in the production area. The Act requires the application of
uniform rules on regulated handlers. Since handlers covered under the
hazelnut marketing order are predominantly small businesses, the order
itself is tailored to the size and nature of these small businesses.
Marketing orders and amendments thereto are unique in that they are
normally brought about through group action of essentially small
entities for their own benefit. Thus, both the RFA and the Act are
compatible with respect to small entities.
For discussion of the anticipated impact on small businesses, the
amendments have been grouped into program categories. Amendments
concerning the order's marketing and volume control programs will:
Change the name of the commodity to ``hazelnuts'' (Sec. 982.4 and every
other place it appears in part 982); establish the trade demand area as
the continental United States and allow the Board to make changes in
the inshell trade acquisition area, with approval of the Secretary
(Sec. 982.16); provide the Board the flexibility to release up to 15
percent of the average three year inshell trade acquisitions for
desirable carryout (Sec. 982.40); correct the current language that
determines handler credit for ungraded hazelnuts (Sec. 982.51);
establish the bonding rate for deferred restricted obligations at the
estimated value of restricted credits for the current marketing year
and allow the Board to use defaulted bond payments to purchase excess
restricted credits (Sec. 982.54); and clarify that mail order sales
outside the production area are not exempt from order requirements
(Sec. 982.57). These amendments are
[[Page 17558]]
designed to assist the Board in its domestic and export marketing
efforts. The amendments allow the Board to make program and management
decisions that are more consistent with changing market conditions and
to better respond to changing marketing needs. Because the Board acts
in the best interests of the industry, increased Board decision-making
flexibility should benefit the industry and, thus, small businesses in
the industry.
Regarding nomination and Board membership, the amendments will:
Change from one to two years the length of Board member and alternate
member terms of office (Sec. 982.33); limit the number of consecutive
terms members and alternate members may hold to three 2-year terms
(Sec. 982.33); and make conforming changes and a correction in the
qualifications for nominating members (Secs. 982.30 and 982.32). The
amendments are designed to ease the burden of conducting nomination
meetings every year and enhance the Board's efficiency. The amendments
are administrative in nature and will not impose additional costs on
small businesses.
Other amendments to the order's administrative procedures and
operations will: Allow Board telephone votes to remain unconfirmed in
writing until the next public Board meeting (Sec. 982.37); remove the
``verbatim'' reporting requirement on Board marketing policy meetings
(Sec. 982.39); allow the Board to accept advance assessment payments
and provide discounts for such payments (Sec. 982.61); and allow the
Board to accept voluntary contributions (new Sec. 982.63). These
amendments are intended to improve the operations of the Board, lessen
the administrative burden on Board members and staff, and improve
management of the order's financial resources. As such, the changes
will have negligible, if any, economic impact on small entities.
Finally, one amendment provides the Board with the authority to
establish more up-to-date identification standards (Sec. 982.46), which
will make order identification and certification provisions consistent
with current industry practices and provide handlers more flexibility
in meeting identification requirements.
All of these changes are designed to enhance the administration and
functioning of the order to the benefit of the industry. Accordingly,
it is determined that the revisions of the order will not have a
significant economic impact on handlers or producers.
In compliance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
regulations (5 CFR part 1320) which implement the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), any reporting and recordkeeping
requirements that may result from these amendments will be submitted to
OMB for approval.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 982
Filberts, Hazelnuts, Marketing Agreements, Nuts, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Order Further Amending the Order Regulating the Handling of Hazelnuts
Grown in Oregon and Washington
Findings and Determinations
The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth are
supplementary and in addition to the findings and determinations
previously made in connection with the issuance of the order; and all
of said previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and
affirmed, except insofar as such findings and determinations may be in
conflict with the findings and determinations set forth herein.
(a) Findings and Determinations Upon the Basis of the Hearing
Record. Pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and the
applicable rules of practice and procedure effective thereunder (7 CFR
part 900), a public hearing was held upon the amendments to Marketing
Agreement and Order No. 982 (7 CFR part 982), regulating the handling
of hazelnuts grown in Oregon and Washington.
Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at such hearing and the
record thereof, it is found that:
(1) The marketing agreement and order, as amended, and hereby
further amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, will tend
to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
(2) The marketing agreement and order, as amended, as hereby
further amended, regulates the handling of hazelnuts grown in the
production area in the same manner as, and is applicable only to
persons in the respective classes of commercial and industrial activity
specified in the marketing agreement and order upon which a hearing has
been held;
(3) The marketing agreement and order, as amended, as hereby
further amended, is limited in application to the smallest regional
production area which is practicable, consistent with carrying out the
declared policy of the Act, and the issuance of several orders
applicable to subdivisions of the production area would not effectively
carry out the declared policy of the Act; and
(4) All handling of hazelnuts grown in the production area is in
the current of interstate or foreign commerce or directly burdens,
obstructs or affects such commerce.
(b) Additional findings. It is necessary and in the public interest
to make these order amendments effective upon publication.
A later effective date would unnecessarily delay the implementation
of the order amendments and the improvement in operation of the
marketing order program. The Board, producers, and handlers need as
much time as possible to make plans to implement the amended order and
discuss any needed changes to the regulations and Board operating
procedures. Also, the order amendments include a change in the term of
office for Board members and alternates and a change in the voting
procedures for nominations. The industry will soon begin conducting
nominations for a term of office beginning July 1, 1996, and these new
procedures need to be in effect before nominations begin.
In view of the foregoing, it is hereby found and determined that
good cause exists for making these order amendments effective upon
publication, and that it would be contrary to the public interest to
delay the effective date of these order amendments for 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register (Sec. 553(d), Administrative
Procedure Act; 5 U.S.C. 551-559).
(c) Determinations. It is hereby determined that:
(1) Handlers (excluding cooperative associations of producers who
are not engaged in processing, distributing, or shipping hazelnuts
covered by the said order, as amended, as hereby further amended) who,
during the period July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1995, handled 50
percent or more of the volume of such hazelnuts covered by the said
order, as amended, as hereby further amended, have signed an amended
marketing agreement; and
(2) The issuance of this amendatory order, further amending the
aforesaid order, is favored or approved by at least two-thirds of the
producers who participated in a referendum on the question of its
approval and who, during the period July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1995
(which has been deemed to be a representative period), have been
engaged within the Oregon and Washington production area in the
production of such hazelnuts for fresh market.
[[Page 17559]]
Order Relative to Handling
It is therefore ordered, that on and after the effective date
hereof, all handling of hazelnuts grown in Oregon and Washington, shall
be in conformity to, and in compliance with, the terms and conditions
of the said order as hereby further amended as follows:
The provisions of the proposed marketing order amendments further
amending the order contained in the Secretary's Decision issued on
October 23, 1995, and published in the Federal Register on October 31,
1995 (60 FR 55333), shall be and are the terms and provisions of this
order further amending the order, and are set forth in full herein.
PART 982--HAZELNUTS GROWN IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 982 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. In part 982 the heading is revised and all references to
``filbert'', ``filberts'', ``filbert/hazelnut'', ``filberts/hazelnuts''
are revised to read as ``hazelnut'', ``hazelnuts'', ``hazelnut'', and
hazelnuts'', respectively.
3. Section 982.4 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 982.4 Hazelnuts.
Hazelnuts means hazelnuts or filberts produced in the States of
Oregon and Washington from trees of the genus Corylus.
4. Section 982.16 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 982.16 Inshell trade acquisitions.
Inshell trade acquisitions means the quantity of inshell hazelnuts
acquired by the trade from all handlers during a marketing year for
distribution in the continental United States and such other
distribution areas as may be recommended by the Board and established
by the Secretary.
5. Section 982.30 is amended by revising paragraphs (a),
introductory text, (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 982.30 Establishment and membership.
(a) There is hereby established a Hazelnut Marketing Board
consisting of 10 members, each of whom shall have an alternate member,
to administer the terms and provisions of this part. Each member and
alternate shall meet the same eligibility qualifications. The 10 member
positions shall be allocated as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) One member shall be nominated by the handler who handled the
largest volume of hazelnuts during the two marketing years preceding
the marketing year in which nominations are made;
(2) One member shall be nominated by the handler who handled the
second largest volume of hazelnuts during the two marketing years
preceding the marketing year in which nominations are made;
(3) One member shall be nominated by the handler who handled the
third largest volume of hazelnuts during the two marketing years
preceding the marketing year in which nominations are made;
* * * * *
6. In Sec. 982.32, paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (f) are revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 982.32 Initial members and nomination of successor members.
(a) Members and alternate members of the Board serving immediately
prior to the effective date of this amended subpart shall continue to
serve on the Board until their respective successors have been
selected.
(b) Nominations for successor handler members and alternate members
specified in Sec. 982.30(b) (1) through (3) shall be made by the
largest, second largest, and third largest handler determined according
to the tonnage of certified merchantable hazelnuts and, when shelled
hazelnut grade and size regulations are in effect, the inshell
equivalent of certified shelled hazelnuts (computed to the nearest
whole ton) recorded by the Board as handled by each such handler during
the two marketing years preceding the marketing year in which
nominations are made.
(c) Nominations for successor handler member and alternate handler
member positions specified in Sec. 982.30(b)(4) shall be made by the
handlers in that category by mail ballot. All votes cast shall be
weighted according to the tonnage of certified merchantable hazelnuts
and, when shelled hazelnut grade and size regulations are in effect,
the inshell equivalent of certified shelled hazelnuts (computed to the
nearest whole ton) recorded by the Board as handled by each handler
during the two marketing years preceding the marketing year in which
nominations are made. If less than one ton is recorded for any such
handler, the vote shall be weighted as one ton. Voting will be by
position, and each eligible handler can vote for a member and an
alternate member. The person receiving the highest number of weighted
votes for each position shall be the nominee for that respective
position.
* * * * *
(f) Nominations received in the foregoing manner by the Board for
all handler and grower member and alternate member positions shall be
certified and sent to the Secretary at least 60 days prior to the
beginning of each two-year term of office, together with all necessary
data and other information deemed by the Board to be pertinent or
requested by the Secretary. If nominations are not made within the time
and manner specified in this subpart, the Secretary may, without regard
to nominations, select the Board members and alternates on the basis of
the representation provided for in this subpart.
* * * * *
7. In Sec. 982.33, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 982.33 Selection and term of office.
* * * * *
(b) Term of office. The term of office of Board members and their
alternates shall be for two years beginning on July 1 and ending on
June 30, but they shall serve until their respective successors are
selected and have qualified: Provided, That beginning with the 1996-97
marketing year, no member shall serve more than three consecutive two-
year terms as member and no alternate member shall serve more than
three consecutive two-year terms as alternate unless specifically
exempted by the Secretary. Nomination elections for all Board grower
and handler member and alternate positions shall be held every two
years.
* * * * *
8. In Sec. 982.37, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 982.37 Procedure.
* * * * *
(b) The Board may vote by mail, telephone, telegraph, or other
means of communication: Provided, That any votes (except mail votes) so
cast shall be confirmed at the next regularly scheduled meeting. When
any proposition is submitted for voting by any such method, its
adoption shall require 10 concurring votes.
* * * * *
9. In Sec. 982.39, paragraph (i) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 982.39 Duties.
* * * * *
(i) To furnish to the Secretary a report of the proceedings of each
meeting of the Board held for the purpose of making marketing policy
recommendations.
[[Page 17560]]
Sec. 982.40 [Amended]
10. In Sec. 982.40, paragraph (c)(2) introductory text is amended
by removing the word ``shall'' in the third sentence and adding in its
place the word ``may''.
11. Section 982.46 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 982.46 Inspection and certification.
* * * * *
(b) All hazelnuts so inspected and certified shall be identified as
prescribed by the Board. Such identification shall be affixed to the
hazelnut containers by the handler under direction and supervision of
the Board or the Federal-State Inspection Service, and shall not be
removed or altered by any person except as directed by the Board.
* * * * *
Sec. 982.51 [Amended]
12. In Sec. 982.51, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the word
``percent'' at the end of the first sentence.
13. Section 982.52 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 982.52 Disposition of restricted hazelnuts.
* * * * *
(b) Export. Sales of certified merchantable restricted hazelnuts
for shipment to destinations outside the continental United States and
such other distribution areas as may be recommended by the Board and
established by the Secretary shall be made only by the Board. Any
handler desiring to export any part or all of that handler's certified
merchantable restricted hazelnuts shall deliver to the Board the
certified merchantable restricted hazelnuts to be exported, but the
Board shall be obligated to sell in export only such quantities for
which it may be able to find satisfactory export outlets. Any hazelnuts
so delivered for export which the Board is unable to export shall be
returned to the handler delivering them. Sales for export shall be made
by the Board only on execution of an agreement to prevent exportation
into the area designated in Sec. 982.16. A handler may be permitted to
act as an agent of the Board, upon such terms and conditions as the
Board may specify, in negotiating export sales, and when so acting
shall be entitled to receive a selling commission as authorized by the
Board. The proceeds of all export sales, after deducting all expenses
actually and necessarily incurred, shall be paid to the handler whose
certified merchantable restricted hazelnuts are so sold by the Board.
* * * * *
14. Section 982.54 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d),
(e) and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 982.54 Deferment of restricted obligation.
* * * * *
(b) Bonding requirement. Such bond or bonds shall, at all times
during their effective period, be in such amounts that the aggregate
thereof shall be no less than the total bonding value of the handler's
deferred restricted obligation. The bonding value shall be the deferred
restricted obligation poundage multiplied by the applicable bonding
rate. The cost of such bond or bonds shall be borne by the handler
filing same.
(c) Bonding rate. Said bonding rate shall be an amount per pound as
established by the Board. Such bonding rate shall be based on the
estimated value of restricted credits for the current marketing year.
Until bonding rates for a marketing year are fixed, the rates in effect
for the preceding marketing year shall continue in effect. The Board
should make any necessary adjustments once such new rates are fixed.
(d) Restricted credit purchases. Any sums collected through default
of a handler on the handler's bond shall be used by the Board to
purchase restricted credits from handlers, who have such restricted
credits in excess of their needs, and are willing to part with them.
The Board shall at all times purchase the lowest priced restricted
credits offered, and the purchases shall be made from the various
handlers as nearly as practicable in proportion to the quantity of
their respective offerings of the restricted credits to be purchased.
(e) Unexpended sums. Any unexpended sums which have been collected
by the Board through default of a handler on the handler's bond,
remaining in the possession of the Board at the end of a marketing
year, shall be used to reimburse the Board for its expenses, including
administrative and other costs incurred in the collection of such sums,
and in the purchase of restricted credits as provided in paragraph (d)
of this section.
(f) Transfer of restricted credit purchases. Restricted credits
purchased as provided for in this section shall be turned over to those
handlers who have defaulted on their bonds for liquidation of their
restricted obligation. The quantity delivered to each handler shall be
that quantity represented by sums collected through default.
* * * * *
15. In Sec. 982.57, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 982.57 Exemptions.
* * * * *
(b) Sales by growers direct to consumers. Any hazelnut grower may
sell hazelnuts of such grower's own production free of the regulatory
and assessment provisions of this part if such grower sells such
hazelnuts in the area of production directly to end users at such
grower's ranch or orchard or at roadside stands and farmers' markets.
The Board, with the approval of the Secretary, may establish such
rules, regulations, and safeguards and require such reports,
certifications, and other conditions, as are necessary to ensure that
such hazelnuts are disposed of only as authorized. Mail order sales are
not exempt sales under this part.
16. Section 982.58 is amended by revising the last sentence of
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 982.58 Research, promotion, and market development.
(a) * * * The expenses of such projects shall be paid from funds
collected pursuant to Sec. 982.61, Sec. 982.63, or credited pursuant to
paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *
17. Section 982.61 is amended by designating the current text as
paragraph (a) and by adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 982.61 Assessments.
(a) * * *
(b) In order to provide funds for the administration of the
provisions of this part during the first part of a fiscal period before
sufficient operating income is available from assessments on the
current year's shipments, the Board may accept the payment of
assessments in advance, and may also borrow money for such purpose.
Further, payment discounts may be authorized by the Board upon the
approval of the Secretary to handlers making such advance assessment
payments.
18. A new Sec. 982.63 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 982.63 Contributions.
The Board may accept voluntary contributions but these shall only
be used to pay expenses incurred pursuant to Sec. 982.58. Furthermore,
such contributions shall be free from any encumbrances by the donor and
the Board shall retain complete control of their use.
[[Page 17561]]
Dated: April 16, 1996.
Michael V. Dunn,
Assistant Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 96-9824 Filed 4-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9823 Grading and Inspection, General Specifications for Approved Plants and Standards for Grades of Dairy Products; United States Standards for Grades of Nonfat Dry Milk (Spray Process)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17547-17550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9823]
========================================================================
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. 78 / Monday, April 22, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 17547]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 58
[DA-93-03]
Grading and Inspection, General Specifications for Approved
Plants and Standards for Grades of Dairy Products; United States
Standards for Grades of Nonfat Dry Milk (Spray Process)
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document revises the United States Standards for Grades
of Nonfat Dry Milk (Spray Process). The revision reduces existing
bacterial standard plate count maximums and incorporates a coliform
requirement to reflect the ability of the U.S. dairy industry to
produce high-quality nonfat dry milk. The reduction in the maximum
standard plate count is made possible through improved raw milk quality
and enhanced processing and sanitation techniques. The inclusion of a
maximum coliform count adds to the assurance that post-pasteurization
contamination has not occurred. This revision was developed in
cooperation with the American Dairy Products Institute and other trade
associations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 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 will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities because use of the standards is voluntary and the revisions
would not increase costs to those utilizing the standards.
The Department is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive
Order 12866.
To provide quality grade standards that reflect the ability of the
U.S. dairy industry to produce high-quality nonfat dry milk, USDA is
changing the U.S. Standards for Grades of Nonfat Dry Milk (Spray
Process) as follows:
1. Expand the U.S. Grade Standards To Include a Maximum Coliform Count
in USDA-Graded Product
Coliform bacteria, abundantly present in the environment, are
destroyed by pasteurization. Post-pasteurization contamination has
occurred when coliform bacteria are present in nonfat dry milk. The
addition of a coliform requirement into the U.S. grade standard
increases the assurance that USDA graded nonfat dry milk is produced
and packaged in a sanitary manner.
2. Reduce the Standard Plate Count Requirements
Enumeration of bacteria by the standard plate count method has been
a criterium used in the determination of U.S. grade for many years.
Improvements in the sanitary production of nonfat dry milk have
resulted in a gradual reduction in the number of bacteria present in
the product. The revision reduces the allowable bacteria from 50,000 to
40,000 per gram for U.S. Extra Grade and from 100,000 to 75,000 per
gram for U.S. Standard Grade. These changes accurately reflect the
ability of the U.S. dairy industry to produce high-quality nonfat dry
milk and enhances the image of U.S. products on the world market.
3. Update the Terminology and Format of the Standards
The current U.S. Standards for Grades of Nonfat Dry Milk (Spray
Process) were last revised in 1984. Since that time, changes in
terminology and formatting of standards have taken place. The revision
updates the standards to provide consistency among the various U.S.
grade standards.
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 nonfat dry milk 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 accurately identifies quality
characteristics in nonfat dry milk.
Corollary changes have also been made for the General
Specifications for Dairy Plants Approved for USDA Inspection and
Grading Service, to conform the definition of nonfat dry milk set forth
therein with the final revision of the United States Standards for
Grades of Nonfat Dry Milk (Spray Process).
Public Comments
On March 6, 1995, the Department published a proposed rule (60 FR
12156) to revise the United States Standards for Grades of Nonfat Dry
Milk (Spray Process). The public comment period closed May 5, 1995. One
comment was received from a dairy trade association representing the
dry milk industry. That comment supported the proposed changes to the
standards.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 58
Dairy products, Food grades and standards, Food labeling, Reporting
and record keeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 58 is amended
as follows:
[[Page 17548]]
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. In Subpart B, Sec. 58.205 (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 58.205 Meaning of words.
* * * * *
(a) Nonfat dry milk. The product obtained by the removal of only
water from pasteurized skim milk. It contains not more than 5 percent
by weight of moisture and not more than 1\1/2\ percent by weight of
milkfat and it conforms to the applicable provisions of 21 CFR 131
``Milk and Cream'' as issued by the Food and Drug Administration.
Nonfat dry milk shall not contain nor be derived from dry buttermilk,
dry whey, or products other than skim milk, and shall not contain any
added preservative, neutralizing agent, or other chemical.
* * * * *
3. Subpart L--United States Standards for Grades of Nonfat Dry Milk
(Spray Process) is revised to read as follows:
Subpart L--United States Standards for Grades of Nonfat Dry Milk (Spray
Process)\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Compliance with these standards does not excuse failure to
comply with the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmestic
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions
Sec.
58.2525 Nonfat dry milk.
U.S. Grades
58.2526 Nomenclature of U.S. grades.
58.2527 Basis for determination of U.S. grade.
58.2528 Specifications for U.S. grades.
58.2529 U.S. grade not assignable.
58.2532 Test methods.
Explanation of Terms
58.2537 Explanation of terms.
Supplement to U.S. Standards for Grades of Nonfat Dry Milk (Spray
Process): U.S. Heat Treatment Classification
58.2538 Basis for obtaining heat treatment classification.
58.2539 Nomenclature of U.S. Heat Treatment Classification.
58.2540 Basis for determination of U.S. Heat Treatment
Classification.
58.2541 Test method; whey protein nitrogen.
Subpart L--United States Standards for Grades of Nonfat Dry Milk
(Spray Process) 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\ Compliance with these standards does not excuse failure to
comply with the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions
Sec. 58.2525 Nonfat dry milk.
(a) ``Nonfat dry milk'' is the product obtained by the removal of
only water from pasteurized skim milk. It contains not more than 5
percent by weight of moisture and not more than 1\1/2\ percent by
weight of milkfat and it conforms to the applicable provisions of 21
CFR part 131 ``Milk and Cream'' as issued by the Food and Drug
Administration. Nonfat dry milk covered by these standards shall not
contain nor be derived from dry buttermilk, dry whey, or products other
than skim milk, and shall not contain any added preservative,
neutralizing agent, or other chemical.
U.S. Grades
Sec. 58.2526 Nomenclature of U.S. grades.
The nomenclature of U.S. grades is as follows:
(a) U.S. Extra.
(b) U.S. Standard.
Sec. 58.2527 Basis for determination of U.S. grade.
(a) The U.S. grade of nonfat dry milk is determined on the basis of
flavor, physical appearance, bacterial estimate on the basis of
standard plate count, milkfat content, moisture content, scorched
particle content, solubility index, and titratable acidity.
(b) The final U.S. grade shall be established on the basis of the
lowest rating of any one of the quality factors.
Sec. 58.2528 Specifications for U.S. grades.
(a) U.S. Extra Grade. U.S. Extra Grade nonfat dry milk shall
conform to the following requirements (See Tables I, II, and III of
this section):
(1) Flavor. Reconstituted nonfat dry milk shall possess a sweet,
pleasing, and desirable flavor, but may possess the following flavors
to a slight degree: Chalky, cooked, feed, or flat. See Table I of this
section.
(2) Physical appearance. Nonfat dry milk shall possess a uniform
white to light cream natural color. It shall be free from lumps, except
those that readily break up with slight pressure, and be practically
free from visible dark particles.
The reconstituted product shall be free from graininess. See Table
II of this section.
(3) Bacterial estimate. Not more than 40,000 per gram standard
plate count. See Table III of this section.
(4) Milkfat content. Not more than 1.25 percent. See Table III of
this section.
(5) Moisture content. Not more than 4.0 percent. See Table III of
this section.
(6) Scorched particle content. Not more than 15.0 mg. See Table III
of this section.
(7) Solubility index. Not more than 1.2 ml., except that product
classified as U.S. High-heat may have not more than 2.0 ml. See Table
III of this section.
(8) Titratable acidity. Not more than 0.15 percent (lactic acid).
See Table III of this section.
(b) U.S. Standard Grade. U.S. Standard Grade nonfat dry milk shall
conform to the following requirements (See Tables I, II, and III of
this section):
(1) Flavor. Reconstituted nonfat dry milk shall possess a fairly
pleasing flavor, but may possess the following flavors to a slight
degree: Bitter, oxidized, scorched, storage, or utensil; the following
to a definite degree: Chalky, cooked, feed, or flat. See Table I of
this section.
(2) Physical appearance. Nonfat dry milk may possess a slight
unnatural color. It shall be free from lumps, except those that break
readily under moderate pressure, and be reasonably free from visible
dark particles. The reconstituted product shall be reasonably free from
graininess. See Table II of this section.
(3) Bacterial estimate. Not more than 75,000 per gram standard
plate count. See Table III of this section.
(4) Milkfat content. Not more than 1.50 percent. See Table III of
this section.
(5) Moisture content. Not more than 5.0 percent. See Table III of
this section.
(6) Scorched particle content. Not more than 22.5 mg. See Table III
of this section.
(7) Solubility index. Not more than 2.0 ml., except that product
classified as U.S. High-heat may have not more than 2.5 ml. See Table
III of this section.
(8) Titratable acidity. Not more than 0.17 percent (lactic acid).
See Table III of this section.
Table I.--Classification of Flavor With Corresponding U.S. Grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. standard
Flavor characteristics U.S. extra grade grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bitter............................ -- S
Chalky............................ S D
Cooked............................ S D
Feed.............................. S D
Flat.............................. S D
Oxidized.......................... -- S
[[Page 17549]]
Scorched.......................... -- S
Storage........................... -- S
Utensil........................... -- S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
- = Not permitted S = Slight D = Definite.
Table II.--Classification of Physical Appearance With Corresponding U.S.
Grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physical appearance U.S. standard
characteristics U.S. extra grade grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry Product:
Lumpy......................... Slight............ Moderate.
Unnatural color............... -- Slight.
Visible dark particles........ Practically free.. Reasonably free.
Reconstituted Product:
Grainy........................ -- Reasonably free.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
- = Not permitted.
TABLE III.--Classification According to Laboratory Analysis With
Corresponding U.S. Grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S.
Laboratory tests U.S. extra standard
grade grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bacterial estimate; Standard plate count; per
gram (max)..................................... 40,000 75,000
Milkfat content; percent (max).................. 1.25 1.50
Moisture content; percent (max)................. 4.0 5.0
Scorched particle content; mg (max)............. 15.0 22.5
Solubility index; ml (max)...................... 1.2 2.0
U.S. High-heat (max).......................... 2.0 2.5
Titratable acidity (lactic acid); percent (max). 0.15 0.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 58.2529 U.S. grade not assignable.
Nonfat dry milk shall not be assigned a U.S. grade for one or more
of the following reasons:
(a) The nonfat dry milk fails to meet or exceed the requirements
for U.S. Standard Grade.
(b) The nonfat dry milk has a direct microscopic clump (DMC) count
exceeding 100 million per gram.
(c) The nonfat dry milk has a coliform count exceeding 10 per gram.
(d) The nonfat dry milk is produced in a plant that is rated
ineligible for USDA grading service or is not USDA- approved.
Sec. 58.2532 Test methods.
All required tests shall be performed in accordance with DA
Instruction No. 918-RL, ``Instruction for Resident Grading Quality
Control Service Programs and Laboratory Analysis,'' Dairy Grading
Branch, Dairy Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20090-6456; the latest revision of
``Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official
Analytical Chemists''; or the latest edition of ``Standard Methods for
the Examination of Dairy Products'', available from the American Public
Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Explanation of Terms
Sec. 58.2537 Explanation of terms.
(a) With respect to flavor:
(1) Slight. Detected only upon critical examination.
(2) Definite. Not intense but detectable.
(3) Bitter. Distasteful, similar to the taste of quinine.
(4) Chalky. A tactual type of flavor lacking in characteristic milk
flavor.
(5) Cooked. Similar to a custard flavor and imparts a smooth
aftertaste.
(6) Feed. Feed flavors (such as alfalfa, sweet clover, silage, or
similar feed) in milk carried through into the nonfat dry milk.
(7) Flat. Insipid, practically devoid of any characteristic
reconstituted nonfat dry milk flavor.
(8) Oxidized. A flavor resembling cardboard and sometimes referred
to as ``cappy'' or ``tallowy''.
(9) Scorched. A more intensified flavor than ``cooked'' and imparts
a burnt aftertaste.
(10) Storage. Lacking in freshness and imparting a ``stale''
aftertaste.
(11) Utensil. A flavor that is suggestive of improper or inadequate
washing and sanitation of milking machines, utensils, or manufacturing
equipment.
(b) With respect to physical appearance:
(1) Practically free. Present only upon very critical examination.
(2) Reasonably free. Present only upon critical examination.
(3) Slight pressure. Only sufficient pressure to disintegrate the
lumps readily.
(4) Moderate pressure. Only sufficient pressure to disintegrate the
lumps easily.
(5) Grainy. Minute particles of undissolved powder appearing in a
thin film on the surface of a glass or tumbler.
(6) Lumpy. Loss of powdery consistency but not caked into hard
chunks.
(7) Natural color. A color that is white to light cream.
(8) Unnatural color. A color that is more intense than light cream
and is brownish, dull, or grey-like.
(9) Visible dark particles. The presence of scorched or discolored
specks.
Supplement to U.S. Standards for Grades of Nonfat Dry Milk (Spray
Process): U.S. Heat Treatment Classification
Sec. 58.2538 Basis for obtaining heat treatment classification.
Heat treatment classification is not a U.S. grade requirement
except in cases when the higher solubility index specified for U.S.
High-heat product is permitted. In all other instances, product
submitted for USDA grading may be analyzed for heat treatment
classification upon request and the results shown on the grading
certificate. Heat treatment classification will be made available only
upon a product graded by USDA.
Sec. 58.2339 Nomenclature of U.S. Heat Treatment Classification.
The nomenclature of U.S. Heat Treatment Classification is as
follows:
(a) U.S. High-heat.
(b) U.S. Medium-heat.
(c) U.S. Low-heat.
Sec. 58.2540 Basis for determination of U.S. Heat Treatment
Classification.
The whey protein nitrogen test shall be used in determining the
heat treatment classification as follows:
(a) U.S. High-heat. The finished product shall not exceed 1.50 mg.
undenatured whey protein nitrogen per gram of nonfat dry milk.
(b) U.S. Medium-heat. The finished product shall exceed 1.50 mg.
undenatured whey protein nitrogen per gram of nonfat dry milk and shall
be less than 6.00 mg. undenatured whey protein nitrogen per gram of
nonfat dry milk.
(c) U.S. Low-heat. The finished product shall be not less than 6.00
mg. undenatured whey protein nitrogen per gram of nonfat dry milk.
Sec. 58.2541 Test method; whey protein nitrogen.
The whey protein nitrogen test shall be performed in accordance
with DA
[[Page 17550]]
Instruction 918-RL, ``Instruction for Resident Grading Quality Control
Service Programs and Laboratory Analysis,'' Dairy Grading Branch, Dairy
Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC, 20090-6456, or the latest edition of
``Standard Methods for the Examination of Dairy Products'', available
from the American Public Health Association, 1015 Fifteenth Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20005.
Dated: April 16, 1996.
Lon Hatamiya,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-9823 Filed 4-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9813 Implementation of the Domestic Chemical Diversion Control Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-200); Correction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9813]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
21 CFR Parts 1313 and 1316
[DEA No. 112C]
Implementation of the Domestic Chemical Diversion Control Act of
1993 (Pub. L. 103-200); Correction
AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Justice.
ACTION: Correction to final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the final regulations
which were published on Thursday, June 22, 1995 (60 FR 32447). The
regulations related to the registration, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for manufacturers, distributors, importers and exporters
of listed chemicals.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 22, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
G. Thomas Gitchel, Chief, Liaison and Policy Section, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, D.C.
20537, Telephone (202) 307-7297.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final regulations that are the subject
of these corrections implement the Domestic Chemical Diversion Control
Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-200) (DCDCA). The regulations amend Title 21,
Code of Federal Regulations, to add a new Part 1309 and revise certain
sections in Parts 1310, 1313 and 1316. As published, the final
regulations contain errors that could cause confusion in the regulated
industry.
Accordingly, the publication June 22, 1995 of the final regulations
to implement the DCDCA, which were the subject of Federal Register
Document 95-14978, is corrected as follows:
PART 1313--[CORRECTED]
1. On page 32465, in the first column, the section heading which
reads ``Sec. 1312.32 Requirement of authorization for international
transactions.'' is corrected to read ``Sec. 1313.32 Requirement of
authorization for international transactions.''
PART 1316--[CORRECTED]
2. On page 32465, in the third column, amendment Number 1
immediately following PART 1316--[AMENDED] is corrected to read as
follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 1316, Subpart A is amended to
read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 822(f), 830(a), 871(b), 880, 958(f), 965.
Dated: April 16, 1996.
Stephen H. Greene,
Deputy Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-9813 Filed 4-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9788 Removal of Obsolete Regulations for Discontinuance of Bus Transportation in One State
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9788]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
49 CFR Part 1169
[STB Ex Parte No. 544]
Removal of Obsolete Regulations for Discontinuance of Bus
Transportation in One State
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (the Board) is removing from
the Code of Federal Regulations obsolete regulations concerning
discontinuance of bus transportation in one state.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beryl Gordon, (202) 927-5610. [TDD for
the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective January 1, 1996, the ICC
Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803 (ICCTA)
abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and established the
Board within the Department of Transportation. Section 204 of the ICCTA
provides that ``[t]he Board shall promptly rescind all regulations
established by the [ICC] that are based on provisions of law repealed
and not substantively reenacted by this Act.''
Under the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982 (the Bus Act), state
regulation of bus exit was relaxed. As here pertinent, section 16 of
the Bus Act (codified at 49 U.S.C. 10935) provided a mechanism for bus
companies to seek ICC permission to discontinue service on intrastate
routes that form part of interstate routes when they have been denied
permission by state regulatory bodies to discontinue such
service.1 In Preemption of State Regulations--Regular-Route Exit,
133 M.C.C. 20 (1982), the ICC issued rules, found at 49 CFR 1169, to
implement this statutory provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under 49 U.S.C. 10935, discontinuance means total cessation
of service or reducing the level of service to less than one trip
per weekday (excluding Saturdays and Sundays).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the ICCTA, 49 U.S.C. 10935 has been repealed. Because
the section 10935 statutory basis for the part 1169 regulations for
discontinuance of bus transportation in one state has been repealed, we
are removing the now obsolete part 1169 regulations.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We note that the repeal was not intended to reintroduce
state regulation. Rather, under the preemption provisions of old 49
U.S.C. 11501(e), which were amended and recodified at 49 U.S.C.
14501(a), interstate or intrastate scheduling changes, including
discontinuance and the reduction of the level of service on a
carrier's interstate routes, are preempted from state regulation.
The new law, we also note, leaves unchanged the ability of states to
require notice, not to exceed 30 days, of schedule changes and
discontinuances. As before, states may regulate intrastate commuter
bus operations and strictly intrastate routes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because this action merely reflects, and is required by, the
enactment of the Act and will not have an adverse effect on the
interests of any person, this action will be deemed to be effective as
of January 1, 1996.
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the
human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1169
Administrative practice and procedure, Buses, Motor Carriers.
Decided: April 9, 1996.
By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Simmons, and
Commissioner Owen.
Vernon A. Williams ,
Secretary.
PART 1169--[REMOVED]
For the reasons set forth in the preamble and under the authority
of 49 U.S.C. 721(a), title 49, chapter X of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended by removing part 1169.
[FR Doc. 96-9788 Filed 4-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9784 New Animal Drugs; Change of Sponsor
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9784]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
21 CFR Part 558
New Animal Drugs; Change of Sponsor
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect the change of sponsor name for a new animal
drug application (NADA) from MAC-PAGE, Inc., to ADM Animal Health &
Nutrition Div.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 22, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. McKay, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-102), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0213.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of October 6, 1994
(59 FR 50828), FDA published a final rule amending the animal drug
regulations to reflect the change of sponsors for all NADA's held by
Central Soya, P. O. Box 1400, Fort Wayne, IN 46801-2508, including MAC-
PAGE, Inc., 1600 South Wilson Ave., Dunn, NC 28334, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Central Soya, transferred to Premiere Agri Technologies,
Inc. The subsidiaries retained their names and drug labeler codes. In
the Federal Register of September 11, 1995 (60 FR 40752), FDA published
a final rule amending the animal drug regulations to reflect the change
of sponsor name from Premiere Agri Technologies, Inc., and the names of
all wholly-owned subsidiaries, to ADM Animal Health & Nutrition Div.,
P.O. Box 2508, Fort Wayne, IN 46801-2508. Both final rules, which
reflected these changes, inadvertently did not include NADA 131-957
(Tylosin). This document corrects that error. Accordingly, FDA is
amending the regulations in 21 CFR 558.625 to reflect the change of
sponsor.
List of Subject in 21 CFR Part 558
Animal drugs.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 558 is
amended as follows:
PART 558--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 558 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 512, 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b, 371).
Sec. 558.625 [Amended]
2. Section 558.625 Tylosin is amended in paragraph (b)(79) by
removing ``047427'' and adding in its place ``012286''.
Dated: April 4, 1996.
Robert C. Livingston,
Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary
Medicine.
[FR Doc. 96-9784 Filed 4-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9779 New Animal Drugs; Change of Sponsor Name and Address
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17565-17566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9779]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 510
New Animal Drugs; Change of Sponsor Name and Address
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect a change of sponsor name and address from
Agribusiness Marketers, Inc., to Mallinckrodt Veterinary Operations,
Inc.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 22, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. McKay, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-102), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0213.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agribusiness Marketers, Inc., 2667 West
Dual, Baton Rouge, LA 70815, has informed FDA of a change of sponsor
name and address to Mallinckrodt Veterinary Operations, Inc., 421 East
Hawley St., Mundelein, IL 60060.
Accordingly, the agency is amending the regulations in 21 CFR
510.600(c)(1) and (c)(2) to reflect the change of sponsor name and
address.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 510
Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 510 is
amended as follows:
PART 510--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as
follows:
-Authority: Secs. 201, 301, 501, 502, 503, 512, 701, 721 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352,
353, 360b, 371, 379e).
Sec. 510.600 [Amended]
2. Section 510.600 Names, addresses, and drug labeler codes of
sponsors of approved applications is amended in the table in paragraph
(c)(1) by removing the entry for ``Agribusiness Marketers, Inc.,'' and
by alphabetically adding a new entry for ``Mallinckrodt Veterinary
Operations, Inc., 421 East Hawley St., Mundelein, IL
[[Page 17566]]
60060.....015563'' and in the table in paragraph (c)(2) in the entry
for ``015563'' by removing the sponsor name ``Agribusiness Marketers,
Inc.,'' and adding in its place ``Mallinckrodt Veterinary Operations,
Inc., 421 East Hawley St., Mundelein, IL 60060.''
Dated: April 4, 1996.
Robert C. Livingston,
Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary
Medicine.
[FR Doc. 96-9779 Filed 4-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9749 Removal of 28 CFR Part 25Recommendations to the President on Civil Aeronautics Board Decisions
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17575-17576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9749]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 25
[AG Order No. 2002-95]
RIN 1105-AA41
Removal of 28 CFR Part 25--Recommendations to the President on
Civil Aeronautics Board Decisions
AGENCY: Department of Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule removes 28 CFR part 25--Recommendations to the
President on Civil Aeronautics Board Decisions--from the Code of
Federal Regulations. Part 25 is unnecessary, and its removal will help
to streamline the Code of Federal Regulations.
DATES: This final rule is effective April 22, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Howard Blumenthal, Assistant Chief, Legal Policy Section, Antitrust
Division, Room 3121 Main Justice Building, 10th & Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20530; telephone (202) 514-2513.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title 28 CFR part 25 contains Department of
Justice (``Department'') regulations setting forth procedures for
receiving comments from private parties on possible recommendations by
the Department to the President concerning decisions by the Secretary
of Transportation (``Secretary'') submitted for Presidential approval
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41307 and 41509. (At the time this regulation was
promulgated, these duties were performed by the Civil Aeronautics Board
(``CAB'') pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 1461, but the CAB's authority in this
regard was subsequently transferred to the Secretary.) Under 49 U.S.C.
41307 and 41509, the Secretary must submit for Presidential review
decisions made by the Secretary to issue, deny, amend, revoke, etc.,
certificates to domestic or foreign air carriers to provide foreign air
transportation, or to suspend, cancel, or reject tariffs for foreign
air transportation. The President may disapprove decisions of the
Secretary only for reasons based on foreign relations or national
defense considerations. E.O. 12597, 52 FR 18335 (1987), provides that
the Department, along with certain other Executive Branch agencies, may
make recommendations to the President concerning such decisions by the
Secretary for reasons relating to the national defense or foreign
relations. Any other concerns that the Department may have with the
Secretary's decisions, including those related to regulatory policy,
are to be presented to the Department of Transportation (``DOT'') in
accordance with the procedures of DOT.
Under section 8 of E.O. 12597, ``[d]epartments and agencies * * *
that regularly make recommendations in connection with the [above
described] presidential review * * * shall * * * (a) establish public
dockets for all written communications * * * between their officers and
employees and private parties in connection with the preparation of
such recommendations; and (b) prescribe such other procedures governing
oral and written communications as they deem appropriate.'' (Emphasis
added.) Essentially, 28 CFR part 25 provides that public comments
concerning possible Department recommendations shall be in writing
whenever possible, shall be submitted in duplicate, and shall, unless
such communications are entitled to confidential treatment or are
publicly available from DOT, be placed in a public docket established
in the Legal Procedures Unit of the Antitrust Division.
The Department has had no occasion to make recommendations to the
President concerning the national defense or foreign relations
implications of the issuance of certificates to provide foreign air
transportation or the rejection of tariffs for foreign air
transportation, nor has it received comments from private parties on
any such possible recommendations, for at least the last seven years.
Furthermore, the Department does not anticipate doing so on a regular
basis in the future. Thus, 28 CFR part 25 is not required to be
promulgated by E.O. 12597, and its inclusion in the Code of Federal
Regulations is unnecessary. Private parties wishing to submit comments
to the Department concerning possible recommendations by the Department
under 49 U.S.C. 41307 and 41509 will be informed of the proper
procedures to follow, and a public docket for comments will be created,
on an ad hoc basis should such an occasion ever arise. Therefore, the
Department is removing 28 CFR part 25.
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553
Because this regulation imposes no new requirements or
restrictions, the Department of Justice finds good cause for exempting
it from the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for
public comment, and delay in effective date.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and by approving it
certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 12612
This regulation 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 rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
Executive Order 12866
This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866, section 1(b), Principles of Regulation. The
Department of Justice has determined that this rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, section
3(f), and accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 25
Administrative practice and procedure, Air transportation,
Antitrust.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble and pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and 5 U.S.C. 301, in Title 28 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, part 25 is removed.
[[Page 17576]]
Dated: December 14, 1995.
Janet Reno,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 96-9749 Filed 4-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9735 Drug Labeling; Sodium Labeling for Over-the-Counter Drugs
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17798-17806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9735]
[[Page 17797]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Health and Human Services
_______________________________________________________________________
Food and Drug Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
21 CFR Parts 201 and 331
Sodium Labeling for Over-the-Counter Drugs and Labeling of Orally
Ingested Over-the-Counter Drug Products Containing Calcium, Magnesium,
and Potassium; Final and Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 78 / Monday, April 22, 1995 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 17798]]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Parts 201 and 331
[Docket No. 90N-0309]
RIN 0910-AA63
Drug Labeling; Sodium Labeling for Over-the-Counter Drugs
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule with opportunity for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the general
labeling provisions for over-the-counter (OTC) drug products to require
that the sodium content of all OTC drug products intended for oral
ingestion be included in labeling when the product contains 5
milligrams (mg) or more sodium per a single dose; require that all OTC
drug products intended for oral ingestion containing more than 140 mg
sodium in the labeled maximum daily dose bear a general warning that
persons who are on a sodium-restricted diet should not take the product
unless directed by a doctor; and provide for the voluntary use of
certain terms (``sodium free,'' ``very low sodium,'' and ``low
sodium'') relating to an OTC drug product's sodium content per labeled
maximum daily dose. FDA is issuing this final rule in order to provide
uniform sodium content labeling for all OTC drug products intended for
oral ingestion (whether marketed under an OTC drug monograph, an
approved application, or no application), and to provide for the
voluntary use in OTC drug labeling of the same terms used to describe
sodium content in food labeling.
DATES: This final rule is effective April 22, 1997; written comments by
July 22, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305),
Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23, Rockville,
MD 20857.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William E. Gilbertson, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (HFD-105), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-2304.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
-In the Federal Register of April 25, 1991 (56 FR 19222), FDA
proposed to amend the general labeling provisions for OTC drug products
to: (1) Require that the sodium content of all orally administered OTC
drug products be included in labeling when the product contains 5 mg or
more sodium per a single recommended dose; (2) require that orally
administered OTC drug products containing more than 140 mg sodium in
the maximum recommended daily dose be labeled with a general warning
that persons who are on a sodium-restricted diet should not take the
product unless directed by a doctor; and (3) provide for the voluntary
use of certain descriptive terms relating to the OTC drug product's
sodium content. FDA issued the notice of proposed rulemaking in order
to provide uniform sodium content labeling for all orally administered
OTC drug products, and to provide for the voluntary use in OTC drug
labeling of the same descriptive terms as those used to describe sodium
content in food labeling. To promote uniformity, the agency also
proposed to delete the existing sodium labeling requirements in the
final monograph for OTC antacid drug products (21 CFR part 331).
-Interested persons were invited to file written comments,
objections, or requests for oral hearing on the proposed regulation
before the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) and to
file comments on the agency's economic impact determination by June 24,
1991. In the Federal Register of June 12, 1991 (56 FR 26946), FDA
published a notice extending the comment period until July 24, 1991.
-In response to the proposed rule, comments were received from five
state governments, five manufacturers, two trade associations, one
health professional association, one consumer organization, and FDA
employees. No comments were received on the agency's economic impact
determination.-
-Based on comments received, the agency is seeking comments from
interested individuals on whether this final rule should be amended to
include sodium content labeling for OTC rectal laxative, vaginal,
dentifrice, mouthwash, and mouth rinse drug products. (See section
I.B., comment 6 of this document.) Comments should be sent to the
Dockets Management Branch (address above) by July 22, 1996.
II. The Agency's Conclusions on the Comments
A. General Comments
-1. Most comments generally supported the proposal to include
sodium content in OTC drug product labeling. A number of the comments
stated that this labeling would be especially helpful to those
individuals who must restrict their sodium intake, specifically the
elderly. Several comments were opposed to the warning statement (see
section II.D., comment 12 of this document).
-2. Several comments supported uniform sodium labeling for foods
and OTC drug products. One comment favored use of the descriptive terms
``sodium free,'' ``very low sodium,'' and ``low sodium'' for OTC drug
products because food labeling has made these terms familiar to
consumers on a low-sodium diet. However, the comment strongly opposed
sodium warning labeling for OTC drug products, which it considered
unnecessary and counterproductive (see also section II.D., comment 12
of this document). Another comment noted that the proposed sodium
warning requirement for those OTC drugs containing over 140 mg sodium
per maximum recommended daily dose is consistent with the labeling of
foods. The comment noted that consumers are familiar with food labeling
where a serving containing 140 mg or less sodium is considered ``low
sodium.''
-Another comment acknowledged the value of the proposed terms,
provided they are consistent with those used in food labeling. However,
the comment contended that basing drug labeling on ``per maximum daily
dosage'' is inconsistent with food labeling which is based on ``per
serving.'' The comment indicated that ``per dose'' labeling for drugs
would be more consistent with the food labeling. The comment also noted
that sodium labeling for foods has no warning threshold, while the
proposed sodium labeling for OTC drug products does have a warning
threshold. Another comment stated that drugs are not produced,
consumed, or regulated like foods and thus should not be treated like
foods for warning purposes.
-FDA does not consider sodium labeling for OTC drug products to be
either unnecessary or counterproductive. The agency has determined that
such labeling is important and, wherever possible, should be comparable
to that used for foods because consumers are already familiar with that
labeling. While consumption patterns for drugs are not the same as
those for foods, a substantial portion of daily sodium intake can come
from OTC drugs, especially those used frequently, such as antacids,
internal analgesics, and laxatives. Thus, the agency concludes that
consumers
[[Page 17799]]
should be informed about the sodium content of drugs as well as foods.
-The agency believes that ``maximum daily dose'' is the most
appropriate basis for sodium descriptor labeling of OTC drug products,
even though this basis differs from that for food labeling. Consumers
may use multiple doses per day of many OTC drug products, and OTC drug
product labeling informs consumers how much of a drug can be safely
consumed daily. On the other hand, in many cases only a single serving
of many different foods containing sodium is likely to be consumed in 1
day, although there is no upper limit on the number of servings that
could be consumed. Thus, the consumption patterns vary for foods and
for drugs. Because of food consumption patterns, nutritional labeling,
including the descriptive terms used, is based on ``per serving,'' and
the consumer must determine the total daily intake of each food. By
contrast, OTC drugs have a safe consumption limit, and sodium labeling
is more appropriately based on the labeled maximum daily dosage. The
agency is using the term ``labeled maximum daily dosage'' in place of
``maximum recommended daily dosage'' to indicate that this dosage
appears in the product's labeling.
-Although the use of descriptive terms for sodium in the labeling
of foods is based on the sodium content ``per serving'' rather than on
a ``maximum daily intake,'' physicians usually monitor a patient's
total daily sodium intake, not how much is consumed at each meal. When
physicians instruct people to maintain a low-sodium diet, the
physicians and individuals determine what foods to avoid to keep the
daily sodium intake at an acceptable level. If an antacid is needed,
total daily sodium intake can be reduced by using a calcium antacid
rather than a sodium antacid.
-The agency acknowledges that the basis for the descriptive terms
for sodium labeling of OTC drug products is not the same as for food
labeling. Nonetheless, the agency considers the two to be consistent.
In general, the amount of sodium derived from a given OTC drug in 1 day
is limited to the amount contained in the labeled maximum daily dosage,
while that derived from a given food is often the amount of sodium in a
single daily serving. Therefore, in this final rule for OTC drug
product labeling the agency is providing for the voluntary use of
descriptive terms for sodium that are based on the labeled maximum
daily dose. (See also section II.E., comment 15 of this document.)
-3. One comment expressed concern that descriptive terms based on
sodium content using rounded-off numbers could be different from
descriptive terms based on sodium content using actual numbers. The
comment stated that potential compliance problems could arise if an FDA
inspector examined the label of an affected product, multiplied the
rounded-off, approximated sodium content number by the maximum
recommended daily dose, and arrived at a number that did not fall
within the range that correlates to the descriptive term on the label.
The comment contended that calculations for descriptive terms should be
done using actual sodium content numbers. The comment suggested that if
discrepancies between actual and rounded-off numbers occur, reasonable
documentation showing the method of calculation using the actual sodium
content numbers should be accepted as sufficient to resolve the matter.
-Another comment supported the first comment's position on the
rounding-off rules. The comment mentioned the sodium content labeling
regulation for food in Sec. 101.9(g)(5) (21 CFR 101.9(g)(5)), which
states: ``A food with a label declaration of calories, sugars, total
fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, or sodium shall be deemed to be
misbranded under section 403(a) of the act if the nutrient content of
the composite is greater than 20 percent in excess of the value for
that nutrient declared on the label.'' This regulation, referred to as
the ``120 percent rule,'' provides an upper limit to the amount that
sodium content may vary in food, above which a product would be deemed
misbranded. The comment suggested that such a rule for the upper limit
of variation for sodium labeling for OTC drugs, without an accompanying
lower limit, would be reasonable because manufacturers will tend to
declare as low a sodium content as is reasonable for the product. The
comment contended that applying the ``120 percent rule'' to sodium
labeling of OTC drugs would alleviate many of the compliance issues
associated with providing a sodium content on the label that is
different from the actual sodium content.
-The agency has reconsidered the ``rounding-off'' provision and
concludes that rounding-off could result in potential discrepancies
between the actual and apparent sodium content, and may lead to
consumer confusion. For instance, if the actual sodium content of a
product is 8 mg per dosage unit and the product is to be taken four
times daily, the labeled maximum daily dose is 32 mg. Because the
sodium content is less than 35 mg (per labeled maximum daily dose), the
term ``very low sodium'' could be used. However, if the actual dosage
unit (8 mg) is rounded-off to 10 mg, the apparent labeled maximum daily
dose for that product would be 40 mg and the descriptive term would be
``low sodium.''
-Food labeling regulations provide for rounding-off the sodium
content to the nearest 5 or 10 mg sodium per serving. Because most food
products contain naturally occurring sodium, at least in small amounts,
some variation in sodium content is expected. On the other hand, most
OTC drug products are manufactured and the amount of sodium in products
can be strictly controlled. Thus, the sodium content of OTC drug
products is expected to be less variable than that of foods. The agency
concludes that the sodium content of OTC drug products can readily be
disclosed in mg per dosage unit, without rounding-off. As a result, the
agency considers the ``120 percent rule'' provided for in Sec. 101.9(g)
of the food regulations unnecessary for OTC drug products. Therefore,
the agency is revising proposed Sec. 201.64(b) in this final rule (21
CFR 201.64(b)) to eliminate the 5 mg and 10 mg rounding-off provision.
The final rule requires that the sodium content be rounded-off to the
nearest whole number, whatever the content per dosage unit.
B. Comments on the Scope of Sodium Labeling
-4. Three comments disagreed with the agency's ``across-the-board''
sodium warning requirement for OTC drugs, stating that this method
ignores the OTC drug review's category-by-category mechanism for
considering warnings. One comment added that if a warning statement is
required, the agency should consider the product's pharmacologic class,
its use patterns, and the currently required labeling of particular
active ingredients. Another comment contended that sodium warnings
should only be required where a need has been shown for a particular
category of OTC drugs.
-FDA disagrees with the comments, which provided no scientific
basis for their concerns. Although the agency generally considers OTC
drug labeling on a category-by-category basis, FDA has required certain
``across-the-board'' labeling during the course of the OTC drug review,
such as the pregnancy-nursing warning in Sec. 201.63 (21 CFR 201.63).
Thus, an ``across the board'' approach is consistent with past agency
regulatory actions. FDA has determined that a certain level (140 mg) of
sodium
[[Page 17800]]
may present a potential safety problem, regardless of the source of the
sodium. Therefore, the agency sees no reason to consider the warning on
a category-by-category basis, which would result in a lack of
uniformity in product labeling until the agency's evaluation of each
drug category is completed. The agency's ``across-the-board'' approach
to sodium labeling is not based on various drug categories; it is based
on sodium being present in any OTC drug product.
-5. Two comments agreed with the proposal to include both active
and inactive ingredients when labeling/calculating total sodium content
in an OTC drug product. One comment added that all recommended diluents
should also be included in the sodium content labeling.
-FDA appreciates the comments' concurrence. Including all sources
of sodium in the total sodium content labeling enables consumers to
determine the total amount of sodium consumed, regardless of the
source. Diluents in OTC drug products are inactive ingredients and
would be covered by this rulemaking. Under Sec. 201.64(b) of this final
rule, the agency is requiring the sodium content labeling of OTC drug
products to include both active and inactive ingredients, which would
include any diluents used in these products.
-6. Several comments contended that the scope of covered products
should be limited to products intended for ingestion rather than orally
administered products. The comments argued that ``orally administered''
OTC drug products include dentifrices and mouthwashes that are not
ingested, but rather expectorated. The comments pointed out any
absorption of sodium from these products is minuscule.
-The agency agrees that certain OTC drug products, such as
dentifrices and mouthwashes, although orally administered, need not be
covered by this rulemaking. These products are not intended to be
ingested by the user, and the agency does not have sufficient
information on the absorption of sodium when these products are used to
warrant a labeling requirement at this time. However, orally
administered gum or lozenge forms of OTC drug products intended for
either partial or complete ingestion are covered by this rule.
Therefore, in this final rule the agency is changing the language in
Sec. 201.64(a), (c), and (d) from ``orally administered OTC drug
products'' to ``OTC drug products intended for oral ingestion,'' and is
adding the following sentence to Sec. 201.64(a): ``OTC drug products
intended for oral ingestion include gum and lozenge dosage forms, but
do not include dentifrices, mouthwashes, or mouth rinses.''
-The agency notes that some OTC laxative and vaginal drug products
intended for rectal or vaginal administration can contain very high
levels of sodium from both active and inactive ingredients. Significant
amounts of some of these products may be absorbed. At this time, the
agency does not have sufficient information on the absorption of sodium
from these products to warrant a labeling requirement.
-The agency is seeking comments from interested individuals on
whether this final rule should be amended to include sodium content
labeling for OTC rectal laxative, vaginal, dentifrice, mouthwash, and
mouth rinse drug products. Comments should be sent to the Dockets
Management Branch (address above) by July 22, 1996.
-7. Two comments suggested requiring sodium content labeling for
prescription drugs as well as OTC drug products. The comments stated
that this information was important for the elderly and for patients
receiving more than one drug product. One comment added that physicians
treating patients on sodium restricted diets need to be aware of the
amount of sodium in prescription products.
-The agency agrees that sodium content labeling of prescription
drugs would be beneficial. This information would be helpful to
physicians, pharmacists, and consumers so they can make informed
decisions. However, prescription drug labeling is outside the scope of
this rulemaking for OTC drug products. Currently, the agency is
actively considering the comments' recommendation for prescription drug
labeling and is appraising whether the problem can best be dealt with
via a regulation, guidance document, or another approach. At this time,
the agency encourages sodium content labeling of prescription drugs on
a voluntary basis.
C. Comments on Sodium Content Labeling
-8. One comment recommended that any level of sodium in OTC drug
products be listed on the label to enable consumers to make their own
decision as to what is an insignificant amount of sodium in relation to
their diet. Another comment suggested that the minimum level of sodium
requiring labeling be increased from greater than 5 mg per maximum
recommended dose to greater than 70 mg per maximum recommended daily
dose. The comment mentioned that data generated by the Food and
Nutrient Board indicate that 4,000 to 5,800 mg sodium are consumed per
capita per day. Therefore, the sodium consumed in medications provides
only a minimal amount and does not pose the same potential risk as
food. The comment reasoned that 70 mg is only 5 percent of the Food and
Nutrient Board's recommended daily intake of 1.4 grams (g) sodium for
people on sodium restricted diets. The comment contended that this
amount of sodium would not pose a risk to consumers on a low-sodium
diet because 70 mg does not contribute a significant amount to their
daily intake.
-The agency has considered the comments' suggestions and has
decided to use 5 mg of sodium per maximum recommended dose as the basis
for including sodium content in the labeling of OTC drug products. As
discussed in section II.E., comment 13 of this document, the agency
considers a sodium level below 5 mg per dose to be physiologically
insignificant. Thus, the agency is not requiring any labeling if the
amount of sodium in the product is below 5 mg.
-The agency considers a 5 mg maximum recommended dose standard a
reasonable approach, based in part on experience with OTC antacid drug
product labeling. Although the agency believes a 70 mg labeled maximum
daily dose standard is not unreasonable, a 5 mg maximum labeled dose is
consistent with the antacid monograph, which has been in effect since
1974. As discussed in the proposed rule, the existing requirement for
OTC antacid drug products in Sec. 331.30(f) (21 CFR 331.30(f)) provides
that the labeling include sodium content per dosage unit if it contains
5 mg or more. This labeling requirement for OTC antacids has been in
effect for over 20 years, and consumers are familiar with that
approach. The sodium labeling requirements in this final rule, based on
sodium content per dose, are similar to those in the antacid monograph.
-The 5 mg approach will also result in more informative labeling
than the 70 mg approach, because more products will be labeled with
sodium content. More than 14 doses per day of a product containing less
than 5 mg sodium per dose would be required to exceed 70 mg sodium per
labeled maximum daily dose. Almost all OTC drug products are not taken
that often. Thus, more products will likely require sodium content
labeling based on 5 mg per dose than would result using 70 mg per
labeled maximum daily dose as the basis. (See also section I.E.,
comment 13. of this document)
-9. Three comments endorsed the agency's proposal to express the
sodium
[[Page 17801]]
content of an OTC drug product in mg per dosage unit. The first comment
suggested that those monographs now stating sodium labeling in
milliequivalents (mEq) could be amended to mg. The comment stated that
sodium declaration is more useful when provided in terms of dosage
units (such as a teaspoonful or a tablet) than in terms of the
recommended dosage amount, because the recommended dosage amount can
vary. The second comment considered the option of having the sodium
content declaration based on the recommended daily dose, but rejected
that option because studies have shown that consumers frequently take
more than the recommended daily dosage for OTC drug products. The third
comment stated that the sodium content declaration should include the
total sodium in both mg and mEq per dosage unit, average daily intake,
and maximum recommended daily intake, if applicable.
-The agency appreciates the comments' endorsements of the
requirement that sodium content be listed in mg per dosage unit. The
agency does not believe that listing some or all of the options (e.g.,
in both mg and mEq per dosage unit, per average daily intake, and per
maximum daily intake) would be useful, because these multiple numbers
would tend to confuse consumers and would unnecessarily clutter the
label. Further, the agency believes consumers are more familiar with
the term ``mg'' as used in food labeling than the term ``mEq.''
Therefore, in this final rule the agency is using only mg per dosage
unit for declaring the sodium content of OTC drug products.
-As one comment noted, other OTC drug monographs address sodium
labeling. These monographs will be amended to delete specific sodium
labeling requirements so that the sodium labeling of all OTC drug
products will appear in a single regulation. In the proposed rule for
sodium labeling, the agency proposed to delete the existing
requirements for OTC antacid drug products that appear in
Sec. 331.30(c)(5) and (f) (56 FR 19224 to 19225). The agency is
finalizing that in this final rule. The sodium labeling requirements
proposed in Sec. 334.50(b)(5) and (b)(8) of the tentative final
monograph for OTC laxative drug products (50 FR 2124 at 2153, January
15, 1985) and proposed in Sec. 343.50(c)(1)(viii)(A) and
(c)(1)(viii)(B) and Sec. 343.50(c)(2)(viii)(A) and (c)(2)(viii)(B) of
the tentative final monograph for OTC internal analgesic, antipyretic,
and antirheumatic drug products (53 FR 46204 at 46256 to 46257,
November 16, 1988) will be deleted when the final monographs for those
drug classes are issued in a future issue of the Federal Register.
-10. One comment requested that the agency require sodium content
information to be presented in a predetermined place on the OTC drug
product label, such as the ingredients list. The comment gave an
example of a product containing a level of sodium requiring a warning
while, at the same time, its label prominently displayed ``75% less
sodium than (a comparable product)'' under active ingredients. The
actual sodium content was listed at the end of a long paragraph of
warnings and would make the product off-limits to an individual on a
sodium-restricted diet. The comment contended that such labeling could
potentially mislead consumers.
-FDA agrees that the sodium content of an OTC drug product should
be expressed at a specific location on the product label. By
designating a specific location, consumers can find the sodium content
of the product more quickly and with less confusion because the
information will appear in the same location in the labeling of all
orally ingested OTC drug products. The agency believes the most logical
place for the sodium content labeling is at the end of the ingredients
section. Further, the sodium content should be listed on a separate
line after the heading 'Sodium Content' so that it is easily recognized
by the consumer. Accordingly, the agency is amending proposed
Sec. 201.64(b) in this final rule to add a sentence that states: ``The
sodium content per dosage unit shall be listed on a separate line after
the heading 'Sodium Content' as the last statement in the ingredients
section.''
-11. One comment suggested that product labeling state a
recommended safe range of sodium intake to provide consumers with a
baseline for the control of sodium consumption.
-The comment's request for labeling to advise consumers of a safe
level of sodium is impractical because different medical and
physiological problems require different levels of sodium restriction.
Consumers should consult with physicians or other health professionals
to determine the optimum levels of sodium consumption for their
particular conditions. Thus, FDA is not requiring that the labeling
state a recommended safe range of sodium intake at this time.
D. Comments on Sodium Warning Labeling
-12. Two comments contended that the agency's proposal to include a
sodium warning in the labeling of OTC drug products when the maximum
recommended daily dose contains more than 140 mg of sodium is
inconsistent with the labeling of foods, which does not require
warnings at any level. The comments questioned the choice of 140 mg per
maximum recommended daily dose as the level that triggers the sodium
warning. The comments argued that the warning may unnecessarily confuse
or alarm consumers. The first comment contended that the choice of 140
mg is completely arbitrary and questioned its scientific relevance. The
comment stated that there is no evidence that consumers derive a
significant percentage of sodium intake from OTC drug products.
-The second comment stated that 140 mg of sodium is markedly lower
than the level required to effect an increase in blood pressure.
Asserting that OTC drugs are intended for short term use, the comment
said intermittent use of such products will not affect the long-term
benefit of a low-sodium diet because the resulting increase in blood
pressure is rapidly reversed upon discontinuation of the product. The
comment contended that the sodium warning, if required, should be based
on ``per dose'' or ``per dosage unit,'' rather than ``maximum
recommended daily dose,'' because a single dose more closely resembles
a single serving, the unit used for food labeling. The comment also
contended that the readability of the label will be compromised as the
label becomes more cluttered, and that additional warnings of
questionable value will only reduce the impact of other warnings on the
label.
-Noting that the sodium warning represents a familiar cautionary
signal for consumers, a third comment stated that sodium-containing
drugs could contribute a significant percentage of the daily sodium
intake for some individuals. The comment mentioned that 1,000 mg of
sodium per day is common for sodium restricted diets and that 140 mg of
sodium represents 14 percent of the daily allowance for such diets.
Several comments argued that sodium warnings should be considered on a
case-by-case basis. (See section II.B., comment 4 of this document.)
-FDA is establishing, where possible, uniformity in labeling
between foods and OTC drug products. FDA recognizes that OTC drug
products containing greater than 140 mg of sodium require a warning,
while foods do not require a warning at any level of sodium. The
labeling requirements for drugs need to be somewhat different from
those for foods because of the differences in
[[Page 17802]]
consumption patterns. (See section II.A., comment 2 of this document.)
The agency considers the labeling approach in this final rule
appropriate, even though it is not the same as that for foods in all
respects.
-The choice of 140 mg as the level of sodium above which a warning
should be required is not, as one comment contended, completely
arbitrary. In a survey conducted by the agency and discussed in the
final rule for declaration of sodium content and label claims for foods
on the basis of sodium content (49 FR 15510 at 15519, April 18, 1984),
it was found that over 50 percent of the foods surveyed contained less
than 140 mg of sodium per serving. Thus, the agency determined that a
substantial portion of the food supply is eligible to bear the ``low
sodium'' descriptive term. By establishing 140 mg as an upper limit for
the term ``low sodium'' for OTC drug products and requiring a warning
for products containing sodium above that level, consumers can more
easily monitor their total daily sodium intake. Requiring a warning for
products below the 140 mg level could be confusing to consumers because
some products containing the term ``low-sodium'' could, at the same
time, contain the warning. FDA believes that a warning requirement for
OTC drug products that contain more than 140 mg sodium would not
unnecessarily confuse or alarm consumers, as two comments suggested. As
another comment stated, the sodium warning represents a familiar
cautionary signal for consumers. The agency concludes that the warning
requirement will be welcomed by those who want to monitor their sodium
intake.-
-The agency considers a numeric value that can be readily converted
from mg to mEq useful for dietary planning, because physicians and
dietitians sometimes calculate sodium in mEq rather than mg when
prescribing sodium restrictions (49 FR 15510 at 15519). One mEq of
sodium is equivalent to 23 mg. Thus, the 140 mg sodium level is
approximately 6 mEq, allowing for easy calculation. The comments did
not provide any evidence that warnings based on some other level of
sodium would be more informative or useful to consumers than the 140 mg
level proposed by the agency.
-The agency agrees with one comment's contention that an OTC drug
containing 140 mg of sodium is well below the level needed to affect
blood pressure. However, it is the total amount of sodium consumed from
all sources, both foods and drugs, that must be considered. As one
comment pointed out, 140 mg represents 14 percent of a common (1,000
mg) sodium-restricted diet. The agency considers the level of sodium
found in some OTC drug products, such as antacids, to be significant
for people on low- sodium diets, especially if the drug product is
taken in multiple daily doses as most antacids are. While many
consumers do not derive significant amounts of sodium from OTC drug
products, many others do. The agency concludes that it is important to
provide information to those consumers who can be adversely affected by
the sodium content of OTC drug products.
-The agency disagrees with one comment's suggestion that the
warning, if required, should be based on ``per dose,'' rather than on
``maximum recommended daily dose.'' Drug products are often taken in
multiple doses in 1 day, while many different foods are more likely to
be consumed only once a day. Thus, by equating one serving of food to
one dose of drug, the intake per day for a drug would be a multiple of
the amount in one dose, while the intake per day for a food may be only
the amount found in a single serving of food. Because low-sodium diets
are based on the total amount of sodium consumed in 1 day, the agency
believes it is appropriate to base the sodium warning threshold on the
labeled maximum daily dose.
-The agency shares the comment's concern about readability of the
label and avoiding unnecessary clutter. However, the agency considers a
warning for OTC drug products containing appreciable amounts of sodium
important to alert those consumers who wish or need to minimize their
sodium intake. Therefore, in this final rule the agency is providing
for a mandatory warning for all OTC drug products intended for oral
ingestion containing more than 140 mg sodium per labeled maximum daily
dose.
E. Comments on Use of Descriptive Terms in Sodium Labeling
- 13. One comment supported the intent of the sodium labeling
proposal, but asserted that the term ``sodium free'' should be
prohibited on drugs containing any sodium. The comment stated that
labeling should be reliable and not mislead consumers as to the sodium
content of OTC drug products. The comment contended that most consumers
expect products labeled as ``sodium free'' to contain no sodium, but
this would not be true if ``sodium free'' products were allowed to
contain up to less than 5 mg of sodium. The comment mentioned health
concerns about high blood pressure related to sodium, and argued that
inaccurate labeling adversely impacts consumer purchasing decisions.
The comment acknowledged that agency regulations for food allow
products with less than 5 mg of sodium per serving to be labeled as
``sodium free.'' The comment requested that the existing food
regulations and the proposed OTC drug regulations be modified to
prohibit the use of the term ``sodium free'' on food and drug products
containing any sodium.
-The agency has considered the comment's request and concludes that
the term ``sodium free'' should only be used for products containing
``0 mg'' sodium, as defined in this final rule. Thus, the level of
sodium in OTC drug products for which the term ``sodium free'' proposed
in Sec. 201.64(d) may be used is being changed from ``less than 5
milligrams per maximum recommended daily dose'' to ``0 milligrams per
labeled maximum daily dose'' in this final rule. The agency's basis for
the term ``sodium free'' in the proposed rule for sodium labeling of
OTC drug products (56 FR 19222 at 19223) was based on the sodium
labeling regulation for foods in Sec. 101.61(b)(1)(i) (21 CFR
101.61(b)(1)(i)), which provides for the voluntary use of ``sodium
free'' in the labeling of foods containing less than 5 mg sodium per
serving. Most foods naturally contain at least trace amounts of sodium
and the amount of sodium in a given food can vary. The agency concluded
that the 5 mg sodium level for food is, practically speaking, a
nonsignificant amount of dietary sodium.
-However, in contrast to foods in which sodium may occur naturally,
the amount of sodium in OTC drug products can be controlled during the
manufacturing process. With today's analytical methodology, sodium can
be accurately measured in parts per million. Thus, the agency believes
consumers expect labels of drug products to accurately and reliably
convey the level of ingredients in the product. While there may be no
need to inform consumers of minute amounts of sodium (e.g., this final
rule requires sodium content labeling only for those products
containing 5 or more mg sodium per recommended dose), there is also no
reason to label a product as ``sodium free'' when, in fact, it contains
more than ``0 mg'' of sodium, as defined in this final rule.
-In Sec. 201.64(b) of this final rule, sodium content labeling is
rounded-off to the nearest whole number as mg per dosage unit. Thus, a
product containing less than 0.5 mg sodium per dosage unit could be
labeled as ``0 mg'' sodium and
[[Page 17803]]
a product containing more than 0.5 mg and less than 1.5 mg sodium could
be labeled as ``1 mg'' sodium. The agency believes that the term
``sodium free'' should not be used in the labeling of OTC drug products
except for those products that contain ``0 mg'' sodium per labeled
maximum daily dose. Thus, a product containing 0.4 mg sodium per tablet
or teaspoon (rounded-off to 0) with labeling to take one tablet or
teaspoon daily may use the descriptive term ``sodium free'' in its
labeling. However, when the recommended dose in an OTC drug monograph
provides for more than one dosage unit per day, e.g., the directions
advise to take one or two tablets (or teaspoons) or to take two tablets
(or teaspoons), the same product containing 0.4 mg sodium (rounded-off
to 0) per tablet or teaspoon could not use the term ``sodium free''
because the labeled maximum dose contains 0.8 mg (rounded-off to 1).
The labeling set forth in this final rule also eliminates the
possibility that products labeled ``sodium free'' will at the same time
be labeled with a sodium content greater than ``0 mg,'' a potential
basis for consumer confusion.
-Similarly, the agency determined that the term ``alcohol free''
may not be used in the labeling of OTC drug products that contain any
alcohol (see the Federal Register of March 13, 1995, 60 FR 13590). In
Sec. 328.50(e) (21 CFR 328.50(e)) the agency requires: ``For a product
to state in its labeling that it is 'alcohol free,' it must contain no
alcohol (0 percent).''
-Therefore, in this final rule, the agency is providing under
Sec. 201.64(d) for the voluntary use of the term ``sodium free'' if the
amount of sodium in the labeled maximum daily dose is ``0 mg.'' The
agency recognizes that this position differs from that for nutrition
labeling for foods, but believes that, for OTC drug product labeling,
it is more appropriate. Any request to change the existing ``sodium
free'' labeling for food products in Sec. 101.61(b)(1)(i) should be
made in a citizen petition, in accord with Sec. 10.30 (21 CFR 10.30).
-14. One comment recommended a relative print size limit on
descriptive terms for sodium content to ensure that the primary
emphasis of the OTC drug product label remains on the medical
indication of the product. The comment stated that a consumer's
foremost reason for purchasing an OTC drug product should be based on
its medical indication, not on its sodium content.
-FDA agrees with the comment that a relative print size limit on
descriptive terms would be useful to help ensure that consumers are not
distracted from the medical purpose of the product. The food
regulations (21 CFR 103.13(f)) provide that a nutrient content claim
shall be in a type size no larger than two times the statement of
identity and shall not be unduly prominent in type style compared to
the statement of identity. The agency believes that a related approach
should also be used for OTC drug products.
-The agency does not believe that the print size of the descriptive
terms for sodium labeling for OTC drug products should be any larger
than the print size of the statement of identity. Allowing larger print
size (e.g., two times the size of that for the statement of identity,
as for nutrient claims) could result in label clutter or misplaced
emphasis. OTC drug products are generally marketed in smaller packages
than foods and, thus, have less label space available than food
products. Accordingly, the agency is adding in Sec. 201.64(h) of this
final rule the following statement:
The terms ``sodium free,'' ``very low sodium,'' and ``low sodium''
shall be in print size and style no larger than the product's statement
of identity and shall not be unduly prominent in print size or style
compared to the statement of identity.
-15. One comment stated that descriptive terms in sodium labeling
of OTC drug products will help improve consumer understanding of the
message, and that the terms must be in simple language for lay persons
to understand. Another comment contended that voluntary descriptive
terms are unnecessary, often confusing, and potentially misleading. The
comment suggested the proposed terms ``sodium free,'' ``very low
sodium,'' and ``low sodium'' could translate into ``healthy'' and
thereby become misleading. Further, the comment questioned using these
descriptive terms in conjunction with the required warning, arguing
that an inconsistent jump occurs from 140 mg (maximum daily dosage as
``low sodium'') to 141 mg (maximum daily dosage requiring a warning).
The comment concluded that these two diverse measurements would prime
the consumer for confusion.
-The agency believes the voluntary descriptive terms ``sodium
free,'' ``very low sodium,'' and ``low sodium'' are simple for
consumers to understand. The terms are not intended to convey the exact
level of sodium in a product, only an approximation. The comment did
not provide any evidence that consumers might misinterpret these terms
as meaning ``healthy,'' specifically as they relate to OTC drug product
labeling. The agency recognizes that the jump for the maximum daily
dose from 140 mg, representing ``low sodium,'' to 141 mg, requiring a
warning, is not ideal. However, many standards have a set criterion,
above or below which some action is triggered. The agency concludes
there is no evidence to believe that these preset levels will lead to
consumer confusion. (See also section II.A., comment 2 of this
document.)
F. Comments on the Sodium-Hypertension Relationship
16. One comment considered it inappropriate for the agency to adopt
regulations that address only sodium intake without reference to the
anion (chloride). The comment urged that FDA regulations reflect the
``emerging learning that the chloride ion is a necessary causative
element in salt-induced hypertension.'' The comment referenced 16
studies (Ref. 1) to show that both the sodium and chloride ions play
roles in inducing hypertension in some persons, and that other sodium
salts do not induce hypertension.
-The comment stated that a report by the National Academy of
Sciences/National Research Council (Ref. 2) on diet and health
correlated dietary ``salt'' or ``sodium chloride,'' rather than
``sodium,'' with hypertension. The comment added that recent medical
surveys reflect the growing understanding that both the sodium and the
chloride ions play roles in causing salt-sensitive hypertension. For
example, the comment cited the Yearbook of Medicine (Ref. 3) as stating
that ``it remains to be established that any commonly ingested sodium
salt other than sodium chloride can increase blood pressure in patients
with salt-sensitive essential hypertension.''
-A second comment also contended that the effects of sodium on
blood pressure are limited to sodium in the form of sodium chloride.
The comment provided literature references (Ref. 4) suggesting that
when the accompanying anion was other than chloride, sodium intake did
not affect blood pressure. The comment mentioned that sodium in drug
products is usually present as the benzoate, phosphate, or citrate
salt, and contended that there is no clear evidence that the sodium
content of the drug presents a hazard sufficient to deem the proposed
warning appropriate.
One comment, which approved of sodium content labeling but was
opposed to the warning, mentioned a submission made in response to
FDA's request for scientific data and information to determine if a
scientific basis exists for health claims relating to sodium and
hypertension (Ref. 5). In that submission, the comment concluded that
there are no well-
[[Page 17804]]
documented scientific data supporting a clear relationship between
dietary sodium and hypertension applicable to the general public. The
comment claimed that recent scientific evidence shows that a reduced
sodium diet does not reduce the risk of hypertension in healthy
individuals, but that it may contribute to heart disease and additional
health risks. The comment concluded that appropriate scientific
evidence does not exist to support any general health claims based on a
relationship between sodium and hypertension.
-The comment subsequently provided current articles and reviews on
the salt-blood pressure relationship (Ref. 6). The comment emphasized
one article (Ref. 7) that addressed the question of whether and how
sodium chloride intake influences blood pressure. The authors stated
that past literature was interpreted as ``demonstrating a strong
relationship between salt intake and blood pressure, a substantial
benefit to all hypertensive persons of reduced salt intake, and a
relatively low risk to society of promulgating this policy.'' Based on
more recent studies, the authors suggested that only a portion (30 to
40 percent) of adults are salt (sodium chloride) sensitive and that
salt sensitivity is linked to other cations and anions in the diet
(e.g., adequate potassium and calcium intake may protect against salt
sensitivity). The comment contended that because of new and mounting
evidence that low-sodium diets may present some risk to individuals who
are not salt-sensitive hypertensives, FDA should not require the sodium
warning. Although opposed to the warning, the comment agreed that some
individuals need to monitor their sodium intake.
-The agency agrees with the comments that the sodium ion is not the
only influence on hypertension. The question of whether or not the
chloride ion is necessary for sodium to increase blood pressure is an
academic issue. Even if chloride or another ion in addition to sodium
is necessary to elevate blood pressure, hypertension is not the sole
reason for this rulemaking. There are other conditions for which
physicians recommend low-sodium diets. For instance, sodium bicarbonate
reportedly exacerbates congestive heart failure. While sodium chloride
is the primary source of sodium in the general population, sodium
bicarbonate and other sodium-containing ingredients can account for a
considerable amount of sodium in OTC drug products. Sodium labeling is
not aimed specifically at patients with hypertension, but is intended
to benefit all people who need or wish to monitor their sodium intake
for whatever reason. The comments made no mention of the effect of
sodium on any aspects of health other than hypertension.
-This rulemaking does not state a causal relationship between
sodium and hypertension, but rather provides for sodium content
labeling and recommends that individuals on a low-sodium diet consult a
physician if daily doses of greater than 140 mg sodium are to be
ingested. This final rule provides that the labeling of OTC drug
products include the total sodium content (including both active and
inactive ingredients). It is reasonable for consumers on low-sodium
diets to consult with their physician before taking OTC drug products
with a high sodium content. The physician can put the variables into
perspective and decide whether specific OTC drug products should be
used. Alternative products containing less or no sodium may be
available.
-The agency has previously considered the relationship of sodium
and hypertension and agrees that this is a complex subject that
deserves more study. The agency recognizes that there are differences
of opinion on this subject. Nonetheless, in a final rule on food
labeling (health claims and labeling statements; sodium and
hypertension), the agency stated ``based on the totality of the
scientific evidence, there is significant agreement among qualified
experts that diets high in sodium are associated with high blood
pressure'' (58 FR 2820 at 2822, January 6, 1993). The agency stated
that some studies indicate that sodium chloride and other sodium salts
have distinct effects on blood pressure (58 FR 2829). Sodium chloride
is the major source of sodium in foods and most studies investigating
the effect of sodium on hypertension have involved either increasing or
decreasing sodium chloride intake. The agency acknowledged that if it
is true that sodium chloride, and not sodium, is implicated in high
blood pressure, products containing other sources of sodium may be
incorrectly considered to promote high blood pressure. The agency
allowed the optional term ``salt'' to be used in addition to ``sodium''
in health claims in food labeling. However, the agency noted there is
not significant scientific agreement that only sodium chloride affects
blood pressure (58 FR 2829). Therefore, the basis for health claims
relating to hypertension in that final rule was sodium content, not
sodium chloride content.
-FDA recognizes that not all individuals need to or should reduce
their sodium intake. Sodium consumed from OTC drug products alone may,
for most individuals, be insignificant and may not cause a significant
increase in blood pressure. However, OTC drug products are not a
consumer's sole source of sodium. All sources of sodium must be taken
into account when monitoring daily intake. Even though, as one comment
suggested, some individuals may need counseling from physicians or
dietitians in order to maintain a strict low-sodium diet, the agency
considers the sodium warning for OTC drug products helpful even for
those individuals. This rulemaking does not recommend specific levels
of sodium intake for the general population or for individuals h
specific conditions. However, for those who need or want to monitor
their sodium intake, the agency concludes that sodium content and
warning labeling for OTC drug products is useful.
References
(1) Comment No. C00017, Docket No. 90N-0309, Dockets Management
Branch.
(2) Committee on Diet and Health, National Academy of Sciences/
National Research Council (U.S.), Diet and Health: Implications for
Reducing Chronic Disease Risk, National Academy Press, Washington,
1989.
(3) D. E. Rogers et al., editors, Yearbook of Medicine,
Yearbook Medical Publishers, Inc., Chicago, pp 589-590, 1989.
-(4) Comment No. C00014, Docket No. 90N-0309, Dockets Management
Branch.
-(5) Comment No. C00007, Docket No. 91N-0095, Dockets Management
Branch.
-(6) Comment No. SUP 1, Docket No. 90N-0309, Dockets Management
Branch.
-(7) Muntzel, M., and T. Drueke, ``A Comprehensive Review of the
Salt and Blood Pressure Relationship,'' American Journal of
Hypertension, 5:1S-42S, 1992.
III. Summary of Significant Changes from the Proposed Rule
-1. In this final rule, the agency is revising Sec. 201.64(b) to
eliminate the 5-mg rounding-off provision. The final rule requires that
the sodium content be rounded-off to the nearest whole number, whatever
the content, per dosage unit. (See section II.A., comment no. 3 of this
document.)
-2. The agency is changing the language in Sec. 201.64(a) and (c)
through (f) from ``orally administered OTC drug products'' to ``OTC
drug products intended for oral ingestion,'' and is adding the
following sentence to Sec. 201.64(a): ``OTC drug products intended for
oral ingestion include gum and lozenge dosage forms, but do not include
dentifrices, mouthwashes, or mouth rinses.'' (See section II.B.,
comment no. 6 of this document.)
-3. The agency is adding the following in Sec. 201.64(b): ``The
sodium content per
[[Page 17805]]
dosage unit shall be listed on a separate line after the heading
`Sodium Content' as the last statement in the ingredients section.''
(See section II.C., comment no. 10 of this document.)
-4. Proposed Sec. 201.64(d) provided for the voluntary use of the
term ``sodium free'' for products containing ``less than 5 milligrams''
of sodium in the maximum recommended daily dose. This final rule allows
for the use of the term ``sodium free'' only for those products
containing ``0 mg'' of sodium in the labeled maximum daily dose. The
agency is revising the example in proposed Sec. 201.64(d) to clarify
the basis for use of descriptive terms, taking into account the
rounding-off provision for the sodium content in mg per dosage unit to
the nearest whole number. (See section II.A., comment no. 3; section
II.E., comment no. 13; and part III.1 of this document.)
-5. The agency has added a provision in Sec. 201.64(h) of this
final rule limiting the print size and style of the ``sodium free,''
``very low sodium,'' and ``low sodium'' terms to no larger than and not
unduly prominent in comparison to the product's statement of identity.
(See section II.E., comment no. 14 of this document.)
IV. The Agency's Final Conclusions on Sodium Labeling-
FDA believes that the public interest in and the public health
consequences of sodium intake have produced a need for more informative
and consistent sodium content labeling information on drugs and foods.
This is true for individuals with hypertension, heart failure, or other
conditions who must monitor their sodium intake.
-To establish uniform content declarations, warnings, and
descriptive terms for sodium in foods and OTC drug products, the agency
is implementing the following requirements for OTC drug products
intended for oral ingestion: (1) The product must have a sodium content
declaration if it contains five mg or more of sodium per single labeled
dose (which may involve one or more dosage units, e.g., tablets,
teaspoons). (2) The product must bear a sodium warning if it contains
more than 140 mg (about 6 mEq) of sodium in the labeled maximum daily
dose. This warning states: ``Do not use this product if you are on a
sodium-restricted diet unless directed by a doctor.'' (3) Manufacturers
may use the following descriptive terms for sodium content: ``Sodium-
free'' for products containing 0 mg sodium in the labeled maximum daily
dose; ``very low sodium'' for products containing 35 mg or less; and
``low sodium'' for products containing 140 mg or less. The requirement
for a sodium content declaration is based on the number of mg of sodium
in one dose, while the requirement for a warning statement and the use
of the optional descriptive terms are based on the number of mg of
sodium in the labeled maximum daily dose.
-Because consumers and health professionals are accustomed to
computing sodium intake in mg (49 FR 15510 at 15530), and to provide
for uniformity in the declaration of sodium content labeling for foods
and OTC drug products intended for oral ingestion, the term
``milligrams'' or the abbreviation ``mg'' is used to designate the
sodium content of OTC drug products. The total sodium content
(including both active and inactive ingredients), in mg per dosage
unit, should be rounded-off to the nearest whole number. If the single
recommended dose (one or more dosage units) of the product contains 5
mg or more of sodium, a declaration of sodium content expressed in mg
per single dosage unit (e.g., tablet, teaspoon) is required to be
listed on a separate line after the heading ``Sodium Content'' as the
last statement in the ingredients section.
-The new sodium labeling requirements apply to all OTC drugs
intended for oral ingestion, whether marketed under an OTC drug
monograph, an approved application, or no application. The existing
requirements relating to sodium labeling in Sec. 331.30(c)(5) and (f)
of the final monograph for OTC antacid drug products are being deleted.
The proposed sodium labeling requirements being considered in other
ongoing OTC drug rulemakings will be deleted when final monographs for
those drug classes are issued in a future issue of the Federal
Register.
V. Analysis of Impacts
-An analysis of the costs and benefits of this regulation,
conducted under Executive Order 12291 was discussed in the proposed
rule (56 FR 19222 at 19225). No comments were received in response to
the agency's request for specific comment on the economic impact of
this rulemaking. Executive Order 12291 has been superseded by Executive
Order 12866.
-FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive
Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354).
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits
of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary,
to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that
this final rule is consistent with the regulatory philosophy and
principles identified in the Executive Order. In addition, the final
rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive
Order and, thus, is not subject to review under the Executive Order.
-The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule
on small entities. With this final rule, one-time label modification
costs associated with changing product labels will be incurred by some
manufacturers. FDA estimates those costs to total less than $500,000
for the entire industry. This projected cost is based on estimates of
the number of products that will be affected by this final rule, the
number of distinct label changes that will be required, and the cost of
printing new labels.
-OTC antacid drug products are the primary products having a
significant number of orally administered active ingredients containing
sodium. The monograph for those products has been in effect since 1974
and these products currently bear sodium labeling. For these products,
the labeling change will involve a slight change in wording, resulting
only in a minor cost to have a labeling revision printed. In almost all
cases, manufacturers can routinely revise labeling at the next printing
so that minimal costs should be incurred. Manufacturers will have up to
12 months after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register
to revise their product labeling. FDA anticipates that most antacid
drug products would undergo a label printing within a 12-month period.
Because these OTC antacid drug products already bear sodium labeling
warnings, the agency may extend the time period beyond 12 months, if
necessary, upon request, for the revised wording to be implemented.
-Other OTC drug products (i.e., laxatives and internal analgesics)
having a few sodium-containing active ingredients affected by this
final rule previously were not required to bear sodium labeling. These
products will need to have new labels printed to incorporate the sodium
labeling. These products must also have new labeling printed in the
future when the final monographs for OTC laxative and internal
analgesic drug products are published. This again involves one-time
label modification costs. For products undergoing such labeling
changes, the incremental costs attributable to this rule for sodium
labeling will be
[[Page 17806]]
negligible. A limited number of OTC laxative and internal analgesic
drug products contain sodium-containing active ingredients. Tentative
final monographs with sodium labeling requirements for these products
have been published, and no adverse comments concerning economic
impacts have been received in response to the proposals. The agency is
not aware of any significant number of other OTC drug products that
will be affected due to the sodium content of inactive ingredients. Use
of the descriptive terms for sodium set forth in this rulemaking is
voluntary. Therefore, any implementation of these terms could be done
by a manufacturer at any time that new labeling is ordered. The agency
finds that the cost of adding one of these descriptive terms to the
product's labeling will be negligible. Accordingly, the agency
certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, no further analysis is required.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
-FDA concludes that the labeling requirements in this document are
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget because
they do not constitute a ``collection of information'' under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Rather, the
warning statement and the sodium terms are a ``public disclosure of
information originally supplied by the Federal government to the
recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public'' (5 CFR
1320.3(c)(2)). The sodium content per dosage unit is product
formulation information that manufacturers have on hand as part of
their usual and customary business practice.
VII. Environmental Impact
-The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.24(c)(6) that this
action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
List of Subjects
21 CFR Part 201
-Drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 CFR Part 331
-Labeling, Over-the-counter drugs.
-Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and
under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, title
21 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended in parts 201 and 331
as follows
:-PART 201--LABELING
-1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 201 continues to read as
follows:
-Authority: Secs. 201, 301, 501, 502, 503, 505, 506, 507, 508,
510, 512, 530-542, 701, 704, 721 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 355, 356, 357, 358,
360, 360b, 360gg-360ss, 371, 374, 379e); secs. 215, 301, 351, 361 of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 216, 241, 262, 264).
-2. New Sec. 201.64 is added to subpart C to read as follows:
Sec. 201.64 Sodium labeling.
-(a) The labeling of over-the-counter (OTC) drug products intended
for oral ingestion shall contain the sodium content per dosage unit
(e.g., tablet, teaspoonful) if the sodium content of a single
recommended dose of the product (which may be one or more dosage units)
is 5 milligrams or more. OTC drug products intended for oral ingestion
include gum and lozenge dosage forms, but do not include dentifrices,
mouthwashes, or mouth rinses.
-(b) The sodium content shall be expressed in milligrams per dosage
unit and shall include the total amount of sodium regardless of the
source, i.e., from both active and inactive ingredients. The sodium
content shall be rounded-off to the nearest whole number. The sodium
content per dosage unit shall be listed on a separate line after the
heading ``Sodium Content'' as the last statement in the ingredients
section.
-(c) The labeling of OTC drug products intended for oral ingestion
shall contain the following warning under the heading ``Warning'' (or
``Warnings'' if it appears with additional warning statements) if the
amount of sodium present in the labeled maximum daily dose of the
product is more than 140 milligrams: ``Do not use this product if you
are on a sodium-restricted diet unless directed by a doctor.''
-(d) The term ``sodium free'' may be used in the labeling of OTC
drug products intended for oral ingestion if the amount of sodium in
the labeled maximum daily dose is 0 milligram. For example, a product
containing 0.4 (rounded-off to zero (0)) milligram sodium per tablet
with directions to take one tablet daily may use the term ``sodium
free'' in its labeling. However, when the recommended dose provides for
taking more than one dosage unit per day, e.g., take one or two
tablets, or take two tablets, the same product containing 0.4 milligram
sodium per tablet shall not use the term ``sodium free'' because the
labeled maximum daily dose contains 0.8 milligram sodium.
-(e) The term ``very low sodium'' may be used in the labeling of
OTC drug products intended for oral ingestion if the amount of sodium
in the labeled maximum daily dose is 35 milligrams or less.
-(f) The term ``low sodium'' may be used in the labeling of OTC
drug products intended for oral ingestion if the amount of sodium in
the labeled maximum daily dose is 140 milligrams or less.
-(g) The term ``salt'' is not synonymous with the term sodium and
shall not be used interchangeably or substituted for the term
``sodium.''
-(h) The terms ``sodium free,'' ``very low sodium,'' and ``low
sodium'' shall be in print size and style no larger than the product's
statement of identity and shall not be unduly prominent in print size
or style compared to the statement of identity.
-(i) Any product subject to this paragraph that is not labeled as
required by this paragraph and that is initially introduced or
initially delivered for introduction into interstate commerce after
April 22, 1997, is misbranded under sections 201(n) and 502(a) and (f)
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
PART 331--ANTACID PRODUCTS FOR OVER-THE-COUNTER (OTC) HUMAN USE
-3. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 331 continues to read as
follows:
-Authority: Secs. 201, 501, 502, 503, 505, 510, 701 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 353,
355, 360, 371).
Sec. 331.30 [Amended]
-4. Section 331.30 Labeling of antacid products is amended by
removing paragraph (c)(5) and redesignating paragraphs (c)(6) and
(c)(7) as paragraphs (c)(5) and (c)(6), respectively, and by removing
paragraph (f) and redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (f).
Dated: March 30, 1996.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 96-9735 Filed 4-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9704 Medals of Honor
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17578-17579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9704]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 79
[Docket No. OST-96-1258; Notice 96-8]
RIN 2105-AC41
Medals of Honor
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DOT is clarifying its regulations regarding award of Medals of
Honor for bravery in land transportation accidents/incidents. This
action is taken on the Department's initiative in response to the
President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert I. Ross, Office of the General
Counsel, C-10, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590,
telephone (202) 366-9156, FAX (202) 366-9170.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Acting through DOT, the President of the
United States may award a bronze medal for bravery to any person who,
by extreme daring, risks his/her life in trying to prevent, or to save
the life of a person in, a grave accident in the United States that
involves an interstate rail carrier or a motor vehicle being operated
on public highways. See 49 U.S.C. 80504. The regulations implementing
this authority were last amended in 1968. DOT is revising them in order
to simplify language and otherwise make them easier to understand.
Because these changes are editorial in nature and do not change the
substantive requirements, the Department finds that notice and comment
are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.
Analysis of Regulatory Impacts
This amendment is not a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of Executive Order 12866. It is also not significant within
the definition in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures, 49 FR 11034
(1979), in part because it does not involve any change in important
Departmental policies. There will be no economic impact as a result of
this change. Moreover, I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule does not significantly affect the environment, and
therefore an environmental impact statement is not required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It has also been reviewed
under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, and it has been determined
that it does not have sufficient implications for federalism to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Finally, the rule does not contain any collection of information
requirements, requiring review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 79
Decorations, Medals, Awards.
In accordance with the above, DOT revises 49 CFR Part 79, to read
as follows:
PART 79--MEDALS OF HONOR
Sec.
79.1 Scope.
79.3 Application.
79.5 Investigation.
79.7 Award.
79.9 Design.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 80504.
Sec. 79.1 Scope.
(a) This Part implements 49 U.S.C. 80504, which authorizes the
President of the United States to award a bronze medal for bravery to
any person who, by extreme daring, risks his/her life in trying to
prevent, or to save the life of a person in, a grave accident/incident
in the United States that involves an interstate rail carrier or a
motor vehicle being operated on public highways.
(b) The actions for which the medal may be awarded must reflect
such unusual daring and bravery that a person would not normally be
expected to perform them as a regular part of his/her regular work or
vocation.
Sec. 79.3 Application.
(a) Any person may apply for the award of the medal described in
Sec. 79.1, but only on behalf of another person, by writing to the
Secretary of Transportation, Attention: Medals of Honor, within two (2)
years of the action that is the subject of the application.
(b) Although no application form is required, the following
information must be provided:
(1) Name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting
the application.
(2) Name, address, and telephone number of the person on whose
behalf the application is submitted.
(3) Date, time, place, and weather conditions of the action that is
the subject of the application.
[[Page 17579]]
(4) Identification of rail or motor carrier involved, or of
operator of motor vehicles involved.
(5) Identification of any public or private authority that
investigated the accident/incident involved.
(6) Name, address, and telephone number of any witness to the
action that is the subject of the application.
(7) Detailed description of the action that is the subject of the
application, including why the person submitting the application thinks
that the action merits the extraordinary recognition embodied in the
Medal of Honor.
(c) An application and any documentary or other evidence supporting
it must be supported by oath or affirmation, or by the signer's
acknowledgment that a knowingly false statement is punishable as
perjury.
Sec. 79.5 Investigation.
The Department of Transportation may make any investigation of an
application that it deems appropriate, including the taking of
testimony under oath or affirmation.
Sec. 79.7 Award.
If the Secretary of Transportation decides that it is warranted,
the Secretary shall award the Medal on behalf of and in the name of the
President of the United States.
Sec. 79.9 Design.
The Department is authorized to adopt and revise the existing
designs for the award, rosette, and ribbon provided for by statute.
Issued in Washington, DC, on this 1st day of April, 1996.
Federico Pena,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 96-9704 Filed 4-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9703 National Security Information; Removal of Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17564-17565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9703]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
14 CFR Part 311
[Docket No. OST-96-1259; Notice 96-9]
RIN 2105-AC40
National Security Information; Removal of Regulations
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DOT is removing regulations regarding National Security
Information that it inherited from the Civil Aeronautics Board because
they merely reference DOT's own rules on the same subject. This action
is taken on the Department's initiative in response to the President's
Regulatory Reinvention Initiative.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert I. Ross, Office of the General
Counsel, C-10, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590,
telephone (202) 366-9156, FAX (202) 366-9170.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1985, the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)
ceased to exist and many of its functions and resources were
transferred to DOT. Since both CAB and DOT had administrative
regulations on many common subjects, as a service to persons accustomed
to using the CAB regulations, those regulations were revised to
reference the DOT regulations. Enough time has passed that the
duplicative references can be removed. This document removes 14 CFR
Part 311, CAB's regulatory part covering classification and
declassification of national security information and materials, in
favor of DOT's at 49 CFR Part 8, to which Part 311 has referred for
many years. As part of the President's Regulatory Reinvention
Initiative, we will be removing other duplicative or obsolete parts in
separate rulemakings. Because these changes are editorial in nature and
do not change the substantive requirements, the Department finds that
notice and comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.
Analysis of Regulatory Impacts
This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' within the
meaning of Executive Order 12866. It is also not significant within the
definition in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures, 49 FR 11034
(1979), in part because it does not involve any change in important
Departmental policies. There is no economic impact as a result of this
change. Moreover, I certify that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule does not significantly affect the environment, and
therefore an environmental impact statement is not required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It has also been reviewed
under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, and it has been determined
that it does not have sufficient implications for federalism to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Finally, the rule does not contain any collection of information
requirements, requiring review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 311
Classified information.
[[Page 17565]]
PART 311--[REMOVED]
In accordance with the above and under the authority of 49 U.S.C.
40113, DOT removes 14 CFR Part 311.
Issued in Washington, DC, on this 1st day of April, 1996.
Federico Pena,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-9703 Filed 4-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9702 Release of Internal Staff Memoranda Relating to Public Meetings of the Civil Aeronautics Board
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9702]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 399
[Docket No. OST-96-1260; Notice 96-10]
RIN 2105-AC42
Release of Internal Staff Memoranda Relating to Public Meetings
of the Civil Aeronautics Board
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DOT is removing provisions concerning release of internal
staff memorandum after public meetings of the Civil Aeronautics Board
(CAB). The CAB was sunset in 1985 and the provisions no longer have any
relevancy. This action is taken on the Department's initiative in
response to the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective May 22, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert I. Ross, Office of the General
Counsel, C-10, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590,
telephone (202) 366-9156, FAX (202) 366-9170.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1985, the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)
ceased to exist and many of its functions and resources were
transferred to DOT. Some of its regulations, although no longer
relevant, have remained in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Specifically, Sec. 399.102 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations,
has no relevancy to DOT The section specifically sets forth procedures
peculiar to an agency that, like the CAB, was subject to the Government
in the Sunshine Act, which does not apply to DOT. We are, therefore,
removing the section because this procedure is not used at DOT.
Analogous information may continue to be sought under the Freedom of
Information Act. As part of the President's Regulatory Reinvention
Initiative, we will be removing other duplicative or obsolete parts in
separate rulemakings. Because these changes are editorial in nature and
do not change the substantive requirements, the Department finds that
notice and comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.
Analysis of Regulatory Impacts
This amendment is not a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of Executive Order 12866. It is also not significant within
the definition in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures, 49 FR 11034
(1979), in part because it does not involve any change in important
Departmental policies. There is no economic impact as a result of this
change. Moreover, I certify that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule does not significantly affect the environment, and
therefore an environmental impact statement is not required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It has also been reviewed
under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, and it has been determined
that it does not have sufficient implications for federalism to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Finally, the rule does not contain any collection of information
requirements, requiring review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 399
Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Air rates and
fares, Air taxis, Consumer protection, Small businesses.
In accordance with the above, DOT amends 14 CFR Part 399 as
follows:
PART 399--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation to Part 399 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101, 40102, 40105, 40109, 40113, 40114,
40115, 41101, 41102, 41104, 41105, 41106, 41107, 41108, 41109,
41110, 41301, 41302, 41303, 41304, 41305, 41306, 41307, 41309,
41310, 41501, 41503, 41504, 41506, 41507, 41508, 41509, 41510,
41511, 41701, 41702, 41705, 41706, 41707, 41708, 41709, 41711,
41712, 41713, 41901, 41902, 41903, 41904, 41905, 41906, 41907,
41908, 41909, 41910, 41911, 41912, 42111, 42112, 46101, 46102,
46301, 46501.
Sec. 399.102 [Removed]
2. Section 399.102 is removed.
Issued in Washington, DC, on this 1st day of April, 1996.
Federico Pena,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 96-9702 Filed 4-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9701 Use of the Official Seal
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17577-17578]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9701]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Part 3
[Docket No. OST-96-1264; Notice 96-11]
RIN 2105-AC39
Use of the Official Seal
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DOT is removing from the Code of Federal Regulations
regulations governing what uses may be made of its Official Seal and
which officials have the authority to affix it because the regulations
duplicate internal directives that are available to the public. This
action is taken on the Department's initiative in response to the
President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 1996.
[[Page 17578]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert I. Ross, Office of the General
Counsel, C-10, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590,
telephone (202) 366-9156, FAX (202) 366-9170.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since its establishment in 1967, DOT has had
an Official Seal, which indicates official action of DOT and must be
judicially noticed. These same provisions appear in DOT's internal
directives, which are public documents. To eliminate duplication, the
regulations regarding appropriate uses of the Seal and identification
of which officials of DOT may affix it will be removed from the Code of
Federal Regulations but continue to appear in the internal directives.
Because these changes are editorial in nature and do not change the
substantive requirements, the Department finds that notice and comment
are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.
Analysis of Regulatory Impacts
This amendment is not a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of Executive Order 12866. It is also not significant within
the definition in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures, 49 FR 11034
(1979), in part because it does not involve any change in important
Departmental policies. There is no economic impact as a result of this
change. Moreover, I certify that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule does not significantly affect the environment, and
therefore an environmental impact statement is not required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It has also been reviewed
under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, and it has been determined
that it does not have sufficient implications for federalism to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Finally, the rule does not contain any collection of information
requirements, requiring review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 3
Seals and insignia.
In accordance with the above, DOT amends 49 CFR Part 3 as follows:
PART 3--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation to Part 3 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 102(e).
Secs. 3.3 and 3.5 [Removed]
2. Sections 3.3 and 3.5 are removed.
Issued in Washington, DC, on this 1st day of April, 1996.
Federico Pena,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 96-9701 Filed 4-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9653 Vessel Rebuilt Determinations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17814-17816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9653]
[[Page 17813]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Coast Guard
_______________________________________________________________________
46 CFR Part 67
Vessel Rebuilt Determinations; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 78 / Monday, April 22, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 17814]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
46 CFR Part 67
[CGD 94-040]
RIN 2115-AE85
Vessel Rebuilt Determinations
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending its regulation to clarify the
standard for determining when work on a vessel performed outside of the
U.S. constitutes a foreign rebuilding, which results in a loss of
coastwise privileges. Clarifying this standard will help vessel owners
and operators make better business decisions regarding work to be
performed on their vessels. This rule adopts a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) titled Vessel Rebuilt Determinations (CGD 94-040; 60
FR 17290) published on April 5, 1995, as final with minor changes.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on June 21, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated, documents referred to in this
preamble are available for inspection or copying at the office of the
Executive Secretary, Marine Safety Council (G-LRA/3406) (CGD 94-025),
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC
20593-0001, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 267-1477.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LTJG Michael Antonellis, National
Maritime Center at (703) 235-8447.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History
Two public meetings were held, both preceded by a notice in the
Federal Register. The first meeting was on November 16, 1993 (58 FR
51298), and the second on February 15, 1994 (59 FR 725). The stated
purpose of the public meetings was to obtain public input concerning
whether the Coast Guard should undertake rulemaking to develop clearer
standards for vessel rebuilt determinations.
On May 10, 1994, the Coast Guard published a policy statement in
the Federal Register (CGD 93-063; 59 FR 24060) announcing that it was
planning to undertake rulemaking regarding vessel rebuilt
determinations.
As indicated above, on April 5, 1995, the Coast Guard published the
NPRM. In the NPRM, the Coast Guard proposed to clarify when a vessel is
deemed to have been rebuilt outside the United States, thereby losing
the privilege of engaging in the coastwise trade.
Background and Purpose
When Congress enacted the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. app.
Sec. 883), popularly referred to as the ``Jones Act,'' it included a
provision to provide for a protected trade. Section 27 of the Jones Act
generally prohibited the transportation of merchandise in the coastwise
trade except in vessels built in and documented under the laws of the
United States and owned by citizens of the United States.
In 1956, Congress amended Section 27 by enacting what is known as
the ``Second Proviso.'' Under the proviso as enacted, a vessel of more
than 500 gross tons entitled to engage in the coastwise trade which is
later rebuilt outside the United States permanently loses the right to
engage in the coastwise trade. Further, the proviso originally required
the owner of a vessel of more than 500 gross tons documented in the
United States which is rebuilt outside the United States to make a
report of the circumstances of the rebuilding to the Secretary of
Transportation.
The Second Proviso was amended numerous times as discussed in the
NPRM and now applies to all vessels engaged in coastwise trade,
regardless of tonnage. It was implemented by the Coast Guard primarily
by regulations at 46 CFR Sec. 67.177. The regulatory standard in
Sec. 67.177 states that a vessel is rebuilt when ``any considerable
part of its hull or superstructure is built upon or substantially
altered.'' While the wording of the regulatory standard has remained
stable over the years, the Coast Guard's administration of the standard
has changed and is fully discussed in the NPRM.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard received three letters in response to the NPRM. Two
letters specifically complimented the Coast Guard for its efforts in
providing the industry with clearer standards relating to vessel
rebuilt determinations. Generally, the three letters addressed the six
matters discussed below.
First: Two comments suggested that the Coast Guard provide a list
of items, such as furnishings and fittings, that could be excluded from
being considered as part of the hull and superstructure for purposes of
making vessel rebuilt determinations. In the preamble to the NPRM, the
Coast Guard identified a number of items which it has previously
considered to be furnishings and fittings. This list, which is not
exhaustive, may be used for guidance. The Coast Guard believes that
providing a specific list would work to the detriment of vessel owners
and limit the Coast Guard's flexibility to determine whether those
items not included on the list should or should not be excluded.
Second: One comment recommended that the numerical lower and upper
parameters of 5 percent to 10 percent be adjusted to provide greater
flexibility. Paragraph (b) of Sec. 67.177 of the NPRM establishes
numerical parameters for rebuilt determinations for vessels, the hull
and superstructure of which are constructed of steel or aluminum. The
Coast Guard agrees that adjusting the minimum threshold to 7.5 percent
is appropriate because that level reflects the Coast Guard's past
determinations of the percentage of steelweight that does not
constitute a rebuilding. However, the Coast Guard finds that raising
the maximum threshold would not reflect past Coast Guard practices.
Therefore, in order to adopt a standard that is consistent with past
Coast Guard practices, the numerical lower and upper parameters in the
final rule are set at 7.5 percent and 10 percent. The Coast Guard's
National Maritime Center, after consultation with the Maritime
Administration and the maritime industry, will reevaluate these minimum
and maximum threshold levels in the future. Based on the history of
vessel rebuild determinations, the Coast Guard may propose additional
changes to these levels and perhaps other aspects of vessel rebuilt
determinations. A shipowner may still apply for a preliminary rebuilt
determination regardless of the level of work being done.
Third: One comment favored the use of a ``surface area comparison''
as opposed to the ``comparability'' standard proposed for vessels built
of materials other than steel or aluminum. The comparability approach
provided in paragraph (c) of Sec. 67.177 of the NPRM requires that the
applicant for a rebuilt determination calculate to the maximum extent
practicable what the steelweight of the vessel as a whole would be if
it were constructed of steel or aluminum. This standard has been tested
over time and determined to work effectively.
Fourth: One comment indicated a need for the Coast Guard to clarify
that repairs in kind should be exempted from the standards applicable
to vessel rebuilt determinations. The Coast Guard believes that vessels
undergoing repairs overseas should continue to report these repairs and
provide the necessary information to ensure that the Coast Guard can
make an independent
[[Page 17815]]
determination that the vessel has not been rebuilt.
Fifth: One comment requested that the term ``vessel steelweight''
be clarified. Vessel steelweight is the actual weight of the hull and
superstructure without furnishings and outfit, machinery, and fluids.
The term ``vessel steelweight'' is intended to mean the same as
``discounted lightship weight.''
Sixth: One comment expressed concern that if a vessel is determined
to be rebuilt, it may also be considered a new vessel and, as a result,
be subject to the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA)
(Pub. L. 101-380). A rebuilt determination will not result in a vessel
being reclassified as a new vessel. If a vessel is subject to this
regulation and is determined to be rebuilt outside of the U.S. pursuant
to this rule, then that vessel will lose its coastwise privileges.
Whether a vessel is subject to the applicability of OPA requirements is
in no way determined by this rule. That a vessel loses its coastwise
privileges because it has been determined to have been rebuilt outside
of the U.S. does not mean necessarily that the vessel will be
considered essentially a new vessel and subject to OPA requirements.
After reviewing and considering these comments, the Coast Guard is
adopting the NPRM as final with minor modifications. In effect, the
term ``Commandant'' wherever it appeared in the NPRM was replaced with
the term ``National Vessel Documentation Center'' (NVDC). The final
rule raises the lower parameter of a rebuilt determination to from 5
percent to 7.5 percent. The Coast Guard has undergone a significant
reorganization and, as a result, established the NVDC in West Virginia
to streamline the vessel documentation program. The public was informed
of the establishment of NVDC in a Federal Register notice published on
June 15, 1995 (60 FR 31602).
Regulatory Evaluation
These regulations are not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and do not require an assessment
of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order.
They have not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
under that order. However, they are considered significant under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation
(DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979) due to the interests expressed
by a segment of the maritime industry and the Government of Canada.
The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of these regulations to
be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of
the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. These
regulations merely clarify existing policies and practices followed in
evaluating rebuilt determinations. As such, the changes are
administrative in nature and provide better guidance to vessel owners
planning for work to be performed on their vessels.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether these regulations will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
``Small entities'' may include: (1) small businesses and not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields; and (2) governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of these regulations to
be minimal because they clarify existing policy and practices. The
changes to the existing regulations are administrative in nature and
are designed to provide better guidance to vessel owners planning to
perform work on their vessels. Because it expects the impact of this
rule to be minimal, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b)
that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Collection of Information
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews each rule that contains a
collection-of-information requirement to determine whether the
practical value of the information is worth the burden imposed by its
collection. Collection-of-information requirements include reporting,
recordkeeping, notification, and other similar requirements.
This regulation contains collection-of-information requirements in
46 CFR 67.177. However, these collection-of-information requirements
are the same as those contained in the existing regulations which have
been previously approved by OMB and assigned Control No. 2115-0110.
This regulation adds no new or additional collection-of-information
requirements. The regulations will reduce paperwork submissions by
providing sufficiently clear guidance that many of the applications for
preliminary rebuilt determinations may become unnecessary.
Federalism
This rulemaking has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and it has been
determined that this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this
rulemaking and concluded that, under paragraph 2.B.2 of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1B, this rule is categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation. This rule is administrative in nature and
will have no significant effect on the environment. A ``Categorical
Exclusion Determination'' is available in the docket for inspection or
copying where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 67
Fees, Incorporation by reference, Vessels.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46
CFR part 67 as follows:
PART 67--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 67 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 14 U.S.C. 664; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 9118; 46
U.S.C. 2103, 2107, 2110; 46 U.S.C. app. 841a, 876; 49 CFR 1.45,
1.46.
Sec. 67.19 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 67.19(d)(3), remove ``67.177(a)'' and add, in its place,
``67.177''.
Sec. 67.21 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 67.21(c), remove ``67.177(a)'' and add, in its place,
``67.177''.
4. Section 67.177 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 67.177 Application for foreign rebuilding determination.
A vessel is deemed rebuilt foreign when any considerable part of
its hull or superstructure is built upon or substantially altered
outside of the United States. In determining whether a vessel is
rebuilt foreign, the following parameters apply:
(a) Regardless of its material of construction, a vessel is deemed
rebuilt when a major component of the hull or superstructure not built
in the United States is added to the vessel.
(b) For a vessel of which the hull and superstructure is
constructed of steel or aluminum--
(1) A vessel is deemed rebuilt when work performed on its hull or
superstructure constitutes more than 10
[[Page 17816]]
percent of the vessel's steelweight, prior to the work, also known as
discounted lightship weight.
(2) A vessel may be considered rebuilt when work performed on its
hull or superstructure constitutes more than 7.5 percent but not more
than 10 percent of the vessel's steelweight prior to the work.
(3) A vessel is not considered rebuilt when work performed on its
hull or superstructure constitutes 7.5 percent or less of the vessel's
steelweight prior to the work.
(c) For a vessel of which the hull and superstructure is
constructed of material other than steel or aluminum--
(1) A vessel is deemed rebuilt when work performed on its hull or
superstructure constitutes a quantum of work determined, to the maximum
extent practicable, to be comparable to more than 10 percent of the
vessel's steelweight prior to the work, calculated as if the vessel
were wholly constructed of steel or aluminum.
(2) A vessel may be considered rebuilt when work performed on its
hull or superstructure constitutes a quantum of work determined, to the
maximum extent practicable, to be comparable to more than 7.5 percent
but not more than 10 percent of the vessel's steelweight prior to the
work, calculated as if the vessel were wholly constructed of steel or
aluminum.
(3) A vessel is not considered rebuilt when work performed on its
hull or superstructure constitutes a quantum of work determined, to the
maximum extent practicable, to be comparable to 7.5 percent or less of
the vessel's steelweight prior to the work, calculated as if the vessel
were wholly constructed of steel or aluminum.
(d) For a vessel of mixed construction, such as a vessel the hull
of which is constructed of steel or aluminum and the superstructure of
which is constructed of fibrous reinforced plastic, the steelweight of
the work performed on the portion of the vessel constructed of a
material other than steel or aluminum will be determined, to the
maximum extent practicable, and aggregated with the work performed on
the portion of the vessel constructed of steel or aluminum. The
numerical parameters described in paragraph (b) of this section will
then be applied to the aggregate of the work performed on the vessel
compared to the vessel's steelweight prior to the work, calculated as
if the vessel were wholly constructed of steel or aluminum, to
determine whether the vessel has been rebuilt.
(e) The owner of a vessel currently entitled to coastwise, Great
Lakes, or fisheries endorsements which is altered outside the United
States and the work performed is determined to constitute or be
comparable to more than 7.5 percent of the vessel's steelweight prior
to the work, or which has a major component of the hull or
superstructure not built in the United States added, must file the
following information with the National Vessel Documentation Center
within 30 days following the earlier of completion of the work or
redelivery of the vessel to the owner or owner's representative:
(1) A written statement applying for a rebuilt determination,
outlining in detail the work performed and naming the place(s) where
the work was performed;
(2) Calculations showing the actual or comparable steelweight of
the work performed on the vessel, the actual or comparable steelweight
of the vessel, and comparing the actual or comparable steelweight of
the work performed to the actual or comparable steelweight of the
vessel;
(3) Accurate sketches or blueprints describing the work performed;
and
(4) Any further submissions requested by the National Vessel
Documentation Center.
(f) Regardless of the extent of actual work performed, the owner of
a vessel currently entitled to coastwise, Great Lakes, or fisheries
endorsements may, as an alternative to filing the items listed in
paragraph (e) of this section, submit a written statement to the
National Vessel Documentation Center declaring the vessel rebuilt
outside the United States. The vessel will then be deemed to have been
rebuilt outside the United States with loss of trading privileges.
(g) A vessel owner may apply for a preliminary rebuilt
determination by submitting:
(1) A written statement applying for a preliminary rebuilt
determination, outlining in detail the work planned and naming the
place(s) where the work is to be performed;
(2) Calculations showing the actual or comparable steelweight of
work to be performed on the vessel, the actual or comparable
steelweight of the vessel, and comparing the actual or comparable
steelweight of the planned work to the actual or comparable steelweight
of the vessel;
(3) Accurate sketches or blueprints describing the planned work;
and
(4) Any further submissions requested by the National Vessel
Documentation Center.
Note: A statement submitted in accordance with paragraph (f) of
this section does not constitute an application for a rebuilt
determination and does not require payment of a fee.
Dated: March 18, 1996.
A.E. Henn,
Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commandant.
[FR Doc. 96-9653 Filed 4-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9570 Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9570]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
29 CFR Part 1614
Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity
AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Federal sector equal employment
opportunity provisions concerning the time limit for a complainant to
file an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board)
following an agency's final decision on a mixed case complaint. The
rule is being amended because the Board lengthened the time limits for
filing a timely appeal from a complaint raising issues of prohibited
discrimination.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 22, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Schlageter, Assistant Legal
Counsel, or Daniel T. Riordan, Senior Attorney, Advice and External
Litigation Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1801 L
Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20507; telephone (202) 663-4669 or (202)
663-7026 (TDD). Copies of this final rule are also available in the
following formats: Large print, braille, audio-tape and electronic file
on computer disk. Requests for this notice in an alternative format
should be made to the Publications Information Center at (800) 669-3362
(Voice) or (800) 800-3302 (TDD).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This change in the EEOC's procedures came
about as a result of the Board's revision of its procedures for
accepting appeals following a final decision by an agency on a mixed
case complaint. The Board enlarged the time limit for accepting such
appeals in a final rule at 59 FR 31109, June 17, 1994, which amended 5
CFR Sec. 1201.154(b)(1) of its regulations. The Board changed the time
limit for filing initial appeals to bring the Board's procedures more
in line with the legal and regulatory time limits for filing with the
Federal Courts and EEOC, and also to make the Board's appellate
processes more accessible to Federal employees. 59 FR 31109. EEOC is
therefore amending its regulation to conform with the new time limit
established by the Board.
We are issuing a final rule rather than a notice of proposed
rulemaking because we have determined, for good cause, that publication
of a proposed rule and solicitation of comments is not necessary. The
Board initially announced this change as a proposed rule at 59 FR
18764, April 20, 1994, and asked for comments; a significant majority
of the comments received favored or were not opposed to the change.
Regulatory Procedures
Executive Order 12866
The Commission has determined that this regulatory action is not
``significant'' as defined by Executive Order 12866, and is therefore
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In addition, the Commission also certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b),
enacted by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), that this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. For this reason, a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This regulation contains no information collection requirements
which are subject to review and approval by the Office of Management
and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. chapter
35).
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1614
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Equal employment
opportunity, Government employees, Individuals with disabilities,
Religious discrimination, Sex discrimination.
Gilbert F. Casellas,
Chairman.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission is amending 29 CFR Part 1614 as
follows:
PART 1614--FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
1. The authority citation for 29 CFR Part 1614 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 206(d), 633a, 791 and 794a; 42 U.S.C.
2000e-16; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218; E.O. 11222, 3
CFR, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 11478, 3 CFR, 1969 Comp., p. 133;
E.O. 12106, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 263; Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1978, 3
CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 321.
Sec. 1614.302 [Amended]
2. Section 1614.302 is amended by removing the number ``20'' in
paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (d)(3) and adding in their place the number
``30.''
[FR Doc. 96-9570 Filed 4-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-06-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9559 Design Standards for Highways; Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17566-17572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9559]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 625
[FHWA Docket No. 95-12]
RIN 2125-AD38
Design Standards for Highways; Geometric Design of Highways and
Streets
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Highway System (NHS) was established by the
National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-59, 109
Stat. 568). To reflect the establishment of the NHS, the FHWA is
revising several areas of the text in its regulation governing design
standards for highways; updating the listing of standards; relocating
the guides and references; and adopting as its interim
[[Page 17567]]
policy for the design standards which apply to highway construction and
reconstruction projects on the NHS, a 1994 revision of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO)
publication, ``A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets''
(Policy). The primary reason for development of the new Policy was to
convert the numerical values in AASHTO's 1990 Policy to the metric
system (SI). With the recent enactment of the National Highway System
Designation Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-59, 109 Stat. 568), conversion to
the metric system by the States now must take place by September 30,
2000. Almost all of the States are continuing their conversion to
metric to meet the previously established deadline of September 30,
1996. This regulation will assure the States and other FHWA partners
that the metric conversions used to formulate their plans will be
consistent with the values adopted by the FHWA.
DATES: This interim final rule is effective May 22, 1996. Comments must
be received on or before June 21, 1996. The incorporation by reference
of certain publications listed in the regulation is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of November 7, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed comments to FHWA Docket No. 95-12,
Federal Highway Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Room 4232,
HCC-10, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. All comments
received will be available for examination at the above address between
8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must
include a self-addressed stamped postcard. The current design standards
are on file at the Office of the Federal Register in Washington, DC,
and are available for inspection and copying from the FHWA Washington
Headquarters and all FHWA Division and Regional Offices as prescribed
in 49 CFR Part 7, appendix D. Copies of the current AASHTO publications
are also available for purchase from the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, suite 249, 444 North Capitol
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Seppo I. Sillan, Geometric and
Roadside Design Branch, Federal-Aid and Design Division, Office of
Engineering (202) 366-0312, or Mr. Wilbert Baccus, Office of Chief
Counsel (202) 366-0780, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh
Street SW., Washington DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to
4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text changes in 23 CFR part 625 reflect
the establishment of the National Highway System (NHS) by the National
Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-59, 109 Stat. 568)
(NHS Act) as the basic highway network in the United States. References
to ``Federal-aid highway projects'' have accordingly been changed to
``NHS projects.'' The standards, policies, and standard speci-
fications that have been approved by the FHWA for application on all
projects on the NHS are incorporated by reference in 23 CFR part 625.
Section 625.3(d) of the rule provides that these Federal design
standards apply to all projects on the NHS, regardless of funding
source. Under prior law, Federal standards applied to most projects
solely as a condition of receipt of Federal grant funds. The change,
applying Federal standards even to NHS projects wholly funded by a
State, is based on provisions in both the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914)
(ISTEA) and the NHS Act, and is consistent with the purpose for which
the NHS was established. In 23 U.S.C. 109(c), as amended by Sec. 304 of
the NHS Act, the Secretary is required, in cooperation with the State
highway departments, to approve design and construction standards on
the NHS. These provisions mirror the language and assignment of
responsibility appearing in 23 U.S.C. 109(b), which has long been
interpreted to require the Secretary to establish design standards for
the Interstate System without regard for funding source. In expanding
the Secretary's authority to all roads on the NHS, Congress sought to
accommodate interstate commerce by ensuring a uniform, safe,
interconnected system of principal arterial routes.
Federal-aid projects not on the NHS are to be designed,
constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with State laws,
regulations, directives, safety standards, design standards, and
construction standards. This change implements section 1016(d) of the
ISTEA, which added a new subsection (p) to 23 U.S.C. 109 requiring non-
NHS projects to meet State standards.
The AASHTO is an organization which represents the 52 State highway
and transportation agencies (including the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico). Its members consist of the duly constituted heads and
other chief officials of those agencies. The Secretary of the United
States Department of Transportation (DOT) is an ex officio member, and
DOT officials participate in various AASHTO activities as nonvoting
representatives. Among other functions, the AASHTO develops and issues
standards, specifications, policies, guides and related materials for
use by the States for highway projects. Many of the standards, policies
and standard specifications approved by the FHWA and incorporated in 23
CFR 625 were developed and issued by the AASHTO. Revisions made to such
documents by the AASHTO are independently reviewed and adopted by the
FHWA before they are applied to NHS projects.
Recently the AASHTO revised the publication ``A Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets'' (Policy). The primary reason for
development of the new document was to convert the numerical values in
the 1990 Policy to the metric system (SI). The FHWA's Metric Conversion
Policy, published in the Federal Register on June 11, 1992, provided
that newly authorized Federal-aid construction contracts must be only
in metric units by September 30, 1996. Although this date will have to
be changed to September 30, 2000, to comply with the recently enacted
NHS Act, almost all of the States are continuing their conversion to
metric to meet the previously established deadline of September 30,
1996. This rulemaking is intended to assure the States and other FHWA
partners that the metric conversions used to formulate their plans will
be consistent with the values adopted by the FHWA. Another reason for
revising the Policy is to provide the latest design criteria. A more
detailed discussion of the changes in the revised Policy is included
later in this preamble.
In 1992, the FHWA initiated a phased 5-year plan to convert its
activities and business operations to the metric system of weights and
measures, as required by the Metric Conversion Act of 1975, Pub. L.
100-418, 102 Stat. 1107, 1451 (Metric Act). Section 3 of this Act set a
deadline date of September 30, 1992, for each Federal Government agency
to begin using International System of Units (SI) in procurements,
grants, and other business-related activities, except to the extent
that such use is impractical or would likely cause significant
inefficiencies or loss of markets to United States firms.
In order to comply with the Metric Act, the FHWA developed a list
of deadlines for converting to the metric system, which was published
on June
[[Page 17568]]
11, 1992, at 57 FR 24843. This notice established that all newly
authorized Federal-aid contracts must use only metric units by
September 30, 1996. Although this date will have to be changed to
September 30, 2000, to comply with the recently enacted NHS Act, almost
all of the States are continuing their conversion to metric to meet the
previously established deadline of September 30, 1996. In order to
comply with the above deadline, and because it often takes several
years between the time when designs are initiated and when projects are
authorized, States have already begun to design projects using the
metric system. Accordingly, the AASHTO developed and published the new
Policy which uses only metric values for geometric design. Through this
rulemaking the FHWA is adopting metric conversion values established by
the AASHTO in this new Policy.
The new Policy has replaced the previous version of this Policy,
which was published by the AASHTO in 1990 and adopted by the FHWA in a
final rule published in the Federal Register on April 29, 1993 (58 FR
25939). The new Policy will constitute FHWA's policy on the geometric
design of projects on the NHS. The 1994 Policy also takes the place of
the publication entitled ``Interim Selected Metric Values for Geometric
Design,'' AASHTO 1993, which was adopted by FHWA in a final rule
published in the Federal Register on December 10, 1993 (58 FR 64897).
Although the standards contained in the Policy apply to the
Interstate System, specific guidance applicable to highways on the
Interstate System is included in another AASHTO publication, ``A Policy
on Design Standards--Interstate System.'' The current edition of that
publication will be converted to the metric system in the near future.
Generally, the criteria in the functional chapters on local roads
and streets and on collectors (Chapters V and VI of the Policy) are not
applicable to projects on the NHS. However, if highway segments
functionally classified as less than principal arterials are
incorporated in the NHS by virtue of being Strategic Highway Network
(STRAHNET) Connectors or Intermodal Connectors, the standards used may
be those appropriate for the functional classification of the segment
taking into account the type of traffic using the segment.
Summary of Changes
The following revisions have been made to the list of standards,
policies, and standard specifications in Sec. 625.4:
1. ``A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,'' AASHTO
1990, has been updated to indicate the 1994 edition.
2. ``Interim Selected Metric Values for Geometric Design,'' AASHTO
1993, has been deleted because metric values are now included in ``A
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.''
3. ``A Policy on U-Turn Median Openings on Freeways,'' AASHTO 1960,
has been deleted. This document is no longer applicable and not
available from AASHTO.
4. ``A Policy on Access Between Adjacent Railroads and Interstate
Highways,'' AASHTO 1960, has been deleted. This document is no longer
applicable and not available from AASHTO.
5. ``Water Supply and Sewage Treatment at Safety Rest Areas,''
FHWA, 23 CFR part 650, subpart E, has been deleted. The safe drinking
water requirements of this regulation have been superseded by the
national primary drinking water regulations promulgated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (40 CFR part 141) and the States to
comply with safe drinking water legislation.
6. ``Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges,'' Thirteenth
Edition, AASHTO 1983, has been updated to indicate the fifteenth
edition published in 1992 and ``Interim Specifications--Bridges,''
AASHTO 1984 through 1988, has been updated to indicate the 1993 through
1995 editions.
7. ``AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,'' AASHTO 1994, has
been added. These improved load and resistance factor design
specifications are an alternative to the long- standing ``Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges,'' AASHTO.
8. ``Bridge Welding Code, ANSI/AASHTO/AWS D1.5-88,'' AASHTO has
been updated to indicate the 1995 edition.
9. ``Reinforcing Steel Welding Code'' has been updated to indicate
the new name and current edition, ``Structural Welding Code--
Reinforcing Steel,'' 1992.
10. ``Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway
Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals,'' AASHTO, has been updated to
indicate the 1994 edition.
Section 625.5, Guides and References, contains a listing of
references which are informational or guidance in character. This
section is being removed from 23 CFR part 625 and will appear instead
in the ``Federal-Aid Policy Guide'' (FAPG). The FAPG is an organized,
looseleaf, single source documentation of the FHWA's current policies,
regulations and nonregulatory procedural guidance information related
to the Federal-aid highway program. It is available for inspection and
copying as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7, appendix D.
The remaining discussion in this section describes the changes in
the new edition of the Policy. There were a number of changes that were
made throughout the Policy. These include the following:
1. All dimensions were converted to the metric system.
2. Slope is expressed in nondimensional ratios. The vertical
component is shown first and then the horizontal.
3. Superelevation is expressed in percent.
4. The more descriptive terms ``traveled way,'' ``roadway,''
``lane,'' and ``highway'' have been substituted for the term
``pavement'' where appropriate; however, where the term ``pavement''
refers to a type of surface it is retained.
The following paragraphs provide a brief synopsis of the
information that is included in each of the 10 chapters of the Policy
and, as appropriate, any significant additions, revisions or deletions
beyond those listed above made to the currently approved 1990 AASHTO
Policy in the 1994 Policy.
Chapter I--Highway Functions
In this chapter the concept of functional classification is
presented and the various components considered in detail. This serves
as an introduction to functional classification and an explanation of
how the concept is employed in the publication. There are no
significant changes made in this chapter other than identification of
the NHS as a new administrative system.
Chapter II--Design Controls and Criteria
Those characteristics of vehicles, pedestrians, and traffic that
act as criteria for design of various highway and street functional
classes are covered in this chapter. The coverage of capacity is
revised to agree with the Transportation Research Board's revised
chapters of the ``Highway Capacity Manual.'' (At the time this part of
the new Policy was undergoing revision, in mid-1993, a number, but not
all, of the chapters in the manual had been revised.)
More emphasis is placed on accommodating elderly persons based on
information that has been published and studies that have been
conducted since the old Policy was published. More information on
bicycle transportation and characteristics has
[[Page 17569]]
been included. The concept of ``access management,'' which refers to
setting access standards for various types of highways and
incorporating access standards into legislation, has been added to the
section on ``Access Control.'' The terminology used in the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), Pub. L. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, and its
implementing regulations has been incorporated in the discussion on
designing highways and facilities to meet the needs of persons with
disabilities.
Chapter III--Elements of Design
The basic elements of design, such as sight distance, horizontal
alinement, superelevation, widths of turning roadways, vertical
alinement, maximum grades and climbing lanes are covered in this
chapter. Significant revisions to the chapter include the following:
1. In order to eliminate confusion as to which values are used to
calculate lengths of vertical and horizontal curves, only the
calculated values of stopping and passing sight distance are shown.
These unrounded values are used in calculating lengths of vertical
curves and, then, the lengths of vertical curves are rounded, as was
done in the old Policy.
2. Degree of curve is eliminated; curve criteria is based only on
radius.
3. The term ``crown'' has been replaced by more appropriate
terminology such as ``cross slope'' in most places.
4. The information on distribution of superelevation and
superelevation runoff for curves with radius greater than minimum for
low-speed urban streets has been eliminated and a recommendation that
as much superelevation and as long runoff lengths as possible be
provided even on curves greater than minimum is included.
5. The values for the minimum middle ordinate on the inside of
horizontal curves needed to provide horizontal stopping sight distance
are based on computed values rather than rounded values.
6. The information on design and capacity of climbing lanes for
two-lane and multilane highways has been revised based on the new,
revised chapters of the ``Highway Capacity Manual.''
7. The information on truck escape ramps has been updated based on
the latest published information.
8. The new Policy notes that personal computers can be used to
assist designers in developing vertical and horizontal alinements.
9. The section on ``Maintenance of Traffic Through Construction
Areas'' has been revised to be consistent with the ``Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices.''
10. The references on highway drainage have been revised to refer
to the latest publications.
Chapter IV--Cross Section Elements
The elements of a highway, such as pavement cross slope, traffic
lanes, shoulders, medians, frontage roads, and roadsides are discussed
in this chapter. Significant revisions to the chapter include the
following:
1. More information on design to accommodate bicyclists has been
added.
2. The information on design of and use of curbs has been revised.
3. The section on design of pedestrian facilities has been modified
somewhat to conform to the ADA implementing regulations.
Chapter V--Local Roads and Streets
The design guidance applicable to those roads functionally
classified as local rural roads and local urban streets is covered in
this chapter. Significant revisions include the following:
1. Traffic volume criteria in the tables for design speed, traveled
way, shoulder width, and width and design loading for bridges is
presented on the common basis of average daily traffic (ADT). This is
based on recent research which concluded the existing practice of
mixing ADT and design hour volume (DHV) was confusing.
2. The values for minimum widths of traveled way and shoulder for
local roads having various ranges of ADT have been modified based on
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 362,
``Roadway Width for Low Traffic Volume Roads.'' In particular, a 5.4 m
traveled way is now permitted for highways with ADT's of under 400. For
rural local roads with ADT's of 400 to 1500 the lane and shoulder
widths may be adjusted to a minimum roadway width of 9.0 m.
Chapter VI--Collector Roads and Streets
The design guidance applicable to those roads functionally
classified as rural collector roads and urban collector streets is
covered in this chapter. Significant revisions to the chapter include
the following:
1. Traffic volume criteria in the tables for design speed, traveled
way, shoulder width, and width and design loading for bridges is
presented on the common basis of ADT. This is based on recent research
which concluded the existing practice of mixing ADT and DHV was
confusing.
2. The values for minimum widths of traveled way and shoulder for
rural collector roads having various ranges of ADT have been modified
based on NCHRP Report 362, ``Roadway Width for Low Traffic Volume
Roads.'' In particular, 2.7 m lane widths are now permitted for
highways with ADT's of 250 or less and design speeds of 60 km/h or
less.
3. Traveled ways of a minimum width of 6.6 m are permitted to
remain on reconstructed highways with any ADT provided the alinement is
adequate and the safety records are satisfactory.
4. More information on design to accommodate bicycles is included.
Chapter VII--Rural and Urban Arterials
The basis for design of the principal and minor arterial road
systems in rural and urban areas is presented in this chapter.
The only significant change between the old and new Policy was to
modify the table providing minimum widths of traveled way and shoulder
based on information in NCHRP Report 362. Traffic volume criteria in
the table is only in terms of ADT (either current or projected) and the
width of traveled way for ADT's of 400 to 2000 and design speeds of
under 100 km/h have been reduced slightly.
Chapter VIII--Freeways
The various types of freeways, their design elements, controls,
criteria and cross-sectional elements are covered in this chapter. The
only significant change to this chapter was to eliminate specific
right-of-way widths for the freeway cross sections. It is not
considered necessary to specify a total right-of-way width since this
is the sum of the individual cross-sectional elements.
Chapter IX--At-Grade Intersections
The basic types of intersections and the elements involved in their
designs, primarily those concerning the accommodation of turning
movements, are described in this chapter. The following are the major
changes in the chapter:
1. Information on design to accommodate bicycles has been added.
2. A discussion concerning the provision of free-flow right turns
where speed change lanes are not provided and where pedestrians and
bicyclists are a consideration has been added.
3. Another Case dealing with stopped vehicles turning left from a
major highway has been added to the discussion on intersection control.
4. The section on sight distance at ramp terminals was eliminated
because
[[Page 17570]]
sight distance at these locations is calculated in the same manner as
at any other intersection.
5. The section on railroad grade crossings was revised to add
information on highway intersections adjacent to railroad grade
crossings.
Chapter X--Grade Separations and Interchanges
The basic types of interchanges and grade separations, along with
the design of their features, are discussed in this chapter. The
following are the significant changes in this chapter:
1. Information on single point diamond interchanges was added.
2. Information on the accommodation of pedestrians at interchanges
was added.
3. A discussion on ramp metering was added.
4. Most of the information on models was eliminated because models
and model types are illustrative only and not directly related to
design criteria.
Review Procedure
Based on an analysis of public comments received, and its own
independent review, the FHWA will reexamine the acceptability of
modifications adopted by this rule.
Rulemaking Analysis and Notices
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act provides
that agencies may dispense with prior notice and opportunity for
comment when the agency for good cause finds that such procedures are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
The FHWA has determined that publication of a notice of proposed
rulemaking would be contrary to the public interest. The FHWA's Metric
Conversion Policy provides that newly authorized Federal Lands and
Federal-aid construction contracts be formulated solely in metric units
by September 30, 1996. Although this date will have to be changed to
September 30, 2000, to comply with the recently enacted NHS Act, almost
all of the States are continuing their conversion to metric to meet the
previously established deadline of September 30, 1996. The Metric
Conversion Policy was developed as required by Section 3 of the Metric
Act, which mandates that all Federal Government agencies begin using
the International System of Units in procurements, grants, and other
business-related activities. Planning for Federal Lands and Federal-aid
construction projects is already well underway, and States and other
FHWA partners need to know now that the metric conversions used to
formulate their plans will match the FHWA's conversions. Thus the FHWA
believes that implementation of AASHTO's new Policy, which uses only
metric values, should be accomplished as soon as possible. Adoption of
the metric values in the new Policy now provides necessary certainty
and continuity for States and other FHWA partners including highway
construction contractors and consultants.
The FHWA has also determined that prior notice and opportunity to
comment are unnecessary. The text changes in 23 CFR part 625 only
reflect the establishment of the National Highway System. The
significant change is incorporation of the new Policy and the metric
values contained therein. The FHWA has determined, however, that the
metric values used in the new AASHTO Policy are essentially the same as
the English measurements already adopted by the FHWA pursuant to notice
and comment rulemaking. That rulemaking appeared in the Federal
Register on April 29, 1993, wherein FHWA adopted AASHTO's old Policy.
On December 10, 1993, FHWA adopted AASHTO's ``Interim Selected Metric
Values for Geometric Design,'' which were meant to provide the States
with metric values for the most critical elements of geometric design.
Other changes to the old Policy that have been incorporated into the
new Policy for the most part merely clarify the meaning of certain
terminology, incorporate the latest geometric design information, or
correct some minor errors in the old Policy.
Accordingly, the FHWA anticipates that prior notice and opportunity
for comment will most likely not result in the receipt of useful
information. Nonetheless, public comment is solicited on this action.
Comments received will be carefully considered in evaluating whether
any change to this action is needed.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this action is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or
significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The metric values selected in the
new Policy are functionally equivalent to the English system
measurements contained in the old Policy previously adopted by notice
and comment rulemaking. Although the new Policy contains new material,
the basic criteria remain essentially the same. In all practicality,
the new Policy reflects the criteria, for the most part, which have
been in use in designing Federal-aid highways. It is anticipated that
the economic impact of the rulemaking will be minimal; therefore, a
full regulatory evaluation is not required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-345,
5 U.S.C. 601-612) the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this rule on
small entities. Based on the evaluation, the FHWA hereby certifies that
this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As stated above, the FHWA made
this determination based on the fact that metric values in the new
Policy are functionally equivalent to the English system values they
replace and the new material in the new Policy reflects criteria which
for the most part is presently in use.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and it has been determined
that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not contain a collection of information
requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this action for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has
determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of
the environment.
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and
[[Page 17571]]
October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document
can be used to cross reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 625
Design standards, Grant programs--transportation, Highways and
roads, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Issued on: April 8, 1996.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FHWA is amending Chapter I
of title 23, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
1. Part 625 is revised to read as follows:
PART 625--DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HIGHWAYS
Sec.
625.1 Purpose.
625.2 Policy.
625.3 Application.
625.4 Standards, policies, and standard specifications.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 109, 315, and 402; sec. 1073 of Pub. L.
102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2012; 49 CFR 1.48 (b) and (n).
Sec. 625.1 Purpose.
To designate those standards, policies, and standard specifications
that are acceptable to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for
application in the geometric and structural design of highways.
Sec. 625.2 Policy.
(a) Plans and specifications for proposed National Highway System
(NHS) projects shall provide for a facility that will--
(1) Adequately serve the existing and planned future traffic of the
highway in a manner that is conducive to safety, durability, and
economy of maintenance; and
(2) Be designed and constructed in accordance with criteria best
suited to accomplish the objectives described in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section and to conform to the particular needs of each locality.
(b) Resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation (RRR) projects,
other than those on the Interstate system and other freeways, shall be
constructed in accordance with standards which preserve and extend the
service life of highways and enhance highway safety. Resurfacing,
restoration, and rehabilitation work includes placement of additional
surface material and/or other work necessary to return an existing
roadway, including shoulders, bridges, the roadside, and appurtenances
to a condition of structural or functional adequacy.
(c) An important goal of the FHWA is to provide the highest
practical and feasible level of safety for people and property
associated with the Nation's highway transportation systems and to
reduce highway hazards and the resulting number and severity of
accidents on all the Nation's highways.
Sec. 625.3 Application.
(a) Applicable standards. (1) Design and construction standards for
new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing (except for maintenance
resurfacing), restoration, or rehabilitation of a highway on the NHS
(other than a highway also on the Interstate System) shall be those
approved by the Secretary in cooperation with the State highway
departments. These standards may take into account, in addition to the
criteria described in Sec. 625.2(a), the following:
(i) The constructed and natural environment of the area;
(ii) The environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, community, and
preservation impacts of the activity; and
(iii) Access for other modes of transportation.
(2) Federal-aid projects not on the NHS are to be designed,
constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with State laws,
regulations, directives, safety standards, design standards, and
construction standards.
(b) The standards, policies, and standard specifications contain
specific criteria and controls for the design of NHS projects.
Deviations from specific minimum values therein are to be handled in
accordance with procedures in paragraph (f) of this section. If there
is a conflict between criteria in the documents enumerated in
Sec. 625.4 of this part, the latest listed standard, policy, or
standard specification will govern.
(c) Application of FHWA regulations, although cited in Sec. 625.4
of this part as standards, policies, and standard specifications, shall
be as set forth therein.
(d) This regulation establishes Federal standards for work on the
NHS regardless of funding source.
(e) The Division Administrator shall determine the applicability of
the roadway geometric design standards to traffic engineering, safety,
and preventive maintenance projects which include very minor or no
roadway work. Formal findings of applicability are expected only as
needed to resolve controversies.
(f) Exceptions. (1) Approval within the delegated authority
provided by FHWA Order M1100.1 may be given on a project basis to
designs which do not conform to the minimum criteria as set forth in
the standards, policies, and standard specifications for:
(i) Experimental features on projects; and
(ii) Projects where conditions warrant that exceptions be made.
(2) The determination to approve a project design that does not
conform to the minimum criteria is to be made only after due
consideration is given to all project conditions such as maximum
service and safety benefits for the dollar invested, compatibility with
adjacent sections of roadway and the probable time before
reconstruction of the section due to increased traffic demands or
changed conditions.
Sec. 625.4 Standards, policies, and standard specifications.
The documents listed in this section are incorporated by reference
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 and are on file at the Office of
the Federal Register in Washington, DC. They are available as noted in
paragraph (d) of this section. The other CFR references listed in this
section are included for cross reference purposes only.
(a) Roadway and appurtenances. (1) A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets, AASHTO 1994. (See Sec. 625.4(d)(1))
(2) A Policy on Design Standards--Interstate System, AASHTO 1991.
(See Sec. 625.4(d)(1))
(3) The geometric design standards for resurfacing, restoration,
and rehabilitation (RRR) projects on NHS highways other than freeways
shall be the procedures and the design or design criteria established
for individual projects, groups of projects, or all nonfreeway RRR
projects in a State, and as approved by the FHWA. The other geometric
design standards in this section do not apply to RRR projects on NHS
highways other than freeways, except as adopted on an individual State
basis. The RRR design standards shall reflect the consideration of the
traffic, safety, economic, physical, community, and environmental needs
of the projects.
(4) Erosion and Sediment Control on Highway Construction Projects,
refer to 23 CFR part 650, subpart B.
(5) Location and Hydraulic Design of Encroachments on Flood Plains,
refer to 23 CFR part 650, subpart A.
(6) Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and
Construction Noise, refer to 23 CFR part 772.
(7) Accommodation of Utilities, refer to 23 CFR part 645, subpart
B.
(8) Pavement Design, refer to 23 CFR part 626.
[[Page 17572]]
(b) Bridges and structures. (1) Standard Specifications for Highway
Bridges, Fifteenth Edition, AASHTO 1992. (See Sec. 625.4(d)(1))
(2) Interim Specifications--Bridges, AASHTO 1993. (See
Sec. 625.4(d)(1))
(3) Interim Specifications--Bridges, AASHTO 1994. (See
Sec. 625.4(d)(1))
(4) Interim Specifications--Bridges, AASHTO 1995. (See
Sec. 625.4(d)(1))
(5) AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, First Edition, AASHTO
1994 (U.S. Units). (See Sec. 625.4(d)(1))
(6) AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, First Edition, AASHTO
1994 (SI Units). (See Sec. 625.4(d)(1))
(7) Standard Specifications for Movable Highway Bridges, AASHTO
1988. (See Sec. 625.4(d)(1))
(8) Bridge Welding Code, ANSI/AASHTO/AWS D1.5-95, AASHTO. (See
Sec. 625.4(d) (1) and (2))
(9) Structural Welding Code--Reinforcing Steel, ANSI/AWS D1.4-92,
1992. (See Sec. 625.4(d)(2))
(10) Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway
Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals, AASHTO 1994. For use on NHS
projects, the requirement for maximum change in velocity in Section 7,
Breakaway Supports, may be 16 fps in lieu of the 15 fps contained in
the AASHTO specifications. (See Sec. 625.4(d)(1))
(11) Navigational Clearances for Bridges, refer to 23 CFR part 650,
subpart H.
(c) Materials. (1) General Materials Requirements, refer to 23 CFR
part 635, subpart D.
(2) Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and
Methods of Sampling and Testing, parts I and II, AASHTO 1995. (See
Sec. 625.4(d)(1))
(3) Sampling and Testing of Materials and Construction, refer to 23
CFR part 637, subpart B.
(d) Availability of documents incorporated by reference. The
documents listed in Sec. 625.4 are incorporated by reference and are on
file and available for inspection at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, suite 700, Washington, DC.
These documents may also be reviewed at the Department of
Transportation Library, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC, in Room
2200. These documents are also available for inspection and copying as
provided in 49 CFR part 7, appendix D. Copies of these documents may be
obtained from the following organizations:
1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), Suite 249, 444 North Capitol Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20001.
2. American Welding Society (AWS), 2501 Northwest Seventh Street,
Miami, FL 33125.
[FR Doc. 96-9559 Filed 4-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9456 Information Reporting and Backup Withholding
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17572-17575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9456]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Parts 1, 31 and 602
[TD 8664]
RIN 1545-AL99
Information Reporting and Backup Withholding
Agency: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains final regulations that provide rules
regarding the reporting on Form 1042-S of certain bank deposit interest
paid with respect to a United States bank account to an individual who
is a nonresident alien of the United States and a resident of Canada.
The IRS has determined that information concerning those deposits would
be of significant use in furthering its compliance efforts, which
include exchange of tax information with Canada.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teresa Burridge Hughes, (202) 622-3880
(not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Paperwork Reduction Act
The collection of information contained in this final regulation
has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget
in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3507) under control number 1545-0096. Responses to this
collection of information are mandatory.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of
information displays a valid control number.
The estimated annual burden per respondent/recordkeeper is
approximately .10 hour, depending on individual circumstances.
Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and
suggestions for reducing this burden should be directed to the Internal
Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, PC:FP, Washington
DC 20224, and the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer
for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503.
Books or records relating to this collection of information must be
retained as long as their contents may become material in the
administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and
tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Background
This document contains final regulations to be added to the Income
Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under section 6049 of the Internal
Revenue Code (Code). The final regulations provide rules regarding
reporting on Form 1042-S of certain bank deposit interest paid with
respect to a United States bank account to a nonresident alien
individual who is a resident of Canada.
Proposed regulations on this subject were set forth, at
Secs. 1.6049-5(e)(2), 1.6049-6(e)(6), and 31.3406(a)-3(b)(1), in a
notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register (53 FR
5991) on February 29, 1988 [INTL-52-86 (1988-1 C.B. 892)]. The IRS
received comments on the proposed regulations and held a public hearing
on June 15, 1989. Having considered the comments and the statements
made at the hearing, the IRS and the Treasury Department adopt the
proposed regulations as modified by this Treasury decision.
Explanation of Provisions
A. Reporting of Payments to Canadians
This Treasury decision requires reporting on a Form 1042-S of
certain interest paid on deposits maintained at a bank's office within
the United States when paid to a nonresident alien individual who is a
resident of Canada. However, interest on certain bearer certificates of
deposit targeted to foreign persons is excepted from the reporting
requirement if the interest is paid outside the United States. This
final regulation makes an exception to the current rule, based on
Sec. 1.6049-5(b), that certain interest amounts paid to non-U.S.
persons is not subject to reporting if a statement certifying non-U.S.
status is furnished to the payor or middleman on a Form W-8
(Certificate of Foreign Status), as described in Sec. 1.6049-
5(b)(2)(iv). However, although bank deposit interest paid to Canadians
is made subject to reporting under this final regulation, backup
withholding
[[Page 17573]]
under section 3406 is not required. Further, in response to suggestions
from commentators that segregating interest amounts on the basis of
residence would be burdensome, this final regulation allows payors
voluntarily to report on a Form 1042-S payments to all foreign persons
receiving bank deposit interest without segregating on the basis of
residency.
The payor determines whether a payee is a Canadian resident based
on the address in the country of permanent residence required to be
provided on the Form W-8. However, if the payor has actual knowledge
that the payee is a U.S. person, Form 1099 reporting provisions apply.
See proposed regulations published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register regarding proposed changes to the notice of proposed
rulemaking published in the Federal Register on February 29, 1988.
B. Comments on Canadian Reporting Provisions
Commentors stated that imposing information reporting with respect
to deposits of nonresident aliens may undercut the competitiveness of
U.S. banks. The IRS and Treasury considered these comments but, in
light of our obligations under the United States-Canada income tax
treaty and the reporting by Canadian banks of U.S. depositor interest
to Canadian tax authorities, have decided to finalize these proposed
regulations.
In response to comments that the reporting requirement be delayed,
or at least that a transition period be allowed, because of the time
required to identify Canadian account holders and to modify processing
systems for reporting purposes, the new reporting requirement will be
phased in over a three-year period, starting with payments made on or
after January 1, 1997. On or after that date, payors will identify
Canadian account holders as Forms W-8 are received from new depositors
or renewed by existing depositors. Upon identifying account holders as
Canadians, payors must begin reporting bank deposit interest paid to
those persons.
Commentors also requested that the IRS develop and permit Form
1042-S reporting on magnetic diskette, as is allowed for Form 1099
filings; permit the Form 1042-S to be the transmittal document for the
Form 1042-S filing; and allow financial institutions to file separate
tapes or diskettes for each area of the bank, rather than bank-wide.
These filing changes have previously been made by the IRS and require
no further action.
Special Analyses
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a
significant regulatory action as defined in EO 12866. Therefore, a
regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that
section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5)
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do not apply to
these regulations, and, therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
not required.
Drafting Information
The principal author of these regulations is Teresa Burridge
Hughes, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However,
other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in
their development.
List of Subjects
26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 CFR Part 31
Employment taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Pensions, Railroad
retirement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security,
Unemployment compensation.
26 CFR Part 602
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1, 31 and 602 are amended as follows:
PART 1--INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority for part 1 is amended by adding entries
in numerical order to read as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Sections 1.6049-4 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6049 (a), (b),
(c), and (d).
Section 1.6049-5 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6049 (a), (b), (c),
and (d). * * *
Par. 2. Section 1.6049-4 is amended by:
1. Removing the reference ``(b)(3)'' and adding ``(b)(3) and
(b)(5)'' in its place in the first sentence of paragraphs (b)(1) and
(b)(2) introductory text.
2. Revising the first sentence of paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4).
3. Adding paragraph (b)(5).
4. Removing the authority citation at the end of the section.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 1.6049-4 Return of information as to interest paid and original
issue discount includible in gross income after December 31, 1982.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * * Except as provided in paragraph (b)(5) of this section,
every person acting as a middleman (as defined in paragraph (f)(4) of
this section) shall make an information return on Forms 1096 and 1099
for the calendar year. * * *
(4) * * * Except as provided in paragraph (b)(5) of this section,
every person carrying on the banking business who makes payments of
interest to another person (whether or not aggregating $10 or more)
during a calendar year with respect to a certificate of deposit issued
in bearer form shall make an information return on Forms 1096 and 1099.
* * *
(5) Interest payments to Canadian nonresident alien individuals--
(i) General rule. In the case of interest paid to a Canadian
nonresident alien individual (as described in Sec. 1.6049-8(a)), the
payor or middleman shall make an information return on Form 1042-S for
the calendar year in which the interest is paid. The payor or middleman
shall prepare and transmit Form 1042-S at the time and in the manner
prescribed by section 1461 and the regulations under that section and
by the form and its accompanying instructions. See Sec. 1.6049-6(e)(4)
for furnishing a copy of the Form 1042-S to the payee. To determine
whether an information return is required for original issue discount,
see Secs. 1.6049-5(c) and 1.6049-8(a).
(ii) Effective date. Paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section shall be
effective for payments made after December 31, 1996 with respect to a
Form W-8 (Certificate of Foreign Status) furnished to the payor or
middleman after that date.
* * * * *
Par. 3. Section 1.6049-5 is amended by:
1. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (b)(1).
2. Revising the last sentence in paragraph (c).
3. Removing authority citation at the end of the section.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 1.6049-5 Interest and original issue discount subject to
reporting after December 31, 1982.
* * * * *
(b) * * * (1) * * * Subject to the provisions of Sec. 1.6049-8, the
term interest does not include:
* * * * *
[[Page 17574]]
(c) * * * Original issue discount on an obligation (including an
obligation with a maturity of not more than 6 months from the date of
original issue) held by a nonresident alien individual or foreign
corporation is interest described in paragraph (b)(1)(vi) (A) or (B) of
this section and, therefore is not interest subject to reporting under
section 6049 unless it is described in Sec. 1.6049-8(a) (relating to
bank deposit interest paid to a Canadian nonresident alien individual).
Par. 4. Section 1.6049-6 is amended by:
1. Redesignating paragraph (e)(4) as paragraph (e)(5).
2. Adding new paragraph (e)(4).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 1.6049-6 Statements to recipients of interest payments and
holders of obligations for attributed original issue discount.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(4) Special rule for amounts described in Sec. 1.6049-8(a) paid
after December 31, 1996. In the case of amounts described in
Sec. 1.6049-8(a) (relating to payments of interest to Canadian
nonresident alien individuals) paid after December 31, 1996, any person
who makes a Form 1042-S under section 6049(a) and Sec. 1.6049-4(b)(5)
shall furnish a statement to the recipient. The statement shall include
a copy of the Form 1042-S required to be prepared pursuant to
Sec. 1.6049-4(b)(5) and a statement to the effect that the information
on the Form is being furnished to the United States Internal Revenue
Service and may be furnished to Canada.
* * * * *
Par. 5. Section 1.6049-8 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 1.6049-8 Interest and original issue discount paid to residents
of Canada.
(a) Interest subject to reporting requirement. For purposes of
Secs. 1.6049-4, 1.6049-6 and this section and except as provided in
paragraph (b) of this section, the term interest means interest paid to
a Canadian nonresident alien individual after December 31, 1996, where
the interest is described in section 871(i)(2)(A) with respect to a
deposit maintained at an office within the United States. For purposes
of the regulations under section 6049, a Canadian nonresident alien
individual is an individual who resides in Canada and is not a United
States citizen. The payor or middleman may rely upon the permanent
residence address (as defined in section 1441 and the regulations under
that section) as stated on the Form W-8 (described in section 6049 and
the regulations under that section) in order to determine whether the
payment is made to a Canadian nonresident alien individual. Amounts
described in this paragraph (a) are not subject to backup withholding
under section 3406. See Sec. 31.3406(g)-1(d) of this chapter.
(b) Interest excluded from reporting requirement. The term interest
does not include an amount that is paid by the issuer or its agent
outside the United States with respect to an obligation that is
described in paragraph (b) (1) or (2) of this section.
(1)(i) The obligation is not in registered form (within the meaning
of section 163(f) and the regulations thereunder); is part of a larger
single public offering of securities; and is described in section
163(f)(2)(B).
(ii) Unless it has actual knowledge to the contrary, a middleman
may treat an obligation as if it is described in section 163(f)(2)(B)
if the obligation or coupon therefrom, whichever is presented for
payment, contains the statement described in section
163(f)(2)(B)(ii)(II) and the regulations thereunder.
(2)(i) The obligation has a face or principal amount of not less
than $500,000, and satisfies the requirements described in paragraphs
(b)(2)(i) (A), (B), and (C) of this section.
(A) The obligation satisfies the requirements of sections
163(f)(2)(B) (i) and (ii)(I) and the regulations thereunder (as if it
were a registration-required obligation within the meaning of section
163(f)(2)(A)) and is issued in accordance with the procedures of
Sec. 1.163-5(c)(2)(i)(D)).
(B) If the obligation is in registered form, it is registered in
the name of an exempt recipient described in Sec. 1.6049-4(c)(1)(ii).
(C) The obligation has on its face and on any detachable coupons
the following statement (or a similar statement having the same
effect): ``By accepting this obligation or coupon, the holder
represents and warrants that it is not a United States person (other
than an exempt recipient described in the regulations under section
6049(b)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations thereunder)
and that it is not acting for or on behalf of a United States person
(other than an exempt recipient described in the regulations under
section 6049(b)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations
thereunder).''
(ii) Unless the middleman has actual knowledge to the contrary, it
may treat an obligation as satisfying the requirements of sections
163(f)(2)(B) (i) and (ii)(I) and the regulations thereunder if the
obligation or a coupon therefrom, whichever is presented for payment,
contains the statement in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(C) of this section.
PART 31--EMPLOYMENT TAXES AND COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE
Par. 5a. The authority for part 31 continues to read in part as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Par. 6. Section 31.3406(g)-1 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 31.3406(g)-1 Exception for payments to certain payees and certain
other payments.
* * * * *
(d) Reportable payments made to Canadian nonresident alien
individuals. A payment of interest made to a Canadian nonresident alien
individual under Sec. 1.6049-8(a) of this chapter is not subject to
withholding under section 3406.
PART 602--OMB CONTROL NUMBERS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
Par. 7. The authority for part 602 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805.
Par. 8. Section 602.101, paragraph (c) is amended by removing the
entry ``Sec. 31.3406(a)-1-Sec. 31.3406(i)-1'' and adding entries to the
table in numerical order to read as follows:
Sec. 602.101 OMB Control numbers.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current OMB
CFR part or section where identified and described control No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
1. 6049-6.................................................. 1545-0096
* * * * *
31.3406(a)-1............................................... 1545-0112
31.3406(a)-2............................................... 1545-0112
31.3406(a)-3............................................... 1545-0112
31.3406(a)-4............................................... 1545-0112
31.3406(b)(2)-1............................................ 1545-0112
31.3406(b)(2)-2............................................ 1545-0112
31.3406(b)(2)-3............................................ 1545-0112
31.3406(b)(2)-4............................................ 1545-0112
31.3406(b)(2)-5............................................ 1545-0112
31.3406(b)(3)-1............................................ 1545-0112
31.3406(b)(3)-2............................................ 1545-0112
31.3406(b)(3)-3............................................ 1545-0112
31.3406(b)(3)-4............................................ 1545-0112
31.3406(b)(4)-1............................................ 1545-0112
31.3406(c)-1............................................... 1545-0112
31.3406(d)-1............................................... 1545-0112
31.3406(d)-2............................................... 1545-0112
31.3406(d)-3............................................... 1545-0112
31.3406(d)-4............................................... 1545-0112
[[Page 17575]]
31.3406(e)-1............................................... 1545-0112
31.3406(f)-1............................................... 1545-0112
31.3406(g)-1............................................... 1545-0096
1545-0112
31.3406(g)-2............................................... 1545-0112
31.3406(g)-3............................................... 1545-0112
31.3406(h)-1............................................... 1545-0112
31.3406(h)-2............................................... 1545-0112
31.3406(h)-3............................................... 1545-0112
31.3406(i)-1............................................... 1545-0112
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Milner Richardson,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Approved: March 27, 1996
Leslie Samuels,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc 96-9456 Filed 4-15-96; 10:14 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9357 Airworthiness Directives; Mooney Aircraft Corporation Model M20J Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 78 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17562-17564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9357]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-CE-102-AD; Amendment 39-9575; AD 95-26-16 R1]
Airworthiness Directives; Mooney Aircraft Corporation Model M20J
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) 95-26-16 R1, which was sent
previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of certain Mooney
Aircraft Corporation (Mooney) Model M20J airplanes. This AD requires
repetitively inspecting the alternate air door assembly to ensure a
cotter pin exists and is secure, and replacing the cotter pin if it
does not exist or is not secure. It also provides the option of
incorporating an alternate air door plate assembly of improved design
as terminating action for the repetitive inspections. Priority letter
AD 95-26-16 R1 was prompted by a fatal accident involving one of the
affected airplanes where the alternate air door became lodged in the
air intake of the fuel injector causing engine failure. The actions
specified by this AD are intended to prevent the alternate air door
from separating from the airplane and restricting air flow to the
engine.
DATES: Effective May 16, 1996, to all persons except those to whom it
was made immediately effective by priority letter AD 95-26-16 R1,
issued January 5, 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 May 16, 1996.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before June 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket 95-CE-102-AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th
Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
Service information related to this AD may be obtained from the
Mooney Aircraft Corporation, Box 72, Kerrville, Texas 78028; or may be
examined at the Rules Docket at the address above, or at the Office of
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., 7th Floor, suite
700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alma Ramirez-Hodge, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Fort Worth ACO, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth,
Texas 76193-0150; telephone (817) 222-5147; facsimile (817) 222-5960.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 22, 1995, the FAA issued
priority letter AD 95-26-16 to require repetitively inspecting the
alternate air door assembly to ensure a cotter pin exists and is secure
on certain Mooney Model M20J airplanes, and replacing the cotter pin
with a part number MS 24665-132 if it does not exist or is not secure.
A fatal accident involving a Mooney Model M20J airplane with reported
engine failure in flight at 6,000 feet prompted the FAA to issue
priority letter AD 95-26-16.
After the reported engine failure, the pilot attempted to vector
the airplane to the nearest airport and crashed into a wooded lot.
Investigation of the accident revealed that the alternate air door bolt
separated from its fastener, which allowed the alternate air door to
lodge in the air intake of the fuel injector, resulting in restricted
air flow to the engine.
An FAA review of service history on Mooney Model M20J airplanes
revealed four other incidents involving the alternate air door
separating and becoming lodged in the intake of the fuel injector.
These include two reports of rough engine operation while in flight
with emergency landing, an aborted take-off because of engine power
loss, and a service difficulty report found during a 100-hour time-in-
service (TIS) inspection.
After the issuance of priority letter AD 95-26-16, Mooney developed
an alternate air door plate assembly of improved design that, when
incorporated on Mooney Model M20J airplanes, prevents the alternate air
door assembly from separating from the airplane and restricting air
flow to the engine. Mooney Service Bulletin (SB) M20-250B and SB M20-
253A, both dated December 1995, specify procedures for modifying the
alternate air door assembly on Mooney Model M20J airplanes. This
modification consists of incorporating the following parts of improved
design:
--Plate assembly, part number (P/N) 600355-507;
--Four rivets, P/N MS20426AD3;
--A cotter pin, P/N MS24665-132;
--A self-locking castellated nut, P/N MS17825-4; and
--A washer, P/N AN960-416.
[[Page 17563]]
After examining all information related to the subject accident and
incidents, including the referenced service information, the FAA
determined that (1) priority letter AD 95-26-16 should allow the option
of incorporating an alternate air door plate assembly of improved
design as terminating action for the repetitive inspections; and (2) AD
action should be taken to prevent the alternate air door on certain
Mooney Model M20J airplanes from separating and restricting air flow to
the engine.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other Mooney Model M20J airplanes of the same type
design, the FAA revised priority letter AD 95-26-16 to provide the
option of incorporating the above-referenced modification as
terminating action for the requirement of repetitively inspecting the
alternate air door assembly.
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 priority letter AD 95-26-16 R1 effective immediately by
individual letters issued on January 5, 1996, to all known U.S.
operators of certain Mooney Model M20J 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 as to all persons.
Comments Invited
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves
requirements affecting immediate flight safety and, thus, was not
preceded by notice and opportunity to comment, comments are invited on
this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire.
Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted
in triplicate to the address specified above. 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 notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. 95-CE-102-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 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 a new airworthiness directive
(AD) to read as follows:
95-26-16 R1 Mooney Aircraft Corporation: Amendment 39-9575; Docket
No. 95-CE-102-AD. Revises priority letter AD 95-26-16, issued
December 22, 1995.
Applicability: Model M20J airplanes (serial numbers 24-0001
through 24-3250 and 24-3252 through 24-3374), 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 (e) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required prior to further flight after the effective
date of this AD, except to those operators receiving this action by
priority letter issued January 5, 1996, which made these actions
effective immediately upon receipt.
To prevent the alternate air door from separating and
restricting air flow to the engine, accomplish the following:
Note 2: The paragraph structure of this AD is as follows:
Level 1: (a), (b), (c), etc.
Level 2: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Level 3: (i), (ii), (iii), etc.
Level 2 and Level 3 structures are designations of the Level 1
paragraph they immediately follow.
(a) Inspect the alternate air door assembly in accordance with
the procedures contained in the Appendix to this AD to ensure that
the cotter pin exists and is secure. If the cotter pin exists and is
secure, reinspect the alternate air door assembly in accordance with
the procedures contained in the Appendix to this AD at intervals not
to exceed 10 hours time-in-service (TIS) until the modification
specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this AD is accomplished.
(b) If, during any of the inspections required by this AD, the
cotter pin is found missing or is not secure, prior to further
flight, accomplish one of the following:
(1) Replace the cotter pin with a part number MS 24665-132
cotter pin, and reinspect the alternate air door assembly at
intervals not to exceed 10 hours TIS; or
(2) Modify the alternate air door assembly. Accomplish these
actions in accordance with the INSTRUCTIONS section of Mooney
Service Bulletin (SB) M20-250B or SB M20-253A, both dated December
1995, as applicable. This modification consists of incorporating the
following parts of improved design:
(i) plate assembly, part number (P/N) 600355-507;
[[Page 17564]]
(ii) four rivets, P/N MS20426AD3;
(iii) a cotter pin, P/N MS24665-132;
(iv) a self-locking castellated nut, P/N MS17825-4; and
(v) a washer, P/N AN960-416.
Note 3: If the alternate air door assembly has been modified in
accordance with Mooney SB M20-250A or SB M20-253, both dated May 10,
1992, then the only parts required to be incorporated are the
following:
--A cotter pin, P/N MS24665-132;
--A self-locking castellated nut, P/N MS17825-4; and
--A washer, P/N AN960-416.
(c) Incorporating the modification specified in paragraph (b)(2)
of this AD eliminates the requirement for the repetitive inspection
requirement of this AD and may be incorporated at any time.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(e) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an equivalent level of safety may be
approved by the Manager, Airplane Certification Office (ACO), FAA,
2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0150. The request
shall be forwarded through an appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Fort Worth
ACO.
Note 4: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Fort Worth ACO.
(f) The modification required by this AD shall be done in
accordance with Mooney Service Bulletin M20- 250B or Mooney Service
Bulletin M20-253A, both dated December 1995, as applicable. 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 the Mooney Aircraft Corporation, Box
72, Kerrville, Texas 78028. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,
Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558,
601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri, or at the Office of the
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., 7th Floor, suite
700, Washington, DC.
(g) This AD (95-26-16 R1) revises priority letter AD 95-26-16.
(h) This amendment (39-9575) becomes effective on May 16, 1996,
to all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately
effective by priority letter AD 95-26-16 R1, issued January 5, 1996,
which contained the requirements of this amendment.
Appendix to AD 95-26-16 R1
I. INSPECTION PROCEDURES FOR AIRCRAFT PRIOR TO RETROFIT ACTION
OF SERVICE BULLETINS M20-250, ORIGINAL ISSUE; M20-250, REVISION A;
OR M20-253, ORIGINAL ISSUE.
1. Remove top cowling from aircraft per M20J Service and
Maintenance manual, reference Section 71-11-00.
2. Remove the induction air filter from upper induction housing.
3. Use mirror and flashlight to inspect cotter pin security
through threaded portion of bolt of the alternate air door.
4. Check security and condition of seal to alternate air door
assembly, and replace the seal if cracked.
5. If cotter pin is in place and secure, replace cowling per
Section 71-11-00 of Service and Maintenance manual.
6. If cotter pin is missing or not secure, replace with a part
number MS 24665-132 cotter pin.
II. INSPECTION PROCEDURES FOR AIRCRAFT AFTER RETROFIT ACTION OF
SERVICE BULLETINS M20-250, REVISION A; OR M20-253, ORIGINAL ISSUE.
1. Remove top cowling from aircraft per M20J Service and
Maintenance manual, reference Section 71-11-00.
2. Looking up from bottom of engine compartment, use mirror and
flashlight to inspect cotter pin security through castellated nut
and threaded portion of bolt of the alternate air door spring-loaded
assembly.
3. Check security and condition of seal to alternate air door
assembly, and replace the seal if cracked.
4. If cotter pin is in place and secure, replace cowling per
Section 71-11-00 of Service and Maintenance manual.
5. If cotter pin is missing or is not secure, replace with a
part number MS 24665-132 cotter pin.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 10, 1996.
John R. Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-9357 Filed 4-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.