issue-1996-04-26•Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-26
Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-26
issue-1996-04-26Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-26Regulation
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. 96-9489 Implementation of Section 17 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992; and Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18508-18511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9489]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 15 and 76
[ET Docket No. 93-7; FCC 96-129]
Implementation of Section 17 of the Cable Television Consumer
Protection and Competition Act of 1992; and Compatibility Between Cable
Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission has revised and clarified certain aspects of
its regulations for assuring compatibility between consumer electronics
equipment and cable systems. In particular, the Commission has
clarified the requirement for cable operators to offer subscribers set-
top devices with multiple tuners; eliminated the prohibition on
changing the infrared codes used with remote controls; clarified its
policy with regard to the Decoder Interface connector standard; and,
refined the ``cable ready'' TV receiver standards. These revisions and
clarifications will further the Commission's goals of promoting greater
compatibility between cable systems and consumer electronics equipment.
This action is in response to ten Petitions for Reconsideration of the
First Report and Order in this proceeding.
EFFECTIVE DATES: May 28, 1996. The incorporation by reference of a
publication listed in the regulations was approved by the Director of
the Federal Register as of May 16, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Stillwell (202-418-2470) or
Robert Bromery (301-418-2475), Office of Engineering and Technology.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Memorandum, Opinion and Order in ET Docket No. 93-7, FCC 96-129,
adopted March 22, 1996 and released April 10, 1996. The full text of
this decision is available for inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Dockets Branch (Room 230), 1919 M Street,
N.W., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision also may be
purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, International
Transcriptions Service, 2100 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036,
(202) 857-3800.
Summary of the Memorandum Opinion and Order
1. In the First Report and Order in this proceeding, 59 FR 25339,
May 16, 1994, the Commission adopted regulations to ensure
compatibility between cable systems and consumer electronics equipment,
i.e., TV receivers, videocassette recorders (VCRs) and similar devices.
These regulations were adopted in response to Section 17 of the Cable
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (1992 Cable Act), Pub.
L. No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460, (1992), Sec. 17. The major
compatibility problems addressed in the compatibility rules include the
capabilities to record sequential programs on different channels; to
record one program while watching another; to use advanced television
picture generation and display features such as ``Picture-in-Picture'';
and to use remote controls. The new rules include requirements for
cable operators to take a number of actions that will improve
compatibility between existing cable system and consumer TV equipment.
The compatibility rules also include requirements and standards for
both cable operators and consumer equipment operators that are intended
to achieve more effective compatibility through new cable and consumer
equipment.
2. Petitions for Reconsideration of the First Report and Order were
filed by ten parties: ANTEC Corporation, Cablevision Systems
Corporation, Cable Telecommunications Association, the Consumer
Electronics Group of the Electronics Industries Association, General
Instrument Corporation, the National Cable Television Association,
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., TeleCable Corporation, Time Warner
Entertainment Company, L.P., and Zenith Electronics Corporation. These
parties requested revisions and clarifications with regard to a number
of specific provisions of the rules adopted in the First Report and
Order.
3. In response to the Petitions for Reconsideration, the
Commission's Memorandum, Opinion and Order sets forth a number of
decisions pertaining to the cable-consumer electronics equipment
compatibility rules. In particular, this decision:
--Clarifies that cable operators who use scrambling are required to
offer subscribers supplemental equipment
[[Page 18509]]
that has the capability to allow simultaneous reception of two
scrambled signals;
--Eliminates the prohibition on changing the infrared (IR) codes used
with remote controls;
--Denies a request to expand the consumer education program to include
an advisory that consumer equipment could become obsolete;
--Clarifies the Commission will: (1) Require that the Decoder Interface
standard be designed to enable all functions other than security to be
provided in competitively supplied equipment; (2) require cable
operators to offer security-only component descrambler modules and (3)
not preclude cable operators from incorporating security functions in
multi-function component descrambler modules;
--Eliminates the advisory labeling requirement for consumer TV
receivers and VCRs that incorporate features intended to be used with
cable service, but do not fully comply with the ``cable ready''
equipment standards;
--Clarifies that the Commission's rules do not prohibit equipment
manufacturers from applying the Canadian GRR II label for cable
compatible devices to TV receivers and VCRs marketed in the United
States that do not fully comply with the ``cable ready'' equipment
standards if that label is carried on the device in an inconspicuous
location and manner;
--Makes several minor revisions and clarifications with regard to the
technical standards for ``cable ready'' TV equipment.
4. Accordingly, it is Ordered that Parts 15 and 76 of the
Commission's rules Are Amended as set forth below, effective May 28,
1996. This action is taken pursuant to authority provided in Sections
4(i), 7(a), 302, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r) and 324A of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i),
157(a), 302, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r) and 324A.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 15
Communications equipment, Television receivers, TV interface
devices.
47 CFR Part 76
Cable television.
Federal Communications Commission
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Rule Changes
Parts 15 and 76 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are amended as follows:
PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
1. The authority citation for Part 15 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 304, 307 and 544A.
2. Section 15.19 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 15.19 Labeling requirements.
* * * * *
(d) Consumer electronics TV receiving devices, including TV
receivers, videocassette recorders, and similar devices, that
incorporate features intended to be used with cable television service,
but do not fully comply with the technical standards for cable ready
equipment set forth in Sec. 15.118, shall not be marketed with
terminology that describes the device as ``cable ready'' or ``cable
compatible,'' or that otherwise conveys the impression that the device
is fully compatible with cable service. Factual statements about the
various features of a device that are intended for use with cable
service or the quality of such features are acceptable so long as such
statements do not imply that the device is fully compatible with cable
service. Statements relating to product features are generally
acceptable where they are limited to one or more specific features of a
device, rather than the device as a whole. This requirement applies to
consumer TV receivers, videocassette recorders and similar devices
manufactured or imported for sale in this country on or after October
31, 1994.
3. Section 15.115 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 15.115 TV interface devices, including cable system terminal
devices.
* * * * *
(i) Switches and other devices intended to be used to by-pass the
processing circuitry of a cable system terminal device, whether
internal to such a terminal device or a stand-alone unit, shall not
attenuate the input signal more than 6 dB from 54 MHz to 550 MHz, or
more than 8 dB from 550 MHz to 804 MHz. The 6 dB standard applies at
550 MHz. The provisions of this paragraph are applicable June 30, 1997.
4. Section 15.118 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c)(1),
(c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(5) and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 15.118 Cable ready consumer electronics equipment.
* * * * *
(b) Cable ready consumer electronics equipment shall be capable of
receiving all NTSC or similar video channels on channels 1 through 125
of the channel allocation plan set forth in the Electronics Industries
Association's ``Cable Television Channel Identification Plan, EIA IS-
132, May 1994'' (EIA IS-132). This incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 522(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies of EIA IS-132 may be obtained
from: Global Engineering Documents, 3130 South Harbor Boulevard, Santa
Anna, CA 92704. Copies of EIA IS-132 may be inspected during normal
business hours at the following locations: Federal Communications
Commission, 1919 M Street, NW., Dockets Branch (Room 239), Washington,
DC, or the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street,
NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(c) * * *
(1) Adjacent channel interference. In the presence of a lower
adjacent channel CW signal that is 1.5 MHz below the desired visual
carrier in frequency and 10 dB below the desired visual carrier in
amplitude, spurious signals within the IF passband shall be attenuated
at least 55 dB below the visual carrier of the desired signal. The
desired input signal shall be an NTSC visual carrier modulated with a
10 IRE flat field with color burst and the aural carrier which is 10 dB
below the visual carrier should be unmodulated. Measurements are to be
performed for input signal levels of 0 dBmV and +15 dBmV, with the
receiver tuned to ten evenly spaced EIA IS-132 channels covering the
band 54 MHz to 804 MHz.
(2) Image channel interference. Image channel interference within
the IF passband shall be attenuated below the visual carrier of the
desired channel by at least 60 dB from 54 MHz to 714 MHz and 50 dB from
714 MHz to 804 MHz. The 60 dB standard applies at 714 MHz. In testing
for compliance with this standard, the desired input signal is to be an
NTSC signal on which the visual carrier is modulated with a 10 IRE flat
field with color burst and the aural carrier is unmodulated and 10 dB
below the visual carrier. The undesired test signal shall be a CW
signal equal in amplitude to the desired visual carrier and located 90
MHz above the visual
[[Page 18510]]
carrier frequency of the desired channel. Measurements shall be
performed for input signals of 0 dBmV and +15 dBmV, with the receiver
tuned to at least ten evenly spaced EIA IS-132 channels covering the
band 54 MHz to 804 MHz.
(3) Direct pickup interference. The direct pickup (DPU) of a co-
channel interfering ambient field by a cable ready device shall not
exceed the following criteria. The ratio of the desired to undesired
signal levels at the IF passband on each channel shall be at least 45
dB. The average ratio over the six channels shall be at least 50 dB.
The desired input signal shall be an NTSC signal having a visual
carrier level of 0 dBmV. The visual carrier is modulated with a 10 IRE
flat field with color burst, visual to aural carrier ratio of 10 dB,
aural carrier unmodulated. The equipment under test (EUT) shall be
placed on a rotatable table that is one meter in height. Any excess
length of the power cord and other connecting leads shall be coiled on
the floor under the table. The EUT shall be immersed in a horizontally
polarized uniform CW field of 100 mV/m at a frequency 2.55 MHz above
the visual carrier of the EUT tuned channel. Measurements shall be made
with the EUT tuned to six EIA IS-132 channels, two each in the low VHF,
high VHF and UHF broadcast bands. On each channel, the levels at the IF
passband due to the desired and interfering signals are to be measured.
(4) Tuner overload. Spurious signals within the IF passband shall
be attenuated at least 55 dB below the visual carrier of the desired
channel using a comb-like spectrum input with each visual carrier
signal individually set at +15 dBmV from 54 to 550 MHz. The desired
input signal is to be an NTSC signal on which the visual carrier is
modulated with a 10 IRE flat field with color burst and the aural
carrier is unmodulated and 10 dB below the visual carrier. Measurements
shall be made with the receiver tuned to at least seven evenly spaced
EIA IS-132 channels covering the band 54 MHz to 550 MHz. In addition,
spurious signals within the IF passband shall be attenuated at least 51
dB below the visual carrier of the desired channel using a comb
spectrum input with each signal individually set at +15 dBmV from 550
to 804 MHz. Measurements shall be made with the receiver tuned to at
least three evenly spaced EIA IS-132 channels covering the band 550 MHz
to 804 MHz.
(5) Cable input conducted emissions. (i) Conducted spurious
emissions that appear at the cable input to the device must meet the
following criteria. The input shall be an NTSC video carrier modulated
with a 10 IRE flat field with color burst at a level of 0 dBmV and with
a visual to aural ratio of 10 dB. The aural carrier shall be
unmodulated. The peak level of the spurious signals will be measured
using a spectrum analyzer connected by a directional coupler to the
cable input of the equipment under test. Spurious signal levels must
not exceed the limits in the following table:
From 54 MHz up to and including 300 MHz-26 dBmV
From 300 MHz up to and including 450 MHz-20 dBmV
From 450 MHz up to and including 804 MHz-15 dBmV
(ii) The average of the measurements on multiple channels from 450
MHz up to and including 804 MHz shall be no greater than -20 dBmV.
Measurements shall be made with the receiver tuned to at least four EIA
IS-132 channels in each of the above bands. The test channels are to be
evenly distributed across each of the bands. Measurements for conducted
emissions caused by sources internal to the device are to be made in a
shielded room. Measurements for conducted emissions caused by external
signal sources shall be made in an ambient RF field whose field
strength is 100 mV/m, following the same test conditions as described
in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(d) The field strength of radiated emissions from cable ready
consumer electronics equipment shall not exceed the limits in
Sec. 15.109(a) when measured in accordance with the applicable
procedures specified in Secs. 15.31 and 15.35 for unintentional
radiators, with the following modifications. During testing the NTSC
input signal level is to be +15 dBmV, with a visual to aural ratio of
10 dB. The visual carrier is to be modulated by a 10 IRE flat field
with color burst; the aural carrier is to be unmodulated. Measurements
are to be taken on six EIA IS-132 channels evenly spaced across the
required RF input range of the equipment under test.
* * * * *
PART 76--CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE
5. The authority citation for Part 76 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151-714; 106 Stat. 1460.
6. Section 76.605 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1), removing
paragraph (a)(2), and redesignating paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(13)
as paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(12), respectively, to read as follows:
Sec. 76.605 Technical standards.
(a) * * *
(1)(i) The cable television channels delivered to the subscriber's
terminal shall be capable of being received and displayed by TV
broadcast receivers used for off-the-air reception of TV broadcast
signals, as authorized under part 73 of this chapter; and
(ii) Cable television systems shall transmit signals to subscriber
premises equipment on frequencies in accordance with the channel
allocation plan set forth in the Electronics Industries Association's
``Cable Television Channel Identification Plan, EIA IS-132, May 1994''
(EIA IS-132). This incorporation by reference was approved by the
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 522(a) and
1 CFR Part 51. Cable systems are required to use this channel
allocation plan for signals transmitted in the frequency range 54 MHz
to 1002 MHz. This incorporation by reference was approved by the
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 522(a) and
1 CFR Part 51. Copies of EIA IS-132 may be obtained from: Global
Engineering Documents, 2805 McGraw Ave., Irvine CA 92714. Copies of EIA
IS-132 may be inspected during normal business hours at the following
locations: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW,
Dockets Branch (Room 239), Washington, DC, or the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
This requirement is applicable on May 31, 1995, for new and re-built
cable systems, and on June 30, 1997, for all cable systems.
* * * * *
7. Section 76.630 is amended by removing paragraph (c),
redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (c) and (d)
respectively, and revising newly redesignated paragraphs (c)
introductory text, (c)(2)(i), and (d)(2)(iii) and the note to
Sec. 76.630 at the end of the section to read as follows:
Sec. 76.630 Compatibility with consumer electronics equipment.
* * * * *
(c) Cable system operators that use scrambling, encryption or
similar technologies in conjunction with cable system terminal devices,
as defined in Sec. 15.3(e) of this chapter, that may affect
subscribers' reception of signals shall offer to supply each subscriber
with special equipment that will enable the simultaneous reception of
multiple signals. The equipment offered shall include a single terminal
device with dual descramblers/decoders and/or timers and bypass
switches. Other equipment, such as two independent set-top terminal
devices may be offered
[[Page 18511]]
at the same time that the single terminal device with dual tuners/
descramblers is offered. For purposes of this rule, two set-top devices
linked by a control system that provides functionality equivalent to
that of a single device with dual descramblers is considered to be the
same as a terminal device with dual descramblers/decoders.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) To allow simultaneous reception of any two scrambled or
encrypted signals and to provide for tuning to alternative channels on
a pre-programmed schedule; and
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) In cases where cable system operators offer remote control
capability with cable system terminal devices and other customer
premises equipment that is provided to subscribers, they shall advise
their subscribers that remote control units that are compatible with
that equipment may be obtained from other sources, such as retail
outlets. Cable system operators shall also provide a representative
list of the models of remote control units currently available from
retailers that are compatible with the customer premises equipment they
employ. Cable system operators are required to make a good faith effort
in compiling this list and will not be liable for inadvertent
omissions. This list shall be current as of no more than six months
before the date the consumer education program is distributed to
subscribers. Cable operators are also required to encourage subscribers
to contact the cable operator to inquire about whether a particular
remote control unit the subscriber might be considering for purchase
would be compatible with the subscriber's customer premises equipment.
Note to Sec. 76.630: The provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section are applicable July 31, 1994, and June 30, 1994,
respectively. The provisions of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this
section are applicable October 31, 1994, except for the requirement
under paragraph (c) of this section for cable system operators to
supply cable system terminal devices with dual tuners (as needed),
which is applicable October 31, 1995. The initial offer of special
equipment to all subscribers, as required under paragraph (c) of
this section, shall be made by October 31, 1994.
[FR Doc. 96-9489 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-N
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9460 Dairy Indemnity Payment Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18485-18486]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9460]
========================================================================
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. 82 / Friday, April 26, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 18485]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Farm Service Agency
7 CFR Part 760
RIN 0560-AE57
Dairy Indemnity Payment Program
AGENCY: Farm Service Agency, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The authority to operate the Diary Indemnity Payment Program
(DIPP) is contingent upon the appropriation of funds. Funds were
recently appropriated. This rule extends the authority to operate this
program until the funds are expended.
The DIPP indemnifies dairy farmers and manufacurers for losses
suffered with respect to milk and milk products, through no fault of
their own.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 26, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raellen Erickson, Agricultural Program
Specialist, Price Support Division, FSA, USDA, Ag Box 0512, P.O. Box
2415, Washington, D. C. 20013-2415, at (202) 720-7320.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB).
Federal Assistance Program
The title and number of the Federal Assistance Program, as found in
the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, to which this rule applies
are Dairy Indemnity Payments, Number 10.053.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
It has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not
applicable to this final rule because the Farm Service Agency is not
required by 5 U.S.C. 533 or any other provision of law to publish a
notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to the subject matter of
these determinations.
Environmental Evaluation
It has been determined by an environmental evaluation that this
action will have no significant impact on the quality of the human
environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an
Environmental Impact Statement is needed.
Executive Order 12372
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order
12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and
local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V,
published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).
Executive Order 12778
This rule has been reviewed pursuant to Executive Order 12778. To
the extent State and local laws are in conflict with these regulatory
provisions, it is the intent of CCC that the terms of the regulations
prevail. The provisions of this rule are not retroactive. Prior to any
judicial action in a court of competent jurisdiction, administrative
review under 7 CFR part 780 must be exhausted.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The amendments to 7 CFR part 760 set forth in this final rule do
not contain additional information collections that require clearance
by the Office of Management and Budget under the provisions of 44
U.S.C. chapter 35. Existing information collections were approved by
OMB and assigned OMB Control Number 0560-0116.
Background
The Dairy Indemnity Payment Program was originally authorized by
section 331 of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. The statutory
authority for the program was extended several times. Most recently,
funds were appropriated for this program by the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1996 (``the Act''), P.L. 104-37, 109 Stat. 310,
which authorizes the program to be carried out until all available
funds have been expended. The objective of the program is to indemnify
dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products who, through no fault
of their own, suffer income losses with respect to milk or milk
products removed from commercial markets because such milk or milk
products contain certain harmful residues. In addition, dairy farmers
can also be indemnified for income losses with respect to milk required
to be removed from commercial markets due to residues of chemicals or
toxic substances or contamination by nuclear radiation or fallout. The
regulations governing the program (7 CFR 760.1-760.34) authorized the
operation of the program through September 30, 1995. Because the Act
mandates that the program be carried out until the appropriated funds
are expended, the ending date for the program is being deleted from the
regulation. The beginning dates for the program are also being deleted
since they are no longer necessary. Since the only purpose of this
final rule is to make a technical amendment to the regulations to
extend the Dairy Indemnity Payment Program in order to conform to the
statute, it has been determined that no further public rulemaking is
required. Therefore, these regulations shall become effective upon date
of publication in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 760
Dairy products, Indemnity payments, Pesticides and pests.
Accordingly, the regulations at 7 CFR Part 760 are amended as
follows:
Subpart Dairy Indemnity Payment Program
1. The authority citation for this subpart is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Dairy Indemnity Program, P.L. 104-37, 109 Stat. 310.
2. Section 760.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (k)(1), (2), (l)
and (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 760.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(1) Pursuant to the direction of a public agency because of the
detection of pesticide residues in such whole milk by tests made by a
public agency or under a testing program deemed adequate for the
purpose by a public agency, or
[[Page 18486]]
(2) Pursuant to the direction of a public agency because of the
detection of other residues of chemicals or toxic substances residues,
or contamination from nuclear radiation or fallout in such whole milk
by tests made by a public agency or under a testing program deemed
adequate for the purpose by a public agency.
(l) Affected manufacturer means a person who manufactures dairy
products which are removed from the commercial market pursuant to the
direction of a public agency because of the detection of pesticide
residue in such dairy products by tests made by a public agency or
under a testing program deemed adequate for the purpose by a public
agency.
* * * * *
(o) Application period means any period during which an affected
farmer's whole milk is removed from the commercial market pursuant to
direction of a public agency for a reason specified in paragraph (k) of
this section and for which application for payment is made.
* * * * *
Signed in Washington, DC, on April 11, 1996.
Bruce R. Weber,
Acting Administrator, Farm Service Agency.
[FR Doc. 96-9460 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10388 Solid Waste Programs; Removal of Legally Obsolete Guidelines
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18501-18502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10388]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 241
[FRL-5462-7]
Solid Waste Programs; Removal of Legally Obsolete Guidelines
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to the President's Regulatory Reform Initiative,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has conducted a review of the
regulations it administers and has identified the guidelines pertaining
to solid waste management as obsolete. These guidelines, which are
being removed from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) today, are no
longer necessary because they have been addressed by more recent
regulations. Deleting these guidelines from the CFR will have no impact
on solid waste management.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule takes effect on April 26, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Supporting materials are available for viewing in the RCRA
Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor,
1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The Docket Identification
Number is F-96-LOGF-FFFFF. The RIC is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review docket
materials, it is recommended that the public make an appointment by
calling 703 603-9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from
any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Gallman (703) 308-7276, Office
of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C., 20460, or the RCRA Superfund Hotline, phone
(800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan
area.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
On March 4, 1995, the President directed all Federal agencies and
departments to conduct a comprehensive review of the regulations they
administer and to identify those rules that are obsolete or unduly
burdensome. EPA has conducted a review of its rules and guidelines,
including those issued under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.). Based on this review, EPA is today
eliminating the following obsolete RCRA guidelines from the CFR: 40
CFR, Part 241, ``Guidelines for the Land Disposal of Solid Wastes''.
The guidelines, promulgated on August 14, 1974, are no longer necessary
because they have been included in and/or addressed by the Criteria for
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, 40 CFR
Part 257, promulgated on September 13, 1979 (44 FR 53460) and the
Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, 40 CFR Part 258,
promulgated on October 9, 1991 (56 FR 50978). The removal of these
rules from the CFR because they are obsolete is not intended to affect
the status of any civil or criminal actions that were initiated prior
to the date of publication of this notice or which may be initiated in
the future to redress violations of the rules that occurred when the
rules were still legally in effect.
II. Obsolete Rule
40 CFR Part 241--Guidelines for the Land Disposal of Solid Waste
On August 14, 1974, EPA issued guidelines for the land disposal of
all solid waste materials, excluding hazardous, agricultural, and
mining wastes. These guidelines were intended to ensure that design,
construction, and operation of land disposal sites for non-hazardous or
municipal solid wastes met specified health and environmental
standards. These guidelines were required to be followed by federal
agencies and recommended to state and local governmental agencies. All
guideline requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 241 are now included in
and/or addressed by the Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities and Practices (40 CFR Part 257) and the Criteria
for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR Part 258). These criteria
must be followed by federal agencies. 42 U.S.C. 6961(a). Accordingly,
EPA is removing the Part 241 guidelines from the CFR.
III. Good Cause Exemption From Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking Procedures
The Administrative Procedure Act generally requires agencies to
provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing
a final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Rules are exempt from this requirement
if the issuing agency finds for good cause that notice and comment is
unnecessary. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). EPA has determined that providing
prior notice and opportunity for comment on the deletion of the 40 CFR
Part 241 guidelines from the CFR is unnecessary. For the reasons
discussed in Sections I and II, these guidelines are covered/addressed
by 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258. Thus, withdrawing them from the CFR will
have no impact on current Federal and state solid waste management
practices. For the same reasons, EPA believes there is good cause for
making the removal of these guidelines from the CFR immediately
effective. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
[[Page 18502]]
IV. Analysis under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995, the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Paperwork
Reduction Act
Because the withdrawal of these rules from the CFR merely reflects
their current obsolescence and thus has no regulatory impact, this
action is not a ``significant'' regulatory action within the meaning of
E.O. 12866, and does not impose any Federal mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector within the meaning of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. For the same reasons, pursuant to
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, I certify that this action would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Finally, because these guidelines have been replaced or
addressed by 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258, their deletion from the CFR does
not affect requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 241
Waste treatment and disposal.
Dated: April 17, 1996.
Elliott P. Laws,
Assistant Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of
42 U.S.C. 6907 and 6912, Title 40, Chapter I of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
Part 241--[REMOVED]
1. Part 241 is removed.
[FR Doc. 96-10388 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10383 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18500-18501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10383]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[OAQPS #CA163-1-7251; FRL-5452-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California
State Implementation Plan Revision, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing the approval of a revision to the San
Joaquin Valley portion of the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP) that was proposed in the Federal Register on November 1, 1995.
The revision concerns Rule 2530 from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District. This approval action will incorporate this
rule into the federally-approved SIP. EPA is also finalizing its
approval of Rule 2530 under section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act for the
control of hazardous air pollutants.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective on May 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Rule 2530 and EPA's technical support document
including response to comments on the proposed approval are available
for public inspection at EPA's Region IX office during normal business
hours. Copies of the submitted rule revisions are available for
inspection at the following locations: Operating Permits Section, A-5-
2, Air and Toxics Division, U.S. EPA-Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California 94105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, Operating Permits
Section, A-5-2, Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
Telephone: (415) 744-1250.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 1, 1995 at 60 FR 55516, EPA proposed to approve Rule
2530 Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit of the San Joaquin Valley
Unified APCD (San Joaquin Valley or District) as a revision to the
California SIP and under section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act (Act).
Approval of Rule 2530 was proposed in the same notice that EPA proposed
interim approval of the District's title V operating permits program.
Rule 2530 was adopted by the District on June 15, 1995 and submitted by
the California Air Resources Board on October 24, 1995.
Once approved into the SIP and under section 112(l), Rule 2530 will
create federally-enforceable limits on potential to emit for sources
with actual emissions less than 50 percent of any applicable major
source threshold including hazardous air pollutant thresholds. A
detailed discussion of the background for Rule 2530 is provided in the
Federal Register notice cited above.
EPA has evaluated this rule for consistency with the requirements
of the Act and EPA regulations as well as EPA's interpretation of these
requirements as expressed in the various EPA policy guidance documents
referenced in the proposal cited above. EPA has found that the rule
meets the applicable EPA requirements. A detailed discussion of the
rule has been provided in technical support document (TSD) available at
EPA's Region IX office.
Response to Public Comments
EPA received identical comments on its proposed approval of Rule
2530 from two separate commenters. Both Chevron and Western States
Petroleum Association requested that EPA include an interim approval
issue for correcting the applicable emission levels in Rule 2530 to
include provisions for areas that receive a Clean Air Act section
182(f) nitrogen oxides (NOX) opt-out approval.
Rule 2530 is being approved into the San Joaquin Valley portion of
the California SIP under section 110(k) of the Act. Section 110(k)
provides that EPA may either approve, disapprove, or conditionally
approve a SIP revision. Conditional approvals are limited to situations
where the State has adopted and submitted a commitment to adopt
specific enforceable measures by a date certain. Interim approval is an
approval option that is limited to actions under title V of the Act and
is not available for SIP or section 112(l) approvals; therefore, EPA is
not able to create an interim approval issue for Rule 2530.
It should be noted that, from an approval standpoint, there is no
error in Rule 2530's NOX limits. Should EPA grant the NOX
waiver that raises the major source threshold for NOX sources to
100 tons per year, Rule 2530's NOX limits would merely be more
stringent (at 25 tons per year (tpy) rather than 50 tpy) than strictly
necessary. If a NOX waiver is granted, San Joaquin may submit a
revision to Rule 2530 to raise the NOX limits.
EPA Action
EPA is finalizing approval of Rule 2530 under section 110(k)(3) of
the Act for inclusion into the California SIP and under section 112(l)
of the Act for the control of hazardous air pollutants.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan or for approval under 112(l).
Each request for a SIP revision or an approval under section 112(l)
shall be considered separately in light of specific technical,
economic, and environmental factors and in relation to relevant
statutory and regulatory requirements.
Unfunded Mandates
Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22,
1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed
or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector or to
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
The District has voluntarily elected to adopt Rule 2530 and submit
it to EPA for approval. This rule may bind the District to perform
certain actions and also require the private sector to perform certain
duties. The rule being approved by this action will impose no new
requirements because affected sources are already subject to these
regulations under State law. Therefore, no additional costs to State,
local, or tribal governments or to the private sector result from this
action. EPA has also determined that this final action does not include
a mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private
sector.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10,
[[Page 18501]]
1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation Plan
for the State of California was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: March 24, 1996.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart F--California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(227) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(227) New regulation for the following APCD was submitted on
October 18, 1995, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Rule 2530, adopted on June 15, 1995.
[FR Doc. 96-10383 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-W
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10367 Securities Credit Transactions; List of Marginable OTC Stocks; List of Foreign Margin Stocks
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18495-18499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10367]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Parts 207, 220, 221, and 224
[Regulations G, T, U, and X]
Securities Credit Transactions; List of Marginable OTC Stocks;
List of Foreign Margin Stocks
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Final rule; determination of applicability of regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The List of Marginable OTC Stocks (OTC List) is composed of
stocks traded over-the-counter (OTC) in the United States that have
been determined by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
to be subject to the margin requirements under certain Federal Reserve
regulations. The List of Foreign Margin Stocks (Foreign List) is
composed of foreign equity securities that have met the Board's
eligibility criteria under Regulation T. The OTC List and the Foreign
List are published four times a year by the Board. This document sets
forth additions to and deletions from the previous OTC List and the
previous Foreign List.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 13, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Wolffrum, Securities Regulation
Analyst, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation, (202) 452-
2781, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington,
D.C. 20551. For the hearing impaired only, contact Dorothea Thompson,
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) at (202) 452-3544.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Listed below are the deletions from and
additions to the Board's OTC List, which was last published on January
29, 1996 (61 FR 2667), and became effective February 12, 1996. A copy
of the complete OTC List is available from the Federal Reserve Banks.
The OTC List includes those stocks that meet the criteria in
Regulations G, T and U (12 CFR Parts 207, 220 and 221, respectively).
This determination also affects the applicability of Regulation X (12
CFR Part 224). These stocks have the degree of national investor
interest, the depth and breadth of market, and the availability of
information respecting the stock and its issuer to warrant regulation
in the same fashion as exchange-traded securities. The OTC List also
includes any OTC stock designated for trading in the national market
system (NMS security) under rules approved by the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC). Additional OTC stocks may be designated as
NMS securities in the interim between the Board's quarterly
publications. They will become automatically marginable upon the
effective date of their NMS designation. The names of these stocks are
available at the SEC and at the National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. and will be incorporated into the Board's next quarterly
publication of the OTC List.
Also listed below are the deletions from and additions to the
Board's Foreign List, which was last published on January 29, 1996 (61
FR 2667), and became effective February 12, 1996. The Foreign List
includes those foreign securities that meet the criteria in section
220.17 of Regulation T and are eligible for margin treatment at broker-
dealers on the same basis as domestic margin securities. A copy of the
complete Foreign List is available from the Federal Reserve Banks.
Public Comment and Deferred Effective Date
The requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 with respect to notice and public
participation were not followed in connection with the issuance of this
amendment due to the objective character of the criteria for inclusion
and continued inclusion on the Lists specified in 12 CFR 207.6(a) and
(b), 220.17(a), (b), (c) and (d), and 221.7(a) and (b). No additional
useful information would be gained by public participation. The full
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 with respect to deferred effective date
have not been followed in connection with the issuance of this
amendment because the Board finds that it is in the public interest to
facilitate investment and credit decisions based in whole or in part
upon the composition of these Lists as soon as possible. The Board has
responded to a request by the public and allowed approximately a two-
week delay before the Lists are effective.
List of Subjects
12 CFR Part 207
Banks, Banking, Credit, Margin, Margin requirements, National
Market System (NMS Security), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Securities.
12 CFR Part 220
Banks, Banking, Brokers, Credit, Margin, Margin requirements,
Investments, National Market System (NMS Security), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
12 CFR Part 221
Banks, Banking, Credit, Margin, Margin requirements, National
Market System (NMS Security), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Securities.
12 CFR Part 224
Banks, Banking, Borrowers, Credit, Margin, Margin requirements,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority of sections 7 and 23 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78g and 78w),
and in accordance with 12 CFR 207.2(k) and 207.6 (Regulation G), 12 CFR
220.2(u) and 220.17 (Regulation T), and 12 CFR 221.2(j) and 221.7
(Regulation U), there is set forth below a listing of deletions from
and additions to the OTC List and the Foreign List.
[[Page 18496]]
Deletions From the List of Marginable OTC Stocks
Stocks Removed For Failing Continued Listing Requirements
ABS Industries, Inc.
No par common
Allegiant Physician Services, Inc.
$.001 par common
Angeion Corporation
Warrants (expire 03-12-96)
Arrow Transportation Company
No par common
Broad National Bancorporation
8\1/2\% cumulative convertible preferred
Cannon Express, Inc.
Class B, $.01 par common
Canyon Resources Corporation
Warrants (expire 04-12-96)
Cafolina First Corporation
Series 1994, non-cumulative convertible preferred
Cimco, Inc.
$.01 par common
Communication Cable, Inc.
$1.00 par common
Cytogen Corporation
Rights (expire 01-31-97)
Drypers Corporation
$.001 par common
Envirogen, Inc.
$.01 par common
Warrants (expire 10-12-98)
Enviropur Waste Refining & Technologies, Inc.
$.01 par common
Framingham Savings Bank
Warrants (expire 01-31-96)
Gambro Incorporated
American Depositary Receipts
Gaming World International, Inc.
$.01 par common
Class A, redeemable purchase warrants
Hallwood Energy Corporation
$.50 par common
Harvard Industries, Inc.
14\1/4\% PIK exchangeable preferred
Hudson Chartered Bancorp, Inc.
7.25% Series B, cumulative convertible preferred
Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Class B, warrants (expire 03-15-96)
IVF America, Inc.
Series A, $1.00 par cumulative convertible preferred
Medical Technology Systems, Inc.
$.01 par common
Warrants (expire 07-10-96)
Miles Homes, Inc.
Warrants (expire 04-01-97)
Model Imperial, Inc.
$.01 par common
NAB Asset Corporation
$.01 par common
Northern Trust Corporation
Depositary Shares
NYCOR, Inc.
$1.00 par convertible exchangeable preferred
Orchard Supply Hardware Stores Corporation
$.01 par common
Perseptive Technologies II Corp.
Units
Right Start, Inc., The
Rights (expire 04-08-96)
Singing Machine Company, Inc.
$.01 par common
Warrants (expire 11-10-99)
Solo Serve Corporation
$.01 par common
Unitech Industries, Inc.
No par common
WRT Energy Corporation
$.01 par common
9% convertible preferred
Stocks Removed for Listing on a National Securities Exchange or Being
Involved in an Acquisition
Advantage Health Corporation
$.01 par common
Ael Industries, Inc.
Class A, $1.00 par common
Agridyne Technologies, Inc.
$.06 par common
Alantec Corporation
$.001 par common
Allied Bank Capital, Inc. (NC)
$1.00 par common
Autotote Corporation
Class A, $.01 par common
Bank of New Hampshire Corp.
No par common
Bankers First Corporation (GA)
$.01 par common
Bay Networks, Inc.
$.01 par common
Bliss & Laughlin Industries, Inc.
$.01 par common
Brooklyn Bancorp, Inc. (NY)
$.01 par common
Cablemaxx Holdings, Inc.
$.01 par common
Career Horizons, Inc.
$.01 par common
Champps Entertainments, Inc.
$.01 par common
CNB Bancshares, Inc. (IN)
No par common
Coastwide Energy Services, Inc.
$.01 par common
Cobra Golf Incorporated
$.001 par common
Coda Energy, Inc.
$.02 par common
Concord Health Group, Inc.
$.001 par common
Warrants (expire 04-19-2000)
Condor Services, Inc.
$.01 par common
Conservative Savings Corporation
$.01 par common
Conwest Exploration Company Ltd.
No par common
Cordis Corporation
$1.00 par common
Dial Page, Inc.
$.01 par common
Dolco Packaging Corporation
$.01 par common
E For M Corp.
$.001 par common
Eagle Bancorp, Inc.
$.10 par common
Earth Technology Corporation (USA), Inc.
$.10 par common
EP Technologies, Inc.
$.01 par common
F B & T Financial Corporation
$1.25 par common
Felcor Suite Hotels, Inc.
$.01 par common
Financial Benefit Group, Inc.
Class A, $.01 par common
First National Bancorp (GA)
$1.00 par common
Firstier Financial, Inc.
$5.00 par common
Flemington National Bank & Trust Company
$2.50 par common
Flores & Rucks Inc.
$.01 par common
Foodbrands America, Inc.
$.40 par common
Foremost Corporation of America
$1.00 par common
Fourth Financial Corporation
$5.00 par common
Depositary Shares
GBC Technologies, Inc.
$.01 par common
Geodynamics Corporation
No par common
Greenpoint Financial Corp.
$.01 par common
Healthdyne Technologies, Inc.
$.01 par common
Healthwise of America, Inc.
$.25 par common
Hogan Systems, Inc.
$.01 par common
Holson Burnes Group, Inc., The
$.01 par common
Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc.
$.10 par common
Independent Insurance Group, Inc.
Non-voting, $1.00 par common
Information International, Inc.
$.25 par common
Inmac Corporation
$.01 par common
Jefferies Group, Inc.
$.01 par common
Kentucky Enterprise Bancorp, Inc.
$.01 par common
Kevlin Corporation
$.10 par common
Landmark Bancorp
No par common
Laural Bancorp, Inc. (MD)
$.01 par common
Liberty National Bank (CA)
[[Page 18497]]
$3.3333 par common
Marietta Corporation
$.01 par common
Medpartners/Mullikin Inc.
$.001 par common
Meridian Bancorp, Inc. (PA)
$5.00 par common
Metro Financial Corporation
$1.00 par common
Microtec Research, Inc.
$.001 par common
Mid-South Insurance Company
$1.00 par common
Noble Drilling Corporation
$.10 par common
$1.50 par convertible preferred
Olympic Financial Ltd.
$.01 par common
Orthopedic Technology, Inc.
$.01 par common
Outlet Communications, Inc.
Class A, $.01 par common
P.T. Tri Polyta Indonesia
American Depositary Receipts
Pacific Physician Services, Inc.
$.01 par common
Pentair, Inc.
$.16\2/3\ par common
PSICOR, Inc.
No par common
SCS/Compute Incorporated
$.10 par common
Seaboard Bancorp, Inc. (VA)
$5.00 par common
SFFED Corp.
$.01 par common
St. Ives Laboratories, Inc.
$.01 par common
Summit Bancorporation, The
No par common
Sun International Hotels Limited
Series A, no par common
Series B, common
TGV Software, Inc.
$.001 par common
TIVOLI Systems, Inc.
$.01 par common
Tokos Medical Corporation (DE)
$.001 par common
United Counties Bancorporation
No par common
Victoria Bankshares, Inc.
$10.00 par common
Wackenhut Corrections Corporation
$.01 par common
Western Bank (OR)
$2.50 par common
Younkers, Inc.
$.01 par common
Additions To The List Of Marginable OTC Stocks
1st Bergen Bancorp
No par common
3-D Geophysical, Inc.
$.01 par common
A.S.V., Inc.
$.01 par common
Aavid Thermal Technologies, Inc.
$.01 par common
Air-Cure Technologies, Inc.
$.01 par common
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
$.0001 par common
Alliance Communications Corporation
Class B, non-voting, no par common
Alphanet Solutions, Inc.
$.01 par common
Alrenco Inc.
No par common
Amedisys, Inc.
$.001 par common
American Bancshares, Inc. (Florida)
$1.175 par common
American Communications Services, Inc.
$.01 par common
Analogy, Inc.
No par common
Andersons Inc., The
No par common
Ansoft Corporation
$.01 par common
Antares Resources Corporation
$.001 par common
APA Optics, Inc.
$.01 par common
Arterial Vascular Engineering, Inc.
$.001 par common
Arthrocare Corporation
$.001 par common
Autologic Information International, Inc.
$.01 par common
Bacou USA, Inc.
$.01 par common
Bankatlantic Bancorp, Inc. (Florida)
Class A, $.01 par common
Barnett Inc.
$.01 par common
Batteries Batteries, Inc.
$.001 par common
Warrants (expire 04-08-2000)
Benton Oil & Gas Company
Warrants (expire 01-04-99)
Biofield Corporation
$.001 par common
Boatmen's Bancshares, Inc. (Missouri)
Depositary Shares
Bonded Motors, Inc.
No par common
Bureau of Electronic Publishing, Inc.
$4.75 par common
California Community Bancshares Corporation
$.01 par common
Cam Designs, Inc.
Class A, $.001 par common
Warrants (expire 07-24-2000)
Cayman Water Company, Ltd.
Ordinary shares
Cellularvision USA, Inc.
$.01 par common
Century Aluminum Company
$.01 par common
Chancellor Broadcasting Company
Class A, $.01 par common
Childtime Learning Centers, Inc.
No par common
China Resources Development, Inc.
$.001 par common
Chirex, Inc.
$.01 par common
Cimatron, Limited
Ordinary Shares (NIS .01)
Cinram Limited
No par common
Cohr Inc.
$.01 par common
Colonial Data Technologies Corporation
$.01 par common
Columbus McKinnon Corporation
$.01 par common
COM/TECH Communications Technologies, Inc.
$.0001 par common
Community Federal Bancorp, Inc.
$.01 par common
Conceptus Inc.
$.003 par common
Connective Therapeutics, Inc.
$.001 par common
Cost Plus, Inc.
$.01 par common
Cotelligent Group, Inc.
$.01 par common
CSG Systems International, Inc.
$.01 par common
Cyanotech Corporation
$.005 par common
Cybercash Inc.
$.001 par common
Cylink Corporation
$.01 par common
Cytyc Corporation
$.01 par common
Data Dimensions, Inc.
$.001 par common
Data Processing Resources Corporation
No par common
Dawson Production Services, Inc.
$.01 par common
Decisionone Holdings Corporation
$.01 par common
Dense-Pac Microsystems, Inc.
No par common
Diacrin Inc.
Units (expire 12-31-2000)
Dignity Partners, Inc.
$.01 par common
Ditital Generation Systems, Inc.
No par common
Documentum Inc.
$.001 par common
Eagle River Interactive, Inc.
$.001 par common
Elamex S.A. De C.V.
No par common
Elmira Savings Bank, FSB
$1.00 par common
Endovascular Technologies, Inc.
$.00001 par common
Engineering Animation, Inc.
$.01 par common
ESC Medical Systems, Limited
Ordinary shares
Esmor Correctional Services, Inc.
[[Page 18498]]
Warrants (expire 07-31-99)
Euromed, Inc.
$.01 par common
Excite, Inc.
No par common
F.Y.I. Incorporated
$.01 par common
FEMRX, Inc.
$.001 par common
Fidelity Federal Bank (California)
Class A, $.01 par common
Fidelity Financial of Ohio, Inc.
$.01 par common
First Federal Savings Bank of Siouxland
$1.00 par common
First Savings Bank, FSB (New Mexico)
$1.00 par common
Forte Software, Inc.
$.01 par common
Galagen Inc.
$.01 par common
Gateway Data Sciences Corporation
$.01 par common
Gensym Corporation
$.01 par common
Geographics Inc.
No par common
Gilman & Ciocia, Inc.
$.01 par common
Globe Business Resources, Inc.
No par common
Green Street Financial Corporation
No par common
Greenman Technologies, Inc.
$.01 par common
Greif Bros. Corporation
Class A, no par common
Class B, no par common
Hardin Bancorp, Inc. (Missouri)
$.01 par common
Health Systems Design Corporation
$.001 par common
Heartstream, Inc.
$.001 par common
Helisys Inc.
$.001 par common
HMT Technology Corporation
$.001 par common
Horizon Bancorp, Inc.
$.01 par common
Houghten Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
$.001 par common
Housecall Medical Resources, Inc.
$.01 par common
Hub Group, Inc.
Class A, $.01 par common
Hybridon, Inc.
$.001 par common
Ibis Technology Corporation
$.008 par common
Warrants (expire 05-20-99)
IDT Corporation
$.01 par common
Impath Inc.
$.01 par common
Individual, Inc.
$.01 par common
Indus Group, Inc., The
$.001 par common
Innotech, Inc.
$.001 par common
Integrated Packaging Assembly Corporation
No par common
Intelligent Medical Imaging, Inc.
$.01 par common
Intelliquest Information Group, Inc.
$.0001 par common
Intercardia, Inc.
$.001 par common
Intime Systems International, Inc.
Class A, $.01 par common
Iona Appliances, Inc.
No par common
IPC Holdings, Limited
$.01 par common
Iron Mountain Incorporated
$.01 par common
Isocor
No par common
Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc.
$.01 par common
JDA Software Group, Inc.
$.01 par common
K&G Men's Center, Inc.
$.01 par common
Katz Digital Technologies, Inc.
$.001 par common
Kellstrom Industries, Inc.
$.001 par common
KVH Industries, Inc.
$.01 par common
Landec Corporation
No par common
Liferate Systems, Inc.
No par common
Logal Educational Software & Systems, Ltd.
Ordinary Shares (NIS .01)
Ycos, Inc.
$.01 par common
MACC Private Equities, Inc.
$.01 par common
Managed Care Solutions, Inc.
$.01 par common
Matria Healthcare, Inc.
$.001 par common
May & Speh, Inc.
$.01 par common
Mesa Laboratories, Inc.
No par common
Micro Component Technology, Inc.
$.01 par common
Microlog Corporation
$.01 par common
Microware Systems Corporation
No par common
Mindspring Enterprises, Inc.
$.01 par common
Mining Services International Corporation
$.001 par common
Moyco Technologies, Inc.
$.005 par common
Multi-Corp Inc.
No par common
MVSI, Inc.
$.01 par common
National Medical Financial Services Corporation
$.01 par comon
NCS Healthcare, Inc.
Class A, $.01 par common
Neose Technologies, Inc.
$.01 par common
Network Connection, Inc., The
$.001 par common
New World Coffee, Inc.
$.001 par common
Nice-Systems, Limited
American Depositary Receipts
Nobel Education Dynamics, Inc.
$.001 par common
Novatek International, Inc.
$1.00 par common
Ocal, Inc.
$.001 par common
Ohio Valley Banc Corp.
No par common
Omnipoint Corporation
$.01 par common
Onyx Acceptance Corporation
$.01 par common
Open Text Corporation
No par common
Optical Cable Corporation
No par common
Optical Sensors Incorporated
$.01 par common
Orange National Bancorp
No par common
Orange, PLC
American Depositary Receipts
Orbit International Corporation
$.10 par common
Orcad, Inc.
$.01 par common
Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc.
$.01 par common
Party City Corporation
$.01 par common
Patlex Corporation
$.10 par common
Patriot National Bank
$2.00 par common
PCD Inc.
$.01 par common
Pen Interconnect, Inc.
$.01 par common
Warrants (expire 11-17-2000)
Penske Motorsports, Inc.
$.01 par common
Performance Technologies, Inc.
$.01 par common
PFF Bancorp, Inc.
$.01 par common
Phar-Mor Inc.
$.01 par common
Warrants (expire 09-10-2002)
Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc.
$.10 par common
Phymatrix Corporation
$.01 par common
Physician Support Systems, Inc.
$.001 par common
PIA Merchandising Services, Inc.
[[Page 18499]]
$.01 par common
Pittsburgh Home Financial Corporation
$.01 par common
Platinum Entertainment, Inc.
$.001 par common
Powercerv Corporation
$.001 par common
Praegitzer Industries, Inc.
No par common
Preferred Networks, Inc.
$.01 par common
Premiere Radio Networks, Inc.
Class A, $.01 par common
Premiere Technologies, Inc.
$.01 par common
Prism Solutions, Inc.
$.001 par common
Profit Recovery Group International, Inc., The
No par common
PTI Holding, Inc.
$.01 par common
Pudgie's Chicken, Inc.
$.01 par common
Q-MED, Inc.
$.001 par common
Q-ZAR, Inc.
No par common
RAC Financial Group, Inc.
$.01 par common
Raptor Systems, Inc.
$1.00 par common
Realco Inc.
No par common
Warrants (expire 02-01-2001)
Red Brick Systems, Inc.
$.01 par common
Remec Inc.
$.01 par common
Renal Care Group, Inc.
$.01 par common
Resource Bank (California)
$3.00 par common
Restor Industries, Inc.
$.01 par common
Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
$.01 par common
Riscorp, Inc.
Class A, $.01 par common
Rural Cellular Corporation
Class A, $.01 par common
Sage Laboratories, Inc.
$.10 par common
Sapient Corporation
$.01 par common
Savings Bank of the Finger Lakes, FSB (New York)
$.01 par common
SCB Computer Technology, Inc.
$.01 par common
Segue Software, Inc.
No par common
Sel-Lab Marketing, Inc.
Warrants (expire 07-13-99)
Semiconductor Packaging Materials Company
$.10 par common
Silicon Valley Research, Inc.
No par common
Silver Diner Development, Inc.
$.0007 par common
Sipex Corporation
$.01 par common
SJS Bancorp, Inc. (Missouri)
$.01 par common
Softquad International, Inc.
No par common
Sonics & Materials, Inc.
$.03 par common
Warrants (expire 02-27-2001)
Station Casinos, Inc.
7% convertible preferred
Sunbase Asia, Inc.
$.01 par common
Supergen, Inc.
$.001 par common
Warrants (expire 03-12-2001)
Superior National Insurance Group, Inc.
No par common
Superior Services, Inc.
$.01 par common
Tadiran Telecommunications, Limited
Ordinary Shares (NIS 1.00)
Telechips Corporation
$.01 par common
Telemundo Group, Inc.
Warrants (expire 12-29-99)
Trescom International, Inc.
$.01 par common
Trident International, Inc.
$.01 par common
Ultradata Corporation
$.001 par common
Ultrafem, Inc.
$.001 par common
Unidigital, Inc.
$.01 par common
United States Satellite Broadcasting Company, Inc. Class A,
$.0001 par common
Videolan Technologies, Inc.
$.01 par common
Warrants (expire 08-10-2000)
Vista 2000, Inc.
Warrants (expire 10-24-98)
Vitalcom, Inc.
$.01 par common
Vocaltec, Limited Ordinary Shares
Voice Control Systems, Inc.
$.01 par common
West Jersey Bancshares, Inc.
No par common
Wilmar Industries, Inc.
No par common
Winfield Capital Corporation
$.01 par common
Workgroup Technology Corporation
$.01 par common
Worldtalk Communications Corporation
$.01 par common
Xeikon, N.V.
American Depository Receipts
Xetel Corporation
$.0001 par common
Xylan Corporation
$.001 par common
Yahoo! Inc.
$.001 par common
York Group, Inc., The
$.01 par common
Deletions From The List Of Foreign Margin Stocks
Higashi-Nippon Bank, Ltd.
50 par common
Hyogo Bank, Ltd.
50 par common
Taisei Prefab Construction Co., Ltd.
50 par common
Additions To The List Of Foreign Margin Stocks
New World Development Co., Ltd.
Ordinary, par HK $1.00
Peregrine Investment Holdings Ltd.
Ordinary, par HK $.60
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
acting by its Director of the Division of Banking Supervision and
Regulation pursuant to delegated authority (12 CFR 265.7(f)(10)), April
23, 1996.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-10367 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10350 Intensive Confinement Center Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18658-18659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10350]
[[Page 18657]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Justice
_______________________________________________________________________
Bureau of Prisons
_______________________________________________________________________
28 CFR Part 524
Intensive Confinement Center Program; Interim Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 82 / Friday, April 26, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 18658]]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Prisons
28 CFR Part 524
[BOP-1006-I]
RIN 1120-AA11
Intensive Confinement Center Program
AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
ACTION: Interim rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau of Prisons is adopting
regulations on the operation of the Intensive Confinement Center
Program. This is a specialized program for non-violent offenders
combining features of a military boot camp with the traditional
correctional values of the Bureau of Prisons. This placement is
followed by extended participation in community-based programs and
possible reduction in sentence. The goal of the intensive confinement
center program is to promote in the inmate values of personal
development, self control, and discipline, thereby helping to reduce
the potential for future incarceration of the inmate.
DATES: Effective May 28, 1996; comments due by June 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, HOLC Room 754,
320 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy Nanovic, Office of General
Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 514-6655.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bureau of Prisons is adopting interim
regulations on the Intensive Confinement Center Program. The purpose of
this program is to place non-violent offenders in a highly structured,
no frills environment as a means of promoting personal development,
self control, and discipline, thereby helping to reduce the potential
for future incarceration of the inmate. Participation in the program is
contingent upon length of sentence and upon the determination of Bureau
staff that the inmate is serving his or her first period of
incarceration or has a minor history of prior incarcerations, is not
serving a term of imprisonment for a crime of violence, is properly
classified as appropriate for housing in minimum security, and is
physically and mentally capable of participating in the program.
Participation in the program is voluntary.
Placement in the program is to be made by Bureau staff in
accordance with sound correctional judgment and the availability of
Bureau resources. The determination of a non-violent offense is based
upon the definition in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3).
The institution-based component of the program ordinarily is six
months in duration, and consists of strict discipline and daily regimen
of physical conditioning, labor-intensive work assignments, literacy
program, vocational training, and drug and alcohol counseling. The
program also offers the inmate assistance on stress management, life
coping skills, positive personal attitude and self-esteem. In addition,
there may be other activities available which are consistent with the
total wellness program. Amenities such as access to television and
radio are extremely limited (for example, television access may be
limited to a specified period of national news broadcasts). Smoking is
not permitted. The six day work week and the long work day leave little
free time, and visiting and telephone access are very limited. Non-
issue clothing and commissary privileges (except for monthly purchases
by female inmates of sanitary hygiene items in addition to those
provided by the Bureau) are not permitted.
An inmate who successfully completes the institution-based
component of the program ordinarily is eligible to serve the remainder
of the sentence in a community-based program (for example, in a
community correction center or in home detention). An inmate who fails
to complete this component or who subsequently fails participation in a
community-based program may forfeit further involvement in the program.
An eligible inmate with a sentence of not more than thirty months who
successfully completes the institution-based component, who maintains
successful participation in a community-based program, and who has
supervised release to follow is eligible for up to a six month
reduction in sentence. The length of the reduction is proportional to
the amount of time remaining to be served. Authority for a reduction in
sentence for such inmates is contained in 18 U.S.C. 4046. The Bureau
has piloted operation of this program for the purpose of placing
graduates in community-based programs for both male and female inmates.
Under the interim rule, consideration for reduction in sentence may be
given to an inmate who successfully completes an intensive confinement
center pilot program if staff confirm that the inmate meets appropriate
eligibility criteria.
The Bureau is publishing this regulation as an interim rule in
order to provide for public comment while maintaining continuity
between pilot program operation and full implementation of 18 U.S.C.
4046. Members of the public may submit comments concerning this rule by
writing to the previously cited address. These comments will be
considered before the rule is finalized.
The Bureau of Prisons has determined that this rule is not a
significant regulatory action for the purpose of E.O. 12886. After
review of the law and regulations, the Director, Bureau of Prisons has
certified that this rule, for the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (Pub. L. 96-354), does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, as defined by the Act.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 524
Prisoners.
Kathleen M. Hawk,
Director, Bureau of Prisons.
Accordingly, pursuant to the rulemaking authority vested in the
Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and delegated to the Director,
Bureau of Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96(p), part 524 in subchapter B of 28
CFR, chapter V is amended as set forth below.
SUBCHAPTER B--INMATE ADMISSION, CLASSIFICATION, AND TRANSFER
PART 524--CLASSIFICATION OF INMATES
1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 524 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3521-3528, 3621, 3622, 3624,
4001, 4042, 4046, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses
committed on or after November 1, 1987), 5006-5024 (Repealed October
12, 1984 as to offenses committed after that date), 5039; 21 U.S.C.
848; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; Title V, Pub. L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 933 (18
U.S.C. Chapter 223); 28 CFR 0.95-0.99.
2. Subpart D, consisting of Sec. 524.30 through 524.33, is added to
read as follows:
Subpart D--Intensive Confinement Center Program
Sec. 524.30 Purpose and scope.
Sec. 524.31 Eligibility and placement.
Sec. 524.32 Institution-based component procedures.
Sec. 524.33 Program failure.
Subpart D--Intensive Confinement Center Program
Sec. 524.30 Purpose and scope.
The intensive confinement center program is a specialized program
combining features of a military boot camp with the traditional
correctional values of the Bureau of Prisons,
[[Page 18659]]
followed by extended participation in community-based programs. The
goal of this program is to promote personal development, self-control,
and discipline.
Sec. 524.31 Eligibility and placement.
(a) Eligibility for consideration of placement in the intensive
confinement center program requires that the inmate is:
(1)(i) Serving a sentence of more than 12, but not more than 30
months (see 18 U.S.C. 4046), or
(ii) Serving a sentence of more than 30, but not more than 60
months, and is within 24 months of a projected release date.
(2) Serving his or her first period of incarceration or has a minor
history of prior incarcerations;
(3) Is not serving a term of imprisonment for a crime of violence;
(4) Appropriate for housing in minimum security;
(5) Physically and mentally capable of participating in the
program;
(6) A volunteer.
(b) Placement in the intensive confinement center program is to be
made by Bureau staff in accordance with sound correctional judgment and
the availability of Bureau resources.
Sec. 524.32 Institution-based component procedures.
(a) An eligible inmate who volunteers for participation in an
institution-based intensive confinement center program must agree to
forego opportunities which may be otherwise available to inmates in
Bureau institutions. Opportunities that may be affected include, but
are not limited to, visitation, telephone use, legal research time,
religious practices, commissary, smoking, and grooming preferences.
(b) The institution-based component of the intensive confinement
center program ordinarily is six months in duration.
(c) Disciplinary procedures to be followed in the institution-based
intensive confinement center program are set forth in subpart B of part
541 of this chapter.
(d)(1) An inmate who successfully completes the institution-based
component of the program ordinarily is eligible to serve the remainder
of the sentence in a community-based program.
(2) An inmate eligible for participation in the program under
Sec. 524.31(a)(1)(i) who successfully completes the institution-based
component, who maintains successful participation in a community-based
program, and has a period of supervised release to follow is eligible
for up to a six month reduction in sentence.
(3) An inmate who completes or has completed the institution-based
component of an intensive confinement center pilot program, who
maintains successful participation in a community-based program, and
has a period of supervised release to follow is eligible for up to a
six month reduction in sentence if staff confirm that the inmate has
met the requirements of Sec. 524.31(a)(1)(i), (2), (3) and (4).
Sec. 524.33 Program failure.
An inmate who fails to complete the institution-based component or
who subsequently fails participation in a community-based program may
forfeit his or her further involvement in the program.
[FR Doc. 96-10350 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-05-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10337 Shoreline Management at Civil Works Project
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18499-18500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10337]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers
36 CFR Part 327
Shoreline Management at Civil Works Project
AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
ACTION: Final rule; technical revision to correct authority citation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The final rule on shoreline management, published on August
10, 1990, erroneously failed to include 16 U.S.C. 460d and 460l-6a as
an authority for the regulation. (55 FR 30690, dated July 27, 1990)
This revision will add the proper citation of statutory authority for
Part 327. This revision will have no regulatory or economic impact, nor
would it alter the present rights or responsibilities of the general
public.
DATES: April 26, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Office of the Chief of Engineers, ATTN: CECW-ON, 20
Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20314-1000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Tabb, telephone: (202)-761-
1791.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose and effect of this revision is
to incorporate authority that was erroneously left out when this
regulation was published in the Federal Register in 1990.
[[Page 18500]]
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 327
Public lands, Water Resources, Natural Resources, Resource
Management.
The authority citation for part 327 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1894, as amended and
supplemented (33 U.S.C. 1); 16 U.S.C. 460d and 460l-6a.
George D. Showalter,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-10337 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-92-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10305 United States Standards for Barley
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18486-18493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10305]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
7 CFR Parts 800 and 810
RIN 0580-AA14
United States Standards for Barley
AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
(GIPSA) is revising the United States Standards for Barley to: modify
the classification system of barley to better reflect current marketing
practices by establishing two classes, Malting barley and Barley;
revise procedures to permit applicants the option of requesting either
the malting standards or barley standards for malting types; revise the
standards for Two-rowed Malting barley by removing the ``U.S. No 1
Choice'' grade designation; amend the definition for suitable malting
type to include other malting varieties used by private malting and
brewing companies; revise the dockage certification procedure by
reporting results in half and whole percent with a fraction less than
one-half percent being disregarded; amend the definition of thins to
require the use of a single sieve (5/64 x 3/4 slotted-hole) only in
the class Barley; and eliminate the numerical grade restriction for
badly stained and materially weathered from the standards. In addition,
GIPSA is amending the breakpoint for dockage and establishing new
breakpoints for malting barley to conform with standard changes.
The objective of these revisions is to ensure that the barley
standards are serving their intended purpose to facilitate the
marketing of barley.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Wollam, USDA, GIPSA, Room 0623,
South Building, P. O. Box 96454, Washington, D.C. 20090-6454; telephone
(202) 720-0292; FAX (202) 720-4628.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866
The Department is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive
Order 12866.
Executive Order 12778
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive
effect. The United States Grain Standards Act (Act) provides in section
87g that no State or subdivision may require or impose any requirements
or restrictions concerning the inspection, weighing, or description of
grain under the Act. Otherwise, this proposed rule will not preempt any
State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present an
irreconcilable conflict with this rule. There are no administrative
procedures which must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to
the provisions of this rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
James R. Baker, Administrator, GIPSA, has determined that this
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities as defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) because most users of the
official inspection and weighing services and those entities that
perform these services do not meet the requirements for small entities.
Further, the regulations are applied equally to all entities.
Information Collection Requirements
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), the information collection requirements contained in the
rule to be amended have been previously approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under control number 0580-0013.
Background
During December 1991, the Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS),
which is now part of GIPSA, distributed a discussion paper concerning
the U.S. Standards for Barley. This paper addressed several issues
relating to the standards and served as a starting point for
discussions with producers, processors, trade associations, maltsters,
handlers, and merchandisers to better understand their views on changes
needed to improve existing standards. FGIS received positive feedback.
In addition, FGIS reviewed the barley discussion paper with the FGIS
Advisory Committee and the Grain Quality Workshops and considered ideas
received during the normal course of business, recommendations from
internal management and program review, and various other sources.
In the March 22, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 15075), GIPSA
published a proposal to revise the U.S. Standards for Barley by: (1)
Modifying the classification system of barley to better reflect current
marketing practices by establishing two classes, Malting barley and
Barley; (2) revising procedures to permit applicants the option of
requesting either the malting standards or barley standards for malting
types; (3) revising the standards for Two-rowed Malting barley by
removing the ``U.S. No 1 Choice'' grade designation and combining the
grading factors and limits for two- and six-rowed malting types onto a
single grade chart; (4) amending the definition for suitable malting
type to include other proprietary malting varieties used by private
malting and brewing companies; (5) revising the dockage certification
procedure by reporting results in half and whole percent with a
fraction less than one-half percent being disregarded; (6) amending the
definition of thins to require the use of a single sieve (\5/64\ x \3/
4\ slotted-hole) only in the proposed class Barley and remove the
grading limits from the standards; however, the level of thins will
continue to be reported on the inspection certificate; (7) revising the
standards by removing the grading limits for damaged kernels, heat-
damaged kernels, and foreign material in the proposed class Barley; and
(8) eliminating the numerical grade restriction for badly stained and
materially weathered from the standards. GIPSA further proposed to
[[Page 18487]]
amend the inspection plan tolerances based on these changes.
Comment Review
During the 60-day comment period, GIPSA received ten comments: two
from grain handling associations, five from barley producer
organizations, one from a malting barley trade association, one from a
cattle feeding company, and one from a State Department of Agriculture.
On the basis of these comments and other available information,
GIPSA has decided to revise the barley standards as proposed, with the
following exceptions: (1) Combining the grading factors and limits for
two- and six- rowed malting types into one grading chart; (2) removing
the grading limits for thins in the class Barley; (3) removing the
grading limits for damaged kernels, heat-damaged kernels, and foreign
material in the class Barley; (4) applying the current damaged kernels
grade limits in Six-rowed Malting barley to Two-rowed Malting barley;
(5) applying the present limits for injured-by-mold and mold damage in
Two-rowed Malting barley to Six-rowed Malting barley; and (6) applying
the current grade limits for other grains and wild oats to both Six-
and Two-rowed Malting barley.
Rather than combining the grading factors and limits for two- and
six-rowed malting types into one grading chart, GIPSA decided to
maintain a separate grading chart for the two-rowed malting type and
the six-rowed malting type because of their different grade limits and
grading factors. Also, GIPSA decided to retain the grading limits for
thins, damaged kernels, heat-damaged kernels, and foreign material in
the class Barley. In addition, GIPSA will continue to apply the current
grade limits in Six- rowed Malting barley for damaged kernels and other
grains only to Six-rowed Malting barley and continue to apply the
present grade limits in Two-rowed Malting barley for injured-by-mold,
mold damage, and wild oats only to Two-rowed Malting barley.
Barley Classification
GIPSA proposed to amend the barley classification system in section
7 CFR 810.202, paragraph (c), to better reflect current marketing
practices by establishing two classes of barley, specifically, Malting
barley and Barley. The class Malting barley is divided into three
subclasses: Six-rowed Malting barley, Six-rowed Blue Malting barley,
and Two-rowed Malting barley. The class Barley is divided into three
subclasses: Six-rowed barley, Two-rowed barley, and Barley. GIPSA
believes this new classification system will assist in simplifying the
barley standards and facilitate the domestic and export marketing of
barley.
The present barley classification system is based on kernel
physical characteristics. Barley is divided into three classes: Six-
rowed barley, Two-rowed barley, and Barley. The class Six-rowed barley
is divided into three subclasses: Six-rowed Malting barley, Six-rowed
Blue Malting barley, and Six-rowed barley. The class Two-rowed barley
is divided into two subclasses: Two-rowed Malting barley and Two-rowed
barley. The class Barley has no subclasses.
This classification system does not reflect current marketing
practices. That is, barley produced in the United States is used
primarily as livestock feed or for malting. Consequently, the barley
classing system should be structured in a manner consistent with
current trading practices.
All comments received were supportive of the new classification
system.
Based on this information, comments received, and other available
information, GIPSA is amending the barley classification system in
current section 7 CFR 810.202, paragraph (c), by establishing two
classes of barley, Malting barley and Barley. The class Malting barley
is divided into three subclasses: Six-rowed Malting barley, Six-rowed
Blue Malting barley, and Two-rowed Malting barley. The class Barley is
divided into three subclasses: Six-rowed barley, Two-rowed barley, and
Barley.
Applying the Malting Standards
GIPSA proposed to amend the subclass definitions for Six- and Two-
rowed barley in current section 7 CFR 810.202, paragraphs (c)(1)(iii)
and (c)(2)(ii), by deleting the reference to Malting barley. This
change is needed to provide applicants the option of requesting either
the malting standards or the barley standards for malting types.
The present standards require official personnel initially to apply
the Malting barley requirements and assign grades covered in section 7
CFR 810.206 only if the sample fails to meet the malting criteria. This
requirement is based on the subclass definitions for Six- and Two-rowed
barley. The subclass definitions for Six- and Two-rowed barley state,
in part, that barley not meeting the applicable subclass requirement
for malting shall be graded using the 7 CFR 810.206 grade chart.
Initially applying the malting standard requirements hampers
inspection efficiency and may create market disruptions for malting
varieties used for other purposes. Labeling barley as malting when it
is being marketed for another use causes confusion and could lead to
unnecessary marketing complications.
All comments received were supportive of this revision.
Based on this information, comments received and other available
information, GIPSA is amending the subclass definitions for Six- and
Two-rowed barley in section 7 CFR 810.202, paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and
(c)(2)(ii), by deleting the reference to Malting barley to provide the
inspection system greater flexibility in meeting the market needs. This
change will also bring existing standards more in line with today's
marketing practices for Malting barley.
U.S. No 1 Choice Grade Designation
GIPSA proposed to revise section 7 CFR 810.205 by removing the
``U.S. No 1 Choice'' grade designation from the grading chart and
retain the factors and limits concerning the Choice grade as U.S. No 1
and redesignating the factors and limits for U.S. Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as
U.S. Nos. 2, 3, and 4, respectively. This revision was sought to bring
more consistency between the standards for Two- and Six-rowed Malting
barley.
The current Two-rowed Malting barley standard includes a ``U.S. No
1 Choice'' grade designation. The Six-rowed Malting barley standard
does not include a similar grade. The differences between ``U.S. No 1
Choice'' Two-rowed Malting barley and U.S. No. 1 Two-rowed Malting
barley are reflected in the test weight, skinned and broken kernels,
and the thin barley grade limits. GIPSA believes that the factors and
limits for the ``U.S. No 1 Choice'' grade designation are important to
producers, maltsters, and brewers. Furthermore, GIPSA believes that the
quality requirements in the standards for Six- and Two-rowed Malting
barley should be more consistent to eliminate confusion in the
marketplace and to provide more meaningful information to our
customers.
All commentors agreed with GIPSA's proposal.
Based on this information, comments received and other available
information, GIPSA is removing the ``U.S. No 1 Choice'' grade
designation from section 800.86(c)(2) Table-2 and section 7 CFR 810.205
for Two-rowed Malting barley. Furthermore, GIPSA is retaining the
factors and limits for the ``U.S. No 1 Choice'' grade as the U.S. No. 1
grade and redesignating the factors and limits for U.S. Nos. 1, 2, and
3 as U.S. Nos. 2, 3, and 4 for the Two- rowed Malting barley,
respectively.
[[Page 18488]]
Malting Barley Grading Charts
GIPSA proposed to revise the grade requirements in section 7 CFR
810.204 and 810.205 by: (1) Combining the factors and limits for Two-
and Six-rowed Malting barley into a single grade chart; (2)
establishing four numerical grades for all Malting barley; (3)
establishing common foreign material grade limits for all Malting
barley; (4) establishing separate grade limits for test weight,
suitable malting types, sound barley, skinned and broken kernels, and
thin barley for two- and six-rowed malting types; (5) applying the
current damaged kernels grade limits in Six-rowed Malting barley to
Two-rowed Malting barley and establishing a new 5.0 percent damaged
kernels limit to correspond with the proposed four grade categories;
(6) applying the present limits for mold damage and injured-by-mold in
Two-rowed Malting barley to Six-rowed Malting barley; and (7) applying
the current grade limits for other grains and wild oats to both Six-
and Two-rowed Malting barley.
In the present standards, separate grade charts exist for two- and
six-rowed malting types. Additionally, the factor requirements differ
based on the barley subclass. For example, the current standards impose
limits for other grains, wild oats, mold damage, and injured-by-mold,
but not consistently for all malting types. These differences reflect
the traditional variances between the production areas and markets
dealing with Six- and Two-rowed Malting barley. In proposing changes to
the standards, GIPSA believed that the malting standards should be
revised to more consistently apply factor requirements between Two- and
Six-rowed barley. GIPSA also believed that the proposed revisions to
combine sections 7 CFR 810.204 and 810.205 simplify the malting
standards and make them more user friendly.
Supporters stated that combining the factors and grade limits for
Six- and Two-rowed Malting barley into one chart will make the malting
barley standards more user friendly, make the standards more compatible
between the Two-rowed and Six-rowed Malting types, and reduce potential
confusion of foreign purchasers.
Several organizations representing producers, handlers, and
maltsters opposed applying the present limits for mold damage and
damaged-by-mold in Two-rowed Malting barley to Six-rowed malting types
and applying the current grade limits for other grains and wild oats to
both Six- and Two-rowed Malting types.
With regard to applying the present limits for mold damage and
injured-by-mold in Two-rowed Malting barley to Six-rowed Malting
barley, the North Dakota Barley Council (NDBC) stated that applying the
present limits for mold damage and damaged-by-mold in Two-rowed Malting
barley to Six-rowed Malting barley is restrictive and causes market
disruption because weather conditions frequently cause mold damage and
damaged-by-mold injury. They also stated that under this proposal a
significant portion of Midwestern crop would not receive malting barley
grades. Furthermore, the NDBC stated that Midwestern Six-rowed Malting
barley is frequently purchased in excess of the proposed limits.
Further, other comments received shared similar views.
Upon review of this issue and because of the expressed concern of
potential market disruption, GIPSA has decided not to adopt this
revision. Consequently, GIPSA will maintain the current limits for
injured-by-mold and mold damage for Two- and Six-rowed Malting barley.
In regard to applying current grade limits for other grains and
wild oats to both Six- and Two-rowed malting types, the current malting
standards impose grade limits for other grains and wild oats but not
consistently for Two- and Six-rowed Malting barley. These differences
reflect the traditional variances between the production areas and
markets dealing with Six- and Two-rowed Malting barley. In proposing to
apply current grade limits for other grains and wild oats to both Six-
and Two-rowed Malting types, GIPSA believed that the malting standards
should be revised to more consistently apply factor requirements
between Two- and Six-rowed Malting types.
GIPSA received no support for this proposed action. A commentor
opposing this proposal stated that while the proposal adds more
uniformity to the grading standards, it fails to consider the impact on
domestic and export markets.
Applying uniform grade limits for other grains and wild oats to
both six- and two-rowed malting types may impact negatively on domestic
and/or export markets. Therefore, GIPSA has decided not to adopt this
proposal. Consequently, GIPSA will continue to apply the current grade
limits for other grains to six-rowed malting type only and the current
grade limits for wild oats to two-rowed malting type only.
In its comment, the NDBC recommended to aggregate wild oats, other
grains, and foreign materials into one category. They stated foreign
buyers perceive other grains, wild oats, and foreign material as non-
barley material in Malting barley. Furthermore, the NDBC proposed
different grade limits for two- and six-rowed malting types as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six-rowed Two-rowed
Grade (percent) (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. No. 1........................................ 3.0 1.5
U.S. No. 2........................................ 4.0 2.0
U.S. No. 3........................................ 6.0 3.0
U.S. No. 4........................................ 8.0 5.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDBC believes that this change would more accurately describe non-
barley material in Malting barley and facilitate marketing in export
channels.
GIPSA believes that this recommendation warrants further evaluation
and has decided more discussions are needed before proposing such a
change. Meanwhile, GIPSA will continue to use the current factors and
limits as applicable.
In proposing to combine the grade charts for two- and six-rowed
malting types, GIPSA believed that adopting the same grading factors
would simplify the malting standards and promote uniformity between
Two- and Six-rowed Malting barley. However, the proposal to apply the
same grading factors to all malting barley were not adopted. A single
grade chart containing different factors and grade limits for two- and
six-rowed malting types would be hard to read or understand. Therefore,
GIPSA has decided not to combine the grade charts for two- and six-
rowed malting types because common grading factors and limits were not
established. Consequently, GIPSA will maintain a separate grading chart
for the Two-rowed Malting barley and the Six-rowed Malting barley
because of their different grade limits and grading factors.
GIPSA received no opposition to establishing four numerical grades
for malting barley; separate grade limits for test weight; percent
suitable malting types, sound barley, skinned and broken kernels, and
thin barley for two- and six-rowed malting types; or establishing
common foreign material grade limits for all Malting barley.
Based on information and suggestions received from individuals
using these grade charts, comments received, and other available
information, GIPSA will: (1) Maintain separate grading charts for two-
and six-rowed malting types; (2) establish four numerical grades for
all Malting barley; (3) apply the current grade limits for damaged
kernels and other grains to Six-rowed Malting barley only; (4) apply
the present limits for wild oats, injured-by-mold, and mold
[[Page 18489]]
damage to Two-rowed Malting barley only; (5) apply the proposed foreign
material grade limits to two- and six-rowed malting types; and (6) for
six-rowed malting types adopt the proposed grade limits for test
weight, sound barley, damaged kernels, skinned and broken kernels, and
thin barley.
Suitable Malting Type
GIPSA proposed to amend the definition of suitable malting type in
current section 7 CFR 810.202, paragraph (t), to expand the list of
approved malting varieties. The proposed definition will include other
malting types used by various maltsters and brewers.
Current standards require a specified level of suitable malting
type before the Malting barley designation is assigned. The American
Malting Barley Association (AMBA) identifies which malting varieties
are considered suitable. The AMBA revises its list of approved malting
types annually by adding new varieties and deleting outdated ones.
However, many malting varieties removed from the AMBA list continue to
be produced, marketed, and processed. Under the current malting
standards, a variety that meets all quality requirements for malting
but is not included on the AMBA list could not be classified as Malting
barley. Furthermore, several breweries are actively involved in the
development and production of malting barley types to meet various end-
use specifications. Often, these varietal types are not tested and
approved by AMBA, although such varieties meet all quality requirements
of the brewery. This revision will permit official inspection personnel
to apply the malting grade designation to any of these malting
varieties. Also, it will bring existing standards more in line with
today's processing practices of the malting and brewing industries.
All comments received were supportive of the proposal to revise the
definition of suitable malting type to include varieties recommended by
AMBA and other malting types.
Based on this information, comments received, and other available
information, GIPSA is revising the suitable malting type definition in
current section 7 CFR 810.202, paragraph (t), to include varieties
recommended by AMBA and other malting types.
Dockage
GIPSA proposed to revise the dockage certification procedure in
section 7 CFR 810.104, paragraph (b), by reporting results in half and
whole percent with a fraction less than one-half percent being
disregarded.
Dockage in barley consists of dust, chaff, small weed seed, very
small pieces of broken barley, and coarse grains larger than barley.
Present standards certify dockage in whole percents with fractions of a
percent being disregarded. GIPSA believes that this method of reporting
often understates dockage levels. GIPSA also believes that reporting
dockage in half and whole percent provides a more accurate description
of non-barley material, by that, enabling handlers and end-users to
decide quality, storability, and end-product yield. Also, providing
actual dockage percentage in the remarks section of the certificate is
currently available upon request.
One commentor supporting this change stated that much of the
commercial trade is done in tenth of percent increments. However, GIPSA
believes that the proposed change best reflects market needs at this
time. Accordingly, no further changes to this provision are needed.
Applicants interested in receiving dockage information in tenth of
percent increments may receive it upon request.
Based on this information, comments received, and other available
information, GIPSA is revising the dockage certification procedure in
section 7 CFR 810.104, paragraph (b), to report dockage in barley in
half and whole percent with a fraction less than one-half percent being
disregarded.
Thin Barley
GIPSA proposed to revise the sieve requirement for determining thin
barley in current section 7 CFR 810.202, paragraph (u), by requiring
the use of a single sieve (\5/64\ x \3/4\ slotted-hole), in
determining thins in the class Barley. GIPSA also proposed to amend
section 7 CFR 800.162 to delete the factor thins and its corresponding
grade limits for the class Barley and require that the level of thins
be reported on each certificate representing an inspection for grade.
This procedure is similar to the certification procedure for moisture,
which provides the marketplace with the flexibility to establish more
meaningful quality limits for thins based on the specific needs of end-
users.
Present standards define thin barley as Six-rowed barley which
passes through a \5/64\ x \3/4\ slotted-hole sieve or Two-rowed
barley which passes through a 5.\5/64\ x \3/4\ slotted-hole sieve. In
addition, for the class Barley, which consists of a mixture of Six- and
Two-rowed barley, thin barley is barley passing through the \5/64\ x
\3/4\ slotted-hole sieve. Under this requirement, the factor thins in
the standards is a measurement of kernel size more than an indicator of
overall quality in barley.
All commentors were supportive of GIPSA's proposal to use one
standard sieve size (\5/64\ x \3/5\ slotted-hole) to determine thins
for the class Barley.
Several commentors opposed the removal of thins as a grade
determining factor stating: (1) Thins are one of the most important
grading factors, particularly in livestock feed and export markets; (2)
there is correlation between barley quality and the level of thins
because a high level of thins can cause problems in rolling barley and
it will affect the nutritive value of barley; (3) the end-users rely on
the official grading system to determine the level of thins and
corresponding numerical grade; (4) if the end-users contract for a
certain grade of barley, they currently can be assured of a specified
maximum percentage of thin kernels; (5) most of the barley sold into
the feed market is traded on the basis of thins; (6) they feared the
potential for increased blending, which may lower the overall quality;
and (7) they stated that FGIS failed to consider the impacts on export
markets.
GIPSA recognizes that thin barley is a factor used by the industry
to determine market value. Also, that the end-user is in the best
position to determine the appropriate level of thins when arriving at
the market value of the grain. Therefore, GIPSA has decided not to
remove the grade limits for thins in the class barley because there
appears to be a market need to preserve these limits based on comments
received. Consequently, the factor ``thins'' will continue to be a
grade determining factor in the class Barley.
Based on this information, comments received, and other available
information, GIPSA is revising current section 7 CFR 810.202, paragraph
(u), to require the use of the \5/64\ x \3/4\ slotted-whole sieve for
thin barley determination in the class Barley.
Sound Barley
GIPSA proposed to revise section 7 CFR 810.206 by removing the
factors and limits for damaged kernels, heat- damaged kernels, and
foreign material in the class Barley. In proposing this revision, GIPSA
believed that the standards would rely on the factor ``sound barley''
to relate the overall amount of damaged kernels, heat-damaged kernels,
and foreign material. In addition, applicants interested in the
percentage and composition of damaged kernels, heat-damaged kernels,
and foreign material may request this
[[Page 18490]]
information be reported on the inspection certificate.
Supporters of this change stated that relying on the factor ``sound
barley'' to determine quality is favorable, providing other information
concerning non-barley material and damaged kernels is available to
interested parties.
Opponents of this proposed change stated: Eliminating the factors
and grade limits for damaged kernels, heat-damaged kernels, and foreign
material and relying on sound barley to relate the overall amount of
damage and non-barley materials will be an incentive to add non-barley
material to barley shipments; while the domestic market likely would
quickly adapt to this change, the export market will be at a serious
disadvantage; and U.S. competitors have much more stringent quality
parameters, and any retrenchment from the current grading system would
cause further concerns by overseas customers and cause reduction in
U.S. exports.
Upon further review of this issue and in view of the comments and
concerns, GIPSA believes that removing the grade limits for damaged
kernels, heat-damaged kernels, and foreign material in the class Barley
and relying on sound barley to relate the overall amount of damage and
non-barley may not reflect domestic and/or export markets need.
Therefore, GIPSA has decided to retain the factors and limits for
damaged kernels, heat-damaged kernels, and foreign material in the
class Barley as grade determining factors because there appears to be a
market need to maintain these factors and their grade limits as grade
determining factors.
Based on this information, comments received, and other available
information, GIPSA has decided not to revise section 7 CFR 810.206 of
the standards. Consequently, the grade limits for damaged kernels,
heat- damaged kernels, and foreign material in the class Barley will
continue to be grade determining factors.
Badly Stained or Materially Weathered Barley
GIPSA proposed to eliminate the grade limitation for barley that is
badly stained or materially weathered from section 7 CFR 810.206. GIPSA
also proposed to remove the definition for stained barley from 7 CFR
810.202 (s).
The determination of badly stained or materially weathered barley
is seldom made because this condition is generally reflected in other
grading factors including sound barley. Presently, barley that is badly
stained or materially weathered is graded not higher than U.S. No. 4.
Commentors did not oppose GIPSA's proposal to remove the badly
stained or materially weathered criterion from the standards.
Based on this information, comments received, and other available
information, GIPSA has decided to amend section 7 CFR 810-206 by
eliminating the grade limitation for badly stained or materially
weathered.
Miscellaneous Changes
GIPSA proposed to revise the format of the grade charts in the
standards for Malting barley and Barley. These proposed revisions were
intended to improve the readability of the grading tables. Based on
information and suggestions received from individuals using these
grading charts, GIPSA has decided not to adopt the proposed format.
Consequently, the present format of the grading charts in the standards
for Malting barley and Barley will not be changed.
Inspection Plan Tolerances
Shiplots, unit trains, and lash barge lots are inspected by a
statistically based inspection plan (55 FR 24030, June 13, 1990).
Inspection tolerances, commonly referred to as breakpoints, are used to
determine acceptable quality. GIPSA proposed to amend the breakpoint
for dockage from 0.47 to 0.23 percent. GIPSA also proposed to establish
breakpoints conforming to the proposed changes to the barley standards.
GIPSA received no opposition to amending or establishing
breakpoints as included in the proposal.
Based on this information, comments received, and other available
information, GIPSA is revising section 800.86, Table 4, by changing the
dockage breakpoint to 0.23 percent. GIPSA is also adopting breakpoints
for the changes to the malting barley standards.
Final Action
On the basis of these comments and other available information,
GIPSA has decided to revise the barley standards as proposed, with the
following exceptions: (1) Combining the grading factors and limits for
two- and six- rowed malting types into one grade chart; (2) removing
the grading limits for thins in the class Barley; (3) removing the
grading limits for damaged kernels, heat-damaged kernels, and foreign
material in the class Barley; (4) applying the current damaged kernels
grade limits in Six-rowed Malting barley to Two-rowed Malting barley;
(5) applying the present limits for mold damage and injured-by-mold in
Two-rowed Malting barley to Six-rowed Malting barley; and (6) applying
the current grade limits for other grains and wild oats to both Six-
and Two-rowed Malting barley.
Rather than combining the grading factors and limits for two- and
six-rowed malting types into one grading chart, GIPSA decided to
maintain a separate grading chart for the two-rowed malting type and
the six-rowed malting type because of their different grade limits and
grading factors. Also, GIPSA decided to retain the grading limits for
thins, damaged kernels, heat-damaged kernels, and foreign material in
the class Barley. In addition, GIPSA will continue to apply the current
grade limits in Six- rowed Malting barley for damaged kernels and other
grains only to Six-rowed Malting barley and continue to apply the
present limits in Two-rowed Malting barley for injured-by-mold, wild
oats, and mold damage only to Two-rowed Malting barley.
Pursuant to section 4(b)(1) of the United States Grain Standards
Act (7 U.S.C. 76(b)(1)), no standards established or amendments or
revocations of standards are to become effective less than one calendar
year after promulgation unless, in the judgment of the Administrator,
the public health, interest, or safety requires that they become
effective sooner. Pursuant to that section of the Act, it has been
determined that in the public interest the revision becomes effective
June 1, 1996. This effective date will coincide with the beginning of
the 1996 crop year and facilitate domestic and export marketing of
barley.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 800 and 810
Administrative practice and procedure, Export, Grain.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Part 800 and 7 CFR
Part 810 are amended as follows:
PART 800--GENERAL REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 800 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 94-582, 90 Stat. 2867, as amended (7 U.S.C.
71 et seq.).
2. Section 800.86 (c)(2) Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 are revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 800.86 Inspection of shiplot, unit train, and lash barge grain
in single lots.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
[[Page 18491]]
Table 1--Grade Limits (GL) and Breakpoints (BP) for Six-Rowed Malting Barley and Six-Rowed Blue Malting Barley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum limits of-- Maximum limits of--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skinned
Grade Test weight Suitable Sound barley Damaged Foreign Other and broken Thin
per bushel malting types (percent) \1\ kernels material grains kernels barley
(pounds) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP
U.S. No. 1.................................. 47.0 -0.5 95.0 -1.3 97.0 -1.0 2.0 0.8 0.5 0.1 2.0 0.8 4.0 1.1 7.0 0.6
U.S. No. 2.................................. 45.0 -0.5 95.0 -1.3 94.0 -1.4 3.0 0.9 1.0 0.4 3.0 0.9 6.0 1.4 10.0 0.9
U.S. No. 3.................................. 43.0 -0.5 95.0 -1.3 90.0 -1.6 4.0 1.1 2.0 0.5 5.0 1.3 8.0 1.5 15.0 0.9
U.S. No. 4.................................. 43.0 -0.5 95.0 -1.3 87.0 -1.9 5.0 1.3 3.0 0.6 5.0 1.3 10.0 1.6 15.0 0.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Injured-by-frost kernels and injured-by-mold kernels are not considered damaged kernels or considered against sound barley.
Table 2--Grade Limits (GL) and Breakpoints (BP) for Two-Rowed Malting Barley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum limits of-- Maximum limits of--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade Test weight Suitable Sound barley Foreign Skinned and
per bushel malting types \1\ (percent) Wild oats material broken kernels Thin barley
(pounds) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP
U.S. No. 1.............................. 50.0 -0.5 97.0 -1.0 98.0 -0.8 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.1 5.0 1.3 5.0 0.4
U.S. No. 2.............................. 48.0 -0.5 97.0 -1.0 98.0 -0.8 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.4 7.0 1.3 7.0 0.5
U.S. No. 3.............................. 48.0 -0.5 95.0 -1.3 96.0 -1.1 2.0 0.8 2.0 0.5 10.0 1.8 10.0 0.9
U.S. No. 4.............................. 48.0 -0.5 95.0 -1.3 93.0 -1.1 3.0 0.9 3.0 0.6 10.0 1.8 10.0 0.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Injured-by-frost kernels and injured-by-mold kernels are not considered damaged kernels or considered against sound barley.
Note: Malting barley shall not be infested in accordance with
Sec. 810.107(b) and shall not contain any special grades as defined
in Sec. 810.206. Six- and two-rowed barley varieties not meeting the
above requirements shall be graded in accordance with standards
established for the class Barley.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum limits of-- Maximum limits of--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade Test weight Damaged Heat damaged Foreign
per bushel Sound barley kernels \1\ kernels material Broken kernels Thin barley
(pounds) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP GL BP
U.S. No. 1.............................. 47.0 -0.5 97.0 -1.1 2.0 0.8 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.4 4.0 1.0 10.0 0.9
U.S. No. 2.............................. 45.0 -0.5 94.0 -1.4 4.0 1.0 0.3 0.1 2.0 0.4 8.0 1.5 15.0 0.9
U.S. No. 3.............................. 43.0 -0.5 90.0 -1.6 6.0 1.4 0.5 0.2 3.0 0.5 12.0 1.8 25.0 1.3
U.S. No. 4.............................. 40.0 -0.5 85.0 -2.2 8.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 4.0 0.5 18.0 1.8 35.0 1.9
U.S. No. 5.............................. 36.0 -0.5 75.0 -2.2 10.0 1.8 3.0 0.6 5.0 0.6 28.0 2.4 75.0 2.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes heat-damaged kernels. Injured-by-frost kernels and injured-by-mold kernels are not considered damaged kernels.
Table 4-Breakpoints for Barley Special Grades and Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special grade or factor Grade or range limit Breakpoint
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dockage.................... As specified by contract or 0.23
load order.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
PART 810--OFFICIAL UNITED STATES STANDARDS FOR GRAIN
3. The authority citation for Part 810 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 94-582 90 Stat. 2867, as amended (7 U.S.C. 71
et seq.).
4.-5. Subpart A, section 810.104, paragraph (b), is amended by
revising the first and second sentences to read as follows:
Subpart A--General Provisions
* * * * *
Sec. 810.104 Percentages.
* * * * *
(b) Recording. The percentage of dockage in flaxseed, rye, and
sorghum is reported in whole percent with fractions of a percent being
disregarded. Dockage in barley and triticale is reported in whole and
half percent with a fraction less than one-half percent being
disregarded. * * *
* * * * *
6. Subpart B, section 810.202, paragraph (c), is revised and
paragraph (s), Stained barley, is removed. Paragraph (t), Suitable
malting type, is revised and redesignated as (s). Paragraph (u), Thin
barley, is revised and redesignated as (t). Paragraph (v), Wild oats,
is redesignated as (u) to read as follows:
Subpart B--U.S. Standards for Barley
* * * * *
Sec. 810.202 Definition of other terms.
* * * * *
(c) Classes. There are two classes of barley: Malting barley and
Barley.
(1) Malting barley. Barley of a six-rowed or two-rowed malting
type. The class Malting barley is divided into the following three
subclasses:
(i) Six-rowed Malting barley. Barley that has a minimum of 95.0
percent of a six-rowed suitable malting type that has 90.0 percent or
more of kernels with white aleurone layers that contains not more than
1.9 percent injured-by-frost kernels, 0.4 percent frost-damaged
kernels, 0.2 percent injured-by-heat kernels, and 0.1 percent heat-
damaged kernels. Six-rowed Malting barley shall not be infested,
blighted, ergoty, garlicky, or smutty as defined in Sec. 810.107(b) and
Sec. 810.206.
(ii) Six-rowed Blue Malting barley. Barley that has a minimum of
95.0 percent of a six-rowed suitable malting type that has 90.0 percent
or more of kernels with blue aleurone layers that contains not more
than 1.9 percent injured-by-frost kernels, 0.4 percent frost-damaged
kernels, 0.2 percent injured-by-heat kernels, and 0.1 percent heat-
damaged kernels. Six-rowed Blue Malting barley shall not be infested,
[[Page 18492]]
blighted, ergoty, garlicky, or smutty as defined in Sec. 810.107(b) and
Sec. 810.206.
(iii) Two-rowed Malting barley. Barley that has a minimum of 95.0
percent of a two-rowed suitable malting type that contains not more
than 1.9 percent injured-by-frost kernels, 0.4 percent frost-damaged
kernels, 0.2 percent injured-by-heat kernels, 0.1 percent heat-damaged
kernels, 1.9 percent injured-by-mold kernels, and 0.4 percent mold-
damaged kernels. Two-rowed Malting barley shall not be infested,
blighted, ergoty, garlicky, or smutty as defined in Sec. 810.107(b) and
Sec. 810.206.
(2) Barley. Any barley of a six-rowed or two-rowed type. The class
Barley is divided into the following three subclasses:
(i) Six-rowed barley. Any Six-rowed barley that contains not more
than 10.0 percent of two-rowed varieties.
(ii) Two-rowed barley. Any Two-rowed barley with white hulls that
contains not more than 10.0 percent of six-rowed varieties.
(iii) Barley. Any barley that does not meet the requirements for
the subclasses Six-rowed barley or Two-rowed barley.
* * * * *
(s) Suitable malting type. Varieties of malting barley that are
recommended by the American Malting Barley Association and other
malting type(s) used by the malting and brewing industry. The varieties
are listed in GIPSAs instructions.
(t) Thin barley. Thin barley shall be defined for the appropriate
class as follows:
(1) Malting barley. Six-rowed Malting barley that passes through a
\5/64\ x \3/4\ slotted-hole sieve and Two-rowed Malting barley which
passes through a 5.5/64 x \3/4\ slotted-hole sieve in
accordance with procedures prescribed in GIPSAs instructions.
(2) Barley. Six-rowed barley, Two-rowed barley, or Barley that
passes through a \5/64\ x \3/4\ slotted-hole sieve in accordance with
procedures prescribed in GIPSAs instructions.
* * * * *
7. Section 810.204 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 810.204 Grades and Grade Requirements for Six-rowed Malting
barley and Six-rowed Blue Malting barley.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum limits of-- Maximum limits of--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Skinned
Grade weight Suitable Sound Damaged Foreign Other and Thin
per malting barley kernels material grains broken barley
bushel types \1\ \1\ (percent) (percent) kernels (percent)
(pounds) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. No. 1..................................................... 47.0 95.0 97.0 2.0 0.5 2.0 4.0 7.0
U.S. No. 2..................................................... 45.0 95.0 94.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 6.0 10.0
U.S. No. 3..................................................... 43.0 95.0 90.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 8.0 15.0
U.S. No. 4..................................................... 43.0 95.0 87.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 10.0 15.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Injured-by-frost kernels and injured-by-mold kernels are not considered damaged kernels or considered against sound barley.
Notes: Malting barley shall not be infested in accordance with
Sec. 810.107(b) and shall not contain any special grades as defined
in Sec. 810.206. Six-rowed Malting barley and Six- rowed Blue
Malting barley varieties not meeting the requirements of this
section shall be graded in accordance with standards established for
the class Barley.
8. Section 810.205 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 810.205 Grades and Grade Requirements for Two-rowed Malting
barley.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum limits of-- Maximum limits of--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suitable Skinned and
Grade Test weight malting Sound Wild oats Foreign broken Thin barley
per bushel types barley \1\ (percent) material kernels (percent)
(pounds) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. No. 1................................................... 50.0 97.0 98.0 1.0 0.5 5.0 5.0
U.S. No. 2................................................... 48.0 97.0 98.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 7.0
U.S. No. 3................................................... 48.0 95.0 96.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 10.0
U.S. No. 4................................................... 48.0 95.0 93.0 3.0 3.0 10.0 10.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Injured-by-frost kernels and injured-by-mold kernels are not considered damaged kernels or considered against sound barley.
Note: Malting barley shall not be infested in accordance with
Sec. 810.107(b) and shall not contain any special grades as defined
in Sec. 810.206. Two-rowed Malting barley varieties not meeting the
requirements of this section shall be graded in accordance with
standards established for the class Barley.
9. Section 810.206 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 810.206 Grades and Grade Requirements for Barley.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum limits of-- Maximum Limits of--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat
Grade Test weight Sound Damaged damaged Foreign Broken Thin barley
per bushel barley kernels \1\ kernels material kernels (percent)
(pounds) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent) (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. No. 1................................................... 47.0 97.0 2.0 0.2 1.0 4.0 10.0
U.S. No. 2................................................... 45.0 94.0 4.0 0.3 2.0 8.0 15.0
U.S. No. 3................................................... 43.0 90.0 6.0 0.5 3.0 12.0 25.0
U.S. No. 4................................................... 40.0 85.0 8.0 1.0 4.0 18.0 35.0
[[Page 18493]]
U.S. No. 5................................................... 36.0 75.0 10.0 3.0 5.0 28.0 75.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Sample Grade:
U.S. Sample grade shall be barley that:
(a) Does not meet the requirements for the grades 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5; or
(b) Contains 8 or more stones or any number of stones which have an aggregate weight in excess of 0.2 percent of the sample weight, 2 or more pieces of
glass, 3 or more crotalaria seeds (Crotalaria spp.), 2 or more caster beans (Ricinus communis L.), 4 or more particles of unknown foreign substance(s)
or commonly recognized harmful or toxic substance(s), 8 or more cocklebur (Xanthium spp.) or similar seeds singly or in combination, 10 or more rodent
pellets, bird droppings, or equivalent quantity of other animal filth per 1\1/8\ to 1\1/4\ quarts of barley; or
(c) Has a musty, sour, or commercially objectionable foreign odor (except smut or garlic odor); or
(d) Is heating or otherwise of distinctly low quality.
\1\ Includes heat-damaged kernels. Injured-by-frost kernels and injured-by-mold kernels are not considered damaged kernels.
Dated: April 8, 1996.
James R. Baker,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-10305 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-EN-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10296 Radio Broadcasting Services; Cassville and Kimberling City, MO
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10296]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 95-179; RM-8728]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Cassville and Kimberling City, MO
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document substitutes Channel 261C2 for Channel 261A at
Cassville, Missouri, reallots the Channel to Kimberling City, Missouri,
and modifies the license for Station KRLK to specify operation on
Channel 261C2 at Kimberling City. The Notice was issued in response to
a petition filed by Kevin M. and Patricia W. Wodlinger. See 60 FR
65618, December 20, 1995. The coordinates for Channel 261C2 at
Kimberling City are 36-30-00 and 93-23-00. With this action, this
proceeding is terminated.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 95-179, adopted March 27, 1996, and
released April 19, 1996. The full text of this Commission decision is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,
Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 73--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C. 154,
as amended.
Sec. 73.202 [Amended]
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Missouri, is
amended by removing Cassville, Channel 261A and adding Kimberling City,
Channel 261C2.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-10296 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10293 Radio Broadcasting Services; Campton and Frenchburg, KY
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18511-18512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10293]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 95-170; RM-8721; RM-8753]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Campton and Frenchburg, KY
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of James P. Wagner, allots
Channel 279A at Campton, Kentucky, as the community's first local aural
transmission service (RM-8721). See 60 FR 58038, October 24, 1995. At
the request of James P. Gray, we also dismiss the counterproposal
proposing the allotment of Channel 279A at Frenchburg, Kentucky, as the
community's first local aural transmission service (RM-8753). Channel
279A can be allotted to Campton in compliance with the Commission's
minimum distance separation requirements without the imposition of a
site restriction. The coordinates for Channel 279A at Campton are North
Latitude 37-44-06 and West Longitude 83-32-48. With this action, this
proceeding is terminated.
DATES: Effective June 3, 1996. The window period for filing
applications will open on June 3, 1996 and close on July 3, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 95-170, adopted March 25, 1996, and
released April 18, 1996. The full text of this Commission decision is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Service,
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC
20037.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
[[Page 18512]]
Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 73--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C.
154, as amended.
Sec. 73.202 [Amended]
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Kentucky, is
amended by adding Campton, Channel 279A.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-10293 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10282 Pipeline Safety Program Procedures; Update and Corrections
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18512-18519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10282]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Parts 190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 198, and 199
[Docket No. PS 145; Amdt Nos. 190-6; 191-10; 192-74; 193-10; 195-55;
198-2; 199-13]
RIN 2137-AC79
Pipeline Safety Program Procedures; Update and Corrections
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to the President's Regulatory Reinvention
Initiative, this rulemaking updates and corrects pipeline safety
program procedures by amending nomenclature, addresses, amendment
summaries, typographical errors, and penalty amounts. These editorial
amendments impose no new procedural requirements.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 26, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L.E. Herrick at 202-366-5523 or online
at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In a memorandum dated March 4, 1995, the President provided
direction to the heads of Departments and Agencies on carrying out his
regulatory reform initiative for reinventing the government. As part of
this initiative, RSPA reviewed existing pipeline safety regulations and
identified those that are outdated or in need of reform. RSPA also
conducted public outreach meetings to discuss the pipeline safety
program. A theme of this process and an issue often raised during the
course of the outreach meetings and other recent public contacts is the
need to keep existing regulation updated. As a result, RSPA reviewed
its pipeline safety program procedures, 49 CFR parts 190-199 and
identified numerous instances in which these regulations were not up to
date. These discrepancies include titles, addresses, amendment
summaries, typographical errors and statutory citations. For example,
references to the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act and the Hazardous
Liquid Pipeline Safety Act have been deleted and replaced with
references to Public Law 103-272. Enacted on July 5, 1994, Public Law
103-272 revised, codified, and enacted the provisions of those Acts
without substantive change as Chapter 601 of Title 49, United States
Code. This amendment makes those corrections.
In addition, unnecessary gender specific terms have been changed to
gender neutral terms and other minor corrections have been made. Since
these amendments do not impose new requirements, notice and public
procedure are unnecessary.
Rulemaking Analysis and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is
not significant according to the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of
the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034). This final rule does
not require a Regulatory Impact Analysis, or a regulatory evaluation or
an environmental assessment or impact statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
Executive Order 12612
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria in Executive Order 12612 (``Federalism'') and does not
have sufficient federalism impacts to warrant the preparation of a
federalism assessment.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule makes minor
corrections which will not impose any new requirements on persons
subject to the Pipeline Safety Regulations; thus, there are no direct
or indirect adverse economic impacts for small units of government,
businesses, or other organizations.
Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no new information collection requirements in this final
rule.
Lists of Subjects
49 CFR Part 190
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Pipeline safety.
49 CFR Part 191
Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 192
Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 193
Fire prevention, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures.
49 CFR Part 195
Anhydrous ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 198
Grant programs, Formula, Pipeline safety.
49 CFR Part 199
Alcohol testing, Drug testing, Pipeline safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 49 CFR parts 190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 198, and 199 are
corrected by making the following amendments:
PART 190--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 190 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5123, 60108, 60112, 60117, 60118, 60120,
60122, and 60123; and 49 CFR 1.53.
2. Section 190.1 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 190.1 Purpose and scope.
(a) This part prescribes procedures used by the Research and
Special Programs Administration in carrying out duties regarding
pipeline safety under 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. (the pipeline safety
laws) and 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq. (the hazardous material transportation
laws).
* * * * *
3. Section 190.3 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 18513]]
Sec. 190.3 Definitions.
As used in this part:
Hearing means an informal conference or a proceeding for oral
presentation. Unless otherwise specifically prescribed in this part,
the use of ``hearing'' is not intended to require a hearing on the
record in accordance with section 554 of title 5, U.S.C.
OPS means the Office of Pipeline Safety, which is part of the
Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation.
Person means any individual, firm, joint venture, partnership,
corporation, association, State, municipality, cooperative association,
or joint stock association, and includes any trustee, receiver,
assignee, or personal representative thereof.
Presiding Official means the person who conducts any hearing
relating to civil penalty assessments, compliance orders or hazardous
facility orders.
Regional Director means the head of any one of the Regional Offices
of the Office of Pipeline Safety, or a designee appointed by the
Regional Director. Regional Offices are located in Washington, DC
(Eastern Region); Atlanta, Georgia (Southern Region); Kansas City,
Missouri (Central Region); Houston, Texas (Southwest Region); and
Lakewood, Colorado (Western Region).
Respondent means a person upon whom the OPS has served a notice of
probable violation.
RSPA means the Research and Special Programs Administration of the
United States Department of Transportation.
State means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia
and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
4. Section 190.7 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (i),
introductory text, to read as follows:
Sec. 190.7 Subpoenas; witness fees.
* * * * *
(d) Service of a subpoena upon the person named therein shall be
made by delivering a copy of the subpoena to such person and by
tendering the fees for one day's attendance and mileage as specified by
paragraph (g) of this section. When a subpoena is issued at the
instance of any officer or agency of the United States, fees and
mileage need not be tendered at the time of service. Delivery of a copy
of a subpoena and tender of the fees to a natural person may be made by
handing them to the person, leaving them at the person's office with
the person in charge thereof, leaving them at the person's dwelling
place or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and
discretion then residing therein, by mailing them by registered or
certified mail to the person at the last known address, or by any
method whereby actual notice is given to the person and the fees are
made available prior to the return date.
* * * * *
(i) Any person to whom a subpoena is directed may, prior to the
time specified therein for compliance, but in no event more than 10
days after the date of service of such subpoena, apply to the official
who issued the subpoena, or if the person is unavailable, to the
Administrator, RSPA to quash or modify the subpoena. The application
shall contain a brief statement of the reasons relied upon in support
of the action sought therein. The Administrator, RSPA, or this issuing
official, as the case may be, may:
* * * * *
5. Section 190.9 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1)(i) to read
as follows:
Sec. 190.9 Petitions for finding or approval.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The State agency certified to participate under 49 U.S.C.
60105.
* * * * *
6. Section 190.201 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 190.201 Purpose and scope.
(a) This subpart describes the enforcement authority and sanctions
exercised by the Associate Administrator, OPS for achieving and
maintaining pipeline safety. It also prescribes the procedures
governing the exercise of that authority and the imposition of those
sanctions.
* * * * *
7. Section 190.203 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(1),
(b)(4), and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 190.203 Inspections.
(a) Officers, employees, or agents authorized by the Associate
Administrator, OPS upon presenting appropriate credentials, are
authorized to enter upon, inspect, and examine, at reasonable times and
in a reasonable manner, the records and properties of persons to the
extent such records and properties are relevant to determining the
compliance of such persons with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 60101 et
seq. or regulations, or orders issued thereunder.
(b) * * *
(1) Routine scheduling by the Regional Director of the Region in
which the facility is located;
* * * * *
(4) Report from a State Agency participating in the Federal Program
under 49 U.S.C. 60105;
* * * * *
(d) To the extent necessary to carry out the responsibilities under
49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq., the Administrator, RSPA or the Associate
Administrator, OPS may require testing of portions of pipeline
facilities that have been involved in, or affected by, an accident.
However, before exercising this authority, the Administrator, RSPA or
the Associate Administrator, OPS shall make every effort to negotiate a
mutually acceptable plan with the owner of those facilities and, where
appropriate, the National Transportation Safety Board for performing
the testing.
* * * * *
8. Section 190.205 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 190.205 Warning letters.
Upon determining that a probable violation of 49 U.S.C. 60101 et
seq. or any regulation or order issued thereunder has occurred, the
Associate Administrator, OPS may issue a Warning Letter notifying the
owner or operator of the probable violation and advising the operator
to correct it or be subject to enforcement action under Secs. 190.207
through 190.235.
9. Section 190.207 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 190.207 Notice of probable violation.
(a) Except as otherwise provided by this subpart, a Regional
Director begins an enforcement proceeding by serving a notice of
probable violation on a person charging that person with a probable
violation of 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. or any regulation or order issued
thereunder.
* * * * *
(c) The Associate Administrator, OPS may amend a notice of probable
violation at any time prior to issuance of a final order under
Sec. 190.213. If an amendment includes any new material allegations of
fact or proposes an increased civil penalty amount or new or additional
remedial action under Sec. 190.217, the respondent shall have the
opportunity to respond under Sec. 190.209.
10. Section 190.209 is amended by revising the introductory text
and paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 190.209 Response options.
Within 30 days of receipt of a notice of probable violation the
respondent shall respond to the Regional Director who issued the notice
in the following way:
* * * * *
[[Page 18514]]
(c) An offer in compromise under paragraph (a) of this section is
made by submitting a check or money order for the amount offered to the
Regional Director who forwards the offer to the Associate
Administrator, OPS for action. If the offer in compromise is accepted
by the Associate Administrator, OPS the respondent is notified in
writing that the acceptance is in full settlement of the civil penalty
action. If an offer in compromise submitted under paragraph (a) of this
section is rejected by the Associate Administrator, OPS it is returned
to the respondent with written notification. Within 10 days of receipt
of such notification, the respondent shall again respond to the
Regional Director in one or more of the ways provided in paragraph (a)
of this section.
(d) Failure of the respondent to respond in accordance with
paragraph (a) of this section or, when applicable, paragraph (c) of
this section, constitutes a waiver of the right to contest the
allegations in the notice of probable violation and authorizes the
Associate Administrator, OPS, without further notice to the respondent,
to find facts to be as alleged in the notice of probable violation and
to issue a final order under Sec. 190.213.
11. Section 190.211 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b),
(d), and (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 190.211 Hearing.
(a) A request for a hearing provided for in this part must be
accompanied by a statement of the issues that the respondent intends to
raise at the hearing. The issues may relate to the allegations in the
notice, the proposed corrective action (including a proposed amendment,
a proposed compliance order, or a proposed hazardous facility order),
or the proposed civil penalty amount. A respondent's failure to specify
an issue may result in waiver of the respondent's right to raise that
issue at the hearing. The respondent's request must also indicate
whether or not the respondent will be represented by counsel at the
hearing.
(b) In such circumstances as deemed appropriate by the Regional
Director, and only if the respondent concurs, a telephone conference
may be held in lieu of a hearing.
* * * * *
(d) The hearing is conducted informally without strict adherence to
rules of evidence. The respondent may submit any relevant information
and material and call witnesses on the respondent's behalf. The
respondent may also examine the evidence and witnesses presented by the
government. No detailed record of a hearing is prepared.
* * * * *
(j) After submission of all materials during and after the hearing,
the presiding official shall prepare a written recommendation as to
final action in the case. This recommendation, along with any material
submitted during and after the hearing, shall be included in the case
file which is forwarded to the Associate Administrator, OPS for final
administrative action.
12. Section 190.213 is amended by revising paragraph (a), (b)(4),
(c), introductory text, and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 190.213 Final order.
(a) After a hearing under Sec. 190.211 or, if no hearing has been
held, after expiration of the 30 day response period prescribed in
Sec. 190.209, the case file of an enforcement proceeding commenced
under Sec. 190.207 is forwarded to the Associate Administrator, OPS for
issuance of a final order.
(b) * * *
(4) The Regional Director's evaluation of response material
submitted by the respondent and recommendation for final action to be
taken under this section; and
* * * * *
(c) Based on a review of a case file described in paragraph (b) of
this section, the Associate Administrator, OPS shall issue a final
order that includes--
* * * * *
(e) It is the policy of the Associate Administrator, OPS to issue a
final order under this section within 45 days of receipt of the case
file, unless it is found impracticable to take action within that time.
In cases where it is so found and the delay beyond that period is
expected to be substantial, notice of that fact and the date by which
it is expected that action will be taken is issued to the respondent.
13. Sections 190.215 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 190.215 Petitions for reconsideration.
(a) A respondent may petition the Associate Administrator, OPS for
reconsideration of a final order issued under Sec. 190.213. It is
requested, but not required, that three copies be submitted. The
petition must be received no later than 20 days after service of the
final order upon the respondent. Petitions received after that time
will not be considered. The petition must contain a brief statement of
the complaint and an explanation as to why the effectiveness of the
final order should be stayed.
(b) If the respondent requests the consideration of additional
facts or arguments, the respondent must submit the reasons they were
not presented prior to issuance of the final order.
(c) The Associate Administrator, OPS does not consider repetitious
information, arguments, or petitions.
(d) Unless the Associate Administrator, OPS otherwise provides, the
filing of a petition under this section does not stay the effectiveness
of the final order.
(e) The Associate Administrator, OPS may grant or deny, in whole or
in part, any petition for reconsideration without further proceedings.
In the event the Associate Administrator, OPS reconsiders a final
order, a final decision on reconsideration may be issued without
further proceedings, or, in the alternative, additional information,
data, and comment may be requested by the Associate Administrator, OPS
as deemed appropriate.
(f) It is the policy of the Associate Administrator, OPS to issue
notice of the action taken on a petition for reconsideration within 20
days after receipt of the petition, unless it is found impracticable to
take action within that time. In cases where it is so found and delay
beyond that period is expected to be substantial, notice of that fact
and the date by which it is expected that action will be taken is
issued to the respondent.
14. Section 190.217 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 190.217 Compliance orders generally.
When the Associate Administrator, OPS has reason to believe that a
person is engaging in conduct which involves a violation of the 49
U.S.C. 60101 et seq. or any regulation issued thereunder, and if the
nature of the violation, and the public interest warrant, the Associate
Administrator, OPS may conduct proceedings under Secs. 190.207 through
190.213 of this part to determine the nature and extent of the
violations and to issue an order directing compliance.
15. Section 190.219 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 190.219 Consent order.
(a) At any time before the issuance of a compliance order under
Sec. 190.213 the Associate Administrator, OPS and the respondent may
agree to dispose of the case by joint execution of a consent order.
Upon such joint execution, the consent order shall be considered a
final order under Sec. 190.213.
* * * * *
16. Section 190.221 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 18515]]
Sec. 190.221 Civil penalties generally.
When the Associate Administrator, OPS has reason to believe that a
person has committed an act which is a violation of any provision of
the 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. or any regulation or order issued
thereunder, proceedings under Secs. 190.207 through 190.213 may be
conducted to determine the nature and extent of the violations and to
assess and, if appropriate, compromise a civil penalty.
16a. Section 190.223 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b),
and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 190.223 Maximum penalties.
(a) Any person who is determined to have violated a provision of 49
U.S.C. 60101 et seq. or any regulation or order issued thereunder, is
subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 for each violation for
each day the violation continues except that the maximum civil penalty
may not exceed $500,000 for any related series of violations.
(b) Any person who knowingly violates a regulation or order under
this subchapter applicable to offshore gas gathering lines issued under
the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq is liable for a civil penalty of
not more than $25,000 for each violation, and if any such violation is
a continuing one, each day of violation constitutes a separate offense.
(c) Any person who is determined to have violated any standard or
order under under 49 U.S.C. 60103 shall be subject to a civil penalty
of not to exceed $50,000, which penalty shall be in addition to any
other penalties to which such person may be subject under paragraph (a)
of this section.
* * * * *
17. Section 190.225, the introductory text, is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 190.225 Assessment considerations.
The Associate Administrator, OPS assesses a civil penalty under
this part only after considering:
* * * * *
18. Section 190.227 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d)
to read as follows:
Sec. 190.227 Payment of penalty.
* * * * *
(c) Within 20 days after the respondent's receipt of a final order
assessing a civil penalty issued under Sec. 190.213, the respondent may
offer to compromise the assessed penalty by submitting, in the manner
required by paragraph (a) of this section, payment in the amount
offered. The Chief Counsel or designee may accept or reject the
compromise offer on behalf of the Associate Administrator, OPS. If it
is accepted, the respondent is notified in writing that the acceptance
is in full settlement of the civil penalty action. If the compromise
offer is rejected it will be returned to the respondent with written
notification. Within 20 days after the respondent's receipt of such
notification, payment of the full amount of the civil penalty assessed
in the final order becomes due. The provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section regarding district court or Federal magistrate court action for
penalty collection apply upon failure of the respondent to pay the
assessed penalty within that time period.
(d) If the respondent elects to make an offer in compromise to a
civil penalty proposed in a notice of probable violation issued under
Sec. 190.207, the respondent shall do so in accord with the procedures
of Sec. 190.209.
19. Section 190.229 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through
(d) to read as follows:
Sec. 190.229 Criminal penalties generally.
(a) Any person who willfully and knowingly violates a provision of
49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. or any regulation or order issued thereunder
shall upon conviction be subject for each offense to a fine of not more
than $25,000 and imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
(b) Any person who willfully violates a regulation or order under
this subchapter issued under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq. as
applied to offshore gas gathering lines shall upon conviction be
subject for each offense to a fine of not more than $25,000,
imprisonment for a term not to exceed 5 years, or both.
(c) Any person who willfully and knowingly injures or destroys, or
attempts to injure or destroy, any interstate transmission facility or
any interstate pipeline facility (as those terms are defined in 49
U.S.C. 60101 et seq.) shall, upon conviction, be subject for each
offense to a fine of not more than $25,000, imprisonment for a term not
to exceed 15 years, or both.
(d) Any person who willfully and knowingly defaces, damages,
removes, destroys any pipeline sign, right-of-way marker, or marine
buoy required by 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq. or 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., or
any regulation or order issued thereunder shall, upon conviction, be
subject for each offense to a fine of not more than $5,000,
imprisonment for a term not to exceed 1 year, or both.
* * * * *
20. Section 190.231 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 190.231 Referral for prosecution.
If an employee of the Research and Special Programs Administration
becomes aware of any actual or possible activity subject to criminal
penalties under Sec. 190.229, the employee reports it to the Office of
the Chief Counsel, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590. The Chief Counsel
refers the report to OPS for investigation. Upon completion of the
investigation and if appropriate, the Chief Counsel refers the report
to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution of the offender.
21. Section 190.233 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b),
(c)(2), (c)(4), (d), (e) introductory text, (e)(5), (g) and (h) to read
as follows:
Sec. 190.233 Hazardous facility orders.
(a) Except as provided by paragraph (b) of this section, if the
Associate Administrator, OPS finds, after reasonable notice and
opportunity for hearing in accord with paragraph (c) of this section,
and Sec. 190.211(a), a particular pipeline facility to be hazardous to
life or property, the Associate Administrator, OPS shall issue an order
pursuant to this section requiring the owner or operator of the
facility to take corrective action. Corrective action may include
suspended or restricted use of the facility, physical inspection,
testing, repair, replacement, or other action, as appropriate.
(b) The Associate Administrator, OPS may waive the requirement for
notice and hearing under paragraph (a) of this section before issuing
an order pursuant to this section when the Associate Administrator, OPS
determines that the failure to do so would result in the likelihood of
serious harm to life or property. However, the Associate Administrator,
OPS shall include in the order an opportunity for hearing as soon as
practicable after issuance of the order. The provisions of paragraph
(c)(2) of this section apply to an owner or operator's decision to
exercise such an opportunity for hearing. The purpose of such a post-
order hearing is for the Associate Administrator, OPS to determine
whether the order should remain in effect or be rescinded or suspended
in accord with paragraph (g) of this section.
(c) * * *
(2) An owner or operator elects to exercise his opportunity for a
hearing under this section, by notifying the Associate Administrator,
OPS of that election in writing within 10 days of service of the notice
provided under paragraph (c)(1) of this section or, under
[[Page 18516]]
paragraph (b) of this section when applicable. Absence of such written
notification waives an owner or operator's opportunity for a hearing
and allows the Associate Administrator, OPS to proceed to issue a
``hazardous facility order'' in accordance with paragraphs (d) through
(h) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) Within 48 hours after conclusion of a hearing under this
section, the Presiding Official shall submit a recommendation to the
Associate Administrator, OPS as to whether or not a ``hazardous
facility order'' is required. Upon receipt of the recommendation, the
Associate Administrator, OPS shall proceed in accordance with
paragraphs (d) through (h) of this section. If the Associate
Administrator, OPS finds the facility to be hazardous to life or
property the Associate Administrator, OPS shall issue an order in
accordance with this section. If the Associate Administrator, OPS does
not find the facility to be hazardous to life or property, the
Associate Administrator, OPS shall dismiss the allegations contained in
the notice, and promptly notify the owner or operator in writing by
service as prescribed in Sec. 190.5.
(d) The Associate Administrator, OPS may find a pipeline facility
to be hazardous under paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) If under the facts and circumstances the Associate
Administrator, OPS determines the particular facility is hazardous to
life or property; or
(2) If the pipeline facility or a component thereof has been
constructed or operated with any equipment, material, or technique
which the Associate Administrator, OPS determines is hazardous to life
or property, unless the operator involved demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Associate Administrator, OPS that, under the
particular facts and circumstances involved, such equipment, material,
or technique is not hazardous to life or property.
(e) In making a determination under paragraph (d) of this section,
the Associate Administrator, OPS shall consider, if relevant:
* * * * *
(5) Such other factors as the Associate Administrator, OPS may
consider appropriate.
* * * * *
(g) The Associate Administrator, OPS shall rescind or suspend a
hazardous facility order whenever the Associate Administrator, OPS
determines that the facility is no longer hazardous to life or
property. When appropriate, however, such a rescission or suspension
may be accompanied by a notice of probable violation issued under
Sec. 190.207.
(h) At any time after an order issued under this section has become
effective, the Associate Administrator, OPS may request the Attorney
General to bring an action for appropriate relief in accordance with
Sec. 190.235.
* * * * *
22. Section 190.235 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 190.235 Injunctive action.
Whenever it appears to the Associate Administrator, OPS that a
person has engaged, is engaged, or is about to engage in any act or
practice constituting a violation of any provision of 49 U.S.C. 60101
et seq. or any regulations issued thereunder, the Administrator, RSPA,
or the person to whom the authority has been delegated, may request the
Attorney General to bring an action in the appropriate U.S. District
Court for such relief as is necessary or appropriate, including
mandatory or prohibitive injunctive relief, interim equitable relief,
and punitive damages as provided under 49 U.S.C. 60120 and 49 U.S.C.
5123.
23. Section 190.237 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 190.237 Amendment of plans or procedures.
(a) A Regional Director begins a proceeding to determine whether an
operator's plans or procedures required under parts 192, 193, 195, and
199 of this subchapter are inadequate to assure safe operation of a
pipeline facility by issuing a notice of amendment. The notice shall
provide an opportunity for a hearing under Sec. 190.211 of this part
and shall specify the alleged inadequacies and the proposed action for
revision of the plans or procedures. The notice shall allow the
operator 30 days after receipt of the notice to submit written comments
or request a hearing. After considering all material presented in
writing or at the hearing, the Associate Administrator, OPS shall
determine whether the plans or procedures are inadequate as alleged and
order the required amendment if they are inadequate, or withdraw the
notice if they are not. In determining the adequacy of an operator's
plans or procedures, the Associate Administrator, OPS shall consider:
* * * * *
PART 191--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 191 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5121, 60102, 60103, 60104, 60108, 60117,
60118, and 60124; and 49 CFR 1.53.
2. Section 191.3 is amended by removing the definition of
Secretary, and adding the definition of Administrator to read as
follows:
Sec. 191.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Administrator means the Administrator of the Research and Special
Programs Administration or any person to whom authority in the matter
concerned has been delegated by the Secretary of Transportation.
* * * * *
3. Section 191.19 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 191.19 Report forms.
Copies of the prescribed report forms are available without charge
upon request from the address given in Sec. 191.7 Additional copies in
this prescribed format may be reproduced and used if in the same size
and kind of paper. In addition, the information required by these forms
may be submitted by any other means that is acceptable to the
Administrator.
4. Section 191.25 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 191.25 Filing safety-related condition reports.
(a) Each report of a safety-related condition under Sec. 191.23(a)
must be filed (received by the Associate Administrator, OPS) in writing
within five working days (not including Saturday, Sunday, or Federal
Holidays) after the day a representative of the operator first
determines that the condition exists, but not later than 10 working
days after the day a representative of the operator discovers the
condition. Separate conditions may be described in a single report if
they are closely related. Reports may be transmitted by facsimile at
(202) 366-7128.
* * * * *
PART 192--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 192 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110,
60113, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.
2. Section 192.11 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read
as follows:
Sec. 192.11 Petroleum gas systems.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
[[Page 18517]]
(2) Below ground structures must have forced ventilation that will
prevent any accumulation of gas.
* * * * *
3. Section 192.227 is amended by revising paragraph (b)
introductory text, to read as follows:
Sec. 192.227 Qualification of welders.
* * * * *
(b) A welder may qualify to perform welding on pipe to be operated
at a pressure that produces a hoop stress of less than 20 percent of
SMYS by performing an acceptable test weld, for the process to be used,
under the test set forth in section I of appendix C to this part. A
welder who makes welded service line connections to mains must also
perform an acceptable test weld under section II of appendix C to this
part as part of the qualifying test. After initial qualification, a
welder may not perform welding unless:
* * * * *
4. Section 192.361 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(1) to read
as follows:
Sec. 192.361 Service lines: Installation
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) It must be encased in a gas tight conduit;
* * * * *
5. Section 192.367 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 192.367 Service lines: General requirements for connections to
main piping.
(a) Location. Each service line connection to a main must be
located at the top of the main or, if that is not practical, at the
side of the main, unless a suitable protective device is installed to
minimize the possibility of dust and moisture being carried from the
main into the service line.
* * * * *
6. Section 192.511 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 192.511 Test requirements for service lines.
(a) Each segment of a service line (other than plastic) must be
leak tested in accordance with this section before being placed in
service. If feasible, the service line connection to the main must be
included in the test; if not feasible, it must be given a leakage test
at the operating pressure when placed in service.
* * * * *
7. Section 192.603 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 192.603 General provisions.
* * * * *
(c) The Administrator or the State Agency that has submitted a
current certification under the pipeline safety laws, (49 U.S.C. 60101
et seq.) with respect to the pipeline facility governed by an
operator's plans and procedures may, after notice and opportunity for
hearing as provided in 49 CFR 190.237 or the relevant State procedures,
require the operator to amend its plans and procedures as necessary to
provide a reasonable level of safety.
9. Section 192.623, the heading, is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 192.623 Maximum and minimum allowable operating pressure; Low-
pressure distribution systems.
* * * * *
PART 193--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 193 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60103, 60104, 60108, 60109,
60110, 60113, 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.
2. Section 193.2001 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 193.2001 Scope of part.
(a) This part prescribes safety standards for LNG facilities used
in the transportation of gas by pipeline that is subject to the
pipeline safety laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.) and Part 192 of this
chapter.
* * * * *
3. Section 193.2007 is amended by revising the definition of
Administrator and the definition of g to read as follows:
Sec. 193.2007 Definitions.
* * * * *
Administrator means the Administrator of the Research and Special
Programs Administration or any person to whom authority in the matter
concerned has been delegated by the Secretary of Transportation.
* * * * *
g means the standard acceleration of gravity of 9.806 meters per
second\2\ (32.17 feet per second\2\).
* * * * *
4. Section 193.2017 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 193.2017 Plans and procedures.
(a) Each operator shall maintain at each LNG plant the plans and
procedures required for that plant by this part. The plans and
procedures must be available upon request for review and inspection by
the Administrator or any State Agency that has submitted a current
certification or agreement with respect to the plant under the pipeline
safety laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.). In addition, each change to the
plans or procedures must be available at the LNG plant for review and
inspection within 20 days after the change is made.
* * * * *
5. Section 193.2321 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 193.2321 Nondestructive tests.
(a) The following percentages of each day's circumferentially
welded pipe joints for hazardous fluid piping, selected at random, must
be nondestructively tested over the entire circumference to indicate
any defects which could adversely affect the integrity of the weld or
pipe:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cryogenic
Weld type piping Other Test method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Butt welds more than 2 inches 100 30 Radiographic or
in nominal size. ultrasonic.
Butt welds 2 inches or less 100 30 Radiographic,
in nominal size. ultrasonic,
liquid
penetrant or
magnetic
particle.
Fillet and socket welds...... 100 30 Liquid
penetrant or
magnetic
particle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
6. Section 193.2515 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 193.2515 Investigation of failures.
* * * * *
(c) If the Administrator or relevant state agency under the
pipeline safety laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.) investigates an
incident, the operator involved shall make available all relevant
information and provide reasonable assistance in conducting the
investigation. Unless necessary to
[[Page 18518]]
restore or maintain service, or for safety, no component involved in
the incident may be moved from its location or otherwise altered until
the investigation is complete or the investigating agency otherwise
provides. Where components must be moved for operational or safety
reasons, they must not be removed from the plant site and must be
maintained intact to the extent practicable until the investigation is
complete or the investigating agency otherwise provides.
PART 195--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 195 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60118;
and 49 CFR 1.53.
2. Section 195.58 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 195.58 Address for written reports.
Each written report required by this subpart must be made to the
Information Resources Manager, Office of Pipeline Safety, Research and
Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Room 2335, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington DC 20590. However,
accident reports for intrastate pipelines subject to the jurisdiction
of a State agency pursuant to a certification under the pipeline safety
laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.) may be submitted in duplicate to that
State agency if the regulations of that agency require submission of
these reports and provide for further transmittal of one copy within 10
days of receipt to the Information Resources Manager. Safety-related
condition reports required by Sec. 195.55 for intrastate pipelines must
be submitted concurrently to the State agency, and if that agency acts
as an agent of the Secretary with respect to interstate pipelines,
safety-related condition reports for these pipelines must be submitted
concurrently to that agency.
Sec. 195.402 [Amended]
3. Section 195.402 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
* * * * *
(b) The Administrator or the State Agency that has submitted a
current certification under the pipeline safety laws (49 U.S.C. 60101
et seq.) with respect to the pipeline facility governed by an
operator's plans and procedures may, after notice and opportunity for
hearing as provided in 49 CFR 190.237 or the relevant State procedures,
require the operator to amend its plans and procedures as necessary to
provide a reasonable level of safety.
* * * * *
PART 198--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 198 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60105, 60106, 60114; and 49 CFR 1.53.
2. Section 198.3 is amended by revising the definition for
Underground pipeline facilities to read as follows:
* * * * *
Underground pipeline facilities means buried pipeline facilities
used in the transportation of gas or hazardous liquid subject to the
pipeline safety laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.).
* * * * *
3. Section 198.11 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 198.11 Grant authority.
The pipeline safety laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.) authorize the
Administrator to pay out funds appropriated or otherwise make available
up to 50 percent of the cost of the personnel, equipment, and
activities reasonably required for each state agency to carry out a
safety program for intrastate pipeline facilities under a certification
or agreement with the Administrator or to act as an agent of the
Administrator with respect to interstate pipeline facilities.
4. Section 198.31 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 198.31 Scope.
This subpart implements parts of the pipeline safety laws (49
U.S.C. 60101 et seq.), which direct the Secretary to require each State
to adopt a one-call damage prevention program as a condition to
receiving a full grant-in-aid for its pipeline safety compliance
program.
5. Section 198.35 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 198.35 Grants conditioned on adoption of one-call damage
prevention program.
In allocating grants to State agencies under section 5 of the
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (49 App. U.S.C. 1674) and under
section 205 of the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 (49
App. U.S.C. 2004), the Secretary considers whether a State has adopted
or is seeking to adopt a one-call damage prevention program in
accordance with Sec. 198.37. If a State has not adopted or is not
seeking to adopt such program, the State agency may not receive the
full reimbursement to which it would otherwise be entitled.
6. Section 198.37 is amended by revising paragraphs (e) and (h) to
read as follows:
Sec. 198.37 State one-call damage prevention program.
* * * * *
(e) Except with respect to interstate transmission facilities as
defined in the pipeline safety laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.),
operators of underground pipeline facilities must be required to
participate in the one-call notification systems that cover the areas
of the State in which those pipeline facilities are located.
* * * * *
(h) Operators of underground pipeline facilities (other than
operators of interstate transmission facilities as defined in the
pipeline safety laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.), and interstate
pipelines as defined in Sec. 195.2 of this chapter), excavators and
persons who operate one-call notification systems who violate the
applicable requirements of this subpart must be subject to civil
penalties and injunctive relief that are substantially the same as are
provided under the pipeline safety laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.).
PART 199--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 199 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60103, 60104, 60108, 60109,
60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.
2. Section 199.3 is amended by revising the definition for
Administrator and the definition for State agency to read as follows:
Sec. 199.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Administrator means the Administrator of the Research and Special
Programs Administration or any person to whom authority in the matter
concerned has been delegated by the Secretary of Transportation.
* * * * *
State agency means an agency of any of the several states, the
District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico that participates under the
pipeline safety laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.)
3. Section 199.7 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 199.7 Anti-drug plan.
* * * * *
(b) The Administrator or the State Agency that has submitted a
current certification under the pipeline safety laws (49 U.S.C. 60101
et seq.) with respect to the pipeline facility governed by an
operator's plans and procedures may, after notice and opportunity for
hearing as provided in 49 CFR 190.237 or the relevant State procedures,
require the operator to amend its plans and
[[Page 18519]]
procedures as necessary to provide a reasonable level of safety.
Sec. 199.205 [Amended]
4. Section 199.205 is amended by revising the definition for State
agency to read as follows:
* * * * *
State agency means an agency of any of the several states, the
District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico that participates under the
pipeline safety laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.).
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 28, 1996.
Rose A. McMurray,
Acting Deputy Administrator, Research and Special Programs
Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-10282 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10144 Business and Industrial Loan ProgramAudit Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18493-18495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10144]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural Housing Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Utilities Service
Farm Service Agency
7 CFR Part 1980
RIN 0570-AA11
Business and Industrial Loan Program--Audit Requirements
AGENCIES: Rural Housing Services, Rural Business-Cooperative Service,
Rural Utilities Service, and Farm Service Agency, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) is amending the
regulations for the Business and Industry (B&I) Loan Program. The
action clarifies the requirements for annual financial statements and
establishes thresholds for determining which borrowers will be required
to provide audited statements.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 26, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard T. Bonnet, Commercial Loan
Specialist, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA, Ag Box 3221,
Washington DC 20250-3221, Telephone (202) 720-1804.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Classification
This final rule has been determined to be significant and was
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under number 10.768, and is subject to intergovernmental
consultation in accordance with Executive Order 12372, and as stated in
FmHA Instruction 1940-J, ``Intergovernmental Review of Farmers Home
Administration Programs and Activities.''
Environmental Impact Statement
This action has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR Part 1940,
Subpart G, ``Environmental Program.'' The Agency has determined that
this action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment and, in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub. L. 91-190, an
Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
Civil Justice
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. In accordance with this rule: (1) All State and local
laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be
preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and
(3) administrative proceedings in accordance with the regulations of
the agency at 7 CFR Part 1900 Subpart B or those regulations published
by the Department of Agriculture to implement the provisions of the
National Appeals Division as mandated by the Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 must be exhausted before bringing suit in
court challenging action taken under this rule unless those regulations
specifically allow bringing suit at an earlier time.
Unfunded Mandate Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, RBS
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of
the UMRA generally requires RBS to identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal
governments or the private sector. Thus today's rule is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The collection of information requirements contained in this
regulation 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 control number 0575-0029. This final rule does not
impose any new information collection requirements from those approved
by OMB.
Background
This regulatory package is an Agency initiative to enhance the
program by reducing the financial burden on small business borrowers of
obtaining annual audits of their financial statements. The existing
regulations require annual audited financial statements from all
borrowers, except those with loans that have been paid down to no more
than $100,000 and to no more than two-thirds of the original balance
and have
[[Page 18494]]
been current on repayments for at least 24 months. The cost of the
audits can often be the difference between a profit and a loss for the
year for small businesses. Many small businesses that need and want the
assistance of the B&I guaranteed loan decide not to apply because they
are unwilling to commit to the cost of an annual audit. Small
businesses that have obtained B&I guaranteed loans sometimes become
delinquent on the loans because the funds were spent on audits or
refuse to honor their agreement to provide the audits.
Discussion of Comments
On March 28, 1994, a proposed rule was published in the Federal
Register (59 FR 14371) to remove or allow the Agency to waive the
requirement for annual audits for all loans of $500,000 or less and for
loans that have been outstanding and have provided audits for three
years, have an unpaid balance not exceeding $1 million, and are current
on repayments. As proposed, all borrowers that did not provide audited
financial statements would be required to provide financial statements
compiled or reviewed by an independent certified public accountant or
licensed public accountant. Guaranteed loan borrowers subject to OMB
Circulars A-128 or A-133 would also have to comply with those
Circulars. Insured (direct) B&I loans are governed by the requirements
of 7 CFR 1942.
Eleven letters commenting on the proposed rule were received. Ten
strongly supported the concept of relaxing audit requirements. None of
the writers objected to the concept. Two writers recommended raising
the threshold for requiring audits in connection with new loans from
$500,000 to $1 million. Also, two writers recommended removing the
proposed requirement that existing borrowers with loans not exceeding
$1 million must provide audited statements for three years before an
exception to the audit requirements may be made. To deal with both of
these issues, the final rule provides for only one threshold for either
new or existing loans. The threshold for requiring audited statements
will be a total Agency guaranteed loan balance exceeding $1 million.
Two writers objected to the proposed requirement that audits be
performed in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing
Standards (GAGAS) rather than Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP). The Agency has determined that since most businesses already
use GAAP and there is no reason to require audits be done two different
ways, GAAP will be used. That requirement is changed in the final rule.
One writer recommended the language be revised to make it clear
that the monetary threshold is referring to the total principal plus
interest balance at year end. This suggestion has been adopted.
One writer objected to the use of the term ``quality'' in reference
to whether financial statements are audited, reviewed, or compiled. The
phrasing has been revised in the final rule to eliminate that word
usage.
One writer questioned how an individual borrower could be expected
to know when the Agency wanted audited or unaudited financial
statements in excess of the minimum requirements. We believe it is
sufficiently clear that the Agency will inform the lender and borrower
of the requirements being imposed for each loan. The final rule is not
different from the proposed rule in this regard.
One writer suggested the specific threshold for audits to be
performed under OMB Circulars A-128 and A-133 be removed because the
threshold set by OMB might change. This suggestion has been adopted.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR part 1980
Loan programs--Business, Rural areas, Rural development assistance.
Accordingly, chapter XVIII, title 7, Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 1980--GENERAL
1. The authority citation for part 1980 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 CFR 1989; 42 U.S.C. 1480; 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 CFR 2.23;
7 CFR 2.70
Subpart E--Business and Industrial Loan Program
2. Section 1980.445 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 1980.445 Periodic financial statements and audits.-
All borrowers will be required to submit periodic financial
statements to the lender. Lenders must forward copies of the financial
statements and the lender's analysis of the statements to the Agency.
(a) Audited financial statements. Except as provided in paragraphs
(d) and (e) of this section, all borrowers with a total principal and
interest loan balance for loans under this subpart, at the end of the
borrower's fiscal year of more than $1 million, must submit annual
audited financial statements. The audit must be performed in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). In addition, the
audits are also to be performed in accordance with approriate Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) circulars and any Agency requirements
specified in this subpart.
(b) Unaudited financial statements. For borrowers with a loan
balance (principal plus interest at year-end) of $1 million or less,
the Agency will require annual financial statements which may be
statements compiled or reviewed by an accountant qualified in
accordance with the publication ``Standards for Audit of Governmental
Organizations, Programs, Activities and Functions'' instead of audited
financial statements.
(c) Internal financial statements. The Agency may require
submission of financial statements prepared by the borrower at whatever
frequency is determined necessary to adequately monitor the loan.
Quarterly financial statements will be required on new business
enterprises or those needing close monitoring.
(d) Minimum requirements. This section sets out minimum
requirements for audited and unaudited financial statements to be
submitted to the Agency. If specific circumstances warrant, the Agency
may require audited financial statements or independent unaudited
financial statements in excess of the minimum requirements. For
example, loans that depend heavily on inventory and accounts receivable
for collateral will normally be audited, regardless of the size of the
loan. Nothing in this section shall be considered an impediment to the
lender requiring financial statements more frequently than required by
the Agency or requiring audited financial statements when the Agency
would accept unaudited financial statements.
(e) Public bodies and nonprofit corporations. Notwithstanding other
provisions of this section, any public body or nonprofit corporation
that receives a guarantee of a loan that meets the thresholds
established by OMB Circular A-128 or A-133 for coverage under such
circular, must provide an audit in accordance with the applicable OMB
Circular A-128 or A-133 for the fiscal year of the borrower in which
the Loan Note Guarantee is issued. If the loan is for development or
purchases made in a previous fiscal year through interim financing, an
audit, in accordance with the applicable circular, will also be
provided for the fiscal year in which the development or purchases
occurred. Any audit provided by a public body or nonprofit corporation
in
[[Page 18495]]
compliance with OMB Circular A-128 or A-133 will be considered adequate
to meet the requirements of this section for that year. OMB Circulars
are available from the Office of Management and Budget, EOP
Publications Office, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 2200, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
3. Section 1980.451 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(13)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 1980.451 Filing and processing applications.
* * * * *
(i)-* * *
(13) Proposed loan agreement. (See paragraph VII of Form FmHA 449-
35). Loan agreements between the borrower and lender will be required.
The final executed loan agreement must include the Agency requirements
as set forth in the Form FmHA 449-14 including the requirements for
periodic financial statements in accordance with Sec. 1980.445. The
loan agreement must also include, but is not limited to, the following:
* * * * *
Sec. 1980.454 [Amended]
4. Section 1980.454 is amended by removing and reserving
ADMINISTRATIVE A. 1.
Sec. 1980.469 [Amended]
5. Section 1980.469 is amended by removing and reserving
ADMINISTRATIVE c. 1.
Dated: January 30, 1996.
Jill L. Thompson,
Under Secretary, Rural Economic and Community Development.
[FR Doc. 96-10144 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-32-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10107 Kentucky; Final Authorization of Revisions to State Hazardous Waste Management Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18504-18507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10107]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[FRL-5461-5]
Kentucky; Final Authorization of Revisions to State Hazardous
Waste Management Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Immediate Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Kentucky has applied for final authorization of revisions to
its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Kentucky's revisions consist of the provisions
contained in rules promulgated between November 8, 1984, through June
30, 1987, otherwise known as HSWA Cluster I. These requirements are
listed in Section B of this notice. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has reviewed Kentucky's application and has made a decision,
subject to public review and comment, that Kentucky's hazardous waste
program revisions satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify
for final authorization. Thus, EPA intends to approve Kentucky's
hazardous waste program revisions. Kentucky's application for program
revisions is available for public review and comment.
DATES: Final authorization for Kentucky's program revisions shall be
effective June 25, 1996 unless EPA publishes a prior Federal Register
action withdrawing this immediate final rule. All comments on
Kentucky's program revision application must be received by the close
of business, May 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Kentucky's program revision application are
available during normal business hours at the following addresses for
inspection and copying: Kentucky Department for Environmental
Protection, Fort Boone Plaza, Building #2, 18 Reilly Road, Frankfort,
Kentucky 40601; U.S. EPA Region 4, Library, 345 Courtland Street, NE,
Atlanta, Georgia 30365; (404) 347-4216. Written comments should be sent
to Al Hanke at the address listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Hanke, Chief, State Programs
Section, Waste Programs Branch, Waste Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta,
Georgia 30365; (404) 347-3555 vmx 2018.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
States with final authorization under Section 3006(b) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (``RCRA'' or ``the Act''), 42
U.S.C. 6926(b), have a continuing obligation to maintain a hazardous
waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less
stringent than the Federal hazardous waste program. In addition, as an
interim measure, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(Public Law 98-616, November 8, 1984, hereinafter ``HSWA'') allows
States to revise their programs to become substantially equivalent
instead of equivalent to RCRA requirements promulgated under HSWA
authority. States exercising the latter option receive ``interim
authorization'' for the HSWA requirements under Section 3006(g) of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g), and later apply for final authorization for
the HSWA requirements.
Revisions to State hazardous waste programs are necessary when
Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when
certain other changes occur. Most commonly, State program revisions are
necessitated by changes to EPA's regulations in 40 CFR Parts 260-268
and 124 and 270.
B. Kentucky
Kentucky initially received final authorization for its base RCRA
program effective on January 31, 1985. Kentucky has received
authorization for revisions to its program on December 19, 1988, March
20, 1989, May 15, 1989, November 30, 1992, and March 13, 1995. On
October 16, 1995, Kentucky submitted a program revision application for
additional program approvals. Today, Kentucky is seeking approval of
its program revisions in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21(b)(3). EPA has
reviewed Kentucky's application and has made an immediate final
decision that Kentucky's hazardous waste program revisions satisfy all
of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization.
Consequently, EPA intends to grant final authorization for the
additional program modifications to Kentucky. The public may submit
written comments on EPA's immediate final decision up until May 28,
1996.
Copies of Kentucky's application for these program revisions are
available for inspection and copying at the locations indicated in the
Addresses section of this notice.
Approval of Kentucky's program revisions shall become effective
June 25, 1996, unless an adverse comment pertaining to the State's
revisions discussed in this notice is received by the end of the
comment period.
If an adverse comment is received EPA will publish either (1) a
withdrawal of the immediate final decision or (2) a notice containing a
response to comments which either affirms that the immediate final
decision takes effect or reverses the decision.
EPA shall administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits, or portions
of permits that contain conditions based upon the Federal program
provisions for which the State is applying for authorization and which
were issued by EPA prior to the effective date of this authorization.
EPA will suspend issuance of any further permits under
[[Page 18505]]
the provisions for which the State is being authorized on the effective
date of this authorization.
Kentucky is today seeking authority to administer the following
Federal requirements promulgated on July 1, 1988-June 30, 1989, and
March 29, 1990.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR
Checklist Federal requirement HSWA or FR promulgation Promulgation
reference date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SR1......... Existing and Newly HSWA Sec. ............ KRS 224.46-520; KRS 224.46-530(1) (g),
Regulated Surface 3005(j)(1)&(6). (h), (i).
Impoundments.
SR2......... Variance under Sec. HSWA Sec. ............ KRS 224.46-520; KRS 224.46-530(1) (d),
3005(j)(2)-(9) and 3005(j)(2)&(9). (h), (i).
(13).
BB.......... Exceptions to the HSWA Sec. ............ KRS 224.46-510(3); KRS 224.46-530(1) (d)
Burning and Blending 3004(q)(2)(A); and (n).
of Hazardous Waste. Sec. 3004(r)(2)
&(3).
CP.......... Hazardous and Used Oil HSWA Sec. ............ KRS 224.99-010(6).
Fuel Criminal 3006(h); Sec.
Penalties. 3008(d); Sec.
3014.
14.......... Dioxin Waste Listing 50 FR 1978....... 1/14/85 KRS Chapter 13A, Authority; KRS 224.10-
and Management 100; KRS 224.46-510(3); KRS 224.46-530;
Standards. 401 KAR 31:010Sec. 5(5)(a-b) and Sec.
7(2)(a-c); 401 KAR 31:040Sec. 1(4),(2)
and Sec. 4(6); 401 KAR 31:120Sec. 1(4)
and (6); 401 KAR 31:160Sec. 1; 401 KAR
31:170Sec. 1; 401 KAR 31:190Sec. 1;
401 KAR 34:190Sec. 5(3); 401 KAR
34:200Sec. 9(1-2); 401 KAR 34:210Sec.
9(1-2); 401 KAR 34:220Sec. 11(1-2); 401
KAR 34:230Sec. 12(1-2); 401 KAR
34:240Sec. 4(1); 401 KAR 35:010Sec.
1(4); 401 KAR 35:240Sec. 6(1-2); 401
KAR 35:240Sec. 7(1-2); 401 KAR
38:090Sec. 2(7); 401 KAR 38:160Sec.
2(7); 401 KAR 38:170Sec. 2(9); 401 KAR
38:180Sec. 2(9); 401 KAR 38:200Sec.
2(4)(i); 401 KAR 38:210Sec. 2(10).
16.......... Paint Filter Test..... 50 FR 18370...... 4/30/85 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
224.46-520; 401 KAR 34:020Sec. 4(2)(f);
401 KAR 34:230Sec. 4(2)(c); 401 KAR
35:020Sec. 4(2)(f); 401 KAR 35:050Sec.
4(2)(c); 401 KAR 35:230Sec. 7(2).
17A......... Small Quantity 50 FR 28702...... 7/15/85 KRS 224.033; KRS 224.864; 401 KAR
Generators. 31:010Sec. 5(2).
17B......... Delisting............. 50 FR 28702...... 7/15/85 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
224.46-510(3); KRS 224.46-530(1)(n); 401
KAR 31:060Sec. 2(1)-(5).
17C......... Household Waste....... 50 FR 28702...... 7/15/85 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
224.46-510(1)(a)-(c); 401 KAR 31:010Sec.
4(2)(a).
17D......... Waste Minimization.... 50 FR 28702...... 7/15/85 KRS Chapter 13A, 13A.210; KRS 224.10-100;
KRS 224.46-510; KRS 224.46-520; 401 KAR
32:040Sec. 2(1)(c)(d)(h); 401 KAR
32:100Sec. 3 and Appendix A; 401 KAR
34:050Sec. 1Sec. 4(2)(i),Sec. 6(7)-(9
); 401 KAR 35:050Sec. 6(8)-(10); 401
KAR 38:030Sec. 1(10)(b); 401 KAR
38:020Sec. 1 and Sec. 1(3).
17E......... Location Standards for 50 FR 28702...... 7/15/85 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
Salt Domes, Salt 224.46-520; 401 KAR 34:020Sec. 9(3);
Beds, Underground 401 KAR 35:020Sec. 9.
Mines and Caves.
17F......... Liquids in Landfills.. 50 FR 28702...... 7/15/85 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
224.46-520; 401 KAR 34:020Sec. 4(2)(f);
401 KAR 35:020Sec. 4(2)(c); 401 KAR
34:230Sec. 9(1)-(4); 401 KAR 35:020Sec.
4(2)(f); 401 KAR 35:020Sec. 4(2)(c);
401 KAR 35:230Sec. 7(1),(2),(4)(a), and
(b); 401 KAR 38:210Sec. 2(8).
17G......... Dust Suppression...... 50 FR 28702...... 7/15/85 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
224.46-520; 401 KAR 36:030Sec. 4.
17H......... Double Liners......... 50 FR 28702...... 7/15/85 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
224.46-520; KRS 224.46-530; 401 KAR
34:200Sec. 2(1),(3)-(5); 401 KAR
34:230Sec. 2(1),(3)-(7); 401 KAR
35:200Sec. 10(1)-(4); 401 KAR
35:230Sec. 10(1)-(5); 401 KAR
35:210Sec. 8.
17I......... Ground-Water 50 FR 28702...... 7/15/85 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.033; KRS
Monitoring. 224.866; 401 KAR 34:060Sec. 1(2); 401
KAR 34:200; 401 KAR 34:210Sec. 3.
17J......... Cement Kilns.......... 50 FR 28702...... 7/15/85 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
224.46-520; KRS 224.46-530; 401 KAR
36:040Sec. 5(1)-(6); 401 KAR 36:040Sec.
2(2)(a),Sec. 5(1)-(6); KRS 224.40-330.
17K......... Fuel Labeling......... 50 FR 28702...... 7/15/85 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
224.46-520; KRS 224.46-530; 401 KAR
36:040Sec. 2(2)(a),Sec. 5(1)-(6); KRS
224.40-330.
17L......... Corrective Action..... 50 FR 28702...... 7/15/85 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
224.46-520; KRS 224.46-530(1)(e)-(f);
401 KAR 34:060Sec. 1(1)(a) and (b),Sec.
12(1)-(2); 401 KAR 38:060Sec. 1(2)(c)
and 3(c).
17M......... Pre-construction Ban.. 50 FR 28702...... 7/15/85 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
224.46-520; 401 KAR 38:070Sec. 3(3).
17N......... Permit Life........... 50 FR 28702...... 7/15/85 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
224.46-505; KRS 224.46-520; 401 KAR
38:040Sec. 2(1)(f) and 5(4).
17P......... Interim Status........ 50 FR 28702...... 7/15/85 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
224.46-520; 401 KAR 38:020Sec. 1(1),
Sec. 1(3), Sec. 4(3)(a) and (b), Sec.
4(5), Sec. 4(6).
17Q......... Research and 50 FR 28702...... 7/15/85 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
Development Permits. 224.46-520; 401 KAR 38:060Sec. 6.
[[Page 18506]]
17R......... Hazardous Waste 50 FR 28702...... 7/15/85 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
Exports. 224.46-510; 401 KAR 32:050Sec. 1.
17S......... Exposure Information.. 50 FR 28702...... 7/15/85 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
224.46-520; 401 KAR 38:070Sec. 1(3) and
Sec. 9.
18.......... Listing of TDI, TDA, 50 FR 28702...... 7/15/85 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
DNT. 224.46-510(3); KRS 224.46-530; 401 KAR
31:040; 401 KAR 31:120; 401 KAR 31:160;
401 KAR 31:170.
19.......... Burning of Waste Fuel 50 FR 49164...... 11/29/85 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
and Used Oil Fuel in 224.40-330; KRS 224.46-510; KRS 224.46-
Boilers and 520; KRS 224.46-530; 401 KAR 31:010Sec.
Industrial Furnaces. 3(3)(b),Sec. 5(2) and (10),Sec. 6(1)
(b)(3),(c)(3) and (7)-(9); 401 KAR
34:240Sec. 1(b); 401 KAR 35:240Sec.
1(1)(b); 401 KAR 36:040Sec. 1(1),(2)(a)
and (b),Sec. 2(1)-(3), Sec. 3(1)-(3),
Sec. 4, Sec. 5(1)-(6), Sec. 6(1)-(5);
401 KAR 36:050Sec. 1(1)-(5), Sec. 2(1)
and (2), Sec. 3, Sec. 4(1) and (2)(a)-
(f), Sec. 5(1)-(5).
20.......... Listing of Spent 50 FR 53315...... 12/31/85 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
Solvents. 224.46-510(3); KRS 224.46-530; 401 KAR
31:040; 401 KAR 31:120; 401 KAR 31:160;
401 KAR 31:170.
21.......... Listing of EDB........ 51 FR 5327....... 2/13/86 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
224.46-510(3); KRS 224.46-530; 401 KAR
31:040; 401 KAR 31:120; 401 KAR 31:160;
401 KAR 31:170.
22.......... Listing of Four Spent 51 FR 6537....... 2/25/86 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
Solvents. 224.46-510(3); KRS 224.46-530; 401 KAR
31:040; 401 KAR 31:120; 401 KAR 31:160;
401 KAR 31:170.
23.......... Generators of 100 to 51 FR 10146...... 3/24/86 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-010(31)(b);
1000kg Hazardous KRS 224.10-100; KRS 224.40-650; KRS
Waste. 224.46-510; KRS 224.46-530; 401 KAR
30:010Sec. 1(79)(a) and (b) and (84);
401 KAR 31:040; 401 KAR 32:020; 401 KAR
32:030; 401 KAR 32:100Sec. 3 and
Appendix A; 401 KAR 33:020; 401 KAR
38:010; 401 KAR 38:070; 401 KAR 38:080.
25.......... Codification Rule; 51 FR 19176...... 5/28/86 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
Technical Correction. 224.46-520; 401 KAR 34:020Sec. 4(2)(f);
401 KAR 34:050Sec. 4(2)(c); 401 KAR
34:230Sec. 9(1)-(4); 401 KAR 35:020Sec.
4(2)(f); 401 KAR 35:050Sec. 4(2)(c);
401 KAR 35:230Sec. 7(1)(2), (4)(a) and
(b); 401 KAR 35:210Sec. 2(2)(8).
30.......... Biennial Report; 51 FR 28556...... 8/8/86 KRS Chapter 13A, 13A.210; KRS 224.10-100;
Correction. KRS 224.46-510; KRS 224.46-520; 401 KAR
32:040Sec. 2(1)(c), (d), and (h); 401
KAR 32:100Sec. 3 and Appendix A; 401
KAR 34:050Sec. 1, Sec. 4(2)(i), Sec.
6(7)-(9); 401 KAR 35:050Sec. 6(8)-(10);
401 KAR 38:030Sec. 1(10)(b)31.
Exports of 51 FR 28664........... 8/8/86........... KRS Chapter
Hazardous 13A; KRS
Waste. 224.10-100;
KRS 224.46-
510; 401 KAR
32:050Sec.
1.
32.......... Standards for 51 FR 35190...... 10/21/86 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
Generators; Waste 224.46-510(3); KRS 224.46-530; 401 KAR
Minimization 31:040; 401 KAR 31:120; 401 KAR 31:160;
Certifications. 401 KAR 31:170.
33.......... Listing of EBDC....... 51 FR 37725...... 10/24/86 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
224.46-510(3); KRS 224.46-530; 401 KAR
31:040; 401 KAR 31:120; 401 KAR 31:160;
401 KAR 31:170.
34.......... Land Disposal 51 FR 40572...... 11/7/86 KRS Chapter 13A; KRS 224.10-100; KRS
Restrictions. 224.46-505; KRS 224.46-510; KRS 224.46-
520; KRS 224.46-530; KRS 224.46-560; 401
KAR 31:010; 401 KAR 31:020Sec.
1,6,8(1)&(2); 401 KAR 31:010Sec.
1(1),1(1)(a),4(3)&(4)(a),
5(2),(3),(5),(6)&(7)(b),
6(1)(c)&(3)(a),7(1)(a)&(b); 401 KAR
31:040Sec. 1(3); 401 KAR 31:060Sec. 1;
401 KAR 32:010Sec. 2(4); 401 KAR
33:010Sec. 3; 401 KAR 34:010Sec. 1(7);
401 KAR 34:020Sec. 4(1)(a),(2)(f)&(g);
401 KAR 34:050Sec.
4(2)(c),(j),(k),(l),(m)&(n); 401 KAR
35:010Sec. 1(5); 401 KAR 35:020Sec.
4(1)(a),(2)(f)&(g); 401 KAR 35:050Sec.
4(2)(c),(h)-(i); 401 KAR 37:010Sec.
1(1)-(3)(a)-(d),2(1)(a)-(b),
2(2),3,4(1),4(1)(a)-(d),6(1)-(3)
footnote 2,6(4)-(10),7(1)-(3); 401 KAR
37:030Sec. 2(1)-(3),3(1)-(3); 401 KAR
37:040Sec. 2,3(1)-(2),4(1)-(2) footnote
3,4(3)-(7); 401 KAR 37:050Sec. 2(1)-
(5); 401 KAR 37:100Sec. 1-2; 401 KAR
38:030Sec. 3(2); 401 KAR 38:040Sec.
3(15); 401 KAR 38:090Sec. 2(23).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18507]]
C. Decision
I conclude that Kentucky's application for these program revisions
meet all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by
RCRA. Accordingly, Kentucky is granted final authorization to operate
its hazardous waste program as revised.
Kentucky now has responsibility for permitting treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities within its borders and carrying out other
aspects of the RCRA program, subject to the limitations of its program
revision application and previously approved authorities. Kentucky also
has primary enforcement responsibilities, although EPA retains the
right to conduct inspections under Section 3007 of RCRA and to take
enforcement actions under Section 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA.
Compliance With Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 6 of Executive Order 12866.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act:
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. When a written statement is needed for an EPA rule, section
205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, giving
them meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising them on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. EPA does not anticipate that the approval of
Kentucky's hazardous waste program referenced in today's notice will
result in annual costs of $100 million or more.
EPA's approval of state programs generally has a deregulatory
effect on the private sector because once it is determined that a state
hazardous waste program meets the requirements of RCRA section 3006(b)
and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 40 CFR Part 271, owners
and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal
facilities (TSDFs) may take advantage of the flexibility that an
approved state may exercise. Such flexibility will reduce, not increase
compliance costs for the private sector. Thus, today's rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The Agency recognizes that small governments may own and/
or operate TSDFs that will become subject to the requirements of an
approved state hazardous waste program. However, such small governments
which own and/or operate TSDFs are already subject to the requirements
in 40 CFR Parts 264, 265, and 270. Once EPA authorizes a state to
administer its own hazardous waste program and any revisions to that
program, these same small governments will be able to own and operate
their TSDFs with increased levels of flexibility provided under the
approved state program.
Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify
that this authorization will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. This authorization effectively
suspends the applicability of certain Federal regulations in favor of
Kentucky's program, thereby eliminating duplicative requirements for
handlers of hazardous waste in the State. It does not impose any new
burdens on small entities. This rule, therefore, does not require a
regulatory flexibility analysis.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control,
Water supply.
Authority: This notice is issued under the authority of Sections
2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended
(42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b)).
Dated: April 9, 1996.
Phyllis P. Harris,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-10107 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10098 South Carolina; Final Authorization of Revisions to State Hazardous Waste Management Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18502-18504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10098]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 271
[5461-1]
South Carolina; Final Authorization of Revisions to State
Hazardous Waste Management Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Immediate final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: South Carolina has applied for final authorization of
revisions to its hazardous waste program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). South Carolina's revisions
consist of the provisions contained in certain rules promulgated
between April 24, 1984, and September 2, 1988. These requirements are
listed in Section B of this notice. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has reviewed South Carolina's application and has made a
decision, subject to public review and comment, that South Carolina's
hazardous waste program revisions satisfy all of the requirements
necessary to qualify for final authorization. Thus, EPA intends to
approve South Carolina's hazardous waste program revisions. South
Carolina's applications for program revisions are available for public
review and comment.
DATES: Final authorization for South Carolina's program revisions shall
be effective June 25, 1996 unless EPA publishes a prior Federal
Register action withdrawing this immediate final rule. All comments on
South Carolina's program revision application must be received by the
close of business, May 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of South Carolina's program revision applications are
available during normal business hours at the following addresses for
inspection and copying: South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control, 2600 Bull Street, Columbia, South Carolina
29201; U.S. EPA Region 4, Library, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta,
Georgia 30365; (404) 347-4216. Written comments should be sent to Al
Hanke at the address listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Hanke, Chief, State Programs
Section, Waste Programs Branch, Waste Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta,
Georgia 30365; (404) 347-2234.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
States with final authorization under Section 3006(b) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (``RCRA'' or ``the Act''), 42
U.S.C. 6926(b), have a continuing obligation to maintain a hazardous
waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less
stringent than the Federal hazardous waste program.
In addition, as an interim measure, the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-616, November 8, 1984, hereinafter
``HSWA'') allows States to revise their programs to become
substantially equivalent instead of equivalent to RCRA requirements
promulgated under HSWA authority. States exercising the latter option
receive ``interim authorization'' for the HSWA requirements under
Section 3006(g) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g), and later apply for final
authorization for the HSWA requirements.
Revisions to State hazardous waste programs are necessary when
Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when
certain other changes occur. Most commonly, State program revisions are
necessitated by changes to EPA's regulations in 40 CFR Parts 260-268
and 124 and 270.
B. South Carolina
South Carolina initially received final authorization for its base
RCRA program effective on November 22, 1985. South Carolina most
recently received authorization for revisions to its program effective
October 16, 1995, (60 FR 42046, August 15, 1995). Today, South Carolina
is seeking approval of additional program revisions in accordance with
40 CFR 271.21(b)(3).
EPA has reviewed South Carolina's applications and has made an
immediate final decision that South Carolina's hazardous waste program
revisions satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for
final authorization. Consequently, EPA intends to grant final
authorization for the additional program modifications to South
Carolina. The public may submit written comments on EPA's immediate
final decision up until May 28, 1996.
Copies of South Carolina's application for these program revisions
are available for inspection and copying at the locations indicated in
the ``Addresses'' section of this notice.
Approval of South Carolina's program revisions shall become
effective June 25, 1996, unless an adverse comment pertaining to the
State's revisions discussed in this notice is received by the end of
the comment period.
If an adverse comment is received EPA will publish either (1) a
withdrawal of the immediate final decision or (2) a notice containing a
response to comments which either affirms that the immediate final
decision takes effect or reverses the decision.
EPA shall administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits, or portions
of permits that contain conditions based upon the Federal program
provisions for which the State is applying for authorization and which
were issued by EPA prior to the effective date of this authorization.
EPA will suspend issuance of any further permits under the provisions
for which the State is being authorized on the effective date of this
authorization.
South Carolina is today seeking authority to administer the
following Federal requirements:
[[Page 18503]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal requirement HSWA or FR notice Promulgation State authority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Availability of Information....... HSWA Sec. 3006(f)......... 11/8/84 SCHWMASec. 30-4-15,
SCHWMASec. 30-4-20(c),
SCHWMASec. 30-4-30(a),
SCHWMASec. 30-4-30(b),
SCHWMASec. 30-4-30(c),
SCHWMASec. 30-4-30(t),
SCHWMASec. 30-4-40(a)(1),
SCHWMASec. 30-4-100,
SCHWMASec. 30-4-100(a),
SCHWMASec. 30-4-100(b),
SCHWMASec. 44-56-80, R.61-
79.270.12, R.61-72.201,
R.61-72.201(a), R.61-
72.260.2(a), R.61-
72.260.2(b).
Checklist 6 Permit Rules: Settlement 49 FR 17718................ 4/24/84 SCHWMASec. 44-56-30, R.61-
Agreement. 79.260.70(b).
Checklist 25 Codification Rule, 51 FR 19176................ 5/28/86 SCHWMASec. 44-56-30,
Technical Correction. SCHWMASec. 44-56-70, R.61-
79.265.314(d).
Checklist 47 Identification and Listing 53 FR 27162................ 7/19/88 SCHWMASec. 44-56-20(5,6,&8
of 1 Hazardous Waste: Technical ), SCHWMASec. 44-56-310,
Correction. SCHWMASec. 44-56-30,
SCHWMASec. 44-56-60(a),
SCHWMASec. 44-56-70,
SCHWMASec. 44-56-170,
R.61-79.261.5(e), R.61-
79.261.5(f)(2).
Checklist 48 Farmer Exemptions; 53 FR 27164................ 7/19/88 SCHWMASec. 44-56-20(6),
Technical Corrections. R.61-79.262.10(b), R.61-
79.262.10(d), R.61-
79.264.1(g)(4), R.61-
79.265.1(c)(8), R.61-
79.268.1(c)(5), R.61-
79.270.1(c)(2)(ii).
Checklist 52 Hazardous Waste Management 53 FR 34079................ 9/2/88 SCHWMASec. 44-56-30,
Systems: Standards for Hazardous Waste SCHWMASec. 44-56-50, R.61-
Storage and Treatment Tank Systems. 79.260.10, R.61-
79.264.114, R.61-
79.264.190(a), R.61-
79.264.190(b), R.61-
79.264.193(f)(3), R.61-
79.264.196, R.61-
79.265.110(b)(2), R.61-
79.265.114, R.61-
79.265.190(a)-(b), R.61-
79.265.193(f)(3), R.61-
79.265.193(g)(3)(iii),
R.61-79.265.196, R.61-
79.265.201(c)(3), R.61-
79.270.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Decision
I conclude that South Carolina's application for these program
revisions meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements
established by RCRA. Accordingly, South Carolina is granted final
authorization to operate its hazardous waste program as revised.
South Carolina now has responsibility for permitting treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities within its borders and carrying out
other aspects of the RCRA program, subject to the limitations of its
program revision applications and previously approved authorities.
South Carolina also has primary enforcement responsibilities, although
EPA retains the right to conduct inspections under Section 3007 of RCRA
and to take enforcement actions under Section 3008, 3013, and 7003 of
RCRA.
Compliance With Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 6 of Executive Order 12866.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. When a written statement is needed for an EPA rule, section
205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, giving
them meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising them on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. EPA does not anticipate that the approval of
South Carolina's hazardous waste program referenced in today's notice
will result in annual costs of $100 million or more.
EPA's approval of state programs generally has a deregulatory
effect on the private sector because once it is determined that a state
hazardous waste program meets the requirements of RCRA section 3006(b)
and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 40 CFR Part 271, owners
and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal
facilities (TSDFs) may take advantage of the flexibility that an
approved state may exercise. Such flexibility will reduce, not increase
compliance costs for the private sector. Thus, today's rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
[[Page 18504]]
small governments. The Agency recognizes that small governments may own
and/or operate TSDFs that will become subject to the requirements of an
approved state hazardous waste program. However, such small governments
which own and/or operate TSDFs are already subject to the requirements
in 40 CFR Parts 264, 265, and 270. Once EPA authorizes a state to
administer its own hazardous waste program and any revisions to that
program, these same small governments will be able to own and operate
their TSDFs with increased levels of flexibility provided under the
approved state program.
Certification Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify
that this authorization will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. This authorization effectively
suspends the applicability of certain Federal regulations in favor of
South Carolina's program, thereby eliminating duplicative requirements
for handlers of hazardous waste in the State. It does not impose any
new burdens on small entities. This rule, therefore, does not require a
regulatory flexibility analysis.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection, administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control,
Water supply.
Authority: This notice is issued under the authority of Sections
2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended
(42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b)).
Dated: April 11, 1996.
William Waldrop,
Acting, Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-10098 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10089 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18507-18508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10089]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-5460-1]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan; National
Priorities List Update
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of Deletion of the Kummer Sanitary Landfill Superfund
Site from the National Priorities List (NPL).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the
deletion of the Kummer Sanitary Landfill site in Minnesota from the
National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is Appendix B of the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA
promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended.
This action is being taken by EPA and the State of Minnesota, because
it has been determined that Responsible Parties have implemented all
appropriate response actions required. Moreover, EPA and the State of
Minnesota have determined that remedial actions conducted at the site
to date remain protective of public health, welfare, and the
environment.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 26, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Roundtree at (312) 353-3236 (SR-
6J), Remedial Project Manager or Gladys Beard at (312) 886-7253,
Associate Remedial Project Manager, Superfund
[[Page 18508]]
Division, U.S. EPA--Region V, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.
Information on the site is available at the local information
repository located at: The Bemidji Public Library, 602 Beltrami Ave.,
Bemidji, MN 56601. Requests for comprehensive copies of documents
should be directed formally to the Regional Docket Office. The contact
for the Regional Docket Office is Jan Pfundheller (H-7J), U.S. EPA,
Region V, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353-5821.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to be deleted from the NPL is:
Kummer Sanitary Landfill Site located in Beltrami County, Minnesota. A
Notice of Intent to Delete for this site was published March 1, 1996
(61 FR 8012). The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to
Delete was March 30, 1996. EPA received no comments and therefore no
Responsiveness Summary was prepared.
The EPA identifies sites which appear to present a significant risk
to public health, welfare, or the environment and it maintains the NPL
as the list of those sites. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of
Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund (Fund-) financed remedial
actions. Any site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-
financed remedial actions in the unlikely event that conditions at the
site warrant such action. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that
Fund-financed actions may be taken at sites deleted from the NPL in the
unlikely event that conditions at the site warrant such action.
Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party
liability or impede agency efforts to recover costs associated with
response efforts.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 300
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous Waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
PART 300--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,
1991 Comp.; p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.; p.
193. 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657;
Appendix B--[Amended]
2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the
Site ``Kummer Sanitary Landfill Site, Bemidji County, Minnesota''.
Dated: April 10, 1996.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region V.
[FR Doc. 96-10089 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.