issue-1996-05-08•Federal Register final rules — 1996-05-08
Federal Register final rules — 1996-05-08
issue-1996-05-08Federal Register final rules — 1996-05-08Regulation
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. 96-11477 Reduced Certification Reporting Requirements for New Nonroad Engines
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20738-20742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11477]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 89 and 90
[FRL-5502-5]
Reduced Certification Reporting Requirements for New Nonroad
Engines
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This direct final rule revises certification requirements for
new nonroad spark-ignition engines at or below 19 kilowatts, and new
nonroad compression-ignition engines at or above 37 kilowatts, by
reducing the reporting burden associated with the application for
certification.
DATES: This final action will become effective on July 8, 1996 unless
notice is received by June 7, 1996 that any person wishes to submit
adverse comments. Should EPA receive such notice, EPA will publish a
subsequent action in the Federal Register withdrawing all or part of
this final action.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to: EPA Air and Radiation Docket, Attention Docket No. A-95-
57, room M-1500 (mail code 6102), 401 M St., S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460. Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in docket
No. A-95-57, and may be viewed from 8:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. weekdays.
The docket may also be
[[Page 20739]]
reached by telephone at (202) 260-7548. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a
reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for photocopying. Those wishing to
notify EPA of their intent to submit adverse comments on this action
should contact Laurel Horne, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2565
Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel Horne, (313) 741-7803.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Electronic Copies of Documents
Electronic copies of the preamble and the regulatory text of this
direct final rulemaking are available electronically from the EPA
internet site and via dial-up modem on the Technology Transfer Network
(TTN), which is an electronic bulletin board system (BBS) operated by
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Both services are
free of charge, except for your existing cost of internet connectivity
or the cost of the phone call to TTN. Users are able to access and
download files on their first call using a personal computer and modem
per the following information.
Internet:
World Wide Web:
http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW
Gopher:
gopher://gopher.epa.gov/ Follow menus for: Offices/Air/OMS
FTP:
ftp://ftp.epa.gov/ Change Directory to pub/gopher/OMS TTN BBS: 919-
541-5742
(1200-14400 bps, no parity, 8 data bits, 1 stop bit)
Voice Helpline: 919-541-5384. Off-line: Mondays from 8:00 AM to 12:00
noon EST.
A user who has not called TTN previously will first be required to
answer some basic informational questions for registration purposes.
After completing the registration process, proceed through the
following menu choices from the Top Menu to access information on this
rulemaking.
GATEWAY TO TTN TECHNICAL AREAS (Bulletin Boards)
OMS--Mobile Sources Information
Rulemaking and Reporting
<6> Non-Road
<2> Non-road Engines
At this point, the system will list all available files in the
chosen category in reverse chronological order with brief descriptions.
To download a file, select a transfer protocol that is supported by the
terminal software on your own computer, then set your own software to
receive the file using that same protocol.
If unfamiliar with handling compressed (i.e. ZIP'ed) files, go to
the TTN top menu, System Utilities (Command: 1) for information and the
necessary program to download in order to unZIP the files of interest
after downloading to your computer. After getting the files you want
onto your computer, you can quit the TTN BBS with the oodbye
command.
Please note that due to differences between the software used to
develop the document and the software into which the document may be
downloaded, changes in format, page length, etc. may occur.
II. Introduction and Background
On July 3, 1995, EPA published emission standards for new nonroad
spark-ignition engines at or below 19 kilowatts (hereinafter referred
to as small SI engines).1 Emission standards for new nonroad
compression-ignition engines at or above 37 kilowatts (hereinafter
referred to as large CI engines) were published on June 17, 1994.2
Under both sets of standards, engine manufacturers must obtain from the
Administrator a certificate of conformity covering each engine family
introduced into U.S. commerce. To obtain a certificate of conformity,
engine manufacturers must submit an application comprised of
information, specified by regulation, demonstrating that emission
standards will be met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 60 FR 34584, July 3, 1995.
\2\ 59 FR 31306, June 17, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's action lessens the reporting burden associated with
certification and allows EPA to exercise some flexibility in
implementing the certification process for small SI and large CI
engines.
III. Requirements of This Direct Final Rulemaking
EPA is revising language in Secs. 89.115-96, 90.107, and 90.118 to
streamline the reporting requirements associated with applications for
engine certification. EPA believes that these revisions will in no way
impede the ability of the Administrator to determine compliance with
the applicable requirements of this regulation, and that the
information required under today's rulemaking will be sufficient to
establish to the satisfaction of the Administrator that engines conform
to applicable requirements and thus may be issued certificates of
conformity.
A. Test Engine Operating Cycle, Service Accumulation, and Maintenance
EPA is revising paragraph (d)(5) of Sec. 90.107, which requires the
engine manufacturer to submit a description of the operating cycle and
service accumulation period necessary to break-in the test engine(s)
and stabilize emission levels, and any maintenance scheduled. EPA is
deleting the provision that requires the engine manufacturer to submit
a description of the operating cycle used to break-in the test
engine(s) and any maintenance scheduled. Similar information is already
required to be kept for each certification test engine by
Sec. 90.121(a)(3) (i), (ii) and (iii), including a description of the
test engine's construction, the method used for engine service
accumulation, and all maintenance performed. EPA believes it is
sufficient that this information is readily available under
Sec. 90.121(a)(3) if needed, and believes that it is not necessary to
require it to be submitted with an application for certification.
Accordingly, EPA is also revising Sec. 90.118(d) to indicate that the
engine manufacturer must provide records about service accumulation to
the Administrator only if requested. Note, however, that the
Sec. 90.107(d)(5) provision requiring that the engine manufacturer
submit the service accumulation period necessary to break-in the test
engine(s) and stabilize emission levels is retained.
Similarly, EPA is deleting the provision in Sec. 89.115-96(d)(5)
that requires the engine manufacturer to submit a description of the
operating cycle used to break-in the test engine(s), as that
information is already required to be kept for each certification test
engine by Sec. 89.124-96(a)(2) (i), (ii) and (iii). But EPA is
retaining the requirement of Sec. 89.115-96(d)(5) that the engine
manufacturer submit the period of operation necessary to accumulate
service hours on test engines and stabilize emission levels.
B. Maintenance Instructions
EPA is deleting the provision in Sec. 90.107(d)(7) that requires
manufacturers to submit the proposed maintenance instructions furnished
to the ultimate purchaser of each new small engine. As there is no
promulgated useful life period or in-use standard established in this
initial phase of the small SI engine emission reduction program, EPA
does not believe it is appropriate to require manufacturers to submit
this information.
[[Page 20740]]
C. Abbreviated or Streamlined Certification
EPA is adding new subsections (f) to Sec. 89.115-96, and (g) to
Sec. 90.107, that authorize the Administrator to modify the
certification application information submission requirements. EPA
believes that it is appropriate to require manufacturers to collect and
maintain the application information specified in Secs. 89.115-96(d)
and 90.107(d), but that it should not be necessary for manufacturers to
submit this information in all cases unless specifically requested.
Authority to modify information submission requirements will allow EPA
to exercise some flexibility in designing and implementing the
certification process for small SI and large CI engines. When the
Agency exercises its authority to modify the information submission
requirements, it will provide manufacturers with a guidance document,
similar to manufacturer guidance issued under the on-highway program,
that explains the modification(s).
During the comment period on the recent small SI engine proposal,
EPA received comments from the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA),
Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI), and the Portable Power
Equipment Manufacturers Association (PPEMA) 3 requesting that EPA
harmonize its certification application requirements with the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) in order to ease the paperwork
burden on small SI engine manufacturers. A single identical application
acceptable to both EPA and CARB was the preferred approach to EMA and
OPEI, while PPEMA favored EPA acceptance of certification by CARB. The
language being added to Sec. 90.107(g)(1) (as well as to Sec. 89.115-
96(f)(1)) will allow EPA to streamline application requirements for
federal jurisdiction and 49 state certification applicants, and, where
EPA finds that it is appropriate, to accept the CARB certification
application. Although EPA anticipates that in most cases it will find
it appropriate to accept the CARB certification application, the Agency
reserves the right to deny such acceptance. For example, significant
variations in test procedures may be sufficient reason for the Agency
not to accept the CARB certification application. In addition, EPA
recognizes that CARB may revise its certification application in the
future; EPA may not find it appropriate to accept such a revised CARB
certification application. In no case does EPA acceptance of a CARB
certification application indicate that EPA necessarily will grant a
certificate of conformity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See EPA Air Docket No. A-93-25, items IV-D-07, IV-D-20, and
IV-D-22A, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new subsections also clarify the recordkeeping requirements of
Sec. 89.124-96 and Sec. 90.121 in regard to certification application
records that a manufacturer is required to have available but is not
required to submit, and the Administrator's right to review such
records. Under new Secs. 89.115-96(f)(2) and 90.107(g)(2),
manufacturers must retain records that comprise the certification
application whether or not EPA requires that all such records be
submitted to EPA at the time of certification. New Secs. 89.115-
96(f)(3) and 90.107(g)(3) clarify the Administrator's right to review
records at any time and at any place designated by the Administrator.
IV. Public Participation and Effective Date
EPA is publishing this action as a direct final rule because it
views the changes contained herein as noncontroversial and anticipates
no adverse or critical comments. This direct final rule alters existing
provisions by reducing the certification reporting burden and allowing
more flexibility in certification reporting requirements. Engine
manufacturers should not take issue since they favor a lessened
reporting burden in the certification program. Environmental groups and
state and local governments should not take issue since the rule will
not affect the emission reductions associated with small SI or large CI
engine emission standards, nor will it affect adversely EPA's
enforcement authority.
This action will be effective on July 8, 1996 unless EPA is
notified by June 7, 1996 that adverse or critical comment will be
submitted. EPA requests that, should any adverse or critical comments
be submitted, they be submitted according to the specific issues as
identified below:
(a) Test Engine Operating Cycle, Service Accumulation, and Maintenance
(b) Maintenance Instructions
(c) Abbreviated or Streamlined Certification
Should EPA receive such notice of intent to submit adverse or critical
comment on a specific issue identified above, EPA will publish an
action withdrawing the provisions of this final action corresponding to
that specific issue, and all adverse comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on a proposed rule that is
published in the proposed rule section of today's Federal Register.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), EPA
must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the executive
order. The order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that
is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof;
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the order.
EPA has determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not
subject to OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this rule under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0338 to the requirements
associated with the nonroad small SI engine certification information
collection request (ICR), and OMB control number 2060-0287 to the
nonroad large CI engine certification ICR.
This direct final rulemaking lessens the information collection
request requirements associated with the nonroad small SI engine
certification ICR (OMB No. 2060-0338) and the nonroad large CI engine
certification ICR (OMB No. 2060-0287). Although the burden hours
associated with emissions testing and recordkeeping remain the same,
the burden hours associated with certification reporting decrease. For
the small SI engine program, the total annual information collection
request burden will decrease
[[Page 20741]]
an estimated 45 percent (65,760 hours) to a new revised annual total
ICR burden of 78,485 hours. This direct final rule also will reduce the
total annual information collection request burden for the large CI
engine certification program by an estimated 45 percent (63,361 hours),
for a new revised annual total ICR burden of 78,005 hours.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
C. Unfunded Mandates Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (signed
into law on March 22, 1995) requires that EPA prepare a budgetary
impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a federal
mandate that may result in expenditure by state, local, and tribal
governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or
more in any one year. Section 203 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
requires EPA to establish a plan for obtaining input from and
informing, educating, and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, EPA must identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before
promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must be
prepared. EPA must select from those alternatives the least costly,
most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule, unless EPA explains why this alternative is not
selected or the selection of this alternative is inconsistent with law.
Because this direct final rule is expected to result in the
expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments or the private
sector of less than $100 million in any one year, EPA has not prepared
a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed selection of the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative.
Because small governments will not be significantly or uniquely
affected by this rule, EPA is not required to develop a plan with
regard to small governments.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) requires EPA to
consider potential impacts of proposed regulations on small business.
If a preliminary analysis indicates that a proposed regulation would
have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of
small business entities, then a regulatory flexibility analysis must be
prepared. An action which has a predominately deregulatory or
beneficial economic effect on small business does not need a regulatory
flexibility analysis.
Since this rule is deregulatory in nature, has no significant
adverse effect on small business, and decreases the reporting burden on
all regulated entities, EPA has determined that it is not necessary to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. However, the Agency has
taken the interests of small business entities into account in this
action. This direct final rule relieves the regulatory burden on small
businesses and minimizes the reporting requirements imposed on
regulated entities, including smaller engine manufacturers, by
authorizing EPA to modify certification application information
submission requirements. The Agency intends to exercise this authority
by reducing these requirements, and where appropriate, to accept the
CARB certification application, thereby additionally reducing the
paperwork burden on small SI engine manufacturers. Thus, EPA certifies
that this rulemaking will not have a significant adverse effect on a
substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 89 and 90
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Confidential business information, Environmental protection, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Nonroad source pollution,
Reporting requirements.
Dated: May 2, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, parts 89 and 90 of title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
PART 89--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NEW AND IN-USE NONROAD ENGINES
1. The authority citation for part 89 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 213,
215, 216, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
7521, 7522, 7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7547, 7549, 7550,
and 7601(a)).
Subpart B--[Amended]
2. Section 89.115-96 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(5),
redesignating the second paragraph (b) which follows paragraph (d)(10)
as paragraph (e), and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 89.115-96 Application for certificate.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(5) The period of operation necessary to accumulate service hours
on test engines and stabilize emission levels;
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(f)(1) The Administrator may modify the information submission
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section, provided that all of the
information specified therein is maintained by the engine manufacturer
as required by Sec. 89.124-96, and amended, updated, or corrected as
necessary.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, Sec. 89.124-96(a)(1)
includes all information specified in paragraph (d) of this section
whether or not such information is actually submitted to the
Administrator for any particular model year.
(3) The Administrator may review an engine manufacturer's records
at any time. At the Administrator's discretion, this review may take
place either at the manufacturer's facility or at another facility
designated by the Administrator.
PART 90--CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM NONROAD SPARK-IGNITION ENGINES
3. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 213, 215,
216, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7522,
7523, 7524, 7525, 7541, 7542, 7543, 7547, 7549, 7550, and 7601(a)).
[[Page 20742]]
Subpart B--[Amended]
4. Section 90.107 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(5) and
(d)(7), and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 90.107 Application for certification.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(5) The service accumulation period necessary to break in the test
engine(s) and stabilize emission levels.
* * * * *
(7) The proposed engine information label;
* * * * *
(g)(1) The Administrator may modify the information submission
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section, provided that all of the
information specified therein is maintained by the engine manufacturer
as required by Sec. 90.121, and amended, updated, or corrected as
necessary.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, Sec. 90.121(a)(1) includes
all information specified in paragraph (d) of this section whether or
not such information is actually submitted to the Administrator for any
particular model year.
(3) The Administrator may review an engine manufacturer's records
at any time. At the Administrator's discretion, this review may take
place either at the manufacturer's facility or at another facility
designated by the Administrator.
5. Section 90.118 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.118 Certification procedure--service accumulation.
* * * * *
(d) The manufacturer must maintain, and provide to the
Administrator if requested, records stating the rationale for selecting
a service accumulation period less than 12 hours and records describing
the method used to accumulate hours on the test engine(s).
[FR Doc. 96-11477 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11471 Smith River National Recreation Area
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11471]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Part 292
RIN 0596-AB39
Smith River National Recreation Area
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule; change of effective date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Forest Service is giving notice of a change in the
effective date of the Smith River National Recreation Area final rule.
The Smith River final rule was published in the Federal Register on
April 3, 1996, (61 FR 14621) and became effective on that date.
However, at the time of submission, the Forest Service was unaware of
the new statutory requirements concerning Congressional review of
regulations. Public Law 104-121, Subtitle E, Section 251,
``Congressional Review'' requires the agency to submit a report and a
copy of a final regulation to each House of Congress and to the General
Accounting Office (GAO), when the rule is published in the Federal
Register. The effective date of a published rule must be later than the
publication date in order to allow time for Congressional review. A
report and a copy of the rule were submitted to Congress and the GAO on
May 3, 1996.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The new effective date for this rule is May 23, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sam Hotchkiss, Minerals and Geology
Management Staff, Forest Service, USDA, (202) 205-1535.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule (36 CFR Part 292) implements
Section 8(d) of the Smith River National Recreation Area Act of 1990
and sets forth the procedures by which the Forest Service will regulate
mineral operations on National Forest System lands within the Smith
River National Recreation Area. This rule supplements existing Forest
Service regulations and is intended to ensure that mineral operations
are conducted in a manner consistent with the purposes for which the
Smith River National Recreation Area was established.
Dated: May 3, 1996.
David G. Unger,
Associate Chief.
[FR Doc. 96-11471 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11463 Milk in the New York-New Jersey and Middle Atlantic Marketing Areas; Suspension of Certain Provisions of the Orders
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20719-20721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11463]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Parts 1002 and 1004
[DA-96-02]
Milk in the New York-New Jersey and Middle Atlantic Marketing
Areas; Suspension of Certain Provisions of the Orders
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Suspension of rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document suspends a pooling provision of the New York-New
Jersey order and a provision in the Middle Atlantic order's base-excess
plan. The request for suspension was submitted on behalf of several
handlers (cooperative and proprietary) who market the milk of dairy
farmers who are located in a common supply area and who have milk
pooled under both orders. This suspension will permit more efficient
assembly and transportation of producer milk.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1996, through September 30, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gino M. Tosi, Marketing Specialist,
USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South
Building, PO Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, (202) 690-1366.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior document in this proceeding:
Notice of Proposed Suspension: Issued March 27, 1996; published
April 2, 1996 (61 FR 14514).
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires the
Agency to examine the impact of a proposed rule on small entities.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Agricultural Marketing Service has
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. This rule lessens the
regulatory impact of the order on certain milk handlers and tends to
ensure that dairy farmers will continue to have their milk priced under
the orders and thereby receive the benefits that accrue from such
pricing.
The Department is issuing this final rule in conformance with
Executive Order 12866.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have a retroactive
effect. This rule will not preempt any state or local laws,
regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule.
The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7
U.S.C. 601-674), provides that administrative proceedings must be
exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section
608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with
the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provisions of the
order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in
accordance with law and request a modification of an order or to be
exempted from the order. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a
hearing on the petition. After a hearing, the Secretary would rule on
the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United
States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or
[[Page 20720]]
has its principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to
review the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided a bill in
equity is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of
the ruling.
This order of suspension is issued pursuant to the provisions of
the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act and of the orders regulating
the handling of milk in the New York-New Jersey and Middle Atlantic
marketing areas.
Notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register
on April 2, 1996 (64 FR 14514) concerning the proposed suspension of
certain provisions of the orders. Interested persons were afforded
opportunity to file written data, views and arguments thereon.
Two comments supporting and one comment opposing the proposed
suspension were received.
After consideration of all relevant material, including the
proposals in the notice, the comments received, and other available
information, it is hereby found and determined that for the months of
May 1, 1996, through September 30, 1996, the following provisions of
the orders do not tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act:
1. In Sec. 1002.14 of the New York-New Jersey order, paragraph (d);
and
2. In Sec. 1004.92(c) of the Middle Atlantic order, the words ``and
who held such status in all or part of the 2 months of August and
September and who otherwise was a producer only under this part for all
of the remaining August through December period''.
Statement of Consideration
This rule suspends a pooling provision of the New York-New Jersey
order (Order 2) and suspends a provision in the Middle Atlantic order
(Order 4) base-excess plan. The suspension will allow handlers
regulated under Order 2 and Order 4 to assemble and transport the milk
of dairy farmers more efficiently and thereby reduce costs. Suspension
of these provisions in the two orders would permit handlers to freely
shift the milk of individual dairy farmers located in a common supply
area between the two markets. Proponents claim that this added
flexibility would enable Order 2 and 4 handlers to furnish the fluid
needs of bottling plants more effectively. Handlers will be obligated
to change the pooling status of individual producers to achieve this
efficiency.
Under the terms of Order 2, an individual dairy farmer's milk may
not be pool milk during the months of December through June if any of
the dairy farmer's milk was producer milk pooled by the same handler
under another Federal order in the preceding months of July through
November. Under the Order 4 base-excess plan provisions, a dairy
farmer's milk deliveries to handlers regulated under Orders 2 and 4
during August and September would be used to compute the producer's
Order 4 base only if the dairy farmer's milk was pooled on Order 4
during the remaining months (October-December) of such base-forming
period. Suspending these order provisions would allow milk to be
shifted to Order 2 from Order 4 and would also allow Order 2 milk to be
shifted to Order 4 without negative consequences to producers.
Several handlers (cooperative and proprietary) who market the milk
of dairy farmers under Orders 2 and 4 requested the suspension.
Proponents asked that the provisions be suspended for the months of May
through September 1996.
In support of the action, proponents indicated that the State of
Pennsylvania has become a common milkshed for Orders 2 and 4. In June
1995 there were 3,836 Pennsylvania dairy farmers pooled on Order 2 and
3,717 Pennsylvania producers pooled on Order 4. These dairy farmers
represented 37 percent of the total producers on Order 2 and 73 percent
of the total producers on Order 4. They produced 27 percent of the
Order 2 pool milk and 67 percent of the Order 4 producer receipts.
There is significant overlap of producers supplying the two markets in
the Pennsylvania counties of Lancaster, Lebanon, Chester, and Berks,
proponents stated.
Proponents also indicated in their request that a large percentage
of the milk that is picked up in the common supply area of Pennsylvania
is delivered to Order 4 fluid milk plants located at Wawa, Spring City,
Royersford, and Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, and Florence, New
Jersey. Some of the milk produced in this same area is delivered to the
Order 2 pool plants located at Lansdale and Reading.
Proponents of the suspension have made plans to combine their milk
routes in Pennsylvania to assemble and haul the milk from farms that
are most advantageously located to plants where the milk is needed for
processing. The commingling of the milk supply of these proponents is
scheduled to begin on May 1, 1996, which is the first month the
suspension is to be effective.
In their comments the proponents indicated that the number of
producers that will be shifted between orders will be small. During
April and May of 1996, two of the proponents intend to change the farm
pickup routes of approximately 865 dairy farmers serviced by 41 milk
haulers. However, according to one comment, it is expected that 183
producers currently pooled under Order 2 will be changed to Order 4 and
that 48 producers currently pooled on Order 4 will be changed to Order
2. Among the producers who will have their hauler changed on May 1 are
those picked up on routes which primarily service proponents' pool
distributing plants.
Concerns arose regarding the timing of this suspension action and
the advisability of loosening the pooling restrictions of the New York-
New Jersey order that could result in additional reserve supplies of
milk pooled on the orders as a consequence of suspending these order
provisions. In comments received from a proprietary handler who
distributes Class I, Class II, and Class III products in the Order 2
marketing area and who opposes the suspension, it was stated that there
is a potential for a lowering of the blend price to producers
historically pooled on the respective orders, although the specific
concern was for the lowering of the blend price to Order 2 producers.
Similar concerns were expressed by a major cooperative in the Order 2
marketing area who nevertheless supports the suspension because it
would help in lowering the costs of doing business to dairy farmers.
In light of the small number of producers who will have their
pooling status shifted, it is reasonable to conclude that the changes
in producer blend prices will not be significantly affected given the
increased efficiencies gained by cost savings in transportation.
Additionally, the suspension action is supported by producers who
market the majority of milk in the Middle Atlantic and the New York-New
Jersey marketing areas.
Accordingly, it is appropriate to suspend the aforesaid provisions
from May 1, 1996, through September 30, 1996.
It is hereby found and determined that thirty days' notice of the
effective date hereof is impractical, unnecessary and contrary to the
public interest in that:
(a) The suspension is necessary to reflect current marketing
conditions and to assure orderly marketing conditions in the marketing
areas, in that such rule is necessary to permit the continued pooling
of the milk of dairy farmers who historically supplied the markets
without the need for making costly and inefficient movements of milk;
(b) This suspension does not require of persons affected
substantial or
[[Page 20721]]
extensive preparation prior to the effective date; and
(c) Notice of proposed rulemaking was given to interested parties
and they were afforded the opportunity to file written data, views and
arguments concerning these suspension actions. Two comments supporting
and one comment opposing the action were received.
Therefore, good cause exists for making this order effective less
than 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 1002 and 1004
Milk marketing orders.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the following provisions
in Title 7, parts 1002 and 1004 are amended as follows:
PART 1002--MILK IN THE NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY MARKETING AREA
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1002 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
Sec. 1002.14 [Suspended in part]
2. In Sec. 1002.14, paragraph (d) is suspended.
PART 1004--MILK IN THE MIDDLE ATLANTIC MARKETING AREA
3. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1004 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
Sec. 1004.92 [Suspended in part]
4. In Sec. 1004.92(c), the words ``and who held such status in all
or part of the 2 months of August and September and who otherwise was a
producer only under this part for all of the remaining August through
December period'' is suspended.
Dated: May 2, 1996.
Michael V. Dunn,
Assistant Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 96-11463 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11462 Melons Grown in South Texas; Change in Cantaloup Container Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20718-20719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11462]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 979
[Docket No. FV96-979-1FIR]
Melons Grown in South Texas; Change in Cantaloup Container
Requirements
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture (Department) is adopting as a
final rule, without change, the provisions of an interim final rule
that changed the container requirements for cantaloups grown in South
Texas under Marketing Order No. 979 by increasing the depth of
cantaloup cartons from 10\3/8\ to 11\3/8\ inches. The South Texas Melon
Committee (committee), the agency that locally administers the
marketing order for melons grown in South Texas, unanimously
recommended this change. That change allowed handlers to use deeper
cartons in shipping larger cantaloups. The use of deeper cartons is
expected to result in less damage during packing and shipment and
foster buyer confidence. The interim final rule also corrected
telephone area codes and removed out-of-date handler assessment
information.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Belinda G. Garza, Marketing Order
Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, 1313
East Hackberry, McAllen, TX 78501, telephone 210-682-2833, FAX 210-682-
5942, or Robert F. Matthews, Marketing Order Administration Branch,
Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room 2523-S,
Washington, DC 20090-6456, telephone 202-690-0464, FAX 202-720-5698.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing
Agreement No. 156 and Order No. 979 (7 CFR part 979) regulating the
handling of melons grown in South Texas, hereinafter referred to as the
``order.'' The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter
referred to as the ``Act.''
The Department is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive
Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or
policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this
rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted
therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the
petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the petition.
The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any
district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her
principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's
ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20
days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has
considered the economic impact of this action on small entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that
they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
[[Page 20719]]
There are 27 handlers of South Texas melons who are subject to
regulation under the marketing order and 30 producers in the production
area. Small agricultural service firms, which include handlers, have
been defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as
those having annual receipts of less than $5,000,000, and small
agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of
less than $500,000. The majority of handlers and producers of South
Texas melons may be classified as small entities.
At a public meeting on December 12, 1995, the committee unanimously
recommended, under the authority of Sec. 979.52 of the order,
increasing the depth of cantaloup cartons. Section 979.304(b)(1)
specified that the depth of cantaloup cartons could be not more than
10\3/8\ nor less than 9\3/4\ inches. A tolerance of \1/4\ inch was
permitted. The committee recommended a one inch increase in depth to
11\3/8\ inches.
In recent years, buyers have requested increased supplies of larger
cantaloups. Handlers had experienced difficulty in packing larger
cantaloups without bruising because the container depth did not allow
sufficient room for the larger fruit and ice packed with the cantaloups
to keep them cool. Also, without adequate carton space, proper stacking
on pallets was more difficult and compression damage often occurred to
the cantaloups when loading and shipping. Increasing the depth of
cantaloup cartons by one inch to 11\3/8\ inches allows for proper
stacking and delivery of cantaloups without bruising and other damage.
This change is expected to foster buyer satisfaction and confidence.
Handlers will not be prevented from using their current supply of
smaller cartons if they desire.
Section 979.304(c)(4) designates inspection stations in Alamo and
Laredo, for handlers who do not have permanent packing facilities
recognized by the committee. The telephone area codes specified for
Alamo and Laredo were not correct. The interim final rule amended
Sec. 979.304(c)(4) to correct those area codes from (502) and (512),
respectively, to (210).
Section 979.304(c)(5) specified that handlers shall pay assessments
on all assessable melons according to the provisions of Sec. 979.42, at
the rate of \3/4\ cent per carton. The \3/4\ cent per carton rate of
assessment has not been in effect for a number of years. The current
rate of assessment is 7 cents per carton. Also, because the assessment
rate is established by the Department in a separate rulemaking document
and handlers are informed of the rate by the committee through handler
notices, the rate of assessment does not need to be referenced in these
provisions. Therefore, the words ``at the rate of \3/4\ cent per
carton'' in Sec. 979.304(c)(5) were removed.
The interim final rule was published in the Federal Register on
February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7408). That rule amended Sec. 979.304 to
change the container requirements for cantaloups, to correct the
telephone area codes, and to remove the out-of-date handler assessment
information. That rule provided that interested persons could file
comments through March 29, 1996. No comments were received.
Based on the above, the Agricultural Marketing Service has
determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including the
information and recommendations submitted by the Committee and other
available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as
hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of
the Act.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 979
Marketing agreements, Melons, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reason set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 979 is amended
as follows:
PART 979--MELONS GROWN IN SOUTH TEXAS
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending Sec. 979.304 which was
published at 61 FR 7408 on February 28, 1996, is adopted as a final
rule without change.
Dated: May 2, 1996.
Robert C. Keeney,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-11462 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11461 Amendment of General Regulations for Marketing Orders; Adding Stipulation Procedures
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20716-20718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11461]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 20717]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 900
[Docket No. FV95-900-1FR]
Amendment of General Regulations for Marketing Orders; Adding
Stipulation Procedures
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule amends the general regulations for federal marketing
orders and marketing agreements covering fruits, vegetables and nuts,
by adding a provision for implementing stipulation procedures to
resolve certain violations of marketing orders, marketing agreements,
Section 8e import regulations, and provisions regulating nonsignatory
peanut handlers. Marketing orders, marketing agreements, and the other
regulatory provisions listed above regulate handlers and/or importers
of various agricultural commodities and are authorized under the
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (Act). The Act gives the
Department of Agriculture (Department) authority to institute formal
administrative proceedings against handlers and/or importers who
violate marketing orders, marketing agreements, and other regulatory
provisions under the Act. This rule would give the Department another
tool for enforcement by allowing the Department to enter into a written
agreement with a violator who agrees to waive a hearing and pay a civil
penalty without a formal administrative proceeding.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 9, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Schulke, Marketing Order
Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O.
Box 96456, room 2523-S, Washington, DC. 20090-6456, telephone (202)
720-4607, facsimile (202) 720-5698.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department is issuing this rule in
conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule (1) preempts all State or local laws and
regulations that are inconsistent with this rule, (2) has no
retroactive effect, and (3) does not require administrative proceedings
before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
The Act provides authority for federal marketing order and
marketing agreement programs for various fruits, vegetables and nuts.
The programs are initiated by interested industries and voted on by
those in the industry. A marketing order allows an industry to solve
marketing problems by establishing grade, size, quality, maturity,
quantity and container requirements that apply to all handlers in the
industry. Section 8e of the Act requires that whenever the Secretary of
Agriculture issues grade, size, quality, or maturity regulations under
domestic marketing orders for certain commodities, the same or
comparable regulations on imports of those commodities must be issued.
Thus, handler and importer compliance is essential for marketing order
and marketing agreement programs and mandatory import requirements to
be effective.
Section 608(c)14(B) of the Act authorizes the Department to
institute a formal administrative proceeding against a handler or
importer who violates a marketing order or other regulatory provision
under the Act. This rule provides an alternative tool for enforcement
by allowing the Department to enter into a written agreement, or
stipulation, with a violator who agrees to waive a hearing and pay a
civil penalty without the Department's initiating a formal
administrative proceeding.
Under these stipulation procedures, the Administrator of the
Agricultural Marketing Service would give the handler or importer
notice of the alleged violation and the opportunity for a hearing. The
handler or importer would have the option to waive the hearing and
agree to pay a specified civil penalty within a prescribed period of
time. In turn, the Administrator would agree to accept the civil
penalty in settlement of the particular matter involved if the penalty
is paid within the specified time frame. If, however, the handler or
importer does not pay the civil penalty within that period of time, the
Department would institute a formal administrative proceeding. A civil
penalty that the Department offers in a stipulation will have no
bearing on the civil penalty that the Department may seek in a formal
administrative proceeding.
Formal disciplinary proceedings can take up to two years and are
costly for both the Department and the violator. The Department is
implementing the use of stipulation agreements, where appropriate, to
improve marketing order, marketing agreement, and Section 8e
compliance. The intended effect of this rule is to resolve certain
cases without the cost of going to a hearing. Accordingly, the general
regulations for marketing orders and marketing agreements covering
fruits, vegetables and nuts are amended by adding a subpart on
stipulation procedures.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is found and determined upon good
cause that notice and other procedure with respect thereto are
impracticable, unnecessary and contrary to the public interest, and
there is good cause for making this rule effective less than 30 days
after publication in the Federal Register because (1) these procedures
are in effect for other Department programs, (2) this action improves
the administration of marketing order, marketing agreement, and Section
8e programs because it affords more timely resolution of cases brought
by USDA, and (3) no useful purpose would be served by delaying the
effective date of implementing the use of stipulation agreements. This
rule is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 900
Administrative practice and procedures, Freedom of information,
Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 900 is
amended as follows:
PART 900--GENERAL REGULATIONS
Accordingly, in part 900, immediately following Sec. 900.71, a new
subpart is added to read as follows:
Subpart--Supplemental Rules of Practice for Marketing Orders, Marketing
Agreements, and Requirements Issued Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 608b(b) and 7
U.S.C. 608e Covering Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts
Sec.
900.80 Words in the singular form.
900.81 Definitions.
900.82 Stipulation procedures.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
Subpart--Supplemental Rules of Practice for Marketing Orders,
Marketing Agreements, and Requirements Issued Pursuant to 7 U.S.C.
608b(b) and 7 U.S.C. 608e Covering Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts
Sec. 900.80 Words in the singular form.
Words in this subpart in the singular form shall be deemed to
import the plural, and vice versa, as the case may demand.
Sec. 900.81 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, the terms as defined in the act shall
apply with equal force and effect. In addition, unless the context
otherwise requires:
(a) The term Act means Public Act No. 10, 73 Congress (48 Stat. 31)
as amended and as reenacted and amended by the
[[Page 20718]]
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (50 Stat. 246), as
amended.
(b) The term Department means the United States Department of
Agriculture.
(c) The term Secretary means the Secretary of Agriculture of the
United States, or any officer or employee of the Department to whom
authority has heretofore been delegated, or to whom authority may
hereafter be delegated, to act in his stead.
(d) The term Administrator means the Administrator of the
Agricultural Marketing Service, with power to redelegate, or any
officer or employee of the Department to whom authority has been
delegated or may hereafter be delegated to act in his stead.
(e) The term proceeding means a proceeding before the Secretary
arising under sections 8a, 8b(b), 8c(14), 8e, 10(c) and 10(h).
(f) The term hearing means that part of the proceeding which
involves the submission of evidence.
(g) The term marketing agreement means any marketing agreement or
any amendment thereto which may be entered into pursuant to section 8b
of the act.
(h) The term marketing order means any order or any amendment
thereto which may be issued pursuant to section 8c of the act, and
after notice and hearing as required by said section.
(i) The term handler means any person who, by the terms of a
marketing order or marketing agreement, is subject thereto, or to whom
a marketing order or marketing agreement is sought to be made
applicable.
(j) The term importer means any person who, by the terms of section
8e of the act, is subject thereto.
(k) The term person means any individual, corporation, partnership,
association, or any other business unit.
Sec. 900.82 Stipulation procedures.
The Administrator, or the Administrator's representative, may, at
any time before the issuance of a complaint seeking a civil penalty
under the Act, enter into a stipulation with any handler or importer in
accordance with the following procedures:
(a) The Administrator, or the Administrator's representative, shall
give the handler or importer notice of the alleged violation of the
applicable marketing order or marketing agreement, or the requirements
issued pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 608b(b) and 7 U.S.C. 608e, and an
opportunity for a hearing thereon as provided by the Act;
(b) In agreeing to the proposed stipulation, the handler or
importer expressly waives the opportunity for a hearing and agrees to
pay a specified civil penalty within a designated time;
(c) The Administrator, or the Administrator's representative,
agrees to accept the specified civil penalty in settlement of the
particular matter involved if it is paid within the designated time;
(d) In cases where the handler or importer does not pay the
specified civil penalty within the designated time, or the handler or
importer does not agree to the stipulation, the Administrator may issue
an administrative complaint; and
(e) The civil penalty that the Administrator may have proposed in a
stipulation agreement shall have no bearing on the civil penalty amount
that the Department may seek in a formal administrative proceeding
against the same handler or importer for the same alleged violation.
Dated: May 2, 1996.
Lon Hatamiya,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-11461 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11457 Florida Grapefruit, Florida Oranges and Tangelos, and, Florida Tangerines; Grade Standards
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20702-20716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11457]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 51
[Docket Number FV-93-301]
Florida Grapefruit, Florida Oranges and Tangelos, and, Florida
Tangerines; Grade Standards
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule revises the United States Standards for Grades
of Florida Grapefruit, United States Standards for Grades of Florida
Oranges and Tangelos, and, United States Standards for Grades of
Florida Tangerines. The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), in
cooperation with industry, and other interested parties develops and
improves standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging
in order to facilitate commerce by providing buyers, sellers, and
quality assurance personnel uniform language and criteria for
describing various levels of quality and condition as valued in the
marketplace.
The revisions will: Redefine terms to reflect more clearly current
cultural and marketing practices; add and revise the grades so as to
make them uniform and consistent with each other and other recently
revised U.S. grade standards; express defect tolerances in terms of
percentages instead of specific numbers of defective fruit; revise the
size sections to provide greater flexibility in marketing and packaging
new varieties of fruit; and, delete references to a visual aid which is
no longer available.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is effective August 1, 1996. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the
regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
August 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank O'Sullivan, Fresh Products
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Agricultural Marketing Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 96456, Room 2056 South
Building, Washington, DC 20090-6456, (202) 720-2185.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is
issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.), AMS has determined that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The revision of U.S. Standards for Grades of
Florida Grapefruit, U.S. Standards for Grades of Florida Oranges and
Tangelos, and U.S. Standards for Grades of Florida Tangerines will not
impose substantial direct economic cost, recordkeeping, or personnel
workload changes on small entities, and will not alter the market share
or competitive position of these entities relative to large businesses.
The final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive effect.
This final 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 the rule.
Agencies periodically review existing regulations. An objective of
the review is to ensure that the grade standards are serving their
intended purpose, the language is clear, and the standards are
consistent with AMS policy and authority.
The proposed rule, United States Standards for Grades of Florida
Grapefruit, Florida Orange and Tangelos, and Florida Tangerines, was
published in the Federal Register on February 22, 1995, (60 FR 9990-
10004).
The Florida Citrus Packers (FCP), which represents the majority of
citrus growers and packers in Florida, requested that the standards be
revised in order to bring them into conformity with current cultural,
harvesting and marketing practices developed since the standards were
last revised in December 1980.
The 60-day comment period ended April 24, 1995, and a total of
fourteen comments were received from growers, shippers, receivers, and
researchers.
Nine comments from growers, and shippers were in favor of the
proposal in its entirety. These commentors agreed that due to changes
in current cultural, harvesting, and marketing practices of Florida
citrus, it was necessary to change the standards as proposed.
A copy of the proposed rule was provided to the Agricultural
Research Service (ARS) for help in identifying studies, data collection
or other information concerning the possible effect of the proposed
revision on pesticide use. ARS was unable to identify any relevant
information.
One comment from a broker did not address the provisions of the
proposal, and indicated that the standards do not pertain to them.
One comment stated that they were ``not in favor of the proposed
changes and that there needs to be an effort to bring about
standardization of grades of citrus.'' AMS disagrees. In light of the
vast differences between the various citrus growing regions in the
United States and the necessary differences in their respective citrus
products, it would not be helpful to commerce in these commodities to
create one U.S. standard that could not accurately identify quality and
condition characteristics.
Two comments were in favor of the proposal except for its
provisions regarding size, bruising, oil spots and skin breakdown. One
comment from a grower/shipper/marketer stated that in the proposal
Secs. 51.762, 51.1153, and 51.1822 paragraph (a) concerning ``approved
and recognized methods'' could be misconstrued to refer to pack
patterns in the current size sections and therefore should reference
the Florida Department of Citrus Code, a State regulation. AMS
disagrees. Although
[[Page 20703]]
size and pack may be closely associated, it is not AMS's intent to
dictate how the fruit is packed, but to create a uniform and consistent
size for the type of pack that the marketplace demands. In light of
this, AMS is of the view that references to Florida State regulations
are no longer needed and that the size section remain as proposed.
The grower/shipper/marketer also commented that the defects, oil
spotting and skin breakdown should be scored on the same basis as they
are often mistaken for one another. AMS agrees that these defects may
be mistaken for each other. Nonetheless, it is AMS's experience that
AMS Agricultural Commodity Graders and others who are familiar with
these defects can distinguish them. Moreover, as oil spotting is a
permanent defect and skin breakdown is a condition defect of a
progressive nature, that it is important to identify between these two
defects. Many who trade in these commodities need to know whether they
have defects of a progressive nature or not, in order to market the
fruit accordingly. Therefore, these defects will remain as proposed.
A receiver commented that the size sections should remain as it is
currently. It is their opinion that the present size designations
``provide for great flexibility in the packing of numerous varieties of
fruit in various types and sizes of containers.'' However, this is not
the case. Due to the shapes of some of the new varieties of citrus, and
the various sizes of containers, the current size and pack provisions
are too stringent for growers/shippers to market these types of citrus
fruits. Also, certain markets request that the fruit be packed in a
specific way in order to meet their market demands. Therefore, AMS is
of the view that proposed changes to the size section will give the
flexibility needed to the entire citrus industry when marketing these
new varieties of citrus.
The receiver also commented on the proposed changes to bruising, in
that they should remain as they are in the current standards. There
appears to be some confusion as to how bruises would be scored based on
the proposed changes. Bruising will be scored the same as it is in the
current standards. The only change to the defect, bruising, is where it
appears in the standards. Rather than being under the basic
requirements section of the standards it will be under the ``free from
injury, free from damage, free from serious damage, and free from very
serious damage'' sections and defined in the classification of defects
sections. Therefore, with no change as to how bruising will be scored,
but only the location of the defect in the standards, no change is
warranted.
Further, due to an oversight the proposed Secs. 51.762, 51.1153,
and 51.1822, are not included in this final rule. Because the standards
are revising the tolerances from a specific number of defective fruit
to percentages, a specified sample size is no longer needed. Also, by
deleting a specific sample size the application of tolerance sections
were updated to allow for defects in consumer type packages. Similar
provisions appear currently in the California and Arizona citrus
standards.
As a matter of technical change and updating references, the
paragraphs incorporating text by reference to maturity requirements for
citrus grown in Florida have been revised. Specifically, Secs. 51.767,
51.1158 and 51.1823 Maturity, for grapefruit, oranges and tangelos, and
tangerines, respectively, have been revised to incorporate by reference
the latest Florida citrus requirements. The latest edition of the State
of Florida Citrus Fruit Laws is 1995 edition, and the latest edition of
the Official Rules Affecting the Florida Citrus Industry is effective
January 1, 1975, as amended. There are no apparent procedure changes as
a result of this change, however, this does make the incorporation by
reference current.
AMS develops and improves standards of quality, condition, grade,
and packaging in order to facilitate efficient marketing. The
provisions of this final rule are the same as those in the proposed
rule, except for the changes noted above in response to the comments
received, and several minor editorial changes made for clarity.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 51
Agricultural commodities, Food grades and standards, Fruits,
Incorporation by reference, Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Trees, Vegetables.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 51 is amended as
follows:
PART 51--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.
2. In part 51, subpart--United States Standards for Grades of
Florida Grapefruit is revised to read as follows:
Subpart--United States Standards for Grades of Florida Grapefruit
Grades
Sec.
51.750 U.S. Fancy.
51.751 U.S. No. 1 Bright.
51.752 U.S. No. 1.
51.753 U.S. No. 1 Golden.
51.754 U.S. No. 1 Bronze.
51.755 U.S. No. 1 Russet.
51.756 U.S. No. 2 Bright.
51.757 U.S. No. 2.
51.758 U.S. No. 2 Russet.
51.759 U.S. No. 3.
Tolerances
51.760 Tolerances.
Application of Tolerances
51.761 Application of tolerances.
Size
51.762 Size.
Definitions
51.763 Similar varietal characteristics.
51.764 Well colored.
51.765 Firm.
51.766 Well formed.
51.767 Mature.
51.768 Smooth texture.
51.769 Injury.
51.770 Discoloration.
51.771 Fairly well colored.
51.772 Fairly smooth texture.
51.773 Damage.
51.774 Fairly firm.
51.775 Slightly misshapen.
51.776 Slightly rough texture.
51.777 Serious damage.
51.778 Slightly colored.
51.779 Poorly colored.
51.780 Misshapen.
51.781 Slightly spongy.
51.782 Very serious damage.
51.783 Diameter.
51.784 Classification of defects.
Subpart--United States Standards for Grades of Florida Grapefruit
Grades
Sec. 51.750 U.S. Fancy.
``U.S. Fancy'' consists of grapefruit which meet the following
requirements:
(a) Basic requirements:
(1) Discoloration: Not more than one-tenth of the surface, in the
aggregate, may be affected by discoloration. (See Sec. 51.770.);
(2) Firm;
(3) Mature;
(4) Similar varietal characteristics;
(5) Smooth texture;
(6) Well colored; and,
(7) Well formed.
(b) Free from:
(1) Ammoniation;
(2) Buckskin;
(3) Caked melanose;
(4) Decay;
(5) Scab;
(6) Sprayburn;
[[Page 20704]]
(7) Unhealed skin breaks; and,
(8) Wormy fruit.
(c) Free from injury caused by:
(1) Bruises;
(2) Green spots;
(3) Oil spots;
(4) Scale;
(5) Scars;
(6) Skin breakdown; and,
(7) Thorn scratches.
(d) Free from damage caused by:
(1) Dirt or other foreign material;
(2) Disease;
(3) Dryness or mushy condition;
(4) Hail;
(5) Insects;
(6) Sprouting;
(7) Sunburn; and,
(8) Other means.
(e) For tolerances see Sec. 51.760.
Sec. 51.751 U.S. No. 1 Bright.
The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 1
except that fruit shall have not more than one-fifth of its surface, in
the aggregate, affected by discoloration. For tolerances see
Sec. 51.760.
Sec. 51.752 U.S. No. 1.
``U.S. No. 1'' consists of grapefruit which meet the following
requirements:
(a) Basic requirements:
(1) Discoloration: Not more than one-third of the surface, in the
aggregate, may be affected by discoloration. (See Sec. 51.770.);
(2) Fairly smooth texture;
(3) Fairly well colored;
(4) Firm;
(5) Mature;
(6) Similar varietal characteristics; and,
(7) Well formed.
(b) Free from:
(1) Decay;
(2) Unhealed skin breaks; and,
(3) Wormy fruit.
(c) Free from damage caused by:
(1) Ammoniation;
(2) Bruises;
(3) Buckskin;
(4) Caked melanose;
(5) Dirt or other foreign material;
(6) Disease;
(7) Dryness or mushy condition;
(8) Green spots;
(9) Hail;
(10) Insects;
(11) Oil spots;
(12) Scab;
(13) Scale;
(14) Scars;
(15) Skin breakdown;
(16) Sprayburn;
(17) Sprouting;
(18) Sunburn;
(19) Thorn scratches; and,
(20) Other means.
(d) For tolerances see Sec. 51.760.
Sec. 51.753 U.S. No. 1 Golden.
The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 1
except that not more than 30 percent, by count, of the fruit shall have
more than one-third of their surface, in the aggregate, affected by
discoloration. For tolerances see Sec. 51.760.
Sec. 51.754 U.S. No. 1 Bronze.
The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 1
except that at least 30 percent, by count, of the fruit shall have more
than one-third of their surface, in the aggregate, affected by
discoloration. The predominating discoloration on each of these fruits
shall be of rust mite type. For tolerances see Sec. 51.760.
Sec. 51.755 U.S. No. 1 Russet.
The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 1
except that at least 30 percent, by count, of the fruit shall have more
than one-third of their surface, in the aggregate, affected by any type
of discoloration. For tolerances see Sec. 51.760.
Sec. 51.756 U.S. No. 2 Bright.
The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 2
except that fruit shall have not more than one-fifth of its surface, in
the aggregate, affected by discoloration. For tolerances see
Sec. 51.760.
Sec. 51.757 U.S. No. 2.
``U.S. No. 2'' consists of grapefruit which meet the following
requirements:
(a) Basic requirements:
(1) Discoloration: Not more than one-half of the surface, in the
aggregate, may be affected by discoloration. (See Sec. 51.770.);
(2) Fairly firm;
(3) Mature;
(4) Similar varietal characteristics;
(5) Slightly colored;
(6) Not more than slightly misshapen; and,
(7) Not more than slightly rough texture.
(b) Free from:
(1) Decay;
(2) Unhealed skin breaks; and,
(3) Wormy fruit.
(c) Free from serious damage caused by:
(1) Ammoniation;
(2) Bruises;
(3) Buckskin;
(4) Caked melanose;
(5) Dirt or other foreign material;
(6) Disease;
(7) Dryness or mushy condition;
(8) Green spots;
(9) Hail;
(10) Insects;
(11) Oil spots;
(12) Scab;
(13) Scale;
(14) Scars;
(15) Skin breakdown;
(16) Sprayburn;
(17) Sprouting;
(18) Sunburn;
(19) Thorn scratches; and,
(20) Other means.
(d) For tolerances see Sec. 51.760.
Sec. 51.758 U.S. No. 2 Russet.
The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 2
except that at least 10 percent of the fruit shall have more than one-
half of their surface, in the aggregate, affected by any type of
discoloration. For tolerances see Sec. 51.760.
Sec. 51.759 U.S. No. 3.
``U.S. No. 3'' consists of grapefruit which meet the following
requirements:
(a) Basic requirements:
(1) Mature;
(2) Misshapen;
(3) Poorly colored;
(4) Rough texture, not seriously bumpy;
(5) Similar varietal characteristics; and,
(6) Slightly spongy.
(b) Free from:
(1) Decay;
(2) Unhealed skin breaks; and,
(3) Wormy fruit.
(c) Free from very serious damage caused by:
(1) Ammoniation;
(2) Bruises;
(3) Buckskin;
(4) Caked melanose;
(5) Disease;
(6) Dryness or mushy condition;
(7) Hail;
(8) Insects;
(9) Oil spotting;
(10) Scab;
(11) Scale;
(12) Scars;
(13) Skin breakdown;
(14) Sprayburn;
(15) Sprouting;
(16) Sunburn; and,
(17) Other means.
(d) For tolerances see Sec. 51.760.
Tolerances
Sec. 51.760 Tolerances.
In order to allow for variations incident to proper grading and
handling in each of the foregoing grades, the following tolerances, by
count, are provided as specified:
(a) Defects. (1) U.S. Fancy, U.S. No. 1 Bright, U.S. No. 1, U.S.
No. 1 Golden, U.S. No. 1 Bronze, U.S. No. 1 Russet,
[[Page 20705]]
U.S. No. 2 Bright, U.S. No. 2, and U.S. No. 2 Russet.
(i) For defects at shipping point.\1\ Not more than 10 percent of
the fruit in any lot may fail to meet the requirements of the specified
grade: Provided, that included in this amount not more than 5 percent
shall be allowed for defects causing very serious damage, including in
this latter amount not more than 1 percent for decay or wormy fruit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Shipping point, as used in these standards, means the point
of origin of the shipment in the producing area or at port of
loading for ship stores or overseas shipment, or, in the case of
shipments from outside the continental United States, the port of
entry into the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) For defects en route or at destination. Not more than 12
percent of the fruit which fail to meet the requirements of the
specified grade: Provided, that included in this amount not more than
the following percentages shall be allowed for defects listed:
(A) 10 percent for fruit having permanent defects; or,
(B) 7 percent for defects causing very serious damage, including
therein not more than 5 percent for very serious damage by permanent
defects and not more than 3 percent for decay or wormy fruit.
(2) U.S. No. 3.
(i) For defects at shipping point.\1\ Not more than 10 percent of
the fruit in any lot may fail to meet the requirements of the grade:
Provided, that included in this amount not more than 1 percent shall be
for decay or wormy fruit.
(ii) For defects en route or at destination. Not more than 12
percent of the fruit which fail to meet the requirements of the grade:
Provided, that included in this amount not more than the following
percentages shall be allowed for defects listed:
(A) 10 percent for fruit having permanent defects; or,
(B) 3 percent for decay or wormy fruit.
(b) Discoloration--(1) U.S. No. 1 Bright, U.S. No. 1, U.S. No. 2
Bright, and U.S. No. 2. Not more than 10 percent of the fruit in any
lot may fail to meet the requirements relating to discoloration as
specified in each grade. No sample may have more than 20 percent of the
fruit with excessive discoloration: And provided further, that the
entire lot averages within percentage specified.
(2) U.S. No. 1 Golden. Not more than 30 percent of the fruit shall
have in excess of one-third of their surface, in the aggregate,
affected by discoloration, and no part of any tolerance shall be
allowed to increase this percentage. No sample may have more than 40
percent of the fruit with excessive discoloration: And provided
further, that the entire lot averages within the percentage specified.
(3) U.S. No. 1 Bronze, and U.S. No. 1 Russet. At least 30 percent
of the fruit shall have in excess of one-third of the surface, in the
aggregate, affected by discoloration, and no part of any tolerance
shall be allowed to reduce this percentage. No sample may have less
than 20 percent of the fruit with required discoloration: And provided
further, that the entire lot averages within the percentage specified.
(4) U.S. No. 2 Russet. At least 10 percent of the fruit shall have
in excess of one-half of the surface, in the aggregate, affected by
discoloration, and no part of any tolerance shall be allowed to reduce
this percentage: And provided further, that the entire lot averages
within the percentage specified.
Application of Tolerances
Sec. 51.761 Application of tolerances.
The contents of individual packages in the lot, based on sample
inspection, are subject to the following limitations, unless otherwise
specified in Sec. 51.760: Provided, that the average for the entire lot
are within the tolerances specified for the grade:
(a) For packages which contain more than 15 pounds, and a tolerance
of 10 percent or more is provided, individual packages in any lot shall
have not more than one and one-half times the tolerance specified. For
packages which contain more than 15 pounds, and a tolerance of less
than 10 percent is provided, individual packages in any lot shall have
not more than double the tolerance specified, except that at least one
decayed or very seriously damaged fruit may be permitted in any
package.
(b) For packages which contain 15 pounds or less, individual
packages in any lot are not restricted as to the percentage of defects:
Provided, that not more than one fruit which is decayed or otherwise
very seriously damaged may be permitted in any package and, in
addition, en route or at destination not more than 10 percent of the
packages may have more than one fruit which is decayed or otherwise
very seriously damaged.
Size
Sec. 51.762 Size.
(a) Fruits shall be fairly uniform in size and shall be packed in
containers according to approved and recognized methods.
(b) ``Fairly uniform in size'' means that not more than 10 percent
of the grapefruit per sample may vary more than one-half inch in
diameter.
(c) In order to allow for variations incident to proper sizing, not
more than 10 percent of the samples in any lot may fail to meet the
requirements of size.
Definitions
Sec. 51.763 Similar varietal characteristics.
Similar varietal characteristics means that the fruits in any
container are similar in color and shape.
Sec. 51.764 Well colored.
Well colored means that the fruit has characteristic color for the
variety with practically no trace of green color.
Sec. 51.765 Firm.
Firm means that the fruit is not soft, or noticeably wilted or
flabby, and the skin is not spongy or puffy.
Sec. 51.766 Well formed.
Well formed means that the fruit has the shape characteristic of
the variety.
Sec. 51.767 Mature.
Mature shall have the same meaning assigned the term in the Florida
Citrus Code, Chapter 601, 1995 Edition, and the Official Rules
Affecting the Florida Citrus Industry, in effect as of February 12,
1995. These grapefruit maturity requirements are contained in the
Florida Citrus Code, Chapter 601, Florida Statutes, Sections 601.16,
601.17, and 601.18, 1995 Edition, and the State of Florida Department
of Citrus Official Rules Affecting the Florida Citrus Industry, Part 1,
Chapter 20-13 Market Classification, Maturity Standards and Processing
or Packing Restrictions for Hybrids in effect as of February 12, 1995.
This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Copies may be obtained from, Florida Department of Citrus, Post Office
Box 148, Lakeland, Florida 33802 or copies of both regulations may be
inspected at USDA, AMS, F&VD, FPB, Standardization Section, Room 2065-
S, 14th and Independence Ave., Washington, DC 20250 or at the Office of
the Federal Register, Suite 700, 800 North Capitol Street, Washington,
DC.
Sec. 51.768 Smooth texture.
Smooth texture means that the skin is thin and smooth for the
variety and size of the fruit. ``Thin'' means that the skin thickness
does not average more than \3/8\ inch (9.5 mm), on a central cross
section, on grapefruit 4\1/8\ inches (104.8 mm) in diameter.
Sec. 51.769 Injury.
Injury means any specific defect described in Sec. 51.784, Table I;
or an equally objectionable variation of any
[[Page 20706]]
one of these defects, any other defect, or any combination of defects,
which slightly detracts from the appearance, or the edible or marketing
quality of the fruit.
Sec. 51.770 Discoloration.
Discoloration means russeting of a light shade of golden brown
caused by rust mite or other means. Lighter shades of discoloration
caused by smooth or fairly smooth superficial scars or other means may
be allowed on a greater area, or darker shades may be allowed on a
lesser area, provided no discoloration caused by speck-type melanose or
other means may detract from the appearance of the fruit to a greater
extent than the shade and amount of discoloration allowed in the grade.
Sec. 51.771 Fairly well colored.
Fairly well colored means that except for an aggregate area of
green color which does not exceed the area of a circle 1 inch (25.4 mm)
in diameter, the characteristic color predominates over the green
color.
Sec. 51.772 Fairly smooth texture.
Fairly smooth texture means that the skin is fairly thin and not
coarse for the variety and size of the fruit. ``Fairly thin'' means
that the skin thickness does not average more than \1/2\ inch (12.7
mm), on a grapefruit 4\1/8\ inches (104.8 mm) in diameter.
Sec. 51.773 Damage.
Damage means any specific defect described in Sec. 51.784, Table I;
or an equally objectionable variation of any one of these defects, any
other defect, or any combination of defects, which materially detracts
from the appearance, or the edible or marketing quality of the fruit.
Sec. 51.774 Fairly firm.
Fairly firm means that the fruit may be slightly soft, but not
bruised, and the skin is not spongy or puffy.
Sec. 51.775 Slightly misshapen.
Slightly misshapen means that the fruit has fairly good shape
characteristic of the variety and is not more than slightly elongated
or pointed or otherwise deformed.
Sec. 51.776 Slightly rough texture.
Slightly rough texture means that the skin may be slightly thick
but not excessively thick, materially ridged or grooved. ``Slightly
thick'' means that the skin thickness does not average more than \5/8\
inch (15.9 mm), on a central cross section, on a grapefruit 4\1/8\
inches (104.8 mm) in diameter.
Sec. 51.777 Serious damage.
Serious damage means any specific defect described in Sec. 51.784,
Table I; or an equally objectionable variation of any one of these
defects, any other defect, or any combination of defects, which
seriously detracts from the appearance, or the edible or marketing
quality of the fruit.
Sec. 51.778 Slightly colored.
Slightly colored means that except for an aggregate area of green
color which does not exceed the area of a circle 2 inches (50.8 mm) in
diameter, the fruit surface shows some characteristic color.
Sec. 51.779 Poorly colored.
Poorly colored means that not more than 25 percent of the surface
may be of a solid dark green color.
Sec. 51.780 Misshapen.
Misshapen means that the fruit is decidedly elongated, pointed, or
flatsided.
Sec. 51.781 Slightly spongy.
Slightly spongy means that the fruit is puffy or slightly wilted
but not flabby.
Sec. 51.782 Very serious damage.
Very serious damage means any specific defect described in
Sec. 51.784, Table I; or an equally objectionable variation of any one
of these defects, any other defect, or any combination of defects,
which very seriously detracts from the appearance, or the edible or
marketing quality of the fruit.
Sec. 51.783 Diameter.
Diameter means the greatest dimension measured at right angles to a
line from stem to blossom end.
Sec. 51.784 Classification of defects.
Table I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very serious
Factor Injury Damage Serious damage damage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammoniation..................... .................. Not occurring as Scars are cracked Aggregating more
light speck type. or dark and than 25 percent
aggregating more of the surface.
than a circle 1
inch (25.4 mm) in
diameter.
Bruises......................... Segment walls are Segment walls are Segment walls are Fruit is split
collapsed, or rag collapsed, or rag collapsed, or rag open, peel is
is ruptured and is ruptured and is ruptured and badly
juice sacs are juice sacs are juice sacs are watersoaked, or
ruptured. ruptured. ruptured. rag is ruptured
and juice sacs
are ruptured
causing a mushy
condition
affecting all
segments more
than \3/4\ inch
(19.1 mm) at
bruised area or
the equivalent of
this amount, by
volume, when
affecting more
than one area on
the fruit.
Buckskin........................ .................. Aggregating more Aggregating more Aggregating more
than a circle 1- than 25 percent than 50 percent
\1/4\ inches of the surface. of the surface.
(31.8 mm) in
diameter.
Caked melanose.................. .................. Aggregating more Aggregating more Aggregating more
than a circle \3/ than a circle 1 than 25 percent
4\ inch (19.1 mm) inch (25.4 mm) in of the surface.
in diameter. diameter.
[[Page 20707]]
Dryness or mushy condition...... .................. Affecting all Affecting all Affecting all
segments more segments more segments more
than \1/4\ inch than \1/2\ inch than 3/4 inch
(6.4 mm) at stem (12.7 mm) at stem (19.1 mm) at stem
end, or the end, or the end, or the
equivalent of equivalent of equivalent of
this amount, by this amount, by this amount, by
volume, when volume, when volume, when
occurring in occurring in occurring in
other portions of other portions of other portions of
the fruit. the fruit. the fruit.
Green spots..................... Aggregating more Aggregating more Aggregating more Aggregating more
than a circle \1/ than a circle \3/ than a circle 1 than 1/3 of the
2\ inch (12.7 mm) 4\ inch (19.1 mm) inch (25.4 mm) in surface, caused
in diameter, in diameter, diameter, caused by scale.
caused by scale. caused by scale. by scale.
Oil spots....................... Aggregating more Aggregating more Aggregating more Aggregating more
than a circle \1/ than a circle 1 than a circle 1\1/ than \1/3\ of the
2\ inch (12.7 mm) inch (25.4 mm) in 2\ inches (38.1 surface.
in diameter. diameter. mm) in diameter.
Scab............................ .................. Materially Seriously detracts Aggregating more
detracts from the from the shape or than 25 percent
shape or texture, texture, or of the surface.
or aggregating aggregating more
more than a than a circle 7/8
circle \3/4\ inch inch (22.2 mm) in
(19.1 mm) in diameter.
diameter.
Scale........................... More than a few Blotch aggregating Blotch aggregating Aggregating more
adjacent to the more than a more than a than 25 percent
``button'' at the circle \3/4\ inch circle 1 inch of the surface.
stem end, or more (19.1 mm) in (25.4 mm) in
than 6 scattered diameter, or diameter, or
on other portions occurring as a occurring as a
of the fruit. ring more than a ring more than a
circle 1\3/4\ circle 1\1/2\
inches (31.8 mm) inches (38.1 mm)
in diameter. in diameter..
Scars, Hail, or Thorn scratches Depressed, not Very deep or very Very deep or very Very deep or very
[For smooth or fairly smooth smooth, or rough aggregating rough aggregating rough or
superficial scars see Sec. detracts from more than a more than a unsightly that
51.770.]. appearance more circle \1/2\ inch circle 1 inch appearance is
than the amount (12.7 mm) in (25.4 mm) in very seriously
of discoloration diameter; deep or diameter; deep or affected.
permitted in the rough aggregating rough aggregating
grade. more than a more than 5
circle 1 inch percent of fruit
(25.4 mm) in surface; slight
diameter; depth or slightly
slightly rough or rough aggregating
of slight depth more than 15
aggregating more percent of fruit
than 10 percent surface.
of fruit surface.
Skin breakdown.................. Aggregating more Aggregating more Aggregating more Aggregating more
than a circle \3/ than a circle \3/ than a circle 1 than 25 percent
8\ inch (9.5 mm) 4\ inch (19.1 mm) inch (25.4 mm) in of the surface.
in diameter. in diameter. diameter.
Sprayburn....................... .................. Aggregating more Hard and Aggregating more
than a circle \3/ aggregating more than 25 percent
4\ inch (19.1 mm) than a circle 1\1/ of the surface.
in diameter. 2\ inches (38.1
mm) in diameter.
Sprouting....................... .................. More than six More than six More than six
seeds have seeds have seeds have
sprouts of more sprouts of more sprouts of more
than \1/4\ inch than \1/2\ inch than \3/4\ inch
(6.4 mm) in (12.7 mm) in (19.1 mm) in
length, or more length, or more length, or more
than 3 seeds with than 3 seeds with than 3 seeds with
sprouts over \3/ sprouts over 1 sprouts over 1\1/
4\ inch (19.1 mm) inch (25.4 mm) in 4\ inches (31.8
in length. length. mm) in length.
Sunburn......................... .................. Skin is flattened, Skin is hard and Aggregating more
dry, darkened, or affects more than than 50 percent
hard and the one-third of the of the surface.
affected area surface.
exceeds 25
percent of the
surface.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All references to area or aggregating area, or length in this standard are based on a grapefruit 4\1/8\
inches (104.8 mm) in diameter, allowing proportionately greater areas on larger fruit and lesser areas on
smaller fruit.
3. In part 51, Subpart--United States Standards for Grades of
Florida Oranges and Tangelos is revised to read as follows:
Subpart--United States Standards for Grades of Florida Oranges and
Tangelos
General
Sec.
51.1140 General.
Grades
51.1141 U.S. Fancy.
51.1142 U.S. No. 1 Bright.
51.1143 U.S. No. 1.
51.1144 U.S. No. 1 Golden.
51.1145 U.S. No. 1 Bronze.
51.1146 U.S. No. 1 Russet.
51.1147 U.S. No. 2 Bright.
51.1148 U.S. No. 2.
51.1149 U.S. No. 2 Russet.
51.1150 U.S. No. 3.
Tolerances
51.1151 Tolerances.
[[Page 20708]]
Application of Tolerances
51.1152 Application of tolerances.
Size
51.1153 Size.
Definitions
51.1154 Similar varietal characteristics.
51.1155 Well colored.
51.1156 Firm.
51.1157 Well formed.
51.1158 Mature.
51.1159 Smooth texture.
51.1160 Injury.
51.1161 Discoloration.
51.1162 Fairly smooth texture.
51.1163 Damage.
51.1164 Fairly well colored.
51.1165 Reasonably well colored.
51.1166 Poorly colored.
51.1167 Fairly firm.
51.1168 Slightly misshapen.
51.1169 Slightly rough texture.
51.1170 Serious damage.
51.1171 Misshapen.
51.1172 Slightly spongy.
51.1173 Very serious damage.
51.1174 Diameter.
51.1175 Classification of defects.
Standards for Internal Quality of Common Sweet Oranges (Citrus Sinensis
(L) Osbeck)
51.1176 U.S. Grade AA Juice (Double A).
51.1177 U.S. Grade A Juice.
51.1178 Maximum anhydrous citric permissible for corresponding
total soluble solids.
51.1179 Method of juice extraction.
Subpart--United States Standards for Grades of Florida Oranges and
Tangelos
General
Sec. 51.1140 General.
The standards contained in this subpart apply only to the common or
sweet orange group and varieties and hybrids of varieties belonging to
the Mandarin group, except tangerines, and to the citrus fruit commonly
known as ``tangelo''--a hybrid between tangerine or mandarin orange
(citrus reticulata) with either the grapefruit or pomelo (C. paradisi
and C. grandis). Separate U.S. standards apply to tangerines. The
standards for internal quality contained in Secs. 51.1176 through
51.1179 apply only to common sweet oranges (citrus sinensis (L)
Osbeck).
Grades
Sec. 51.1141 U.S. Fancy.
``U.S. Fancy'' consists of oranges which meet the following
requirements:
(a) Basic requirements:
(1) Discoloration: Not more than one-tenth of the surface, in the
aggregate, may be affected by discoloration. (See Sec. 51.1161.);
(2) Firm;
(3) Mature;
(4) Similar varietal characteristics;
(5) Smooth texture;
(6) Well colored; and,
(7) Well formed.
(b) Free from:
(1) Ammoniation;
(2) Buckskin;
(3) Caked melanose;
(4) Creasing;
(5) Decay;
(6) Scab;
(7) Split navels;
(8) Sprayburn;
(9) Undeveloped segments;
(10) Unhealed skin breaks; and,
(11) Wormy fruit.
(c) Free from injury caused by:
(1) Bruises;
(2) Green spots;
(3) Oil spots;
(4) Rough, wide or protruding navels;
(5) Scale;
(6) Scars;
(7) Skin breakdown; and,
(8) Thorn scratches.
(d) Free from damage caused by:
(1) Dirt or other foreign material;
(2) Disease;
(3) Dryness or mushy condition;
(4) Hail;
(5) Insects;
(6) Riciness or woodiness;
(7) Sunburn; and,
(8) Other means.
(e) For tolerances see Sec. 51.1151.
(f) Internal quality: Lots meeting the internal requirements for
``U.S. Grade AA Juice (Double A)'' or ``U.S. Grade A Juice'' may be so
specified in connection with the grade. (See Secs. 51.1176-51.1179.)
Sec. 51.1142 U.S. No. 1 Bright.
The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 1
except that fruit shall have not more than one-fifth of its surface, in
the aggregate, affected by discoloration.
(a) For tolerances see Sec. 51.1151.
(b) Internal quality: Lots meeting the internal requirements for
``U.S. Grade AA Juice (Double A)'' or ``U.S. Grade A Juice'' may be so
specified in connection with the grade. (See Secs. 51.1176-51.1179.)
Sec. 51.1143 U.S. No. 1.
``U.S. No. 1'' consists of oranges which meet the following
requirements:
(a) Basic requirements:
(1) Color;
(i) Early and midseason varieties shall be fairly well colored.
(ii) For Valencia and other late varieties, not less than 50
percent, by count, shall be fairly well colored and the remainder
reasonably well colored.
(2) Discoloration: Not more than one-third of the surface, in the
aggregate, may be affected by discoloration. (See Sec. 51.1161.);
(3) Fairly smooth texture;
(4) Firm;
(5) Mature;
(6) Similar varietal characteristics; and,
(7) Well formed.
(b) Free from:
(1) Decay;
(2) Unhealed skin breaks; and,
(3) Wormy fruit.
(c) Free from damage caused by:
(1) Ammoniation;
(2) Bruises;
(3) Buckskin;
(4) Caked melanose;
(5) Creasing;
(6) Dirt or other foreign material;
(7) Disease;
(8) Dryness or mushy condition;
(9) Green spots;
(10) Hail;
(11) Insects;
(12) Oil spots;
(13) Riciness or woodiness;
(14) Scab;
(15) Scale;
(16) Scars;
(17) Skin breakdown;
(18) Split, rough or protruding navels;
(19) Sprayburn;
(20) Sunburn;
(21) Thorn scratches; and,
(22) Other means.
(d) For tolerances see Sec. 51.1151.
(e) Internal quality: Lots meeting the internal requirements for
``U.S. Grade AA Juice (Double A)'' or ``U.S. Grade A Juice'' may be so
specified in connection with the grade. (See Secs. 51.1176-51.1179.)
Sec. 51.1144 U.S. No. 1 Golden.
The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 1
except that not more than 30 percent, by count, of the fruit shall have
more than one-third of their surface, in the aggregate, affected by
discoloration.
(a) For tolerances see Sec. 51.1151.
(b) Internal quality: Lots meeting the internal requirements for
``U.S. Grade AA Juice (Double A)'' or ``U.S. Grade A Juice'' may be so
specified in connection with the grade. (See Secs. 51.1176-51.1179.)
Sec. 51.1145 U.S. No. 1 Bronze.
The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 1
except at least 30 percent, by count, of the fruit shall have more than
one-third of their surface, in the aggregate, affected by
discoloration. The predominating discoloration on each fruit shall be
of rust mite type.
(a) For tolerances see Sec. 51.1151.
(b) Internal quality: Lots meeting the internal requirements for
``U.S. Grade
[[Page 20709]]
AA Juice (Double A)'' or ``U.S. Grade A Juice'' may be so specified in
connection with the grade. (See Secs. 51.1176-51.1179.)
Sec. 51.1146 U.S. No. 1 Russet.
The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 1
except that at least 30 percent, by count, of the fruit shall have more
than one-third of their surface, in the aggregate, affected by any type
of discoloration.
(a) For tolerances see Sec. 51.1151.
(b) Internal quality: Lots meeting the internal requirements for
``U.S. Grade AA Juice (Double A)'' or ``U.S. Grade A Juice'' may be so
specified in connection with the grade. (See Secs. 51.1176-51.1179.)
Sec. 51.1147 U.S. No. 2 Bright.
The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 2
except that fruit shall have not more than one-fifth of its surface, in
the aggregate, affected by discoloration.
(a) For tolerances see Sec. 51.1151.
(b) Internal quality: Lots meeting the internal requirements for
``U.S. Grade AA Juice (Double A)'' or ``U.S. Grade A Juice'' may be so
specified in connection with the grade. (See Secs. 51.1176-51.1179.)
Sec. 51.1148 U.S. No. 2.
``U.S. No. 2'' consists of oranges which meet the following
requirements:
(a) Basic requirements:
(1) Discoloration: Not more than one-half of the surface, in the
aggregate, may be affected by discoloration. (See Sec. 51.1161.)
(2) Fairly firm;
(3) Mature;
(4) Reasonably well colored;
(5) Similar varietal characteristics;
(6) Not more than slightly misshapen; and
(7) Not more than slightly rough texture.
(b) Free from:
(1) Decay;
(2) Unhealed skin breaks; and
(3) Wormy fruit.
(c) Free from serious damage caused by:
(1) Ammoniation;
(2) Bruises;
(3) Buckskin;
(4) Caked melanose;
(5) Creasing;
(6) Dirt or other foreign material;
(7) Disease;
(8) Dryness or mushy condition;
(9) Green spots;
(10) Hail;
(11) Insects;
(12) Oil spots;
(13) Riciness or woodiness;
(14) Scab;
(15) Scale;
(16) Scars;
(17) Skin breakdown;
(18) Split, rough or protruding navels;
(19) Sprayburn;
(20) Sunburn;
(21) Thorn scratches; and
(22) Other means.
(d) For tolerances see Sec. 51.1151.
(e) Internal quality: Lots meeting the internal requirements for
``U.S. Grade AA Juice (Double A)'' or ``U.S. Grade A Juice'' may be so
specified in connection with the grade. (See Secs. 51.1176-51.1179.)
Sec. 51.1149 U.S. No. 2 Russet.
The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 2
except that at least 10 percent of the fruit shall have more than one-
half of their surface, in the aggregate, affected by any type of
discoloration.
(a) For tolerances see Sec. 51.1151.
(b) Internal quality: Lots meeting the internal requirements for
``U.S. Grade AA Juice (Double A)'' or ``U.S. Grade A Juice'' may be so
specified in connection with the grade. (See Secs. 51.1176-51.1179.)
Sec. 51.1150 U.S. No. 3.
``U.S. No. 3'' consists of oranges which meet the following
requirements:
(a) Basic requirements:
(1) Mature;
(2) Misshapen;
(3) Poorly colored;
(4) Rough texture, not seriously lumpy;
(5) Similar varietal characteristics; and
(6) Slightly spongy.
(b) Free from:
(1) Decay;
(2) Unhealed skin breaks; and
(3) Wormy fruit.
(c) Free from very serious damage caused by:
(1) Ammoniation;
(2) Bruises;
(3) Buckskin;
(4) Caked melanose;
(5) Creasing;
(6) Disease;
(7) Dryness or mushy condition;
(8) Hail;
(9) Insects;
(10) Riciness or woodiness;
(11) Scab;
(12) Scale;
(13) Scars;
(14) Skin breakdown;
(15) Split navels;
(16) Sprayburn;
(17) Sunburn; and
(18) Other means.
(d) For tolerances see Sec. 51.1151.
(e) Internal quality: Lots meeting the internal requirements for
``U.S. Grade AA Juice (Double A)'' or ``U.S. Grade A Juice'' may be so
specified in connection with the grade. (See Secs. 51.1176--51.1179.)
Tolerances
Sec. 51.1151 Tolerances.
In order to allow for variations incident to proper grading and
handling in each of the foregoing grades, the following tolerances, by
count, are provided as specified:
(a) Defects. (1) U.S. Fancy, U.S. No. 1 Bright, U.S. No. 1, U.S.
No. 1 Golden, U.S. No. 1 Bronze, U.S. No. 1 Russet, U.S. No. 2 Bright,
U.S. No. 2, and U.S. No. 2 Russet grades.
(i) For defects at shipping point.1 Not more than 10 percent
of the fruit in any lot may fail to meet the requirements of the
specified grade: Provided, that included in this amount not more than 5
percent shall be allowed for defects causing very serious damage,
including in this latter amount not more than 1 percent for decay or
wormy fruit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Shipping point, as used in these standards, means the point
of origin of the shipment in the producing area or at port of
loading for ship stores or overseas shipment, or, in the case of
shipments from outside the continental United States, the port of
entry into the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) For defects en route or at destination. Not more than 12
percent of the fruit which fail to meet the requirements of the
specified grade: Provided, that included in this amount not more than
the following percentages shall be allowed for defects listed:
(A) 10 percent for fruit having permanent defects; or,
(B) 7 percent for defects causing very serious damage, including
therein not more than 5 percent for very serious damage by permanent
defects and not more than 3 percent for decay or wormy fruit.
(2) U.S. No. 3.
(i) For defects at shipping point.1. Not more than 10 percent
of the fruit in any lot may fail to meet the requirements of the grade:
Provided, that included in this amount not more than 1 percent shall be
for decay or wormy fruit.
(ii) For defects en route or at destination. Not more than 12
percent of the fruit which fail to meet the requirements of the grade:
Provided, that included in this amount not more than the following
percentages shall be allowed for defects listed:
(A) 10 percent for fruit having permanent defects; or,
(B) 3 percent for decay or wormy fruit.
(b) Discoloration.--(1) U.S. No. 1 Bright, U.S. No. 1, U.S. No. 2
Bright, and
[[Page 20710]]
U.S. No. 2. Not more than 10 percent of the fruit in any lot may fail
to meet the requirements relating to discoloration as specified in each
grade. No sample may have more than 20 percent of the fruit with
excessive discoloration: And provided further, that the entire lot
averages within the percentage specified.
(2) U.S. No. 1 Golden. Not more than 30 percent of the fruit shall
have in excess of one-third of their surface, in the aggregate, and no
part of any tolerance shall be allowed to increase this percentage. No
sample may have more than 40 percent of the fruit with excessive
discoloration: And provided further, that the entire lot averages
within the percentage specified.
(3) U.S. No. 1 Bronze, and U.S. No. 1 Russet. At least 30 percent
of the fruit shall have in excess of one-third of the surface, in the
aggregate, affected by discoloration, and no part of any tolerance
shall be allowed to reduce this percentage. No sample may have less
than 20 percent of the fruit with required discoloration: And provided
further, that the entire lot averages within the percentage specified.
(4) U.S. No. 2 Russet. At least 10 percent of the fruit shall have
in excess of one-half of the surface, in the aggregate, affected by
discoloration, and no part of any tolerance shall be allowed to reduce
this percentage: And provided further, that the entire lot averages
within the percentage specified.
Application of Tolerances
Sec. 51.1152 Application of tolerances.
The contents of individual packages in the lot, based on sample
inspection, are subject to the following limitations, unless otherwise
specified in Sec. 51.1151: Provided, that the average for the entire
lot are within the tolerances specified for the grade:
(a) For packages which contain more than 15 pounds, and a tolerance
of 10 percent or more is provided, individual packages in any lot shall
have not more than one and one-half times the tolerance specified. For
packages which contain more than 15 pounds, and a tolerance of less
than 10 percent is provided, individual packages in any lot shall have
not more than double the tolerance specified, except that at least one
decayed or very seriously damaged fruit may be permitted in any
package.
(b) For packages which contain 15 pounds or less, individual
packages in any lot are not restricted as to the percentage of defects:
Provided, that not more than one fruit which is decayed or otherwise
very seriously damaged may be permitted in any package and, in
addition, en route or at destination not more than 10 percent of the
packages may have more than one fruit which is decayed or otherwise
very seriously damaged.
Size
Sec. 51.1153 Size.
(a) Fruits shall be fairly uniform in size and shall be packed in
containers according to approved and recognized methods.
(b) ``Fairly uniform in size'' means that not more than 10 percent
of the oranges per sample may vary more than one-half inch in diameter.
(c) In order to allow for variations incident to proper sizing, not
more than 10 percent of the samples in any lot may fail to meet the
requirements of size.
Definitions
Sec. 51.1154 Similar varietal characteristics.
Similar varietal characteristics means that the fruits in any
container are similar in color and shape.
Sec. 51.1155 Well colored.
Well colored as applied to common oranges and tangelos means that
the fruit has characteristic color for the variety with practically no
trace of green color.
Sec. 51.1156 Firm.
Firm as applied to common oranges and tangelos means that the fruit
is not soft, or noticeably wilted or flabby; as applied to oranges of
the Mandarin group (Satsumas, King, Mandarin), ``firm'' means that the
fruit is not extremely puffy, although the skin may be slightly loose.
Sec. 51.1157 Well formed.
Well formed means that the fruit has the shape characteristic of
the variety.
Sec. 51.1158 Mature.
Mature shall have the same meaning assigned the term in the Florida
Citrus Code, Chapter 601, 1995 Edition, and the Official Rules
Affecting the Florida Citrus Industry, in effect as of February 12,
1995. These orange maturity requirements are contained in the Florida
Citrus Code, Chapter 601, Florida Statutes, Sections 601.19, and
601.20, 1995 Edition, and the State of Florida Department of Citrus
Official Rules Affecting the Florida Citrus Industry, Part 1, Chapter
20-13 Market Classification, Maturity Standards and Processing or
Packing Restrictions for Hybrids in effect as of February 12, 1995.
This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51.
Copies may be obtained from, Florida Department of Citrus, Post Office
Box 148, Lakeland, Florida 33802 or copies of both regulations may be
inspected at USDA, AMS, F&VD, FPB, Standardization Section, Room 2065-
S, 14th and Independence Ave., Washington, DC 20250 or at the Office of
the Federal Register, Suite 700, 800 North Capitol Street, Washington,
DC.
Sec. 51.1159 Smooth texture.
Smooth texture means that the skin is thin and smooth for the
variety and size of the fruit.
Sec. 51.1160 Injury.
Injury means any specific defect described in Sec. 51.1175, Table
I; or an equally objectionable variation of any one of these defects,
any other defect, or any combination of defects which slightly detracts
from the appearance, or the edible or marketing quality of the fruit.
Sec. 51.1161 Discoloration.
Discoloration means russeting of a light shade of golden brown
caused by rust mite or other means. Lighter shades of discoloration
caused by smooth or fairly smooth superficial scars or other means may
be allowed on a greater area, or darker shades may be allowed on a
lesser area, provided no discoloration caused by speck type melanose or
other means may detract from the appearance of the fruit to a greater
extent than the shade and amount of discoloration allowed for the
grade.
Sec. 51.1162 Fairly smooth texture.
Fairly smooth texture means that the skin is fairly thin and not
coarse for the variety and size of the fruit.
Sec. 51.1163 Damage.
Damage means any specific defect described in Sec. 51.1175, Table
I; or an equally objectionable variation of any one of these defects,
any other defect, or any combination of defects, which materially
detracts from the appearance, or the edible or marketing quality of the
fruit.
Sec. 51.1164 Fairly well colored.
Fairly well colored as applied to common oranges and tangelos means
that except for an aggregate area of green color which does not exceed
the area of a circle 1 inch (25.4 mm) in diameter, the characteristic
color predominates over the green color.
Sec. 51.1165 Reasonably well colored.
Reasonably well colored as applied to common oranges means that the
characteristic color predominate over
[[Page 20711]]
the green color on at least two-thirds of the fruit surface, in the
aggregate.
Sec. 51.1166 Poorly colored.
Poorly colored as applied to common oranges means that not more
than 25 percent of the surface may be solid dark green color.
Sec. 51.1167 Fairly firm.
Fairly firm as applied to common oranges and tangelos, means that
the fruit may be slightly soft, but not bruised; as applied to oranges
of the Mandarin group (Satsumas, King, Mandarin), means that the skin
of the fruit is not extremely puffy or extremely loose.
Sec. 51.1168 Slightly misshapen.
Slightly misshapen means that the fruit is not of the shape
characteristic of the variety but is not appreciably elongated or
pointed or otherwise deformed.
Sec. 51.1169 Slightly rough texture.
Slightly rough texture means that the skin is not of smooth texture
but is not materially ridged, grooved, or wrinkled.
Sec. 51.1170 Serious damage.
Serious damage means any specific defect described in Sec. 51.1175,
Table I; or an equally objectionable variation of any one of these
defects, any other defect, or any combination of defects, which
seriously detracts from the appearance, or the edible or marketing
quality of the fruit.
Sec. 51.1171 Misshapen.
Misshapen means that the fruit is decidedly elongated, pointed or
flatsided.
Sec. 51.1172 Slightly spongy.
Slightly spongy means that the fruit is puffy or slightly wilted
but not flabby.
Sec. 51.1173 Very serious damage.
Very serious damage means any specific defect described in
Sec. 51.1175, Table I; or an equally objectionable variation of any one
of these defects, any other defect, or any combination of defects,
which very seriously detracts from the appearance, or the edible or
marketing quality of the fruit.
Sec. 51.1174 Diameter.
Diameter means the greatest dimension measured at right angles to a
line from stem to blossom end.
Sec. 51.1175 Classification of defects.
Table I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very serious
Factor Injury Damage Serious damage damage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammoniation..................... .................. Not occurring as Scars are cracked Aggregating more
light speck type. or dark and than 25 percent
aggregating more of the surface.
than a circle \3/
4\ inch (19.1 mm)
in diameter.
Bruises......................... Segment walls are Segment walls are Segment walls are Fruit is split
collapsed, or rag collapsed, or rag collapsed, or rag open, peel is
is ruptured and is ruptured and is ruptured and badly
juice sacs are juice sacs are juice sacs are watersoaked, or
ruptured. ruptured. ruptured. rag is ruptured
and juice sacs
are ruptured
causing a mushy
condition
affecting all
segments more
than \3/4\ inch
(19.9 mm) at
bruised area or
the equivalent of
this amount, by
volume, when
affecting more
than one area on
the fruit.
Buckskin........................ .................. Aggregating more Aggregating more Aggregating more
than a circle 1 than 25 percent than 50 percent
inch (25.4 mm) in of the surface. of the surface.
diameter.
Caked melanose.................. .................. Aggregating more Aggregating more Aggregating more
than a circle \5/ than a circle \3/ than 25 percent
8\ inch (15.9 mm) 4\ inch (19.1 mm) of the surface.
in diameter. in diameter.
Creasing........................ .................. Materially weakens Seriously weakens Very seriously
the skin, or the skin, or weakens the skin,
extends over more extends over more or is distributed
than one-third of than one-half of over practically
the surface. the surface. the entire
surface.
Dryness or mushy condition...... .................. Affecting all Affecting all Affecting all
segments more segments more segments more
than \1/4\ inch than \1/2\ inch than \3/4\ inch
(6.4 mm) at stem (12.7 mm) at stem (19.1 mm) at stem
end, or the end, or the end, or the
equivalent of equivalent of equivalent of
this amount, by this amount, by this amount, by
volume, when volume, when volume, when
occurring in occurring in occurring in
other portions of other portions of other portions of
the fruit. the fruit. the fruit.
Green spots..................... Aggregating more Aggregating more Aggregating more Aggregating more
than a circle \3/ than a circle \5/ than a circle \7/ than \1/3\ of the
8\ inch (9.5 mm) 8\ inch (15.9 mm) 8\ inch (22.2 mm) surface, caused
in diameter, in diameter, in diameter, by scale.
caused by scale. caused by scale. caused by scale.
Oil spots....................... Aggregating more Aggregating more Aggregating more Aggregating more
than a circle \3/ than a circle \7/ than a circle 1\1/ than \1/3\ of the
8\ inch (9.5 mm) 8\ inch (22.2 mm) 4\ inches (31.8 surface.
in diameter. in diameter. mm) in diameter.
Scab............................ .................. Materially Seriously detracts Aggregating more
detracts from the from the shape or than 25 percent
shape or texture, texture, or of the surface.
or aggregating aggregating more
more than a than a circle \3/
circle \5/8\ inch 4\ inch (19.1 mm)
(15.9 mm) in in diameter.
diameter.
[[Page 20712]]
Scale........................... More than a few Aggregating more Aggregating more Aggregating more
adjacent to the than a circle \5/ than a circle \3/ than 25 percent
``button'' at the 8\ inch (15.9 mm) 4\ inch (19.1 mm) of the surface.
stem end, or more in diameter. in diameter.
than 6 scattered
on other portions
of the fruit.
Scars, Hail, or Thorn scratches Depressed, not Deep or rough Deep or rough Deep or rough or
[For smooth or fairly smooth smooth, or aggregating more aggregating more unsightly that
superficial scars see Sec. detracts from than a circle \1
FR Doc. 96-11457 Florida Grapefruit, Florida Oranges and Tangelos, and, Florida Tangerines; Grade Standards
/ than a circle \1/ appearance is
51.1161.]. appearance more 4\ inch (6.4 mm) 2\ inch (12.7 mm) very seriously
than the amount in diameter; in diameter; affected.
of discoloration slightly rough slightly rough
permitted in the with slight depth with depth
grade. aggregating more aggregating more
than a circle \7/ than a circle 1\1/
8\ inch (22.2 mm) 4\ inches (31.8
in diameter; mm) in diameter;
smooth or fairly smooth or fairly
smooth with smooth with
slight depth slight depth
aggregating more aggregating more
than a circle 1\1/ than 10 percent
4\ inches (31.8 of fruit surface.
mm) in diameter.
Skin breakdown.................. Aggregating more Aggregating more Aggregating more Aggregating more
than a circle \1/ than a circle \1/ than a circle \7/ than 25 percent
4\ inch (6.4 mm) 2\ inch (12.7 mm) 8\ inch (22.2 mm) of the surface.
in diameter. in diameter. in diameter.
Sprayburn....................... .................. Aggregating more Hard and Aggregating more
than a circle \5/ aggregating more than 25 percent
8\ inch (15.9 mm) than a circle 1\1/ of the surface.
in diameter. 2\ inches (38.1
mm) in diameter.
Split, rough, protruding navels. Split is unhealed, Split is unhealed, Split is unhealed, Split is unhealed
or more than \1/ or more than \1/ or more than \1/ or fruit is
8\ inch (3.2 mm) 4\ inch (6.4 mm) 2\ inch (12.7 mm) seriously
in length, or in length, or in length, or two weakened.
navel protrudes more than three or more splits
beyond the well healed aggregate more
general contour, splits, or navel than 1 inch (25.4
and opening is so protrudes beyond mm) in length, or
wide, folded and the general navel protrudes
ridged that it contour, and beyond general
detracts from the opening is so contour, and
appearance. wide, folded and opening is so
ridged that it wide, folded and
detracts from ridged that it
appearance. detracts from
appearance.
Sunburn......................... .................. Skin is flattened, Skin is hard and Aggregating more
dry, darkened, or affects more than than 50 percent
hard and the one-third of the of the surface.
affected area surface.
exceeds 25
percent of the
surface.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All references to area or aggregating area, or length in this standard are based on an orange or tangelo
2\7/8\ inches (73.0 mm) in diameter, allowing proportionately greater areas on larger fruit and lesser areas
on smaller fruit.
Standards for Internal Quality of Common Sweet Oranges (Citrus Sinensis
(L) Osbeck)
Sec. 51.1176 U.S. Grade AA Juice (Double A).
Any lot of oranges, the juice content of which meets the following
requirements, may be designated ``U.S. Grade AA Juice (Double A)'':
(a) Each lot of fruit shall contain an average of not less than 5
gallons (18.9 liters) of juice per standard packed box of 1\3/5\
bushels.
(b) The average juice content for any lot of fruit shall have not
less than 10 percent total soluble solids, and not less than one-half
of 1 percent anhydrous citric acid, or more than the permissible
maximum acid specified in Table II of Sec. 51.1178.
Sec. 51.1177 U.S. Grade A Juice.
Any lot of oranges, the juice content of which meets the following
requirements, may be designated ``U.S. Grade A Juice'':
(a) Each lot of fruit shall contain an average of not less than
4\1/2\ gallons (17.0 liters) of juice per standard packed box of 1\3/5\
bushels.
(b) The average juice content for any lot of fruit shall have not
less than 9 percent total soluble solids, and not less than one-half of
1 percent anhydrous citric acid, or more than the permissible maximum
acid specified in Table II of Sec. 51.1178.
Sec. 51.1178 Maximum anhydrous citric acid permissible for
corresponding total soluble solids.
For determining the grade of juice, the maximum permissible
anhydrous citric acid content in relation to corresponding total
soluble solids in the fruit is set forth in the following Table II
together with the minimum ratio of total soluble solids to anhydrous
citric acid:
Table II
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
Maximum ratio of
anhydrous total
Total soluble solids (average pct) citric acid soluble
(average solids to
pct) anhydrous
citric acid
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.0.......................................... 0.947 9.50-1
9.1.......................................... .963 9.45-1
9.2.......................................... .979 9.40-1
9.3.......................................... .995 9.35-1
9.4.......................................... 1.011 9.30-1
9.5.......................................... 1.027 9.25-1
9.6.......................................... 1.043 9.20-1
9.7.......................................... 1.060 9.15-1
9.8.......................................... 1.077 9.10-1
9.9.......................................... 1.094 9.05-1
10.0.......................................... 1.111 9.00-1
10.1.......................................... 1.128 8.95-1
10.2.......................................... 1.146 8.90-1
10.3.......................................... 1.164 8.85-1
10.4.......................................... 1.182 8.80-1
10.5.......................................... 1.200 8.75-1
10.6.......................................... 1.218 8.70-1
10.7.......................................... 1.237 8.65-1
[[Page 20713]]
10.8.......................................... 1.256 8.60-1
10.9.......................................... 1.275 8.55-1
11.0.......................................... 1.294 8.50-1
11.1.......................................... 1.306 8.50-1
11.2.......................................... 1.318 8.50-1
11.3.......................................... 1.329 8.50-1
11.4.......................................... 1.341 8.50-1
11.5.......................................... 1.353 8.50-1
11.6.......................................... 1.365 8.50-1
11.7.......................................... 1.376 8.50-1
11.8.......................................... 1.388 8.50-1
11.9.......................................... 1.400 8.50-1
12.0.......................................... 1.412 8.50-1
12.1.......................................... 1.424 8.50-1
12.2.......................................... 1.435 8.50-1
12.3.......................................... 1.447 8.50-1
12.4.......................................... 1.459 8.50-1
12.5.......................................... 1.471 8.50-1
12.6.......................................... 1.482 8.50-1
12.7.......................................... 1.494 8.50-1
12.8.......................................... 1.506 8.50-1
12.9.......................................... 1.517 8.50-1
13.0.......................................... 1.530 8.50-1
13.1.......................................... 1.541 8.50-1
13.2.......................................... 1.553 8.50-1
13.3.......................................... 1.565 8.50-1
13.4.......................................... 1.576 8.50-1
13.5.......................................... 1.588 8.50-1
13.6.......................................... 1.600 8.50-1
13.7.......................................... 1.612 8.50-1
13.8.......................................... 1.624 8.50-1
13.9.......................................... 1.635 8.50-1
14.0.......................................... 1.647 8.50-1
14.1.......................................... 1.659 8.50-1
14.2.......................................... 1.671 8.50-1
14.3.......................................... 1.682 8.50-1
14.4.......................................... 1.694 8.50-1
14.5.......................................... 1.705 8.50-1
14.6.......................................... 1.718 8.50-1
14.7.......................................... 1.729 8.50-1
14.8.......................................... 1.741 8.50-1
14.9.......................................... 1.753 8.50-1
15.0.......................................... 1.765 8.50-1
15.1.......................................... 1.776 8.50-1
15.2.......................................... 1.788 8.50-1
15.3.......................................... 1.800 8.50-1
15.4.......................................... 1.812 8.50-1
15.5.......................................... 1.824 8.50-1
15.6 or more.................................. ........... 8.50-1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 51.1179 Method of juice extraction.
The juice used in the determining of solids, acids and juice
content shall be extracted from representative samples as thoroughly as
possible with a hand reamer or by such mechanical extractor or
extractors as may be approved. The juice shall be strained through
cheese cloth or other approved straining device of extra fine mesh to
prevent passage of juice cells, pulp, or seeds.
4. In part 51, Subpart--United States Standards for Grades of
Florida Tangerines is revised to read as follows:
Subpart--United States Standards for Grades of Florida Tangerines
Grades
Sec.
51.1810 U.S. Fancy.
51.1811 U.S. No. 1 Bright.
51.1812 U.S. No. 1.
51.1813 U.S. No. 1 Golden.
51.1814 U.S. No. 1 Bronze.
51.1815 U.S. No. 1 Russet.
51.1816 U.S. No. 2 Bright.
51.1817 U.S. No. 2.
51.1818 U.S. No. 2 Russet.
51.1819 U.S. No. 3.
Tolerances
51.1820 Tolerances.
Application of Tolerances
51.1821 Application of tolerances.
Size
51.1822 Size.
Definitions
51.1823 Mature.
51.1824 Firm.
51.1825 Well formed.
51.1826 Damage.
51.1827 Highly colored.
51.1828 Discoloration.
51.1829 Well colored.
51.1830 Fairly well colored.
51.1831 Fairly firm.
51.1832 Fairly well formed.
51.1833 Serious damage.
51.1834 Reasonably well colored.
51.1835 Very serious damage.
51.1836 Diameter.
51.1837 Classification of defects.
Subpart--United States Standards for Grades of Florida Tangerines
Sec. 51.1810 U.S. Fancy.
``U.S. Fancy'' consists of tangerines which meet the following
requirements:
(a) Basic requirements:
(1) Discoloration: Not more than one-tenth of the surface, in the
aggregate, may be affected by discoloration. (See Sec. 51.1828.);
(2) Firm;
(3) Highly colored;
(4) Mature; and,
(5) Well formed.
(b) Free from:
(1) Caked melanose;
(2) Decay;
(3) Unhealed skin breaks; and,
(4) Wormy fruit.
(c) Free from damage caused by:
(1) Ammoniation;
(2) Bruises;
(3) Buckskin;
(4) Creasing;
(5) Dirt or other foreign material;
(6) Dryness or mushy condition;
(7) Disease;
(8) Green spots;
(9) Hail;
(10) Insects;
(11) Oil spots;
(12) Scab;
(13) Scale;
(14) Scars;
(15) Skin breakdown;
(16) Sprayburn;
(17) Sunburn; and,
(18) Other means.
(d) For tolerances see Sec. 51.1820.
Sec. 51.1811 U.S. No. 1 Bright.
The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 1
except that fruit shall have not more than one-fifth of its surface, in
the aggregate, affected by discoloration. For tolerances see
Sec. 51.1820.
Sec. 51.1812 U.S. No. 1.
``U.S. No. 1'' consists of tangerines which meet the following
requirements:
(a) Basic requirements:
(1) Discoloration: Not more than one-third of the surface, in the
aggregate, may be affected by discoloration. (See Sec. 51.1828.);
(2) Fairly well colored;
(3) Firm;
(4) Mature; and,
(5) Well formed.
(b) Free from:
(1) Decay;
(2) Unhealed skin breaks; and,
(3) Wormy fruit.
(c) Free from damage caused by:
(1) Ammoniation;
(2) Bruises;
(3) Buckskin;
(4) Caked melanose;
(5) Creasing;
(6) Dirt or other foreign material;
(7) Disease;
(8) Dryness or mushy condition;
(9) Green spots;
(10) Hail;
(11) Insects;
(12) Oil spots;
(13) Scab;
(14) Scale;
(15) Scars;
(16) Skin breakdown;
(17) Sprayburn;
(18) Sunburn; and
(19) Other means.
(d) For tolerances see Sec. 51.1820.
Sec. 51.1813 U.S. No. 1 Golden.
The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 1
except that not more than 30 percent, by count, of the fruit shall have
than more one-third of their surface, in the aggregate, affected by
discoloration. For tolerances see Sec. 51.1820.
Sec. 51.1814 U.S. No. 1 Bronze.
The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 1
except that at least 30 percent, by count, of the fruit shall have more
than one-third of their
[[Page 20714]]
surface, in the aggregate, affected by discoloration. The predominating
discoloration on each fruit shall be of rust mite type. For tolerances
see Sec. 51.1820.
Sec. 51.1815 U.S. No. 1 Russet.
The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 1
except that at least 30 percent, by count, of the fruit shall have more
than one-third of their surface, in the aggregate, affected by any type
of discoloration. For tolerances see Sec. 51.1820.
Sec. 51.1816 U.S. No. 2 Bright.
The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 2
except that fruit shall have not more than one-fifth of its surface, in
the aggregate, affected by discoloration. For tolerances see
Sec. 51.1820.
Sec. 51.1817 U.S. No. 2.
``U.S. No. 2'' consists of tangerines which meet the following
requirements:
(a) Basic requirements:
(1) Discoloration: Not more than one-half of the surface, in the
aggregate, may be affected by discoloration. (See Sec. 51.1828.);
(2) Fairly firm;
(3) Fairly well formed;
(4) Mature; and
(5) Reasonably well colored.
(b) Free from:
(1) Decay;
(2) Unhealed skin breaks; and,
(3) Wormy fruit.
(c) Free from serious damage caused by:
(1) Ammoniation;
(2) Bruises;
(3) Buckskin;
(4) Caked melanose;
(5) Creasing;
(6) Dirt or other foreign material;
(7) Disease;
(8) Dryness or mushy condition;
(9) Green spots;
(10) Hail;
(11) Insects;
(12) Oil spots;
(13) Scab;
(14) Scale;
(15) Scars;
(16) Skin breakdown;
(17) Sprayburn;
(18) Sunburn; and
(19) Other means.
(d) For tolerances see Sec. 51.1820.
Sec. 51.1818 U.S. No. 2 Russet.
The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 2
except that at least 10 percent of the fruit shall have more than one-
half of their surface, in the aggregate, affected by any type of
discoloration. For tolerances see Sec. 51.1820.
Sec. 51.1819 U.S. No. 3.
``U.S. No. 3'' consists of tangerines which meet the following
requirements:
(a) Basic requirements:
(1) Mature;
(2) Not flabby; and
(3) Not seriously lumpy.
(b) Free from:
(1) Decay;
(2) Unhealed skin breaks; and
(3) Wormy fruit.
(c) Free from very serious damage caused by:
(1) Ammoniation;
(2) Bruises;
(3) Caked melanose;
(4) Creasing;
(5) Dirt or other foreign material;
(6) Disease;
(7) Dryness or mushy condition;
(8) Hail;
(9) Insects;
(10) Scab;
(11) Scale;
(12) Scars;
(13) Skin breakdown;
(14) Sprayburn;
(15) Sunburn; and,
(16) Other means.
(d) For tolerances see Sec. 51.1820.
Tolerances
Sec. 51.1820 Tolerances.
In order to allow for variations incident to proper grading and
handling in each of the foregoing grades, the following tolerances, by
count, are provided as specified:
(a) Defects.
(1) U.S. Fancy, U.S. No. 1 Bright, U.S. No. 1, U.S. No. 1 Golden,
U.S. No. 1 Bronze, U.S. No. 1 Russet, U.S. No. 2 Bright, U.S. No. 2,
and U.S. No. 2 Russet grades.
(i) For defects at shipping point.1 Not more than 10 percent
of the fruit in any lot may fail to meet the requirements of the
specified grade: Provided, that included in this amount not more than 5
percent shall be allowed for defects causing very serious damage,
including in this latter amount not more than 1 percent for decay or
wormy fruit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Shipping point, as used in these standards, means the point
of origin of the shipment in the producing area or at port of
loading for ship stores or overseas shipment, or, in the case of
shipments from outside the continental United States, the port of
entry into the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) For defects en route or at destination. Not more than 12
percent of the fruit which fail to meet the requirements of the
specified grade: Provided, that included in this amount not more than
the following percentages shall be allowed for defects listed:
(A) 10 percent for fruit having permanent defects; or,
(B) 7 percent for defects causing very serious damage, including
therein not more than 5 percent for very serious damage by permanent
defects and not more than 3 percent for decay or wormy fruit.
(2) U.S. No. 3.
(i) For defects at shipping point.\1\ Not more than 10 percent of
the fruit in any lot may fail to meet the requirements of the grade:
Provided, that included in this amount not more than 1 percent shall be
for decay or wormy fruit.
(ii) For defects en route or at destination. Not more than 12
percent of the fruit which fail to meet the requirements of the grade:
Provided, that included in this amount not more than the following
percentages shall be allowed for defects listed:
(A) 10 percent for fruit having permanent defects; or,
(B) 3 percent for decay or wormy fruit.
(b) Discoloration.--(1) U.S. No. 1 Bright, U.S. No. 1, U.S. No. 2
Bright, and U.S. No. 2. Not more than 10 percent of the fruit in any
lot may fail to meet the requirements relating to discoloration as
specified in each grade. No sample may have more than 20 percent of the
fruit with excessive discoloration: And provided further, that the
entire lot averages within the percentage specified.
(2) U.S. No. 1 Golden. Not more than 30 percent of the fruit shall
have in excess of one-third of their surface, in the aggregate,
affected by discoloration, and no part of any tolerance shall be
allowed to increase this percentage. No sample may have more than 40
percent of the fruit with excessive discoloration: And provided
further, that the entire lot averages within the percentage specified.
(3) U.S. No. 1 Bronze, and U.S. No. 1 Russet. At least 30 percent
of the fruit shall have in excess of one-third of the surface, in the
aggregate, affected by discoloration, and no part of any tolerance
shall be allowed to reduce this percentage. No sample may have less
than 20 percent of the fruit with required discoloration: And provided
further, that the entire lot averages within the percentage specified.
(4) U.S. No. 2 Russet. At least 10 percent of the fruit shall have
in excess of one-half of the surface, in the aggregate, affected by
discoloration, and no part of any tolerance shall be allowed to reduce
this percentage: And provided further, that the entire lot averages
within the percentage specified.
Application of Tolerances
Sec. 51.1821 Application of tolerances.
The contents of individual packages in the lot, based on sample
inspection,
[[Page 20715]]
are subject to the following limitations, unless otherwise specified in
Sec. 51.1820: Provided, that the average for the entire lot are within
the tolerance specified for the grade:
(a) For packages which contain more than 15 pounds, and a tolerance
of 10 percent or more is provided, individual packages in any lot shall
have not more than one and one-half times the tolerance specified. For
packages which contain more than 15 pounds, and a tolerance of less
than 10 percent is provided, individual packages in any lot shall have
not more than double the tolerance specified, except that at least one
decayed or very seriously damaged fruit may be permitted in any
package.
(b) For packages which contain 15 pounds or less, individual
packages in any lot are not restricted as to the percentage of defects:
Provided, that not more than one fruit which is decayed or otherwise
very seriously damaged may be permitted in any package and, in
addition, en route or at destination not more than 10 percent of the
packages may have more than one fruit which is decayed or otherwise
very seriously damaged.
Size
Sec. 51.1822 Size.
(a) Fruits shall be fairly uniform in size and shall be packed in
containers according to approved and recognized methods.
(b) ``Fairly uniform in size'' means that not more than 10 percent
of the tangerines per sample may vary more than one-half inch in
diameter.
(c) In order to allow for variations incident to proper sizing, not
more than 10 percent of the samples in any lot may fail to meet the
requirements of size.
Definitions
Sec. 51.1823 Mature.
Mature shall have the same meaning assigned the term in the Florida
Citrus Code, Chapter 601, 1995 Edition, and the Official Rules
Affecting the Florida Citrus Industry, in effect as of February 12,
1995. These tangerine maturity requirements are contained in the
Florida Citrus Code, Chapter 601, Florida Statutes, Sections 601.21,
and 601.22, 1995 Edition, and the State of Florida Department of Citrus
Official Rules Affecting the Florida Citrus Industry, Part 1, Chapter
20-13 Market Classification, Maturity Standards and Processing or
Packing Restrictions for Hybrids in effect as of February 12, 1995.
This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51.
Copies may be obtained from, Florida Department of Citrus, Post Office
Box 148, Lakeland, Florida 33802 or copies of both regulations may be
inspected at USDA, AMS, F&VD, FPB, Standardization Section, Room 2065-
S, 14th and Independence Ave., Washington, DC 20250 or at the Office of
the Federal Register, Suite 700, 800 North Capitol Street, Washington,
DC.
Sec. 51.1824 Firm.
Firm means that the flesh is not soft and the fruit is not badly
puffy and that the skin has not become materially separated from the
flesh of the tangerine.
Sec. 51.1825 Well formed.
Well formed means that the fruit has the characteristic tangerine
shape and is not deformed.
Sec. 51.1826 Damage.
Damage means any specific defect described in Sec. 51.1837, Table
I; or an equally objectionable variation of any one of these defects,
any other defect, or any combination of defects, which materially
detracts from the appearance, or the edible or marketing quality of the
fruit.
Sec. 51.1827 Highly colored.
Highly colored means that the ground color of each fruit is a deep
tangerine color, or characteristic color for the variety, with
practically no trace of yellow color.
Sec. 51.1828 Discoloration.
Discoloration means russeting of a light shade of golden brown
caused by rust mite or other means. Lighter shades of discoloration
caused by smooth or fairly smooth superficial scars or other means may
be allowed on a greater area, or darker shades may be allowed on a
lesser area, provided no discoloration caused by speck type melanose or
other means may detract from the appearance of the fruit to a greater
extent than the shade and amount of discoloration allowed in the grade.
Sec. 51.1829 Well colored.
Well colored means that a good yellow or better ground color
predominates over the green color on the entire fruit surface with no
distinct green color present, and that some portion of the surface has
a reddish tangerine blush, or characteristic color for the variety.
Sec. 51.1830 Fairly well colored.
Fairly well colored means that the surface of the fruit may have
green color which does not exceed the aggregate area of a circle 1-\1/
4\ inches (31.8 mm) in diameter and that the remainder of the surface
has a yellow or better ground color with some portion of the surface
showing reddish tangerine blush, or characteristic color for the
variety.
Sec. 51.1831 Fairly firm.
Fairly firm means that the flesh may be slightly soft but is not
bruised or badly puffy, and that the skin has not become seriously
separated from the flesh of the tangerine.
Sec. 51.1832 Fairly well formed.
Fairly well formed means that the fruit may not have the shape
characteristic of the variety but that it is not badly deformed.
Sec. 51.1833 Serious damage.
Serious damage means any specific defect described in Sec. 51.1837,
Table I; or an equally objectionable variation of any one of these
defects, any other defect, or any combination of defects, which
seriously detracts from the appearance, or the edible or marketing
quality of the fruit.
Sec. 51.1834 Reasonably well colored.
Reasonably well colored means that a good yellow or reddish
tangerine color shall predominate over the green color on at least one-
half of the fruit surface in the aggregate, and that each fruit shall
show practically no lemon color.
Sec. 51.1835 Very serious damage.
Very serious damage means any specific defect described in
Sec. 51.1837, Table I; or an equally objectionable variation of any one
of these defects, any other defect, or any combination of defects,
which very seriously detracts from the appearance, or the edible or
marketing quality of the fruit.
Sec. 51.1836 Diameter.
Diameter means the greatest dimension measured at right angles to a
line from stem to blossom end.
[[Page 20716]]
Sec. 51.1837 Classification of defects.
Table I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor Damage Serious damage Very serious damage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammoniation.......................... Not occurring as light Scars are cracked or Aggregating more than
speck type, or dark and aggregating 25 percent of the
detracts more than more than a circle \5/ surface.
discoloration 8\ inch (15.9 mm) in
permitted in the grade. diameter.
Bruises.............................. Segment walls are Segment walls are Fruit is split open,
collapsed, or rag is collapsed, or rag is peel is badly
ruptured and juice ruptured and juice watersoaked, or rag is
sacs are ruptured. sacs are ruptured. ruptured and juice
sacs are ruptured
causing a mushy
condition affecting
all segments more than
\1/2\ inch (12.7 mm)
at bruised area or the
equivalent of this
amount, by volume,
when affecting more
than one area on the
fruit.
Buckskin............................. Aggregating more than a Aggregating more than Aggregating more than
circle \3/4\ inch 25 percent of the 50 percent of the
(19.1 mm) in diameter. surface. surface.
Caked melanose....................... Aggregating more than a Aggregating more than a Aggregating more than
circle \3/8\ inch (9.5 circle \5/8\ inch 25 percent of the
mm) in diameter. (15.9 mm) in diameter. surface.
Creasing............................. Materially weakens the Seriously weakens the Very seriously weakens
skin, or extends over skin, or extends over the skin, or is
more than one-third of more than one-half of distributed over
the surface. the surface. practically the entire
surface.
Dryness or mushy condition........... Affecting all segments Affecting all segments Affecting all segments
more than \1/8\ inch more than \1/4\ inch more than \1/2\ inch
(3.2 mm) at stem end, (6.4 mm) at stem end, (12.7 mm) at stem end,
or the equivalent of or the equivalent of or the equivalent of
this amount, by this amount, by this amount, by
volume, when occurring volume, when occurring volume, when occurring
in other portions of in other portions of in other portions of
the fruit. the fruit. the fruit.
Green spots.......................... Aggregating more than a Aggregating more than a Aggregating more than
circle \1/2\ inch circle \5/8\ inch 25 percent of the
(12.7 mm) in diameter. (15.9 mm) in diameter. surface.
Oil spots............................ Aggregating more than a Aggregating more than a Aggregating more than
circle \1/2\ inch circle \3/4\ inch 25 percent of the
(12.7 mm) in diameter. (19.1 mm) in diameter. surface.
Scab................................. Materially detracts Seriously detracts from Aggregating more than
from the shape or the shape or texture, 25 percent of the
texture, or or aggregating more surface.
aggregating more than than a circle \5/8\
a circle \3/8\ inch inch (15.9 mm) in
(9.5 mm) in diameter. diameter.
Scale................................ Aggregating more than a Aggregating more than a Aggregating more than
circle \3/8\ inch (9.5 circle \5/8\ inch 25 percent of the
mm) in diameter. (15.9 mm) in diameter. surface.
Scars, Hail, and Thorn scratches [For Deep or rough Deep or rough Deep or rough or
smooth or fairly smooth superficial aggregating more than aggregating more than unsightly that
scars see Sec. 51.1828.]. a circle \1/4\ inch a circle \1/2\ inch appearance is very
(6.4 mm) in diameter; (12.7 mm) in diameter; seriously affected.
slightly rough with slightly rough with
slight depth slight depth
aggregating more than aggregating more than
a circle \3/4\ inch a circle 1\1/8\ inches
(19.1 mm) in diameter; (28.6 mm) in diameter;
smooth or fairly smooth or fairly
smooth with slight smooth with slight
depth aggregating more depth aggregating more
than a circle 1\1/8\ than 10 percent of
inches (28.6 mm) in fruit surface.
diameter.
Skin breakdown....................... Aggregating more than a Aggregating more than a Aggregating more than
circle \1/2\ inch circle \3/4\ inch 25 percent of the
(12.7 mm) in diameter. (19.1 mm) in diameter. surface.
Sprayburn............................ Skin is hard and Skin is hard and Aggregating more than
aggregating more than aggregating more than 25 percent of the
a circle \3/4\ inch a circle 1\1/4\ inches surface.
(19.1 mm) in diameter. (31.8 mm) in diameter.
Sunburn.............................. Skin is flattened, dry, Skin is hard and Aggregating more than
darkened, or hard and affects more than one- 50 percent of the
the affected area third of the surface. surface.
exceeds 25 percent of
the surface.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All references to area or aggregate area, or length are based on a tangerine 2\1/2\ inches in diameter
(63.5 mm), allowing proportionately greater areas on larger fruit and lesser areas on smaller fruit.
Dated: May 2, 1996.
Robert C. Keeney,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-11457 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11451 Delegation of Authority to Director of Division of Enforcement
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20721]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11451]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
17 CFR Part 200
[Release No. 34-37159]
Delegation of Authority to Director of Division of Enforcement
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is amending its rules to delegate authority to
the Director of the Division of Enforcement to authorize staff to
appear in federal bankruptcy court where the debtor is involved with
the subject matter of a Commission investigation, and to take necessary
action therein to preserve potential Commission claims. This amendment
will expedite and enhance the effectiveness of the enforcement process
by enabling staff to meet bankruptcy court deadlines that affect
potential Commission claims and to preserve and protect such claims.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith R. Starr, Division Bankruptcy
Counsel, Division of Enforcement, 202/942-4868.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Securities and Exchange Commission today
announced amendments to its rules governing delegation of authority to
the Division of Enforcement (``Division'').
The amendment to Rule 30-4 1 authorizes the Director of
Division of Enforcement to approve staff appearances in federal
bankruptcy court where the debtor is involved with the subject matter
of a Commission investigation. This delegation will expedite and
enhance the effectiveness of the enforcement process by enabling prompt
action to protect and preserve potential claims. Notwithstanding this
delegation of authority, in instances where contemplated action in a
bankruptcy case raises any close or controversial issues, the Division
may consult with the Commission before the action is filed in federal
court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 17 CFR 200.30-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission finds, in accordance with Section 553(b)(3)(A) of
the Administrative Procedure Act,2 that this amendment relates
solely to agency organization, procedure, or practice, and does not
relate to a substantive rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for
public comment are unnecessary, and publication of the amendment 30
days before its effective date is also unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 200
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations
(Government agencies).
Text of Amendment
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 17, Chapter II of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 200--ORGANIZATION; CONDUCT AND ETHICS; AND INFORMATION AND
REQUESTS
1. The authority citation for Part 200 continues to read in part as
follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77s, 78d-1, 78d-2, 78w, 78ll(d), 79t,
77sss, 80a-37, 80b-11, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
2. Section 200.30-4 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(11) to read
as follows:
Sec. 200.30-4 Delegation of authority to Director of Division of
Enforcement.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(11) To authorize staff to appear in federal bankruptcy court to
preserve Commission claims in connection with investigations pursuant
to section 19(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77s(b)),
section 21(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78u(b)), section 18(c) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of
1935 (15 U.S.C. 79r(c)), section 42(b) of the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-41(b)) and section 209(b) of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-9(b)).
* * * * *
By the Commission.
Dated: May 2, 1996.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-11451 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11419 Educational Assistance: Technical Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20727-20730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11419]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 21
RIN 2900-AH59
Educational Assistance: Technical Amendments
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends statutory citations in the educational
assistance regulations to reflect that the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Pub. L. 103-337) reorganized a
portion of title 10, United States Code, by moving sections 2131
through 2137 from chapter 106 to sections 16131 through 16137 in
chapter 1606. This document also corrects typographical errors and
corrects other citation entries. The changes made by this document
concern the Montgomery GI Bill-Selected Reserve program, the Montgomery
GI Bill-Active Duty
[[Page 20728]]
program, the Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance program,
the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational Assistance program, and the
Educational Assistance Test program.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June C. Schaeffer, Assistant Director
for Policy and Program Administration, Education Service, Veterans
Benefits Administration, (202) 273-7187.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule consists of nonsubstantive
changes and, therefore, is not subject to the notice and comment and
effective date provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs hereby certifies that this final
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule would not cause a
significant effect on any entity since it does not contain any
substantive provisions. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is
exempt from the initial and final regulatory analyses requirements of
sections 603 and 604.
The Montgomery GI Bill-Selected Reserve program and the Educational
Assistance Test program are not listed in the Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers
for other programs affected by this final rule are 64.117, 64.120, and
64.124.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 21
Administrative practice and procedure, Armed forces, Civil rights,
Claims, Colleges and universities, Conflict of interests, Defense
Department, Education, Employment, Entitlement programs-education,
Entitlement programs-veterans, Health care, Loan programs-education,
Loan programs-veterans, Manpower training programs, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Travel and transportation
expenses, Veterans, Vocational education, Vocational rehabilitation.
Approved: May 1, 1996.
Jesse Brown,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 38 CFR part 21 (subparts
C, D, G, H, K, L) is amended as set forth below.
PART 21--VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION
Subpart C--Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance Under
38 U.S.C. Chapter 35
1. The authority citation for part 21, subpart C is revised to read
as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 3500-3566, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 21.3022 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 21.3022, paragraph (e) is amended by removing ``106''
and adding, in its place, ``1606''.
Subpart D--Administration of Educational Benefits; 38 U.S.C.
Chapters 34, 35, and 36
3. The authority citation for part 21, subpart D is revised to read
as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), chs. 34, 35, 36, unless otherwise
noted.
Secs. 21.4005, 21.4009, 21.4022, 21.4134, 21.4151, 21.4153, 21.4201,
21.4206, 21.4207, 21.4250, 21.4251, 21.4263 [Amended]
4. Remove ``106'' and add, in place thereof, ``1606'' in the
following places:
a. Section 21.4005(a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(1)(ii)(d),(b)(1)(ii)(e), and
(b)(2)(ii)(a);
b. Section 21.4009(c);
c. Section 21.4022(a)(6);
d. Section 21.4134(b)(1), (b)(2), and (c)(2);
e. Section 21.4151(b)(4);
f. Section 21.4153(c)(4)(i);
g. Section 21.4201(c)(4), (e)(2), (f)(1)(ii), and (g)(2);
h. Section 21.4206 introductory text, (a), and (e)(1);
i. Section 21.4207 introductory text;
j. Section 21.4250(c)(2)(ii);
k. Section 21.4251(a)(6)(iii); and
l. Section 21.4263 heading and (a).
Secs. 21.4134, 21.4153, 21.4201, 21.4206, 21.4207, 21.4250 [Amended]
5. Remove ``2136'' and add, in place thereof, ``16136'' in the
authority citations following:
a. Section 21.4134(c)(2);
b. Section 21.4153(c)(4)(i);
c. Section 21.4201(g)(2) introductory text and (g)(2)(ii);
d. Section 21.4206 (a) and (e)(1);
e. Section 21.4207 introductory text; and
f. Section 21.4250(c)(2)(ii).
Secs. 21.4005, 21.4009 [Amended]
6. Remove ``2136(b)'' and add, in place thereof, ``16136(b)'' in
the authority citations following:
a. Section 21.4005 (a)(1) and (b)(2)(ii)(a); and
b. Section 21.4009(c).
Sec. 21.4020 [Amended]
7. In Sec. 21.4020, paragraph (a)(5) is amended by removing ``106
and 107'' and adding, in its place, ``107 and 1606''.
Sec. 21.4209 [Amended]
8. In Sec. 21.4209, paragraph (a)(1) is amended by removing ``106''
and adding, in its place, ``1606'', and by removing ``U.S.C., and (10
U.S.C. 2136, 38 U.S.C. 3034, 3244, 3690).'' and adding, in its place,
``U.S.C.''; and the authority citation following paragraph (a)(2) is
amended by removing ``38 U.S.C.'' and adding, in its place, ``10 U.S.C.
16136; 38 U.S.C. 3034, 3244,''.
Sec. 21.4233 [Amended]
9. In Sec. 21.4233, the authority citation for paragraph (c)(1) is
amended by removing ``3473(c)'' and adding, in its place, ``3680A(c)''.
Sec. 21.4263 [Amended]
10. In Sec. 21.4263, the authority citations following paragraphs
(a)(2), (b)(2), (c)(2), (d)(3), (e), (g)(4)(x)(A), (h) introductory
text, (h)(2), (i)(3), and (i)(4) are amended by removing ``2136(c)''
and adding, in place thereof, ``16136(c)''.
11. In Sec. 21.4263, the authority citation following paragraph
(h)(3)(ii) is amended by removing ``2131'' and adding, in its place,
``16131''.
12. In Sec. 21.4263, the authority citations following paragraphs
(h)(1)(iii), (h)(4)(ii), and (h)(4)(iii) are amended by removing
``2131(g)'' and adding, in place thereof, ``16131(g)''.
Subpart G--Post-Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational Assistance Under
38 U.S.C. Chapter 32
13. The authority citation for part 21, subpart G is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), ch. 32, unless otherwise noted.
Secs. 21.5040, 21.5065 [Amended]
14. Remove ``106'' and add, in place thereof, ``1606'' in the
following places:
a. Section 21.5040(h) heading, (h) introductory text, and (h)(2);
and
b. Section 21.5065(c).
Subpart H--Educational Assistance Test Program
15. The authority citation for part 21, subpart H is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: 10 U.S.C. ch. 107; 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 3695, 5101,
5113, 5303A; 42 U.S.C. 2000; sec. 901, Pub. L. 96-342, 94 Stat.
1111-1114, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 21.5720 [Amended]
16. In Sec. 21.5720, the authority citation following paragraph
(c)(3) is amended by removing ``1072(2)(E) 2147(d)(1)''
[[Page 20729]]
and adding, in its place, ``1072(2)(D), 2147(d)(1)''.
Sec. 21.5741 [Amended]
17. In Sec. 21.5741, paragraph (c)(3)(ii) is amended by removing
``106'' and adding, in its place, ``1606''.
Sec. 21.5835 [Amended]
18. In Sec. 21.5835, the authority citation following paragraph (f)
is amended by removing ``2143(c)2144'' and adding, in its place,
``2143(c), 2144''.
Subpart K--All Volunteer Force Educational Assistance Program (New
GI Bill)
19. The authority citation for part 21, subpart K is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), ch. 30, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 21.7042 [Amended]
20. In Sec. 21.7042, paragraphs (d)(2) introductory text,
(d)(2)(i)(B), and (d)(3) are amended by removing ``106'' and adding, in
place thereof, ``1606''; and the authority citation following paragraph
(d)(3) is amended by removing ``3033(c), 10 U.S.C. 2132'' and adding,
in its place, ``3033(c)''.
Sec. 21.7142 [Amended]
21. In Sec. 21.7142, paragraph (a)(4) is amended by removing
``106'' and adding, in its place, ``1606''.
Subpart L--Educational Assistance for Members of the Selected
Reserve
22. The authority citation for part 2l, subpart L is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: 10 U.S.C. ch. 1606; 38 U.S.C. 501(a), ch. 36, unless
otherwise noted.
Secs. 21.7520, 21.7540, 21.7603, 21.7610, 21.7612, 21.7622, 21.7630,
21.7640, 21.7642, 21.7644, 21.7658, 21.7801, 21.7805, 21.7807,
21.7810 [Amended]
23. Remove ``106'' and add, in place thereof, ``1606'' in the
following places:
a. Section 21.7520 introductory text, (a)(1), and (b)(14)(iii);
b. Section 21.7540(b)(1), (b)(2), and (c);
c. Section 21.7603;
d. Section 21.7610(b) introductory text;
e. Section 21.7612(b);
f. Section 21.7622(c);
g. Section 21.7630;
h. Section 21.7640(b)(1) and (c)(2);
i. Section 21.7642(a) introductory text;
j. Section 21.7644(a) and (d)(2);
k. Section 21.7658(a);
l. Section 21.7801 (a) and (b);
m. Section 21.7805;
n. Section 21.7807; and
o. Section 21.7810(b) introductory text.
Secs. 21.7520, 21.7610, 21.7620, 21.7622, 21.7640 [Amended]
24. Remove ``2131'' and add, in place thereof, ``16131'' in the
authority citations following:
a. Section 21.7520(a)(2) and (b)(13);
b. Section 21.7610(a);
c. Section 21.7620(a);
d. Section 21.7622(b); and
e. Section 21.7640(a)(2).
Secs. 21.7500, 21.7650 [Amended]
25. Remove ``2131(a)'' and add, in place thereof, ``16131(a)'' in
the authority citations following:
a. Section 21.7500; and
b. Section 21.7650.
Secs. 21.7520, 21.7630, 21.7635, 21.7636, 21.7670 [Amended]
26. Remove ``2131(b)'' and add, in place thereof, ``16131(b)'' in
the authority citations following:
a. Section 21.7520 (b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(22) and (b)(28);
b. Section 21.7630.
c. Section 21.7635(f)(2), (g)(2), and (h)(2);
d. Section 21.7636(a); and
e. Section 21.7670(a)(4), (b)(2)(iii), and (c)(2)(iii).
Secs. 21.7570, 21.7635 [Amended]
27. Remove ``2131(c)'' and add, in place thereof, ``16131(c)'' in
the authority citations following:
a. Section 21.7570; and
b. Section 21.7635(l).
Secs. 21.7550, 21.7635 [Amended]
28. Remove ``2133'' and add, in place thereof, ``16133'' in the
authority citations following:
a. Section 21.7550 (a)(2) and (a)(3); and
b. Section 21.7635(m).
Secs. 21.7532, 21.7551 [Amended]
29. Remove ``2133(b)(2)'' and add, in place thereof,
``16133(b)(2)'' in the authority citations following:
a. Section 21.7532(e)(2); and
b. Section 21.7551(a)(2), (b)(2)(ii), and (c)(2)(ii).
Secs. 21.7635, 21.7642, 21.7802 [Amended]
30. Remove ``2134'' and add, in place thereof, ``16134'' in the
authority citations following:
a. Section 21.7635 (o) and (p);
b. Section 21.7642(c); and
c. Section 21.7802(c).
Secs. 21.7520, 21.7530, 21.7532, 21.7600, 21.7610, 21.7612, 21.7614,
21.7622, 21.7631, 21.7633, 21.7635, 21.7639, 21.7640, 21.7642, 21.7644,
21.7652, 21.7653, 21.7656, 21.7658, 21.7659, 21.7672, 21.7673, 21.7674,
21.7700, 21.7801, 21.7805, 21.7807 [Amended]
31. Remove ``2136(b)'' and add, in place thereof, ``16136(b)'' in
the authority citations following:
a. Section 21.7520(b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(8), (b)(9), (b)(10),
(b)(11), (b)(12)(ii)(C), (b)(15), (b)(16), (b)(18), (b)(21), (b)(24),
(b)(25), and (b)(26);
b. Section 21.7530 (a), (b), and (c);
c. Section 21.7532 (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f);
d. Section 21.7600(a)(5), (b)(3)(iii), (c)(2), and (d);
e. Section 21.7610(b)(4);
f. Section 21.7612(b);
g. Section 21.7614;
h. Section 21.7622(a), (c), (d)(3), and (e);
i. Section 21.7631(a)(4), (d), and (f)(2);
j. Section 21.7633;
k. Section 21.7635(b)(1), (b)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(ii)(C), (c)(3),
(d)(2), (e)(2), (i), (j), (k)(2)(iii), and (n)(2);
l. Section 21.7639(b)(1)(B), (c)(3), (d)(3)(ii), and (e);
m. Section 21.7640(b)(3), (c)(2), (d)(6)(ii), (e), and (f);
n. Section 21.7642(b) and (d)(3);
o. Section 21.7644(a), (c)(2)(ii), and (d)(2);
p. Section 21.7652(a)(5), (b)(3)(ii), and (c)(2)(vi);
q. Section 21.7653 (a) and (b);
r. Section 21.7656 (a)(3) and (b)(2);
s. Section 21.7658(a) and (b)(2);
t. Section 21.7659;
u. Section 21.7672(a)(4), (b)(2)(ii)(C), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(4), and
(e)(2)(iv);
v. Section 21.7673(b)(2) and (c)(2);
w. Section 21.7674(a)(2), (b), and (c);
x. Section 21.7700;
y. Section 21.7801 (a) and (b);
z. Section 21.7805; and
aa. Section 21.7807.
Sec. 21.7520 [Amended]
32. In Sec. 21.7520, the authority citation following paragraph
(b)(2) is amended by removing ``2136(b)'' and adding, in its place,
``16136(b);''.
Sec. 21.7540 [Amended]
33. In Sec. 21.7540, the authority citation following paragraph
(b)(2) is amended by removing ``2132'' and adding, in its place,
``16132'' and the authority citation following paragraph (c) is amended
by removing ``2132(d), 2134'' and adding, in its place, ``16132(d),
16134''.
Sec. 21.7550 [Amended]
34. In Sec. 21.7550, the authority citation following paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) is amended by removing ``2133(b)(1)'' and adding, in place
thereof, ``16133(b)(1)'' and the authority citation following paragraph
(c) is amended by removing ``2133(b)'' and adding, in place thereof,
``16133(b)''.
Sec. 21.7576 [Amended]
35. In Sec. 21.7576, the authority citations following paragraphs
(c)(3)(iv)
[[Page 20730]]
and (d)(4) are amended by removing ``2133(c)'' and adding, in place
thereof, ``16133(c)'' and the authority citation following paragraph
(e)(2) is amended by removing ``2131(c)(3)(A)'' and adding, in place
thereof, ``16131(c)(3)(A)''.
Sec. 21.7639 [Amended]
36. In Sec. 21.7639, the authority citation following paragraph
(b)(2) is amended by removing ``2130(b)'' and adding, in place thereof,
``16136(b)''.
Sec. 21.7644 [Amended]
37. In Sec. 21.7644, the authority citation following paragraph
(b)(2) is amended by removing ``2135'' and adding, in place thereof,
``16135''.
[FR Doc. 96-11419 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11418 Adjudication Regulations; Miscellaneous
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20726-20727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11418]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 3
RIN 2900-AH83
Adjudication Regulations; Miscellaneous
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends adjudication regulations by updating
various cross-references and authority citations and by making other
nonsubstantive changes.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This amendment is effective May 8, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Trowbridge, Consultant,
Regulations Staff, Compensation and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420, telephone
(202) 273-7210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 38 CFR 3.23(d)(5) concerns annual income for
improved pension surviving spouses. The authority citation for 38 CFR
3.23(d)(5) is shown incorrectly as ``38 U.S.C. 1541 (c), (h)''. The
authority citation is corrected to read ``38 U.S.C. 1541 (c), (g)''.
38 CFR 3.24(c)(1) states that in certain situations pension shall
be paid to a child in the custody of a person legally responsible for
the child's support at an annual rate equal to the difference between
the rate for a surviving spouse and one child, and ``the sum of the
annual income of such person.'' This paragraph is based on 38 U.S.C.
1542 which states that the child's rate is reduced by the child's
income or, if the child is residing with a person legally responsible
for the child's support, by ``the sum of the annual income of such
child and such person.'' 38 CFR 3.24(c)(1) is amended to restore the
words ``the annual income of such child and'' before ``the annual
income of such person''. These words appear in the Federal Register of
September 16, 1987, but were omitted from the July 1, 1988, Federal
Register codification of 38 CFR and all subsequent versions. This
change will conform the regulation to 38 U.S.C. 1542.
The most recent change to 38 CFR 3.25 appeared in the Federal
Register of September 16, 1987. The version of 38 CFR 3.25(c)(2) in the
Federal Register of September 16, 1987, contained the following
statement: ``. . . no payment of DIC to a parent under this paragraph
may be less than $5 monthly. Each time there is a rate increase under
38 U.S.C. 3112, the amount of the reduction under this paragraph shall
be recomputed to provide, as nearly as possible, for an equitable
distribution of the rate increase.'' However, the July 1, 1988,
codified version of 38 CFR 3.25(c)(2) omitted the following words:
``may be less than $5 monthly. Each time there is a rate increase under
38 U.S.C. 3112, the amount of the reduction under this paragraph''.
This change restores the words that were inadvertently omitted from 38
CFR 3.25(c)(2).
38 CFR 3.250(d) concerning remarriage of a parent receiving
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) contains an incorrect
reference to ``38 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)''. The reference is corrected to
read ``38 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)''.
38 CFR 3.252(a), which concerns annual income limitations in old-
law pension cases, contains an incorrect reference to ``Sec. 3.26(b)''.
38 CFR 3.252(a) is changed to show the correct reference for old-law
pension, which is 38 CFR 3.26(c).
In 1991 Sec. 14(d)(8)(b) of Public Law 102-54 eliminated subsection
(e) from 38 U.S.C. 6103. The language that was previously in subsection
(e) was included under subsection (b). The authority citation for 38
CFR 3.458(f)(2) is changed from ``38 U.S.C. 6103(e)'' to ``38 U.S.C
6103(b)''.
38 CFR 3.100(a), 38 CFR 3.321(b)(1), 38 CFR 3.460(b), 38 CFR
3.461(b)(1), and 38 CFR 3.559(c) are amended to show the current title
of the chief officer of the Veterans Benefits Administration.
Previously the Under Secretary for Benefits was called the ``Chief
Benefits Director.''
A regulatory change published in the Federal Register of June 24,
1985, moved effective date rules for Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation (DIC) from 38 CFR 3.400(c)(3) to 38 CFR 3.400(c)(4). 38
CFR 3.702 on DIC is amended to reflect that change in two references to
38 CFR 3.400.
We are amending 38 CFR 3.852 on institutional awards to add
authority citations for paragraphs (a), (c), (d), and (e).
In 1991, Sec. 14(d)(8)(b) of Public Law 102-54 eliminated paragraph
(e) from 38 U.S.C. 6103. The authority citation for 38 CFR 3.901(c) is
changed from ``38
[[Page 20727]]
U.S.C. 6103(e)'' to ``38 U.S.C. 6103''. The authority citation for 38
CFR 3.901(d)(3) is changed from ``38 U.S.C. 6103(a), (d), (e)'' to ``38
U.S.C. 6103''. The authority citation for 38 CFR 3.902(d)(3) is changed
from ``38 U.S.C. 6103(d), (e), 6104'' to ``38 U.S.C. 6104''.
38 CFR 3.1612(e)(3) is amended to show the current name of the
element within VA which is responsible for furnishing Government
headstones and markers. Previously the Office of Memorial Programs was
called the ``Monument Service.''
This final rule makes nonsubstantive changes. Accordingly, this
final rule is promulgated without regard to the notice-and-comment and
effective-date provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking was required in connection
with the adoption of this final rule, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601-612). Even so, the Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers are
64.100, 64.101, 64.104, 64.105, 64.106, 64.109, and 64.110.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits,
Health care, Pensions, Veterans, Vietnam.
Approved: April 30, 1996.
Jesse Brown,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 38 CFR part 3 is amended
as follows:
PART 3--ADJUDICATION
Subpart A--Pension, Compensation, and Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation
1. The authority citation for part 3, subpart A continues to read
as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 3.23 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 3.23, the authority citation immediately following
paragraph (d)(5) is revised to read as follows:
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1541(c), (g))
Sec. 3.24 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 3.24, paragraph (c)(1) is amended by adding ``the annual
income of such child and'' immediately following ``and the sum of''.
Sec. 3.25 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 3.25, the concluding text of paragraph (c) is amended by
adding ``may be less than $5 monthly. Each time there is a rate
increase under 38 U.S.C. 5312, the amount of the reduction under this
paragraph'' immediately following ``to a parent under this paragraph''.
Sec. 3.100 [Amended]
5. In Sec. 3.100, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ``Chief
Benefits Director'' and ``Director'' and adding, in their place,
``Under Secretary for Benefits'' and ``Under Secretary'', respectively.
Sec. 3.250 [Amended]
6. In Sec. 3.250, paragraph (d) is amended by removing ``(38 U.S.C.
102(a)(2))'' and adding, in its place, ``(38 U.S.C. 102(b)(1))''.
Sec. 3.252 [Amended]
7. In Sec. 3.252, paragraph (a) is amended by removing
``Sec. 3.26(b)'' and adding, in its place, ``Sec. 3.26(c)''.
Sec. 3.321 [Amended]
8. In Sec. 3.321, paragraph (b)(1) is amended by removing ``Chief
Benefits Director'' and adding, in its place, ``Under Secretary for
Benefits''.
Sec. 3.458 [Amended]
9. In Sec. 3.458, the authority citation immediately following
paragraph (f)(2) is revised to read as follows:
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 6103(b); 6104(c); 6105(a))
Sec. 3.460 [Amended]
10. In Sec. 3.460, paragraph (b) is amended by removing ``Chief
Benefits Director'' and adding, in its place, ``Under Secretary for
Benefits''.
Sec. 3.461 [Amended]
11. In Sec. 3.461, paragraph (b)(1) is amended by removing ``Chief
Benefits Director'' and adding, in its place, ``Under Secretary for
Benefits''.
Sec. 3.559 [Amended]
12. In Sec. 3.559, paragraph (c) is amended by removing ``Chief
Benefits Director'' and adding, in its place, ``Under Secretary for
Benefits''.
Sec. 3.702 [Amended]
13. In Sec. 3.702, paragraph (a) is amended by removing
``Sec. 3.400(c)(3)'' and adding, in its place, ``Sec. 3.400(c)(4)''.
14. In Sec. 3.702, paragraph (b) is amended by removing
``Sec. 3.400(c)(3)(ii)'' and adding, in its place,
``Sec. 3.400(c)(4)(ii)''.
15. In Sec. 3.852, an authority citation for paragraphs (a), (c),
(d), and (e) is added immediately following each such paragraph, to
read as follows:
Sec. 3.852 Institutional awards.
(a) * * *
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5503(b)(3))
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5307)
(d) * * *
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5503(b)(3))
(e) * * *
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5502)
* * * * *
Sec. 3.901 [Amended]
16. In Sec. 3.901, the authority citation immediately following
paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 6103)
17. In Sec. 3.901, the authority citation immediately following the
concluding text of paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 6103)
Sec. 3.902 [Amended]
18. In Sec. 3.902, the authority citation immediately following the
concluding text of paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 6104)
Sec. 3.1612 [Amended]
19. In Sec. 3.1612, paragraph (e)(3) is amended by removing
``Monument Service'' and adding, in its place, ``Office of Memorial
Programs''.
[FR Doc. 96-11418 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11399 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) Addressing Visible Emissions
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20732-20734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11399]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TX-10-1-7025; FRL-5468-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) Addressing
Visible Emissions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On April 3, 1995 the EPA simultaneously published a direct
final rule and notice of proposed rulemaking in which EPA published its
decision to approve a revision to the Texas SIP addressing visible
emissions. During the 30-day comment period, the EPA received three
comment letters in response to the April 3, 1995, rulemaking. This
final rule summarizes comments and EPA's responses, and finalizes the
EPA's decision to approve the revisions to the visible emissions
regulations for Texas.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
addresses listed below. The interested persons wanting to examine these
documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at
least 24 hours before the visiting day.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12124 Park 35
Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), USEPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7214.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 3, 1995, the EPA published a direct final rulemaking
approving a revision to the existing Texas regulation concerning the
control of visible emissions (60 FR 16806). At the same time that the
EPA published the direct final rule, a separate notice of proposed
rulemaking was published in the Federal Register (60 FR 16829). This
proposed rulemaking specified that EPA would withdraw the direct final
rule if adverse or critical comments were filed on the rulemaking. The
EPA received three letters containing adverse comments regarding the
direct final rule within 30 days of publication of the proposed rule
and withdrew the direct final rule on June 5, 1995 (60 FR 29484).
The specific rationale EPA used to approve the revision to the
Texas visible emissions regulations is explained in the direct final
rule and will not be restated here. This final rule contained in this
Federal Register addresses the comments received during the public
comment period and announces EPA's final action regarding approval of
the visible emissions revisions.
Response to Public Comments
In the April 3, 1995, Federal Register, the EPA requested public
comments on the proposed/direct final rules (please reference 60 FR
16806-16808 and 60 FR 16829). The EPA received three adverse comment
letters dated May 3, 1995, and thus proceeded to withdraw the direct
final rule and adequately address each comment letter. The EPA's
response to each comment letter is detailed below.
1. A letter was received from Larry Feldcamp, Baker & Botts, LLP,
representing the Texas Industry Project (TIP). The TIP believed that
the Texas Regulation I provisions for visible emissions were
unwarranted, and that the EPA exceeded its statutory authority under
title I of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA) in proposing to
approve those provisions into the Texas SIP. The TIP believes that the
visible emissions provisions are not necessary for the attainment or
maintenance of any National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in
Texas. Further, the TIP is concerned that some visible emissions
provisions in Regulation I will cause more burdensome monitoring,
recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance certification requirements for
subject sources, since title V of the CAA incorporates SIP
requirements. Finally, the TIP expressed concern about federal suits
being available to enforce the visible emissions provisions, provisions
which the TIP believes should not be in the Texas SIP.
EPA's response to letter #1: Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
States to provide plans for the implementation and maintenance, and
enforcement of primary and secondary criteria pollutant standards, and
for these plans to be submitted to EPA as part of the SIP. The visible
emissions revisions provide for maintenance of the particulate standard
statewide, and thus meet the intent of section 110(a)(1). Since EPA
believes that the visible emissions regulations provide for maintenance
of the particulate standard and strengthen the SIP as a whole,
incorporation of these revisions into the SIP is required under section
110. The EPA must take action on state SIP submittals to either approve
or disapprove the submittals. The EPA believes that the revised visible
emissions provisions in Texas Regulation I are approvable (note--the
existing Texas SIP contains visible emissions provisions in Texas
Regulation I). This approval will strengthen the Texas SIP by updating
the regulation. The EPA believes that
[[Page 20733]]
without visible emissions provisions in the Texas SIP, certain NAAQS
(e.g. particulate, sulfur oxides, lead, ozone, and nitrogen dioxide)
could be threatened. Clearly, the presence of the visible emissions
provisions has resulted in particulate matter controls across the State
of Texas. For the important visible emissions provisions to be
eliminated from the Texas SIP, the State of Texas would have to submit
a modeling demonstration to the EPA showing that the NAAQS could be
attained and maintained in the State without the visible emissions
provisions in Regulation I. Also, the EPA believes that the opacity
provisions in Texas Regulation I provide visibility protection
(visibility is an air quality related value). In addition, opacity
limitations can be used as an indicator (or in some cases, as a
determinator) in judging compliance or noncompliance with particulate
matter (PM10) and other pollutant standards in the Texas SIP. Finally,
the EPA believes that the visible emissions provisions, along with the
Federal title V and the State permitting programs, allow for reasonable
flexibility in meeting monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and
compliance certification requirements so that an undue burden does not
fall upon subject sources. It is important to note that the original
enhanced monitoring proposal package, which provided for certain
monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance certification
requirements, was withdrawn from the Office of Management and Budget on
April 3, 1995, was revised significantly, and is planned to be
reproposed in the Spring of 1996. The concerns about potentially
burdensome monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance
certification requirements should be resolved under the new proposal
that the EPA, in conjunction with the States, local agencies, and the
regulated community, will produce.
It is the intent of section 110 of the CAA for States to develop an
effective SIP control strategy to ensure attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS. One principle that must be adhered to is that the measures
contained in the SIP be federally enforceable. To be enforceable, a
legal means to ensure that sources remain in compliance with any
measures or rules contained in the SIP must be provided. Federal and
State suits are the legal means by which EPA ensures compliance with
SIP requirements.
2. A letter was received from Neil Carman representing the Sierra
Club (Lone Star Chapter). The Sierra Club supported the proposed action
to make federally enforceable the visible emissions provisions of Texas
Regulation I with one exception. The Sierra Club believed that the
Midlothian cement plants burning hazardous waste, or any cement plant
in Texas burning hazardous waste, should be subject to a more stringent
visible emissions standard than the grandfathered level of 30 percent
opacity. The Sierra Club also stated that the grandfathered status for
Texas Industries Inc. and North Texas Cement Company in Midlothian
should have been terminated when they were allowed to burn hazardous
waste.
3. A letter was received from Sue Pope representing Downwinders At
Risk (DAR). The DAR also believed that the Midlothian cement plants
burning hazardous waste should be subject to a more stringent visible
emissions standard than the grandfathered level of 30 percent opacity.
EPA's response to letters #2 and #3: The EPA will approve the
current provisions in order to strengthen the Texas SIP. There are
currently 4 PM10 monitors operating in the city of Midlothian, Texas.
The data collected from these monitors indicate levels far below the
annual and 24-hour PM10 NAAQS of 50 micrograms per cubic meter and 150
micrograms per cubic meter, respectively. EPA believes that these more
stringent visible emissions regulations will ensure protection of the
PM10 NAAQS in Midlothian. It is important to note that EPA continues to
participate in meetings with the Sierra Club and DAR concerning
Midlothian air quality concerns.
Final Rulemaking Action
In this final action EPA is promulgating a revision to Texas
Regulation I addressing visible emissions. This revision updates the
Texas SIP and strengthens the provisions of Texas Regulation I. This
revision was submitted by the Governor to the EPA by letters dated
August 21, 1989, January 29, 1991, October 15, 1992 and August 4, 1993.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors, and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
Miscellaneous
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).
Alternatively, the EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D, of the
CAA do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP-
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the CAA,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
CAA forbids the EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds
(Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42
U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2)).
Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into law on March 22, 1995,
the EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to state,
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of this SIP or plan revision, the State and any
affected local or tribal governments have elected to adopt the program
provided for under section 110 of the CAA. These rules may bind the
State, local and tribal governments to perform certain actions and also
require the private sector to perform certain duties. To the extent
that the rules being approved by this action will impose no new
requirements, such sources are already subject to these regulations
under the State law. Accordingly, no additional costs to the State,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action. The 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 the State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate or to the private sector.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 8, 1996. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the
[[Page 20734]]
finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
Executive Order
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from
review under Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide,
Volatile organic compounds.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the SIP for the State of
Texas was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on July
1, 1982.
Dated: April 17, 1996.
Allyn M. Davis,
Acting Regional Administrator.
40 CFR part 52 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 SS--Texas
2. Section 52.2270 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(94) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(94) Revisions to the Texas SIP addressing visible emissions
requirements were submitted by the Governor of Texas by letters dated
August 21, 1989, January 29, 1991, October 15, 1992 and August 4, 1993.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Revisions to Texas Air Control Board (TACB), Regulation I,
Section 111.111, ``Requirements for Specified Sources;'' Subsection
111.111(a) (first paragraph) under ``Visible Emissions;'' Subsections
111.111(a)(1) (first paragraph), 111.111(a)(1)(A), 111.111(a)(1)(B) and
111.111(a)(1)(E) under ``Stationary Vents;'' Subsection 111.111(b)
(first paragraph) under ``Compliance Determination Exclusions;'' and
Subsections 111.113 (first paragraph), 111.113(1), 111.113(2), and
111.113(3) under ``Alternate Opacity Limitations,'' as adopted by the
TACB on June 16, 1989.
(B) TACB Board Order No. 89-03, as adopted by the TACB on June 16,
1989.
(C) Revisions to Texas Air Control Board (TACB), Regulation I,
Section 111.111, ``Requirements for Specified Sources;'' Subsections
111.111(a)(4)(A) and 111.111(a)(4)(B)(i) under ``Railroad Locomotives
or Ships;'' Subsections 111.111(a)(5)(A) and 111.111(a)(5)(B)(i) under
``Structures;'' and Subsections 111.111(a)(6)(A) and
111.111(a)(6)(B)(i) under ``Other Sources,'' as adopted by the TACB on
October 12, 1990.
(D) TACB Board Order No. 90-12, as adopted by the TACB on October
12, 1990.
(E) Revisions to Texas Air Control Board (TACB), Regulation I,
Section 111.111, ``Requirements for Specified Sources;'' Subsections
111.111(a)(1)(C), 111.111(a)(1)(D), 111.111(a)(1)(F) (first paragraph),
111.111(a)(1)(F)(i), 111.111(a)(1)(F)(ii), 111.111(a)(1)(F)(iii),
111.111(a)(1)(F)(iv), and 111.111(a)(1)(G) under ``Stationary Vents;''
Subsections 111.111(a)(2) (first paragraph), 111.111(a)(2)(A),
111.111(a)(2)(B), and 111.111(a)(2)(C) under ``Sources Requiring
Continuous Emissions Monitoring;'' Subsection 111.111(a)(3) (first
paragraph) under ``Exemptions from Continuous Emissions Monitoring
Requirements;'' Subsection 111.111(a)(4), ``Gas Flares,'' title only;
Subsection 111.111(a)(5) (first paragraph) under ``Motor Vehicles;''
Subsections 111.111(a)(6)(A), 111.111(a)(6)(B) (first paragraph),
111.111(a)(6)(B)(i) and 111.111(a)(6)(B)(ii) under ``Railroad
Locomotives or Ships'' (Important note, the language for
111.111(a)(6)(A) and 111.111(a)(6)(B)(i) was formerly adopted as
111.111(a)(4)(A) and 111.111(a)(4)(B)(i) on October 12, 1990);
Subsections 111.111(a)(7)(A), 111.111(a)(7)(B) (first paragraph),
111.111(a)(7)(B)(i) and 111.111(a)(7)(B)(ii) under ``Structures''
(Important note, the language for 111.111(a)(7)(A) and
111.111(a)(7)(B)(i) was formerly adopted as 111.111(a)(5)(A) and
111.111(a)(5)(B)(i) on October 12, 1990); and Subsections
111.111(a)(8)(A), 111.111(a)(8)(B) (first paragraph),
111.111(a)(8)(B)(i) and 111.111(a)(8)(B)(ii) under ``Other Sources''
(Important note, the language for 111.111(a)(8)(A) and
111.111(a)(8)(B)(i) was formerly adopted as 111.111(a)(6)(A) and
111.111(a)(6)(B)(i) on October 12, 1990), as adopted by the TACB on
September 18, 1992.
(F) TACB Board Order No. 92-19, as adopted by the TACB on September
18, 1992.
(G) Revisions to Texas Air Control Board (TACB), Regulation I,
Section 111.111, ``Requirements for Specified Sources;'' Subsections
111.111(a)(4)(A) (first paragraph), 111.111(a)(4)(A)(i),
111.111(a)(4)(A)(ii), and 111.111(a)(4)(B) under ``Gas Flares,'' as
adopted by the TACB on June 18, 1993.
(H) TACB Board Order No. 93-06, as adopted by the TACB on June 18,
1993.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) TACB certification letter dated July 27, 1989, and signed by
Allen Eli Bell, Executive Director, TACB.
(B) TACB certification letter dated January 9, 1991, and signed by
Steve Spaw, Executive Director, TACB.
(C) TACB certification letter dated October 1, 1992, and signed by
William Campbell, Executive Director, TACB.
(D) TACB certification letter dated July 13, 1993, and signed by
William Campbell, Executive Director, TACB.
[FR Doc. 96-11399 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11383 Calling Number Identification ServiceCaller ID
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20746-20747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11383]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CC Docket No. 91-281; DA 96-439]
Calling Number Identification Service--Caller ID
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission (Commission).
ACTION: Final rule; waiver.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Common Carrier Bureau, acting pursuant to delegated
authority, granted Sprint Communications Co. (Sprint) a waiver of the
Federal Communications Commission's calling party number (CPN) delivery
rules until June 1, 1996. The Commission's CPN delivery rules require
that common carriers using Signaling System 7 are required to transmit
the CPN associated with an interstate call to interconnecting carriers.
Sprint requested the waiver because it needed additional time to
correct a technical problem in which the privacy of a calling party
might be compromised. The Bureau conditioned this waiver on Sprint
providing two progress reports to the Bureau. These reports are to be
provided not later than April 15, 1996 and again on May 10, 1996. The
intended effect of this action is to avoid compromising the privacy of
callers.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 29, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Nightingale, Network
Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau at 202-418-2352.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This summary describes the Bureau's Order in
the matter of Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number
Identification Service, (CC Docket 91-281, adopted March 27, 1996 and
released March 29, 1995). The file is available for inspection and
copying during the weekday hours of 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the
Commission's Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M St., NW., Washington
DC, or copies may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating
contractor, ITS, Inc. 2100 M St., NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037,
phone 202-857-3800.
Analysis of the Order
After reviewing Sprint's petition for stay and waiver of the
Commission's rules governing calling party number (CPN) delivery and
privacy, the Bureau has concluded to grant Sprint a temporary waiver
until June 1, 1996 of Section 64.1601(a) and Section 64.103 of the
Commission's rules.
Sprint requested additional time to comply with the Commission's
caller ID
[[Page 20747]]
rules because it identified two technical problems that might
compromise the privacy of calling parties. Sprint indicated that one of
the problems could be corrected by the end of April 1996, while the
other could be corrected by the end of July 1996.
This request for additional time to comply with the Commission's
caller ID rules presented the Bureau with the undesirable choice
between (1) granting the requested waiver and temporarily frustrating
the Commission's federal objective of widespread CPN availability, or
(2) denying the waivers and temporarily frustrating the Commission's
federal privacy objectives. The Bureau determined that compromising the
privacy of callers would be unacceptable. Therefore, Sprint was granted
a waiver until June 1, 1996 of the Commission's rule that requires
carriers to pass CPN. The Bureau did not grant additional time to
Sprint beyond this date because (1) It found that Sprint had provided
inadequate information to allow a determination whether a waiver of the
Commission's CPN rules until July 31, 1996 would be in the public
interest, and (2) it believed that Sprint may have adequate time to
correct both problems by June 1, 1996. Additionally, the Bureau noted
that on June 1, 1996 the Commission's stay applicable to interstate
calls made to and from California expires and that the Bureau sought to
avoid unnecessary customer confusion associated with interstate calls
that do not contain caller ID information beyond this date. The Bureau
indicated that by granting this waiver until June 1, 1996 and denying
Sprint's request for additional time, the major sources of customer
confusion related to interstate caller ID will be eliminated as of June
1, 1996.
The Bureau conditioned the waiver on the requirement that Sprint
file two reports with the Bureau indicating the progress of steps being
taken to ensure compliance. Finally, the Bureau reiterated that it
would not tolerate repeated compliance delays and that, if appropriate,
it would take enforcement action.
Ordering Clauses
It is ordered, pursuant to Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.3, and authority delegated in Section 0.91 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 0.91, and Section 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
0.291, that Sprint's request for a waiver of Section 64.1601(a) and
Section 64.1603 of the Commission's rules is granted in part and denied
in part. This waiver is effective until June 1, 1996, and is subject to
the conditions specified herein.
It is further ordered that this order is effective upon release.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Calling party number identification (caller ID), Communications
common carriers, Privacy, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Geraldine Matise,
Chief, Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-11383 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11381 Radio Broadcasting Services; Madera and Clovis, CA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11381]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 90-45; RM-7121]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Madera and Clovis, CA
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document reallots Channel 221B1 from Madera to Clovis,
California, and modifies the license of KZFO Broadcasting, Inc. for
Station KZFO(FM), as requested, pursuant to the provisions of Section
1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. See 55 FR 7509, published March 2,
1990; see also 56 FR 42966, published August 30, 1991. The allotment of
Channel 221B1 to Clovis will provide a first local FM service to the
community without depriving Madera of local aural transmission service.
Coordinates used for Channel 221B1 at Clovis are 36-55-50 and 119-38-
38. With this action, the proceeding is terminated.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)
418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 90-45, adopted April 11, 1996, and
released April 29, 1996. The full text of this Commission decision is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC'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 Service,
Inc., (202) 857-3800, located at 1919 M Street, NW., Room 246, or 2100
M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
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 California,
is amended by removing Channel 221B1 at Madera, and adding Clovis,
Channel 221B1.
Federal Communications Commission.
Andrew J. Rhodes,
Acting Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-11381 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11379 Prevailing Rate Systems; Changes in Survey Responsibilities for Certain Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20701-20702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11379]
========================================================================
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. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 20701]]
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 532
RIN 3206-AH28
Prevailing Rate Systems; Changes in Survey Responsibilities for
Certain Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final
rule to change survey responsibilities for several appropriated fund
Federal Wage System (FWS) wage areas in recognition of shifting
employment patterns among agencies and the need for lead agencies to
balance their wage survey workloads throughout the 2-year survey cycle.
The changes are designed to improve administration of the Federal Wage
System and affect the following local wage areas: Eastern South Dakota;
Ft. Wayne-Marion, Indiana; Madison, Wisconsin; Buffalo, New York;
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Augusta, Maine; Southeastern Michigan; and
Southwestern Oregon.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Angela Graham Humes, (202) 606-2848.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 9, 1996, OPM published a
proposed rule (61 FR 4940) to change the survey responsibilities (lead
agency designation and/or wage survey timing) for eight appropriated
fund FWS wage areas (Eastern South Dakota; Ft. Wayne-Marion, Indiana;
Madison, Wisconsin; Buffalo, New York; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
Augusta, Maine; Southeastern Michigan; and Southwestern Oregon). The
proposed rule provided for a 30-day period for public comment. OPM
received no comments during the comment period. Therefore, the proposed
rule is being adopted as a final rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that these regulations will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they
will affect only Federal agencies and employees.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information,
Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
Office of Personnel Management.
Lorraine A. Green,
Deputy Director.
Accordingly, OPM is amending 5 CFR part 532 as follows:
PART 532--PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS
1. The authority citation for part 532 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; Sec. 532.707 also issued under 5
U.S.C. 552.
2. Appendix A to subpart B of part 532 is amended by revising the
entries for Fort Wayne-Marion, Indiana; Augusta, Maine; Southwestern
Michigan; Buffalo, New York; Southwestern Oregon; Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania; Eastern South Dakota; and Madison, Wisconsin, and by
adding a footnote to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 532--Nationwide Schedule of Appropriated Fund Regular Wage Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year of
State Wage area Lead agency Beginning month of full scale odd or
survey even
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Indiana.......................... Fort Wayne-Marion... DoD October............ Odd.
* * * * *
Maine............................ Augusta \1\......... VA May................ Even.
* * * * *
Michigan......................... Southwestern VA October............ Odd.
Michigan \1\.
* * * * *
New York......................... Buffalo \1\......... DoD September.......... Odd.
* * * * *
Oregon........................... Southwestern Oregon. VA June............... Even.
Pennsylvania..................... Pittsburgh.......... VA July............... Odd.
* * * * *
South Dakota..................... Eastern South Dakota DoD October............ Even.
\1\.
* * * * *
Wisconsin........................ Madison............. DoD July............... Even.
[[Page 20702]]
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The revised fiscal year entries are scheduled to begin for Augusta, Maine, in fiscal year 1996; for Buffalo,
New York, and Southwestern Michigan in fiscal year 1997; and for Eastern South Dakota in fiscal year 1998.
[FR Doc. 96-11379 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11375 Technical Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20721-20726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11375]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
27 CFR Parts 1, 4, 7, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 53, 55, 71, 170,
178, 179, 194, 197, 200, 250, 251, 252, 270, 275, 285, 290, and 296
[T.D. 372]
RIN 1512-AB47
Technical Amendments
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule, Treasury decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Treasury decision makes technical amendments and
conforming changes to chapter I of title 27 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR). All changes are to provide clarity and uniformity throughout
title 27 Code of Federal Regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1996.
[[Page 20722]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela R. Shanks, Alcohol and Tobacco
Programs Division, Wine, Beer, and Spirits Regulations Branch, 650
Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226, (202-927-8230).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
administers regulations published in chapter I of title 27 Code of
Federal Regulations. These regulations are updated April 1 of each year
to incorporate new or revised regulations that were published by ATF in
the Federal Register during the preceding year. Upon reviewing title 27
for the annual revision, ATF and the CFR Unit of the Office of the
Federal Register identified several amendments and conforming changes
that are needed to provide uniformity in chapter I of title 27, Code of
Federal Regulations.
These amendments do not make any substantive changes and are only
intended to improve the clarity of title 27 or relieve regulatory
requirements.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law
96-511, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR
part 1320, do not apply to this final rule because there are no
recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule,
the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
does not apply.
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this rule is not a significant
regulatory action because it will not, (1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way
the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,
the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
Executive Order 12866.
Administrative Procedures Act
Because this final rule merely makes technical amendments and
conforming changes to improve the clarity of the regulations, it is
unnecessary to issue this final rule with notice and public procedure
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Similarly it is unnecessary to subject this
final rule to the effective date limitation of 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
Drafting Information
The principal author of this document is Angela R. Shanks, Wine,
Beer, and Spirits Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms.
List of Subjects
27 CFR Part 1
Administrative Practice and Procedure, Alcohol and Alcoholic
Beverages, Authority Delegations, Imports, Warehouses.
27 CFR Part 4
Advertising, Beer, Consumer protection, Customs duties and
inspection, Imports, Labeling, Packaging and containers.
27 CFR Part 7
Advertising, Alcohol and Alcoholic Beverages, Antitrust, Credit,
Trade Practices.
27 CFR Part 16
Beer, Consumer protection, Customs duties and inspections, Health,
Imports, Labeling, Liquors, Packaging and containers, Safety, Wine.
27 CFR Part 19
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol and alcoholic
beverages, Authority delegations, Chemicals, Claims, Customs duties and
inspections, Electronic funds transfers, Excise taxes, Exports,
Gasohol, Imports, Labeling, Liquors, Packaging and containers, Puerto
Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Security
measures, Spices and flavorings, Surety bonds, Transportation, U.S.
Possession, Virgin Islands, Warehouses, Wine.
27 CFR Part 20
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Alcohol and
alcoholic beverages, Authority delegations (Government agencies),
Chemicals, Claims, Cosmetics, Excise taxes.
27 CFR Part 21
Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Authority delegations (Government
agencies), Chemicals, Gasohol.
27 CFR Part 22
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Alcohol and
alcoholic beverages, Authority delegations (Government agencies),
Claims, Excise taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety
bonds.
27 CFR Part 24
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegation,
Claims, Electronic funds transfers, Excise taxes, Exports, Food
additives, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Research, Scientific equipment, Spices and flavorings,
Surety bonds, Taxpaid wine bottling house, Transportation, Vinegar,
Warehouses, Wine.
27 CFR Part 25
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegation, Beer,
Claims, Electronic funds transfers, Excise taxes, Labeling, Packaging
and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research,
Surety bonds, Transportation.
27 CFR Part 53
Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions,
Authority delegation, Exports, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
27 CFR Part 55
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegation,
Customs duties and inspections, Explosives, Hazardous materials,
Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety,
Security measures, Seizures and forfeitures, Transportation, and
Warehouses.
27 CFR Part 71
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations,
Freedom of Information, Privacy.
27 CFR Part 170
Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Authority delegations, Claims,
Customs duties and inspections, Disaster assistance, Excise taxes,
Labeling, Liquors, Penalties, Reporting requirements, Surety bonds,
Wine.
27 CFR Part 178
Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions,
Authority delegations, Customs duties and inspections, Exports,
Imports, Military personnel, Penalties, Reporting requirements,
Research, Seizures and forfeitures, Transportation.
27 CFR Part 179
Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions,
[[Page 20723]]
Authority delegations, Claims, Customs duties and inspections, Excise
taxes, Exports, Imports, Penalties, Reporting requirements, Seizures
and forfeitures, Transportation, U.S. Possessions.
27 CFR Part 194
Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Authority delegations, Beer,
Claims, Excise taxes, Exports, Labeling, Liquors, Packaging and
containers, Penalties, Reporting requirements, Wine.
27 CFR Part 197
Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Authority delegations, Claims,
Drugs, Excise taxes, Foods, Spices and flavorings, Surety bonds,
Reporting requirements.
27 CFR Part 200
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations.
27 CFR Part 250
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol and alcoholic
beverages, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Beer, Claims,
Customs duties and inspections, Drugs, Electronic funds transfers,
Excise taxes, Foods, Liquors, Packaging and containers, Puerto Rico,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Spices and flavorings, Surety
bonds.
27 CFR Part 251
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol and alcoholic
beverages, Authority delegations, Beer, Customs duties and inspections,
Excise taxes, Imports, Labeling, Liquors, Packaging and containers,
Perfume, Reporting requirements, Transportation, Wine.
27 CFR Part 252
Aircraft, Alcohol and alcoholic beverages, Armed forces, Authority
delegations, Beer, Claims, Excise taxes, Exports, Fishing vessels,
Foreign trade zones, Liquors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Surety bonds, Vessels, Warehouses, Wine.
27 CFR Part 270
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations,
Cigars and cigarettes, Claims, Electronic funds transfers, Excise
taxes, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Penalties, Reporting
requirements, Seizures and forfeitures, Surety bonds.
27 CFR Part 275
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations,
Cigarette papers and tubes, Cigars and cigarettes, Electronic funds
transfers, Claims, Customs duties and inspections, Excise taxes,
Imports, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Penalties, Reporting
requirements, Seizures and forfeitures, Surety bonds, U.S. Possessions,
Warehouses.
27 CFR Part 285
Administrative practice and procedure, Aircraft, Authority
delegations, Cigarette papers and tubes, Cigars and cigarettes, Claims,
Customs duties and inspections, Excise taxes, Exports, Foreign trade
zones, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Penalties, Surety bonds,
Vessels, Warehouses.
27 CFR Part 290
Administrative practice and procedure, Aircraft, Authority
delegation, Cigarette papers and tubes, Claims, Customs duties and
inspections, Excise taxes, Exports, Foreign trade zones, Labeling,
Packaging and containers, Penalties, Surety bonds, Tobacco products,
Vessels, Warehouses.
27 CFR Part 296
Cigarette papers and tubes, Cigars and cigarettes, Claims, Disaster
assistance, Excise taxes, Penalties, Seizures and forfeitures, Surety
bonds.
Authority and Issuance
Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 1--BASIC PERMIT REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE FEDERAL ALCOHOL
ADMINISTRATION ACT
Par. 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 203, 204.
Par. 2. In section 1.3, paragraph (b) is removed, paragraph (c) is
redesignated as paragraph (b), and the redesignated paragraph (b) is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.3 Forms prescribed.
* * * * *
(b) Requests for forms should be mailed to the ATF Distribution
Center, 7943 Angus Court, Springfield, Virginia 22153.
PART 4--LABELING AND ADVERTISING OF WINE
Par. 3. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 4.3 [Amended]
Par. 4. In Sec. 4.3, paragraph (b) is removed and paragraph (c) is
redesignated as paragraph (b).
Sec. 4.21 [Amended]
Par. 5. Section 4.21(g)(1) is amended by removing the phrase
``paragraph (b)'' and adding in its place the phrase ``paragraph
(g)(2)''.
PART 5--LABELING AND ADVERTISING OF DISTILLED SPIRITS
Par. 6. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5301, 7805, 27 U.S.C. 205.
Sec. 5.3 [Amended]
Par. 7. In Sec. 5.3, paragraph (b) is removed and paragraph (c) is
redesignated as paragraph (b).
PART 7--LABELING AND ADVERTISING OF MALT BEVERAGES
Par. 8. The authority citation for part 7 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.
Sec. 7.3 [Amended]
Par. 9. In Sec. 7.3, paragraph (b) is removed and paragraph (c) is
redesignated as paragraph (b).
PART 16--ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE HEALTH WARNING STATEMENT
Par. 10. The authority citation for part 16 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205, 215.
Sec. 16.22 [Amended]
Par. 11. Section 16.22(d) is removed.
PART 18--PRODUCTION OF VOLATILE FRUIT-FLAVOR CONCENTRATE
Par. 12. The authority citation for part 18 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5001, 5172, 5178, 5179, 5203, 5511, 5552,
6025, 7805; 44 U.S.C. 3504(h).
Sec. 18.16 [Amended]
Par. 13. In Sec. 18.16, paragraph (b) is removed and paragraph (c)
is redesignated as paragraph (b).
PART 19--DISTILLED SPIRITS PLANTS
Par. 14. The authority citation for part 19 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 19 U.S.C. 81c, 1311; 26 U.S.C. 5001, 5002, 5004-5006,
5008, 5010, 5041, 5061, 5062, 5066, 5081, 5101, 5111-5113, 5142,
5143, 5146, 5171-5173, 5175, 5176, 5178-5181, 5201-5204, 5206, 5207,
5211-5215, 5211-5223, 5231, 5232, 5235, 5236, 5241-5243, 5271, 5273,
5301, 5311-5313, 5362, 5370, 5373, 5501-5505, 5551-5555, 5559, 5561,
5562, 5601, 5612, 5682, 6001, 6065, 6109, 6302, 6311, 6676, 6806,
7011, 7510, 7805; 31 U.S.C. 9301, 9303, 9304, 9306.
[[Page 20724]]
Par. 15. In Sec. 19.61, paragraph (b) is removed, paragraph (c) is
redesignated as paragraph (b), and the redesignated paragraph (b) is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 19.61 Forms prescribed.
* * * * *
(b) Requests for forms should be mailed to the ATF Distribution
Center, 7943 Angus Court, Springfield, Virginia 22153.
Par. 16. Section 19.534 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 19.534 Withdrawals of spirits for use in production of
nonbeverage wine and nonbeverage wine products.
Spirits withdrawn without payment of tax may be removed, pursuant
to the provisions of part 24 of this chapter, to a bonded wine cellar
for use in the production of nonbeverage wine and nonbeverage wine
products. (Sec. 455, Pub. L. 98-369, 98 Stat. 494 (26 U.S.C. 5214))
Sec. 19.581 [Amended]
Par. 17. Section 19.581(a) is amended by removing the phrase ``part
240'' and adding in its place the phrase ``part 24''.
Sec. 19.592 [Amended]
Par. 18. Section 19.592 is amended by removing the phrase ``part
240'' and adding in its place the phrase ``part 24''.
PART 20--DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF DENATURED ALCOHOL AND RUM
Par. 18a. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5001, 5206, 5214, 5271-5275, 5311, 5552,
5555, 5607, 6065, 7805.
Sec. 20.21 [Amended]
Par. 19. In Sec. 20.21, paragraph (b) is removed and paragraph (c)
is redesignated as paragraph (b).
PART 21--FORMULAS FOR DENATURED ALCOHOL AND RUM
Par. 20. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 522(a); 26 U.S.C. 5242, 7805.
Sec. 21.2 [Amended]
Par. 21. In Sec. 21.2, paragraph (b) is removed and paragraph (c)
is redesignated as paragraph (b).
PART 22--DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF TAX-FREE ALCOHOL
Par. 22. The authority citation for part 22 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5001, 5121, 5142, 5143, 5146, 5206, 5214,
5271-5276, 5311, 5552, 5555, 6056, 6061, 6065, 6109, 6151, 6806,
7011, 7805; 31 U.S.C. 9304, 9306.
Sec. 22.21 [Amended]
Par. 23. In Sec. 22.21, paragraph (b) is removed and paragraph (c)
is redesignated as paragraph (b).
PART 24--WINE
Par. 24. The authority citation for part 24 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 26 U.S.C. 5001, 5008, 5041, 5042,
5044, 5061, 5062, 5081, 5111-5113, 5121, 5122, 5142, 5143, 5173,
5206, 5214, 5215, 5351, 5353, 5354, 5356, 5357, 5361, 5362, 5364-
5373, 5381-5388, 5391, 5392, 5511, 5551, 5552, 5661, 5662, 5684,
6065, 6091, 6109, 6301, 6302, 6311, 6651, 6676, 7011, 7302, 7342,
7502, 7503, 7606, 7805, 7851; 31 U.S.C. 9301, 9303, 9304, 9306.
Sec. 24.20 [Amended]
Par. 25. In Sec. 24.20, paragraph (b) is removed and paragraph (c)
is redesignated as paragraph (b).
PART 25--BEER
Par. 26. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 19 U.S.C. 81c; 26 U.S.C. 5002, 5051-5054, 5056, 5061,
5091, 5111, 5113, 5142, 5143, 5146, 5222, 5401-5403, 5411-5417,
5551, 5552, 5555, 5556, 5671, 5673, 5684, 6011, 6061, 6065, 6091,
6109, 6151, 6301, 6302, 6311, 6313, 6402, 6651, 6656, 6676, 6806,
7011, 7342, 7606, 7805; 31 U.S.C. 9301, 9303-9308.
Sec. 25.3 [Amended]
Par. 27. In Sec. 25.3, paragraph (b) is removed and paragraph (c)
is redesignated as paragraph (b).
Sec. 25.221 [Amended]
Par. 28. Section 25.221(a) is amended by removing the phrase ``beer
determined'' and adding in its place the phrase ``been determined''.
PART 53--MANUFACTURERS EXCISE TAXES--FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
Par. 29. The authority citation for part 53 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 4181, 4182, 4216-4219, 4221-4223, 4225,
6001, 6011, 6020, 6021, 6061, 6071, 6081, 6091, 6101-6104, 6109,
6151, 6155, 6161, 6301-6303, 6311, 6402, 6404, 6416.
Sec. 53.21 [Amended]
Par. 30. In Sec. 53.21, paragraph (b) is removed and paragraphs (c)
and (d) are redesignated as paragraphs (b) and (c) respectively.
Sec. 53.103 [Amended]
Par. 31. The title of Sec. 53.103 is amended by removing the number
52.103 and adding in its place the number 53.103.
Sec. 53.133 [Amended]
Par. 32. Section 53.133(b) introductory text is amended by removing
the word ``producer'' in the second sentence and adding in its place
the word ``purchaser''.
PART 55--COMMERCE IN EXPLOSIVES
Par. 33. The authority citation for part 55 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 18 U.S.C. 847.
Sec. 55.21 [Amended]
Par. 34. In Sec. 55.21, paragraph (b) is removed and paragraph (c)
is redesignated as paragraph (b).
PART 71--STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL RULES
Par. 35. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552.
Sec. 71.42 [Amended]
Par. 36. In Sec. 71.42, paragraph (c)(1) is removed and paragraph
(c)(2) is redesignated as paragraph (c).
PART 170--MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS RELATING TO LIQUOR
Par. 37. The authority citation for Part 170 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5001, 5002, 5064, 5111, 5121, 5171, 5204,
5291, 5301, 5362, 7805; 31 U.S.C. 9304, 9306.
Subparts B, D, and F [Removed and reserved]
Par. 38. In Part 170, subparts B, D, and F are removed and
reserved.
PART 178--COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
Par. 39. The authority citation for part 178 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 847, 921-930; 44 U.S.C.
3504(h).
Sec. 178.21 [Amended]
Par. 40. In Sec. 178.21, paragraph (b) is removed and paragraph (c)
is redesignated as paragraph (b).
PART 179--MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER
FIREARMS
Par. 41. The authority citation for part 179 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805.
[[Page 20725]]
Sec. 179.21 [Amended]
Par. 42. In Sec. 179.21, paragraph (b) is removed and paragraph (c)
is redesignated as paragraph (b).
PART 194--LIQUOR DEALERS
Par. 43. The authority citation for part 194 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5001, 5002, 5111-5117, 5121-5124, 5143,
5145, 5146, 5206, 5207, 5301, 5352, 5555, 5613, 5681, 5691, 6001,
6011, 6061, 6065, 6071, 6091, 6109, 6151, 6311, 6314, 6402, 6511,
6601, 6621, 6651, 6657, 7011, 7805.
Sec. 194.41 [Amended]
Par. 44. In Sec. 194.41, paragraph (b) is removed and paragraph (c)
is redesignated as paragraph (b).
PART 197--DRAWBACK ON DISTILLED SPIRITS USED IN MANUFACTURING
NONBEVERAGE PRODUCTS
Par. 45. The authority citation for part 197 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5010, 5131-5134, 5143, 5146, 5206, 5273,
6065, 6091, 6109, 6402, 6511, 6676, 7213, 7805; 31 U.S.C. 9301,
9303, 9304, 9306.
Par. 46. In Sec. 197.2, paragraph (b) is removed, paragraph (c) is
redesignated as paragraph (b), the redesignated paragraph (b) is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 197.2 Forms prescribed.
* * * * *
(b) Requests for forms should be mailed to the ATF Distribution
Center, 7943 Angus Court, Springfield, Virginia 22153.
PART 200--RULES OF PRACTICE IN PERMIT PROCEEDINGS
Par. 47. The authority citation for part 200 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805; 27 U.S.C. 204.
Par. 48. In Sec. 200.3, paragraph (b) is removed, paragraph (c) is
redesignated as paragraph (b), and the redesignated paragraph (b) is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 200.3 Forms prescribed.
* * * * *
(b) Requests for forms should be mailed to the ATF Distribution
Center, 7943 Angus Court, Springfield, Virginia 22153.
PART 250--LIQUOR AND ARTICLES FROM PUERTO RICO AND THE VIRGIN
ISLANDS
Par. 49. The authority citation for part 250 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 19 U.S.C. 81c; 26 U.S.C. 5001, 5007, 5008, 5010,
5041, 5051, 5061, 5081, 5111, 5112, 5114, 5121, 5122, 5124, 5131-
5134, 5141, 5146, 5207, 5232, 5271, 5276, 5301, 5314, 5555, 6001,
6301, 6302, 6804, 7101, 7102, 7651, 7652, 7805; 27 U.S.C. 9301,
9303, 9304, 9306.
Sec. 250.2 [Amended]
Par. 50. In Sec. 250.2, paragraph (b) is removed and paragraph (c)
is redesignated as paragraph (b).
PART 251--IMPORTATION OF DISTILLED SPIRITS, WINES, AND BEER
Par.51. The authority citation for part 251 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 19 U.S.C. 81c, 1202; 26 U.S.C. 5001,
5007, 5008, 5010, 5041, 5051, 5054, 5061, 5111, 5112, 5114, 5121,
5122, 5124, 5201, 5205, 5207, 5232, 5273, 5301, 5313, 5555, 6302,
7805.
Sec. 251.2 [Amended]
Par. 52. In Sec. 251.2, paragraph (b) is removed and paragraph (c)
is redesignated as paragraph (b).
PART 252--EXPORTATION OF LIQUORS
Par.53. The authority citation for part 252 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 19 U.S.C. 81c, 1202; 26 U.S.C. 5001,
5007, 5008, 5041, 5051, 5054, 5061, 5111, 5112, 5114, 5121, 5122,
5124, 5201, 5205, 5207, 5232, 5273, 5301, 5313, 5555, 6302, 7805; 27
U.S.C. 203, 205; 44 U.S.C. 3504(h).
Sec. 252.2 [Amended]
Par. 54. In Sec. 252.2, paragraph (b) is removed and paragraph (c)
is redesignated as paragraph (b).
Sec. 252.216 [Amended]
Par. 55. Section 252.216 is amended by removing the phrase ``parts
24 or part 231'' and adding in its place the phrase ``part 24''.
PART 270--MANUFACTURE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS
Par. 56. The authority citation for part 270 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5142, 5143, 5146, 5701, 5703-5705, 5711-
5713, 5721-5723, 5731, 5741, 5751, 5753, 5761-5763, 6061, 6065,
6109, 6151, 6301, 6302, 6311, 6313, 6402, 6404, 6423, 6676, 6806,
7011, 7212, 7325, 7342, 7502, 7503, 7606, 7805; 31 U.S.C. 9301,
9303, 9404, 9306.
Sec. 270.41 [Amended]
Par. 57. In Sec. 270.41, paragraph (b) is removed and paragraph (c)
is redesignated as paragraph (b).
PART 275--IMPORTATION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND CIGARETTE PAPERS AND
TUBES
Par. 58. The authority citation for part 275 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5701, 5703, 5704, 5705, 5708, 5722, 5723,
5741, 5761, 5762, 5763, 6301, 6302, 6313, 6404, 7101, 7212, 7342,
7606, 7652, 7805; 31 U.S.C. 9301, 9303, 9304, 9306.
Sec. 275.21 [Amended]
Par. 59. In Sec. 275.21, paragraph (b) is removed and paragraph (c)
is redesignated as paragraph (b).
PART 285--MANUFACTURE OF CIGARETTE PAPERS AND TUBES
Par. 60. The authority citation for part 285 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5142, 5143, 5146, 5701, 5703-5705, 5711,
5721-5723, 5731, 5741, 5751, 5753, 5761-5763, 6061, 6065, 6109,
6302, 6402, 6404, 6676, 6806, 7011, 7212, 7325, 7342, 7606, 7805; 31
U.S.C. 9301, 9303, 9304, 9306.
Sec. 285.2 [Amended]
Par. 61. In Sec. 285.2, paragraph (b) is removed and paragraph (c)
is redesignated as paragraph (b).
PART 290--EXPORTATION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND CIGARETTE PAPERS AND
TUBES, WITHOUT PAYMENT OF TAX, OR WITH DRAWBACK OF TAX
Par. 62. The authority citation for part 290 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5142, 5143, 5146, 5701, 5703-5705, 5711-
5713, 5721-5723, 5731, 5741, 5751, 6061, 6065, 6151, 6402, 6404,
6806, 7011, 7212, 7342, 7606, 7805; 31 U.S.C. 9301, 9303, 9304,
9306.
Sec. 290.2 [Amended]
Par. 63. In Sec. 290.2, paragraph (b) is removed and paragraph (c)
is redesignated as paragraph (b).
PART 296--MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS RELATING TO TOBACCO PRODUCTS
AND CIGARETTE PAPERS AND TUBES
Par. 64. The authority citation for part 296 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 18 U.S.C. 2341-2346; 26 U.S.C. 5708, 5751, 5761-5763,
6001, 6601, 6621, 6622, 7212, 7342, 7602, 7606, 7805; 44 U.S.C.
3504(h); 49 U.S.C. 782.
Subpart H [Removed and reserved]
Par. 65. In part 296, subpart H is removed and reserved.
[[Page 20726]]
Dated: March 25, 1996.
Bradley A. Buckles,
Acting Director.
Approved: April 8, 1996.
John P. Simpson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Regulatory, Tariff and Trade Enforcement).
[FR Doc. 96-11375 Filed 5-07-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11344 Attainment Extensions for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas: Idaho
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20730-20732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11344]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[ID5-2-7505; FRL-5500-4]
Attainment Extensions for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas: Idaho
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In the August 28, 1995 Federal Register, EPA identified two
nonattainment areas in the State of Idaho which failed to attain the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to ten micrometers
(PM-10) by the applicable attainment date of December 31, 1994: the
Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area and the Sandpoint PM-10
nonattainment area. In that same Federal Register, EPA proposed to
grant a one-year extension to the attainment date for those areas, from
December 31, 1994 to December 31, 1995. EPA, by this document, grants
the extensions.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective June 7, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's request and other information
supporting this action are available for inspection during normal
business hours at the following locations: EPA, Office of Air Quality,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, and State of Idaho,
Division of Environmental Quality, 1410 N. Hilton, Boise, Idaho 83710.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven K. Body, 206/553-0782, EPA,
Office of Air Quality, Seattle, Washington.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Clean Air Act Requirements
Areas meeting the requirements of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Act
1 were designated nonattainment for particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to ten micrometers by
operation of law and classified ``moderate'' upon enactment of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments. See generally 42 U.S.C. section
7407(d)(4)(B). These areas included all former Group I PM-10 planning
areas identified in 52 FR 29383 (August 7, 1987) as further clarified
in 55 FR 45799 (October 31, 1990), and any other areas violating the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM-10 prior to January 1,
1989.2 A Federal Register notice announcing the areas designated
nonattainment for PM-10 upon enactment of the 1990 Amendments, known as
``initial'' PM-10 nonattainment areas, was published on March 15, 1991
(56 FR 11101) and a subsequent Federal Register notice correcting the
description of some of these areas was published on August 8, 1991 (56
FR 37654). See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991) and 40 CFR 81.313
(codified air quality designations and classifications for the State of
Idaho). All initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas have the same
applicable attainment date of December 31, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act made significant
changes to the Act. See Public Law No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399.
References herein are to the Clean Air Act as amended (``Act'' or
``CAA''), which is codified at 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.
\2\ Many of these other areas were identified in footnote 4 of
the October 31, 1990 Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were
required to develop and submit to EPA by November 15, 1991, a SIP
revision providing for, among other things, implementation of
reasonably available control measures (RACM), including reasonably
available control technology (RACT), and a demonstration of whether
attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by the December 31, 1994 attainment date
was practicable. See Section 189(a).
The Act provides the Administrator the discretion of granting a
one-year extension to the attainment date for a moderate PM-10
nonattainment area provided certain criteria are met. See Section
188(d). The statute sets forth two criteria a moderate nonattainment
area must satisfy in order to obtain an extension: (1) the State has
complied with all the requirements and commitments pertaining to the
area in the applicable implementation plan; and (2) the area has no
more than one exceedance of the 24-hour PM-10 standard in the year
preceding the extension year, and the annual mean concentration of PM-
10 in the area for the year preceding the extension year is less than
or equal to the standard. See Section 188(d). As discussed in the
August 28, 1995 Federal Register document (60 FR 44452), in exercising
its discretion to grant extensions for PM-10 nonattainment areas, EPA
will examine the air quality planning progress made in the moderate
area. EPA will be disinclined to grant an attainment date extension
unless a State has, in substantial part, addressed its moderate PM-10
nonattainment area planning obligations as evidenced by whether the
State has: (1) adopted and substantially implemented control measures
that represent RACM/RACT in the moderate nonattainment area; and (2)
demonstrated that the area has made emission reductions amounting to
reasonable further progress toward attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS as
defined in section 171(1) of the Act. See 60 FR 44453.
If the State does not have the requisite number of years of clean
air quality data to show attainment and does not apply or qualify for
an attainment date extension, the area will be reclassified to serious
by operation of law under section 188(b)(2) of the Act. If an extension
to the attainment date is granted, at the end of the extension year EPA
will again determine whether the area has attained the PM-10 NAAQS. If
the requisite three consecutive years of clean air quality data needed
to determine attainment are not met for the area, the State may apply
for a second one-year extension of the attainment date. In order to
qualify for the second one-year extension of the attainment date, the
State must satisfy the same requirements listed above for the first
extension. EPA will also consider the State's PM-10 planning progress
for the area in the year for which the first extension was granted. If
a second extension is granted and the area does not have the requisite
three consecutive years of clean air quality data needed to demonstrate
attainment at the end of the second extension, no further extensions of
the attainment date can be granted and the area will be reclassified
serious by operation of law. See section 188(d).
On August 28, 1995, EPA determined, based on air quality data
showing violations of the PM-10 NAAQS during the period from 1992
through 1994, that the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area
and Sandpoint PM-10 nonattainment area have each failed
[[Page 20731]]
to attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of December
31, 1994. See 60 FR 44454. In that action, EPA also proposed to grant
the State of Idaho's request for a one-year extension of the PM-10
attainment date for these nonattainment areas based on the supporting
information provided by the State.
EPA received two comments on the proposal, both of which supported
EPA's proposal to grant the one-year extension, but one of which
disagreed with EPA's characterization of two underlying issues. In this
notice, EPA is taking final action on its proposal to extend the PM-10
attainment date for the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area
and the Sandpoint PM-10 nonattainment area from December 31, 1994 to
December 31, 1995.
II. Final Action and Implications
A. Response to Public Comments
EPA received comments from the State of Idaho, Division of
Environmental Quality, North Idaho Regional Office (IDEQ-NIRO) and from
FMC Corporation (FMC), which owns and operates a facility in the Power-
Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area. IDEQ-NIRO strongly endorsed
EPA's proposal to grant a one-year extension to the attainment date for
the Sandpoint PM-10 nonattainment area.
FMC supported EPA's proposal to grant a one-year extension of the
PM-10 attainment date for the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10
nonattainment area, but felt that EPA could have ``more appropriately
characterized'' two issues discussed in the proposal. First, FMC
objected to EPA's failure to acknowledge that FMC has undertaken
efforts to voluntarily reduce particulate emissions from certain
sources within its facility which FMC believes has in turn contributed
to recent indications that the area is approaching attainment of the
standard. Second, FMC stated that EPA should discount the importance of
the Eastern Michaud Flats superfund monitoring Site #2 (EMF Site #2)
monitoring data because FMC asserts that siting considerations and
exceptional events substantially diminish the significance and accuracy
of its measurements. EPA has serious concerns regarding the
sufficiency, and in some cases, the accuracy of the information
provided by FMC in support of its concerns. For example, although EPA
fully supports the voluntary efforts FMC has undertaken to implement
PM-10 reductions at its elemental phosphorus facility, FMC has not
provided documentation to support the claimed emission reductions or to
show that the voluntary improvements meet the RACM/RACT requirement.
Moreover, voluntary actions are not sufficient to meet Clean Air Act
planning requirements for PM-10 nonattainment areas. See sections
110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) of the Act. Even if accurate and fully
supportable, however, the information provided by FMC in its comments
would not change EPA's decision to grant the Power-Bannock Counties PM-
10 nonattainment area a one-year extension of the attainment date.
Indeed, FMC fully supports the granting of such an extension. The
information provided by FMC, if fully accepted by EPA, would only
strengthen the basis for EPA's decision.
As EPA stated in the proposal, EPA is currently working on a
proposed rule that would implement a control strategy for sources
located within the Tribal portion of the nonattainment area. It is
through this process that the control measures that have been
voluntarily undertaken by FMC can be, if appropriate, made federally
enforceable and their adequacy in context of the RACM/RACT requirement
can be more appropriately evaluated. Similarly, if EPA proposes to rely
on the data from EMF Site #2 to support its proposed control strategy,
the public comment period on EPA's proposed strategy would be an
appropriate time for FMC to present more information to support its
claim that EMF Site #2 does not meet EPA siting criteria and to request
that specifically identified events should be deemed exceptional and
their effects on the monitoring site discounted.
B. Final Action
EPA is granting the State of Idaho's request for a one-year
extension of the PM-10 attainment date for both the Power-Bannock
Counties PM-10 nonattainment area and the Sandpoint PM-10 nonattainment
area. This determination is based upon available air quality data and a
review of the State's progress in implementing the planning
requirements that apply to moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas. For a
thorough discussion of the basis for EPA's determination, please refer
to the proposal for this action at 60 FR 44452. This action extends the
PM-10 nonattainment date for both the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10
nonattainment area and the Sandpoint PM-10 nonattainment area from
December 31, 1994 to December 31, 1995.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
Copies of the State's request and all other information relied on
by EPA in granting one-year extension, including public comments on the
proposal received and reviewed by EPA, are maintained in the docket at
the EPA Regional Office. The docket is an organized and complete file
of information submitted to or otherwise considered by EPA in making
this decision. The docket is available for public inspection at the
location listed under the ADDRESSES section of this document.
B. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from
Executive Order 12866.
C. Regulatory Flexibility
Extensions under Section 188(d) of the Clean Air Act do not create
any new requirements, but merely extend the potential date for the
imposition of new requirements. Because this action does not impose any
new requirements, it does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United
[[Page 20732]]
States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 8, 1996.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this
final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes
of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental Protection, Air pollution control, Particulate
matter, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the Implementation Plan for
the State of Idaho was approved by the Director of the Office of
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: April 25, 1996.
Chuck Clarke,
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: 52 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart N--Idaho
2. Section 52.691 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 52.691 Extensions.
The Administrator, by authority delegated under section 188(d) of
the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, hereby extends for one year
(until December 31, 1995) the attainment date for the Power-Bannock
Counties PM-10 nonattainment area and the Sandpoint PM-10 nonattainment
area.
[FR Doc. 96-11344 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11343 Lactofen; Pesticide Tolerance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20742-20743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11343]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 4E4418/R2231; FRL-5365-1]
RIN 2070-AB78
Lactofen; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document establishes a tolerance for combined residues of
the herbicide lactofen and its metabolites in or on the raw
agricultural commodity snap beans. The Interregional Research Project
No. 4 (IR-4) requested the regulation to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of the herbicide pursuant to the Federal
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective May 8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
docket number, [PP 4E4418/R2231], may be submitted to: Hearing Clerk
(1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Fees accompanying objections and hearing requests
shall be labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees'' and forwarded to: EPA
Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O.
Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy of any objections and hearing
requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be identified by the
docket number and submitted to: Public Response and Program Resources
Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. In person, bring copy of objections and hearing requests to
Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202. A copy
of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk may
also be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail (e-mail)
to: [email protected].
Copies of objections and hearing requests must be submitted as an
ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. Copies of objections and hearing requests will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file format.
All copies of objections and hearing requests in electronic form must
be identified by the docket number [PP 4E4418/R2231]. No Confidential
Business Information (CBI) should be submitted through e-mail.
Electronic copies of objections and hearing requests on this rule may
be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. Additional
information on electronic submissions can be found below in this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Hoyt L. Jamerson,
Registration Division (7505W), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone number:
Sixth Floor, Crystal Station #1, 2800 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 308-8783, e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of March 8, 1996 (61
FR 9399) (FRL-5353-2), EPA issued a proposed rule that gave notice that
the Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), New Jersey
Agricultural Experiment Station, P.O. Box 231, New Brunswick, NJ 08903,
had submitted pesticide petition (PP) 4E4418 to EPA on behalf of the
Agricultural Experiment Stations of Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Oregon,
Tennessee, and Virginia. This petition requests that the Administrator,
pursuant to section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), amend 40 CFR 180.432 by establishing a
tolerance for combined residues of lactofen, 1-(carboethoxy)ethyl-5-[2-
chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoate, and its associated
metabolites containing the diphenyl ether linkage expressed as lactofen
in or on the raw agricultural commodity snap beans at 0.05 part per
million (ppm). There were no comments or requests for referral to an
advisory committee received in response to the proposed rule.
The data submitted with the proposal and other relevant material
have been evaluated and discussed in the proposed rule. Based on the
data and information considered, the Agency concludes that the
tolerance will protect the public health. Therefore, the tolerance is
established as set forth below.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections to the regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed with
the Hearing Clerk, at the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy
of the objections and/or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk
should be submitted to the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The
objections submitted must specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). Each objection must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40
CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a
statement of the factual issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the
requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence
relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing
will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material
submitted shows the following: There is genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence
identified by the
[[Page 20743]]
requestor would, if established, resolve one or more of such issues in
favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts
to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issue(s) in the manner
sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action
requested (40 CFR 178.32).
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 4E4418/R2231] (including any objections and hearing requests
submitted electronically as described below). A public version of this
record, including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which
does not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for
inspection from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer any copies of objections and hearing requests
received electronically into printed, paper form as they are received
and will place the paper copies in the official rulemaking record which
will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The
official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the
address in ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. Under section 3(f),
the order defines ``a significant regulatory action'' as an action that
is likely to result in a rule (1) having an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities (also referred to as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations thereof; or (4)
raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive
Order. Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has
determined that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not
subject to OMB review.
This action does not impose any enforceable duty, or contain any
``unfunded mandates'' as described in Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104-4), or require prior consultation as
specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993),
entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, or special
consideration as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator has determined that regulations
establishing new tolerances or raising tolerance levels or establishing
exemptions from tolerance requirements do not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A
certification statement explaining the factual basis for this
determination was published in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46
FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 29, 1996.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.432, by revising paragraph (a), to read as follows:
Sec. 180.432 Lactofen; tolerances for residues.
(a) Tolerances are established for the combined residues of
lactofen, 1-(carboethoxy)ethyl-5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-
2-nitrobenzoate, and its associated metabolites containing the diphenyl
ether linkage expressed as lactofen in or on the following raw
agricultural commodities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beans, snap................................................ 0.05
Soybeans................................................... 0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-11343 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11339 Clomazone; Pesticide Tolerance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20743-20745]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11339]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 5E4521/R2230; FRL-5364-9]
RIN 2070-AB78
Clomazone; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document establishes a tolerance for residues of the
herbicide clomazone in or on the raw agricultural commodity snap beans.
The Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) requested the
regulation to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of the
herbicide pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective May 8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
docket number, [PP 5E4521/R2230], may be submitted to: Hearing Clerk
(1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Fees accompanying objections and hearing requests
shall be labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees'' and forwarded to: EPA
Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O.
Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy of any objections and hearing
requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be identified by the
docket number and submitted to: Public Response and Program Resources
Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. In person, bring copy of objections and hearing requests to
Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202. A copy
of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk may
also be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail (e-mail)
to: [email protected].
Copies of objections and hearing requests must be submitted as an
ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of
encryption.
[[Page 20744]]
Copies of objections and hearing requests will also be accepted on
disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file format. All copies
of objections and hearing requests in electron form must be identified
by the docket number [PP 5E4521/R2230]. No Confidential Business
Information (CBI) should be submitted through e-mail. Electronic copies
of objections and hearing requests on this rule may be filed online at
many Federal Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic
submissions can be found below in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Hoyt L. Jamerson,
Registration Division (7505W), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone number:
Sixth Floor, Crystal Station #1, 2800 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 308-8783, e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of March 13, 1996
(61 FR 102970) (FRL-5353-7), EPA issued a proposed rule that gave
notice that the Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), New Jersey
Agricultural Experiment Station, P.O. Box 231, New Brunswick, NJ 08903,
had submitted pesticide petition (PP) 5E4521 to EPA on behalf of the
Agricultural Experiment Stations of Arkansas, Kentucky, North Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. This petition requests that the
Administrator, pursuant to section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), amend 40 CFR 180.425 by
establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide clomazone in or
on the raw agricultural commodity snap beans at 0.05 part per million
(ppm).
There were no comments or requests for referral to an advisory
committee received in response to the proposed rule.
The data submitted with the proposal and other relevant material
have been evaluated and discussed in the proposed rule. Based on the
data and information considered, the Agency concludes that the
tolerance will protect the public health. Therefore, the tolerance is
established as set forth below.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections to the regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed with
the Hearing Clerk, at the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy
of the objections and/or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk
should be submitted to the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The
objections submitted must specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). Each objection must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40
CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a
statement of the factual issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the
requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence
relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing
will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material
submitted shows the following: There is genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence
identified by the requestor would, if established, resolve one or more
of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the
factual issue(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be
adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 5E4521/R2230] (including any objections and hearing requests
submitted electronically as described below). A public version of this
record, including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which
does not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for
inspection from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer any copies of objections and hearing requests
received electronically into printed, paper form as they are received
and will place the paper copies in the official rulemaking record which
will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The
official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the
address in ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. Under section 3(f),
the order defines ``a significant regulatory action'' as an action that
is likely to result in a rule (1) having an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities (also referred to as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations thereof; or (4)
raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive
Order. Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has
determined that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not
subject to OMB review.
This action does not impose any enforceable duty, or contain any
``unfunded mandates'' as described in Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104-4), or require prior consultation as
specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993),
entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, or special
consideration as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator has determined that regulations
establishing new tolerances or raising tolerance levels or establishing
exemptions from tolerance requirements do not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A
certification statement explaining the factual basis for this
determination was published in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46
FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 29, 1996.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:
[[Page 20745]]
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.425, is amended by revising the section heading, the
introductory paragraph, and in the table by adding alphabetically the
entry for ``beans, snap'', to read as follows:
Sec. 180.425 Clomazone; tolerances for residues.
Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide clomazone,
2-(2-chlorophenyl)methyl-4,4-dimethyl-3-isoxazolidinone, in or on the
following raw agricultural commodities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beans, snap................................................ 0.05
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-11339 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11337 Avermectin BINF1 and its Delta-8,9-Isomer; Extension of Time- Limited Tolerance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20745-20746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11337]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP-4E4419/R2236; FRL-5366-8]
RIN 2070-AB78
Avermectin B1 and its Delta-8,9-Isomer; Extension of Time-
Limited Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document extends the effective date for the time-limited
tolerance established for the combined residues of the insecticide
avermectin B1 and its delta-8,9-isomer in or on the raw
agricultural commodity dried hops. The Interregional Research Project
No. 4 (IR-4) requested the regulation to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of the insecticide pursuant to the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective May 8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
document control number, [PP-4E4419/R2236], may be submitted to:
Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M
St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Fees accompanying objections and
hearing requests shall be labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees'' and
forwarded to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, OPP
(Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy of any
objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be
identified by the document control number and submitted to: Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring copy of
objections and hearing requests to Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson
Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202.
A copy of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing
Clerk may also be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail
(e-mail) to: [email protected].
Copies of objections and hearing requests must be submitted as an
ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. Copies of objections and hearing requests will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file format.
All copies of objections and hearing requests in electronic form must
be identified by the docket number [PP-4E4419/R2236]. No Confidential
Business Information (CBI) should be submitted through e-mail.
Electronic copies of objections and hearing requests on this rule may
be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. Additional
information on electronic submissions can be found below in this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Hoyt L. Jamerson,
Registration Division (7505W), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone number:
Sixth Floor, Crystal Station #1, 2800 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA 22202. (703) 308-8783; e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of March 20, 1996
(61 FR 11357), EPA issued a proposed rule (FRL-5356-2) to amend 40 CFR
part 180 by extending the effective date for the established time-
limited tolerance for the combined residues of the insecticide
avermectin B1 and its delta-8,9-isomer in or on the raw
agricultural commodity dried hops at 0.5 parts per million (ppm). EPA
proposed that the expiration date for the tolerance be extended from
April 30, 1996 to December 31, 1996, to allow EPA additional time to
evaluate IR-4's petition for a permanent tolerance for residues of
avermectin B1 and its delta-8,9-isomer in or on the raw
agricultural commodity dried hops.
The data considered in support of the established tolerance for
dried hops are discussed in the proposed rule, which was published in
the Federal Register notice of September 13, 1995 (59 FR 49826).
Additional information regarding EPA's proposal to extend the effective
data for the time-limited tolerance is discussed in the Federal
Register of March 20, 1996 [61 FR 11357]. There were no comments or
requests for referral to an advisory committee received in response to
the proposed rule to extend the effective date for the time-limited
tolerance. Based on the data and information considered, the Agency
concludes that the tolerance will protect the public health. Therefore,
the tolerance is amended as set forth below.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections to the regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed with
the Hearing Clerk, at the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy
of the objections and/or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk
should be submitted to the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The
objections submitted must specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). Each objection must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40
CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a
statement of the factual issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the
requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence
relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing
will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material
submitted shows the following: There is genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence
identified by the requestor would, if established, resolve one or more
of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the
factual issue(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be
adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP-4E4419/R2236] (including any objections and hearing requests
submitted electronically as described below). A public version of this
record, including printed, paper versions of electronic comments which
does not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for
inspection from 8 a.m. to
[[Page 20746]]
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public
record is located in Room 1132 of the Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer any copies of objections and hearing requests
received electronically into printed, paper form as they are received
and will place the paper copies in the official rulemaking record which
will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The
official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the
address in ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) any the requirements of the Executive Order. Under section 3(f),
the order defines ``a significant regulatory action'' as an action that
is likely to result in a rule (1) having an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities (also referred to as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations thereof; or (4)
raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive
Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
This action does not impose any enforceable duty, or contain any
``unfunded mandates'' as described in Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), or require prior consultation as specified
by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993), entitled
Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, or special consideration
as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator has determined that regulations
establishing new tolerances or raising tolerance levels or establishing
exemptions from tolerance requirements do not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A
certification statement explaining the factual basis for this
determination was published in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46
FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 30, 1996.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.449, by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.449 Avermectin B1 and its delta-8,9 isomer; tolerances
for residues.
(a) Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the
insecticide avermectin B1 [a mixture of avermectins containing
greater than or equal to 80% avermectin B1a (5-O-demethyl
avermectin Al) and less than or equal to 20% avermectin Blb
(5-O- demethyl-25-de(1-methylpropyl)-25-(1-methylethyl) avermectin
Al)] and its delta-8,9-isomer in or on the following commodities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts
Commodity per Expiration
million date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat....................................... 0.015 Apr.30,
1996
Cattle, meat...................................... 0.02 Do
Cattle, mbyp...................................... 0.02 Do
Citrus whole fruit................................ 0.02 Do
Cottonseed........................................ 0.005 Do
Hops, dried....................................... 0.5 Dec. 31,
1996
Milk.............................................. 0.005 Apr. 30,
1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-11337 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11331 Adjustment of Reid Vapor Pressure Lower Limit for Reformulated Gasoline Sold in the State of California
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20736-20738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11331]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[FRL-5501-3]
Adjustment of Reid Vapor Pressure Lower Limit for Reformulated
Gasoline Sold in the State of California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is amending the lower limit of the valid range for Reid
Vapor Pressure (RVP) for reformulated gasoline certified under the
simple model and sold in the State of California. The lower limit is
being changed from 6.6 pounds per square inch (psi) to 6.4 psi. EPA is
taking this action because the Agency believes that it will result in
no negative environmental impact and, for reasons discussed below, the
Agency believes it is proper in the limited case of California
gasoline.
In the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, EPA is
proposing the same action covered by this direct final rule (i.e., to
amend the lower limit of the valid range for RVP for reformulated
gasoline certified under the simple model and sold in the State of
California from 6.6 to 6.4 psi). If adverse comment or a request for a
public hearing is received on this direct final rule, EPA will withdraw
the direct final rule and address the comments received in a subsequent
final rule on the related proposed rule. No additional opportunity for
public comment on this change to the lower limit of the simple model's
valid range for RVP will be provided.
DATES: This action will become effective on July 8, 1996, unless notice
is received by June 7, 1996 from someone who wishes to submit adverse
comment or requests an opportunity for a public hearing. If such notice
is received, EPA will withdraw this direct final rule, and a timely
notice will be published in the Federal Register to indicate the
withdrawal.
ADDRESSES: All documents relevant to this direct final rulemaking have
been placed in public docket number A-96-14. The public docket may be
inspected at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket Section,
401 M Street, SW, Room M-1500, Washington, D.C. 20460. Documents may be
inspected between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne-Marie C. Pastorkovich, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, (202)
233-9013.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Regulated Entities
Regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this
action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................... Refiners of California gasoline.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could be potentially regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
section 80.42 (c)(1), note (1), of today's regulatory action. You
should also carefully examine the existing provisions at 40 CFR section
80.81, dealing specifically with California gasoline.
II. Introduction
A. Reformulated Gasoline Standards and California Covered Areas
Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act (the Act) requires EPA to
establish standards for reformulated gasoline to be used in specified
ozone nonattainment areas (covered areas), as well as standards for
non-reformulated, or conventional, gasoline used in the rest of the
country, beginning in January, 1995. The reformulated gasoline covered
areas in California are Los Angeles and San Diego, and, beginning June
1, 1996, Sacramento, as a result of its redesignation as a Severe ozone
nonattainment area. The Act requires that reformulated gasoline reduce
VOC and toxics emissions from motor vehicles, not increase NOX
[[Page 20737]]
emissions, and meet certain content standards for oxygen, benzene and
heavy metals. The Administrator signed the final reformulated gasoline
regulations on December 15, 1993 and they were published in the Federal
Register on February 14, 1994.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 59 FR 7812 (February 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Specific Exemptions Related to California Gasoline
During the federal reformulated gasoline rulemaking, and in
response to comments by California refiners, EPA concluded (1) that VOC
and toxics emission reductions resulting from the California Phase 2
standards would be equal to or more stringent than the federal
reformulated gasoline standards, (2) that the content standards for
oxygen and benzene under California Phase 2 would in practice be
equivalent to the federal content standards, and (3) that the
California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) compliance and enforcement
program is designed to be sufficiently rigorous. As a result, 40 CFR
Sec. 80.81 of the reformulated gasoline regulations exempts certain
refiners of California Phase 2 gasoline from a number of federal
reformulated gasoline provisions intended to demonstrate compliance
with the federal standards. While the federal reformulated gasoline and
conventional gasoline standards continue to apply in California,
refiners of gasoline sold in California are exempt in most cases from
various enforcement-related provisions. California refiners are not
exempt from these federal enforcement requirements with regard to
gasoline that is delivered for use outside California, because the
California Phase 2 standards and the CARB enforcement program do not
cover gasoline exported from California.
C. Reid Vapor Pressure Simple Model Lower Limit
The federal reformulated gasoline program includes limitations on
Reid vapor pressure (RVP) of reformulated gasoline certified using the
simple model. The maximum RVP simple model standards are given in 40
CFR section 80.41 (a) and (b), relating to per-gallon and averaged
standards, respectively. Maximum RVP is controlled because of the
increased VOC emissions that result from gasoline with higher RVP
levels.
The minimum RVP of reformulated gasoline certified under the simple
model is set by the lower end of the valid range as specified in 40 CFR
Sec. 80.42(c)(1). The nationwide lower limit for RVP for reformulated
gasoline certified under the simple model is 6.6 psi, although under 40
CFR Sec. 80.45(f)(1) this minimum RVP limit changes to 6.4 psi, under
the complex model, beginning in 1998.
There are several reasons why the simple and complex models have
different lower limits for the RVP range (for the simple model, 6.6
psi, and for the complex model, 6.4 psi). The simple model and complex
model are two completely different models, developed at different times
from different data sets and relying upon different modeling
assumptions and approaches. The complex model, which was developed
after the simple model, incorporates many more data points.
The low end of the valid ranges for RVP in the simple model and the
complex model (i.e. 6.6 psi and 6.4 psi, respectively) were based upon
the distribution of data used in the model's development. Both the
simple model and the complex model are linear with respect to RVP for
all pollutants.\2\ Thus, any relationship of RVP to pollutants can be
extended linearly from 6.6 psi to 6.4 psi with confidence. (As is
explained elsewhere in this notice, the Agency is proposing to lower
the minimum RVP for simple model reformulated gasoline in California
from 6.6 to 6.4 psi.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 59 FR 36944 (July 20, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After promulgation of the final reformulated gasoline and anti-
dumping rule, some refiners suggested that EPA reduce the RVP lower
limit for the simple model to 6.4 psi nationwide. The reasons for their
request were (1) to provide flexibility for refiners, (2) consistency
with the complex model, which has a 6.4 psi lower limit for RVP, and
(3) to facilitate the certification and use of California Phase 2
gasoline. EPA agreed with these reasons and issued a direct final rule
which included this change.\3\ EPA later withdrew the change and
published notice of the withdrawal in the Federal Register \4\ because
adverse comment was received from the American Automobile Manufacturers
Association (AAMA). AAMA, representing automakers, cited concerns about
driveability from lower RVP gasoline if RVP was reduced nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See note 2.
\4\ 60 FR 6030 (February 1, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Revision to the RVP Range Under the Simple Model
The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) has requested, on
behalf of gasoline refiners in California, that EPA modify the minimum
Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) allowable under the simple model for
reformulated gasoline sold in California. In an August 3, 1995 letter
to Ms. Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation,
WSPA asserted that it believes that there are certain constraints on
refiners that exist as a result of the need to comply with both the
federal reformulated gasoline program and the California Phase 2
reformulated gasoline program scheduled to begin on March 1, 1996.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ All correspondence related to this rulemaking may be
examined at the public docket at the location listed in the
``ADDRESSES'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, the California Phase 2 program sets a maximum
summertime volatility standard of 7.0 psi. During the summer,
California refiners currently must meet an RVP lower limit of 6.6 psi
minimum for areas subject to the federal reformulated gasoline
standards (i.e., the lower limit of the federal simple model range) and
7.0 psi maximum (i.e., the California RVP maximum standard). This is a
``tighter'' operational range than producers of reformulated gasoline
outside of California are required to operate within.\6\ WSPA has
requested that EPA change the lower limit RVP value for reformulated
gasoline to 6.4 psi in California to allow necessary operating
flexibility and the American Automobile Manufacturers Association
(AAMA) has indicated in a letter to EPA\7\ that they agree to this
change in the case of California gasoline. As discussed above, AAMA had
objected to a nationwide change to 6.4 psi lower limit in 1994. More
recently, these automakers revised their view with regard to gasoline
used in California, and now do not object to changing the RVP minimum
value to 6.4 psi in the limited case of California Phase 2 gasoline, as
expressed in a letter to EPA dated December 7, 1995.\8\ Specifically,
automakers do not expect driveability index concerns with California
Phase 2 gasoline with RVP values as low as 6.4 psi, as a result of
other controls on certain distillation parameters under the California
program. These additional distillation parameters are T50 and T90, the
temperature at which 50 percent and 90 percent, respectively, of a
liquid are
[[Page 20738]]
evaporated. EPA believes that changing the federal summertime minimum
RVP standard to 6.4 psi in California will permit necessary flexibility
for producers, is supportable as a reasonable extension of the model
based on consistency with the complex model, will result in no
environmental harm, and will not adversely affect automotive
driveability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For federal reformulated gasoline program compliance on a
per-gallon basis, the simple model maximum standards for RVP are
7.2 psi in VOC Control Region I and 8.1 psi
for VOC Control Region II. For average compliance under the federal
reformulated gasoline program, the simple model per gallon maximum
RVP for VOC controlled federal gasoline, by comparison, is
7.4 psi for VOC Control Region I and 8.3 psi
for VOC Control Region II and, on average, 7.1 psi and
8.0 psi, for VOC Control Regions I and II, respectively.
See 40 CFR section 80.41 (a) and (b) and the discussion under II(c)
of this notice, above.
\7\ See note 5, above.
\8\ See note 5, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Environmental Impact
This rule is expected to have no negative environmental impact.
Applicable controls on maximum volatility during the VOC control period
are not affected by this rule. If anything, this revision will make it
more feasible to produce lower limit RVP gasoline, which produces fewer
motor vehicle VOC emissions.
V. Economic Impact
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires that
Federal Agencies examine the impacts of their regulations on small
entities. The act requires an Agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in conjunction with notice and comment rulemaking,
unless the Agency head certifies that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C.
605(b). The Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule
is not expected to result in any additional compliance cost to
regulated parties and may be expected to reduce compliance cost.
VI. Effective Date
This action will become effective July 8, 1996. If notice of
adverse comment is received, EPA will withdraw this final rule, and a
timely notice will be published in the Federal Register. See ``DATES''
section, above.
VII. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, \9\ the Agency must determine whether
a regulation is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 58 FR 51736 (October 4, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments of communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof, or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
this Executive Order.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id. at section 3(f) (1)-(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``UMRA''), P.L. 104-4, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement
to accompany any general notice of proposed rulemaking or final rule
that includes a Federal mandate which may result in estimated costs to
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private
sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, for any rule
subject to Section 202 EPA generally must select the least costly, most
cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements.
Under Section 203, before establishing any regulatory requirements that
may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, EPA must take
steps to inform and advise small governments of the requirements and
enable them to provide input.
EPA has determined that the final rule promulgated today does not
include a federal mandate as defined in UMRA. The rule does not include
a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs to State,
local or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector,
of $100 million or more, and it does not establish regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Gasoline,
Reformulated gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution.
Dated: May 1, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
40 CFR part 80 is amended as follows:
PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 114, 211 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545, and 7601(a)).
2. Section 80.42 is amended by revising the table in paragraph
(c)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.42 Simple emissions model.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel parameter Range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene content........................ 0.0-4.9 vol %.
RVP.................................... 6.6-9.0 psi.\1\
Oxygenate content...................... 0-4.0 wt %.
Aromatics content...................... 0-55 vol %.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For gasoline sold in California, the applicable RVP range shall be
6.4-9.0 psi.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-11331 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11329 Amendment to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20734-20736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11329]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[FRL-5467-8]
Amendment to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources;
Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final action.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's action promulgates revisions to the new source
performance standards (NSPS) for new, modified, and reconstructed small
industrial-commercial-institutional steam generating units (40 CFR part
60, Subpart Dc) that were proposed on November 15, 1995. The revisions
exclude certain small steam generating units, when conducting
combustion research, from the category of small steam generating units
subject to NSPS control requirements for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
particulate matter (PM). The NSPS are issued under the authority of
section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Following promulgation of the NSPS, litigation was filed by Babcock
and Wilcox, who repeated a concern they had expressed during the public
comment period following proposal of the NSPS. That is, they had
requested an exemption from the NSPS for steam generating units of 14.6
MW (50 million Btu/hr) heat input capacity or less used for combustion
research based on intermittent and infrequent operation.
Discussions with Babcock and Wilcox made it clear that there is a
legitimate concern regarding the ability of experimental, and sometimes
[[Page 20735]]
unpredictable, air pollution control technology to consistently meet
the NSPS. This, coupled with the fact that these steam generating units
provide valuable data on both the combustion process and methods of air
pollution control which result in improved fuel efficiency, improved
air pollution control efficiency, and less expensive air pollution
control, led the EPA to provide the exemption in an effort to encourage
combustion research.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-86-02, containing information used in
developing the original NSPS and the revisions, and the comments
received during the public comment period, is available for public
inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20460. The docket is located at the above address in room M-1500,
Waterside Mall (ground floor). The materials are available for review
in the docket center or copies may be mailed on request from the Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center by calling (202) 260-7548
or -7549. The FAX number for the Center is (202) 260-4000. A reasonable
fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning specific
aspects of this action, contact Mr. Rick Copland, (919) 541-5265 , or
Mr. Fred Porter (919) 541-5251 Combustion Group, Emission Standards
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Today's rule resolves litigation in the case
of Babcock and Wilcox Company v. U.S. EPA, No. 90-1509 (D.C. Cir.) (See
60 FR 57373, November 15, 1995). The rule applies to any small steam
generating unit used for combustion research as long as the heat
generated during the conduct of such combustion research is not used
for any purpose other than preheating the combustion air for the steam
generating unit (i.e., the heat generated is released to the atmosphere
without being used for space heating, process heating, driving pumps,
preheating combustion air for other units, generating electricity, or
any other purpose).
Five comment letters were received during the public comment period
on the November 15, 1995 proposal. All five commentors supported the
proposal. One commentor suggested that the EPA extend today's rule to
large steam generating units regulated under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Db
and that the EPA allow the heat generated during the research activity
to be used productively. One commentor suggested that all natural gas-
fired steam generating units be exempt from the provisions of Subpart
Dc, including notification requirements. The comments did not reveal
any facilities that conduct combustion research with small steam
generating units and that also use the heat generated during periods of
combustion research for purposes other than preheating the combustion
air for the steam generating unit.
The EPA believes that today's rule already represents a significant
exercise of regulatory flexibility which does not warrant further
expansion at this time. Accordingly, the EPA believes that the
prohibition on the use of the heat generated during the conduct of
combustion research is appropriate in that it allows for the conduct of
such research without compromising the EPA's ability to enforce the
NSPS for small steam generating units (See 60 FR at 57374). Indeed,
this limitation merely reflects the existing operating practice of the
Babcock and Wilcox steam generating unit at issue (described below).
The EPA believes that this provision is also appropriate for any other
steam generating unit that conducts combustion research.
As discussed in the November 15, 1995 proposal, the EPA agreed to
revise the applicability of the SO2 and PM emission control
requirements of 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Dc because of the limited
potential impact of combustion research on the environment: Babcock &
Wilcox Company, the petitioner which requested the revision of the
applicability of the standards of performance, operates a single small
steam generating unit occasionally (less than five percent of the
unit's operating time) to evaluate the performance of, and to develop,
unproven combustion technologies. Significantly, Babcock and Wilcox
Company also does not use the heat that the steam generating unit
produces during periods of combustion research for any purpose (such as
space heating, process heating, electric generation, etc.) other than
preheating the combustion air for the steam generating unit.
Accordingly, in order to minimize the potential for inappropriate
claims of combustion research (potentially undermining EPA's ability to
enforce the standards of performance for small steam generating units),
the EPA has conditioned the exclusion of certain limited combustion
research activities from the standards of performance on the
requirement that a steam generating unit not use the heat produced
during combustion research for purposes other than preheating the
combustion air for the steam generating unit.
The comments that recommend expanding today's rule to include large
steam generating units regulated under Subpart Db or all natural gas-
fired units are not appropriate for consideration within the scope of
this limited action. The EPA will consider these comments as well as
the comment concerning the definition of combustion research as a part
of the ongoing activity to develop and/or revise standards of
performance for industrial steam generating units under CAA sections
111 and 112.
Economic and Regulatory Impacts
Today's rule will impose no additional costs on the regulated
community or the national economy. It would reduce the costs of
compliance for some small steam generating units when conducting
combustion research by not requiring them to comply with the NSPS for
new, modified, and reconstructed small industrial-commercial-
institutional steam generating units. Accordingly, the EPA has
determined that today's rule: (1) does not constitute a ``significant
rule'' under Executive Order 12286 (the promulgation would not result
in any increase in costs or prices and would not disrupt market
competition), (2) does not constitute a substantial revision that would
require an economic impact assessment pursuant to CAA section 317, (3)
does not constitute a Federal mandate under Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L. 104-4, for State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector, (4) does not contain
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments under Title II of UMRA, and (5) would not affect the
public reporting burden for the collection of information required, in
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, under the NSPS for
small steam generating units.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that these
revisions would not have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Not only would today's rule reduce the regulatory
burden on the small steam generating units source category, but it has
previously been determined that, even without today's promulgated
revisions, the standards would not affect a substantial number of small
entities (See 55 FR 37682, September 12, 1990).
[[Page 20736]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 30, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below.
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7414, 7416, 7429, and 7601.
2. Section 60.40c is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 60.40c Applicability and delegation of authority.
* * * * *
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the
affected facility to which this subpart applies is each steam
generating unit for which construction, modification, or reconstruction
is commenced after June 9, 1989 and that has a maximum design heat
input capacity of 29 megawatts (MW) (100 million Btu per hour (Btu/hr))
or less, but greater than or equal to 2.9 MW (10 million Btu/hr).
* * * * *
(c) Steam generating units which meet the applicability
requirements in paragraph (a) of this section are not subject to the
sulfur dioxide (SO2) or particulate matter (PM) emission limits,
performance testing requirements, or monitoring requirements under this
subpart (Secs. 60.42c, 60.43c, 60.44c, 60.45c, 60.46c, or 60.47c)
during periods of combustion research, as defined in Sec. 60.41c.
(d) Any temporary change to an existing steam generating unit for
the purpose of conducting combustion research is not considered a
modification under Sec. 60.14.
3. Section 60.41c is amended by adding a new definition for
``Combustion research'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 60.41c Definitions.
* * * * *
Combustion research means the experimental firing of any fuel or
combination of fuels in a steam generating unit for the purpose of
conducting research and development of more efficient combustion or
more effective prevention or control of air pollutant emissions from
combustion, provided that, during these periods of research and
development, the heat generated is not used for any purpose other than
preheating combustion air for use by that steam generating unit (i.e.,
the heat generated is released to the atmosphere without being used for
space heating, process heating, driving pumps, preheating combustion
air for other units, generating electricity, or any other purpose).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-11329 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11328 Amendment to Requirements for Authorized State Permit Programs Under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20972-20980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11328]
[[Page 20971]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 123
Amendment to Requirements for Authorized State Permit Programs Under
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 20972]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 123
[FRL-5500-9]
RIN 2040-AC43
Amendment to Requirements for Authorized State Permit Programs
Under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is amending the regulations concerning the minimum
requirements for federally authorized State permitting programs under
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. This amendment will explicitly
require that all States that administer or seek to administer a program
under this part must provide an opportunity for judicial review in
State Court of final permit decisions (including permit approvals and
denials) that is sufficient to provide for, encourage, and assist
public participation in the permitting process. A State will meet this
standard where State law allows an opportunity for judicial review that
is equivalent to that available to obtain judicial review in federal
court of federally-issued NPDES permits. A State will not meet this
standard if it narrowly restricts the class of persons who may
challenge the approval or denial of State-issued permits.
This rule is being issued because EPA has become aware of instances
in which citizens are barred from challenging State-issued permits
because of restrictive standing requirements in State law. The current
regulations setting minimum requirements for State 402 permit programs
do not explicitly address this problem. EPA believes this is a gap in
the regulations setting minimum requirements for State 402 programs
that needs to be addressed.
Today's rule is intended to ensure effective and meaningful public
participation in the permit issuance process by establishing a minimum
level of public participation among State water pollution control
programs. When citizens have the opportunity to challenge executive
agency decisions in court, their ability to influence permitting
decisions through other required elements of public participation, such
as public comments and public hearings on proposed permits, is
enhanced. This rule will promote effective and meaningful public
participation and will minimize the possibility of unfair and
inconsistent treatment of similarly situated people potentially
affected by State permit decisions.
This requirement does not apply to Indian Tribes. EPA will decide
at a later time whether it should be extended to Tribes.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on June 7, 1996. Under EPA's
State 402 program rules, States will have up to two years to adopt
legislative changes, if necessary, to meet this requirement and
maintain federal program authorization.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Klepp, Office of Wastewater
Management (OWM), Permits Division (4203), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 260-5805.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action are authorized State
programs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Government.......................... State NPDES Permit Issuing
Authorities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your organization is likely to be regulated by this action, you should
carefully read the applicability language of today's rule. If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Information in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Summary and Explanation of Today's Action
1. Background
2. Rationale and Authority
a. Restrictive Standing Requirements In States
b. Policy Concerns With Restrictive Standing Provisions
c. Legal Authority
3. Regulatory Language
4. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
5. Consideration of Alternatives
6. Time Period for Compliance
II. Summary of Response to Comments
1. EPA Authority to Require Standing
2. Judicial Review is Distinct from Public Participation
3. Rule would Impermissibly Affect State Sovereignty
4. Potential Conflicts with the Tenth Amendment
5. The Potential for Waste and Abuse of Judicial Resources
6. Suggested Revisions
7. Time Frame for Compliance
8. Indian Tribes
9. Virginia-specific Issues
10. Impact of the Rule
11. Support for the Rule
III. Administrative Requirements
1. Compliance with Executive Order 12866
2. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and Compliance with Executive
Order 12875
3. Paperwork Reduction Act
4. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I. Summary and Explanation of Today's Action
1. Background
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
(``CWA'' or ``the Act''), ``to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.'' Section
101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). To achieve this objective, the Act
authorizes EPA, or a State approved by EPA, to issue permits
controlling the discharge of pollutants to navigable waters. Section
402(a)(1), 33 U.S.C. 1342(a)(1). A State that wishes to administer its
own permit program for discharges of pollutants, other than dredged or
fill material, to navigable waters may submit a description of the
program it proposes to administer to EPA for approval according to
criteria set forth in the statute. Section 402(b), 33 U.S.C. 1342(b).
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR Part 123 establish minimum requirements
for federally authorized State permit programs under Sec. 402 of the
CWA. Today, EPA is adding language to Part 123 that makes it clear that
States that administer or seek to administer authorized 402 permitting
programs must provide an opportunity for judicial review in State court
of the final approval or denial of permits by the State that is
sufficient to provide for, encourage, and assist public participation
in the permitting process. A State will meet this standard if State law
allows an opportunity for judicial review that is the same as that
available to obtain judicial review of federally-issued permits in
federal court (see Sec. 509 of the Clean Water Act.) A State will not
meet this standard if it narrowly restricts the class of persons who
may challenge the approval or denial of permits (for example, if only
the permittee can obtain judicial review, or if persons must
demonstrate injury to a pecuniary interest in order to obtain judicial
review, or if persons must have
[[Page 20973]]
a property interest in close proximity to a discharge or surface waters
in order to obtain judicial review). States are free under today's rule
to impose reasonable requirements that administrative remedies be
exhausted in order to preserve the opportunity to challenge final
permitting actions in State court. This rule does not apply to Tribal
programs. EPA will decide at a later time whether it should be extended
to Tribes.
2. Rationale and Authority
a. Restrictive Standing Requirements In States. EPA has become
aware of instances in which citizens are barred from challenging State-
issued permits because of restrictive standing requirements in State
law. EPA believes this is a gap in the regulations setting minimum
requirements for State 402 permit programs that needs to be addressed.
In 1993, a coalition of environmental groups filed two petitions
requesting that EPA withdraw the Virginia State 402 permit program,
citing a limitation on citizen standing, among other alleged
deficiencies. In particular, they alleged that recent changes in the
law in the State of Virginia had significantly narrowed the public's
opportunity to challenge State-issued 402 permits. Virginia's State
Water Control Law, the State law under which Virginia's authorized
program is administered, authorizes only an ``owner aggrieved'' to
challenge permits in court. VA Code 62.1-44.29.1 The petitioners
alleged that in 1990, the Virginia legislature amended and narrowed the
statutory definition of ``owner.'' They also alleged that under three
opinions of the Virginia Court of Appeals, only a permittee has
standing to challenge the issuance or denial of a 402 permit in State
court. Environmental Defense Fund v. State Water Control Board, 12 Va.
App. 456, 404 S.E.2d 728 (1991), reh'g en banc denied, 1991 Va. App.
LEXIS 129; Town of Fries v. State Water Control Board, 13 Va. App. 213,
409 S.E.2d 634 (1991). See Citizens for Clean Air v. Commonwealth, 13
Va. App. 430, 412 S.E.2d 715 (1991)(interpreting similar language in
Virginia Air Pollution Control Law). They alleged that under these
three decisions, riparian landowners, local governments that wish to
draw drinking water from the waters in question, downstream permittees,
local business and property owners' associations, local civic
associations, and environmental organizations whose members use the
waters in question may not challenge a State-issued permit in State
court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA notes that in April 1996, the Virginia legislature
passed a bill that would amend certain Virginia statutes, including
the Water Control Law, with respect to the availability of judicial
review. EPA is assessing the impact of the bill, which is not yet
effective as law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When EPA issued the regulations that delineate the elements of an
approvable program, EPA did not contemplate that State law might limit
the opportunity for interested citizens to challenge final permit
decisions in State court to such a degree that it is substantially
narrower than the opportunity afforded under Sec. 509 of the Clean
Water Act to challenge federally-issued permits, or to the point that
adequate and effective public participation in the permit issuance
process would be compromised. EPA now believes that this is the case in
at least a limited number of States and, thus, believes it needs to
specify standing requirements in Part 123.
b. Policy Concerns With Restrictive Standing Provisions. EPA
believes that the ability to judicially challenge permits is an
essential element of public participation under the Clean Water Act.
Permits issued under Sec. 402 (also known as National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System or NPDES permits) fall within the broad
range of processes that are subject to the Congressional directive of
Sec. 101(e) that public participation be ``provided for, encouraged,
and assisted by the Administrator and the States.'' Permits are a
critical means of implementing the requirements and objectives of the
Clean Water Act because they establish specific effluent limitations
applicable to individual dischargers covered by the permits.
As EPA noted when it proposed today's rule on March 17, 1995 (60 FR
14588), when citizens are denied the opportunity to challenge executive
agency decisions in court, their ability to influence permitting
decisions through other required elements of public participation, such
as public comments and public hearings on proposed permits, may be
seriously compromised. If citizens perceive that a State administrative
agency is not addressing their concerns about 402 permits because the
citizens have no recourse to an impartial judiciary, that perception
has a chilling effect on all the remaining forms of public
participation in the permitting process. Without the possibility of
judicial review by citizens, public participation before a State
administrative agency could become a paper exercise. State officials
will inevitably spend less time considering and responding to the
comments of parties who have no standing to sue, but will be more
attentive to the comments of parties who can challenge the
administrative decision in court.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has
agreed that ``broad availability of judicial review is necessary to
ensure that the required public comment period serves its proper
purpose. The comment of an ordinary citizen carries more weight if
officials know that the citizen has the power to seek judicial review
of any administrative decision harming him.'' Virginia v. Browner, No.
95-1052, slip op. at 17 (4th Cir. March 26, 1996) (upholding EPA's
denial of Virginia's proposed permitting program under Title V of the
Clean Air Act). The Fourth Circuit quoted from EPA's March 17, 1995
proposal to support that conclusion. Other courts also have recognized
broadly that meaningful and adequate public participation is an
essential part of a State program under Section 402. See e.g., Natural
Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 859 F.2d 156, 175-78 (D.C. Cir. 1988)
(approving Part 123 regulations regarding citizen intervention in State
enforcement actions); Citizens for a Better Environment v. EPA, 596
F.2d 720, reh'g denied, 596 F.2d 725 (7th Cir. 1979) (invalidating EPA
approval of a State program in the absence of prior promulgation of
guidelines regarding citizen participation in State enforcement
actions).
These points are reinforced by comments received regarding the
proposed rule. As described in more detail in the response to comments
document that is included in the rulemaking record, many comments
received by EPA expressed concerns that a State's failure to provide
standing for non-dischargers to seek judicial review of permits creates
an uneven playing field that may result in:
A failure by a State permitting agency to adequately
consider comments by citizens because it is not judicially accountable
to them, while at the same time giving undue deference to those of a
discharger who may bring an action in court;
A reduction in public participation in the permit process
because such participation is perceived as fruitless; and
A government that is perceived by its citizens to be
distant and unaccountable.
Moreover, the lack of adequate public participation increases the
likelihood that States may issue permits with limits and conditions
that are inadequate to protect the environment because permit writers
will not have the benefit of the valuable insights and
[[Page 20974]]
information provided by public participants. Finally, today's rule also
effectuates EPA's strong policy interest in deferring to State
administration of authorized NPDES programs. EPA firmly believes that
States should implement the NPDES program in lieu of the federal
government. However, EPA just as firmly believes that the opportunity
for citizen participation is a vital component of a State NPDES
program. In authorizing State programs to act in lieu of the federal
government, EPA must ensure that the implementation of the State
program will be both substantively adequate and procedurally fair.
Because this rule will provide additional assurance of State program
adequacy and fairness, it will allow EPA to exercise less oversight of
State programs and allow more State autonomy in implementing NPDES
programs.
c. Legal Authority. EPA believes it has authority under the Clean
Water Act to promulgate today's rule. Section 101(e) of the CWA
provides, in part:
Public participation in the development, revision, and
enforcement of any regulation, standard, effluent limitation, plan,
or program established by the Administrator or any State under this
chapter shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the
Administrator and the States.
This language explicitly directs that both the Administrator and
the States must provide for, encourage, and assist public participation
in the development of any ``regulation, standard, effluent limitation,
plan, or program'' established under the Act. Section 101(e) also
requires that EPA, ``in cooperation with the States, shall develop and
publish regulations specifying minimum guidelines for public
participation in such processes.''
As EPA noted in the preamble to the March 17, 1995 proposed rule,
Congress included the provisions relating to public participation in
Section 101(e) because it recognized that ``[a] high degree of informed
public participation in the control process is essential to the
accomplishment of the objectives we seek--a restored and protected
natural environment.'' S. Rep. 414, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 12 (1972),
reprinted in A Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, Cong. Research Service, Comm. Print No. 1, 93d
Cong., 1st Sess. (1973) (hereinafter cited as 1972 Legis. Hist.) at
1430 (emphasis added).
The Senate Report observed further that the implementation of water
pollution control measures would depend, ``to a great extent, upon the
pressures and persistence which an interested public can exert upon the
governmental process. The Environmental Protection Agency and the State
should actively seek, encourage and assist the involvement and
participation of the public in the process of setting water quality
requirements and in their subsequent implementation and enforcement.''
Id. See also Senate Report at 72, 1972 Legis. Hist. at 1490 (``The
scrutiny of the public * * * is extremely important in insuring * * * a
high level of performance by all levels of government and discharge
sources.'').
Similarly, the House directed EPA and the States ``to encourage and
assist the public so that it may fully participate in the
administrative process.'' H. Rep. 911, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 79, 1972
Legis. Hist. at 766. The House also noted, ``steps are necessary to
restore the public's confidence and to open wide the opportunities for
the public to participate in a meaningful way in the decisions of
government;'' therefore, public participation is ``specifically
required'' and the Administrator is ``directed to encourage this
participation.'' Id. at 819. Congressman Dingell, a leading sponsor of
the CWA, characterized Section 101(e) as applying ``across the board.''
1972 Legis. Hist. at 108. See also id. at 249.
The Act reinforces the importance of the directive in Sec. 101(e)
by reiterating it repeatedly. See e.g., Sec. 402(b)(3) (State permit
programs must provide for public notice and an opportunity for hearing
before a State issues an NPDES permit); Sec. 505(a) (``any citizen'' is
authorized to bring enforcement suits); Sec. 303(c)(1) (States are to
hold public hearings in reviewing and revising State water quality
standards); Sec. 319 (a)(1) and (b)(1) (States are to notice and take
public comment on nonpoint source management programs); Sec. 320(f)
(public review and comment required on plans for protection of
estuaries).
Other provisions of the Act reinforce and confirm EPA's authority
to promulgate today's rule. First, Sec. 304(i) provides that EPA shall
``promulgate guidelines establishing the minimum procedural and other
elements of any State program'' under Sec. 402. Today's rule specifies
such a requirement. Second, Sec. 501(a) confers general authority on
the Administrator to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to
carry out her functions under the CWA. EPA believes it must heed the
command of Sec. 101(e) in carrying out the general authority provided
by Secs. 304(i) and 501(a). Finally, Sec. 402(b)--the provision that
establishes the statutory standards applicable to the approval of State
permitting programs by the Administrator--itself contains an explicit
requirement for public participation in the development of State
permits. Section 402(b)(3) provides that EPA may disapprove a State
NPDES program if adequate authority does not exist ``to insure that the
public * * * receive notice of each application for a permit and to
provide an opportunity for public hearing before a ruling on each such
application'' (emphasis added). Section 402(b)(3) must be interpreted
in light of the command of Sec. 101(e) that public participation be
``provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the Administrator and the
States.'' Especially in light of Sec. 101(e), it is inconceivable that
Congress intended the public hearing required by Sec. 402(b)(3)--and
other forms of public participation in the State administrative
process--to be a meaningless exercise.
Thus, EPA believes it has authority to specify reasonable State
court judicial review requirements for purposes of NPDES State program
approval in order to ensure that the administrative process serves its
intended purpose. Today's rule will help ensure a minimum level of
public participation among State water pollution control programs and
minimize the possibility for unfair and inconsistent treatment of
similarly situated people potentially affected by State permit
decisions. It will reduce pressures on States to compete against each
other in a downward spiral towards less effective and overly
restrictive judicial review provisions in State permit programs. At the
same time, it will help to ensure that similar pollution sources in
different States will be treated fairly and consistently.
3. Regulatory Language
The language of today's final rule differs from the language
proposed on March 17, 1995. The proposed language would have required
that ``[a]ll States that administer or seek to administer a program
under this part must provide any interested person an opportunity for
judicial review in State Court of the final approval or denial of
permits by the State.'' The language of the proposal was based on
Sec. 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act, which provides that ``any
interested person'' may obtain judicial review in the United States
Court of Appeals of the Administrator's action in issuing or denying
any permit under Sec. 402 of the Clean Water Act. The intent of the
proposal was to provide for meaningful public participation before the
State permitting agency by ensuring that ``any interested person'' has
the opportunity to judicially challenge final
[[Page 20975]]
action on State-issued permits to the same extent as if the permit were
federally issued.
As is noted elsewhere in this preamble, a number of commenters
(including several States) argued that the Clean Water Act does not
authorize EPA to specify any standing requirement applicable to State
402 programs, or to impose the federal standing provisions contained in
Sec. 509 upon the States. Other commenters argued that EPA could
provide for meaningful public participation before the State permitting
agency without going so far as to prescribe that ``any interested
person'' must be afforded standing by the States. Some of these
commenters (including several States) stated that the proposed language
was too rigid because a State might provide for meaningful public
participation in the administrative process before the State permitting
agency even though it does not precisely meet the ``any interested
person'' test laid out in the proposal.
After considering these and related comments on the proposal, EPA
decided to adopt a more flexible, functional test that is tied directly
to the mandate of Sec. 101(e). Today's rule provides that States
seeking to administer an authorized program under Sec. 402 of the Clean
Water Act must provide an opportunity for judicial review in State
court of the final approval or denial of permits by the State that is
sufficient to provide for, encourage, and assist public participation
in the permitting process.
A State will certainly meet this standard if it allows an
opportunity for judicial review that is the same as that available to
obtain judicial review in federal court of a federally-issued NPDES
permit. As noted above and in the preamble to the proposed rule,
Sec. 509(b)(1) governs the availability of judicial review of
federally-issued NPDES permits. The term ``interested person'' in
Section 509(b) is intended to embody the injury in fact rule of the
Administrative Procedure Act, as set forth by the Supreme Court in
Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972). Montgomery Environmental
Coalition v. Costle, 646 F.2d 568, 576-78 (D.C. Cir. 1980); accord
Trustees for Alaska v. EPA, 749 F.2d 549, 554-55 (9th Cir. 1984); see
also Roosevelt Campobello Int'l Park Comm'n v. EPA, 711 F.2d 431, 435
(1st Cir. 1983); S. Conference Rep. No. 1236, 92d Cong, 2d Sess. 146
(1972), 1972 Legis. Hist. at 281, 329.
The majority of decisions on standing under the Clean Water Act and
other environmental statutes have held that plaintiffs must at least
satisfy the requirements of Article III. See, e.g., NRDC v. Texaco Ref.
& Mktg., Inc., 2 F.3d 493, 505 (3d Cir. 1993); NRDC v. Watkins, 954
F.2d 974, 978 (4th Cir. 1992). As interpreted by the United States
Supreme Court, the standing requirement of Article III contains three
key elements:
[A]t an irreducible minimum, Art. III requires the party who
invokes the court's authority to ``show that he personally has
suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the
putatively illegal conduct of the defendant,''* * * and that the
injury ``fairly can be traced to the challenged action'' and ``is
likely to be redressed by a favorable decision * * *''
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation
of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982) (citations
omitted). See also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61
(1992).
With respect to the nature of the injury that an ``interested
person'' must show to obtain standing, the Supreme Court held in Sierra
Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. at 734-35, that harm to an economic interest
is not necessary to confer standing. Harm to an aesthetic,
environmental, or recreational interest is sufficient, provided that
the party seeking judicial review is among the injured. This holding
was most recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Lujan v. Defenders
of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 562-63 (``[o]f course, the desire to use or
observe an animal species, even for purely aesthetic purposes, is
undeniably a cognizable interest for purposes of standing.'').
On the other hand, today's rule also provides that a State does not
``provide for, encourage, and assist'' public participation in the
permitting process if it narrowly restricts the class of persons who
may challenge the approval or denial of permits (for example, if only
the permittee can obtain judicial review, or if persons must
demonstrate injury to a pecuniary interest in order to obtain judicial
review, or if persons must have a property interest in close proximity
to a discharge or surface waters in order to obtain judicial review.)
As the regulation itself makes clear, these are only examples of such
deficiencies in State programs. EPA believes that if State law does not
allow broad standing to judicially challenge State-issued NPDES
permits--including standing based on injury to aesthetic,
environmental, or recreational interests--the opportunity for judicial
review will be insufficient to ensure that public participation before
the State permitting agency will serve its intended purpose. See
Virginia v. Browner, No. 95-1052, slip op. at 16-18 (4th Cir. March 26,
1996). At a minimum, ordinary citizens should be in a position of
substantial parity with permittees with respect to standing to bring
judicial challenges to State permitting decisions.
EPA will examine the opportunities for judicial review of State-
issued 402 permits that are provided by State law, on a case-by-case
basis, to determine whether or not the State adequately ``provides for,
encourages, and assists'' public participation in the NPDES permitting
process. EPA will look to the State Attorney General to provide a
statement that the laws of the State meet the requirements of today's
rule. 40 CFR 123.23.
Today's rule applies to final actions with respect to modification,
revocation and reissuance, and termination of permits, as well as the
initial approval or denial of permits.
4. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Standing to judicially challenge permits should be distinguished
from a requirement that potential litigants must exhaust administrative
remedies in order to preserve their opportunity to bring judicial
challenges. For example, federal regulations require that all persons
must raise reasonably ascertainable issues during the public comment
period on a draft 402 permit (40 CFR 124.13). Interested persons must
request an evidentiary hearing on a permit decision they wish to
challenge (40 CFR 124.74). Today's proposal does not affect the
authority of States to adopt similar, reasonable requirements.
5. Consideration of Alternatives
In addition to the proposed approach (which would have required
that State law provide any ``interested person'' an opportunity to
challenge the approval or denial of 402 permits issued by States in
State court), EPA also considered as an alternate approach, amending
Part 123 to require that State law must provide an opportunity for
judicial review of a final State permit action to permit applicants and
any person who participated in the public comment process. EPA
solicited comments on that approach. One commenter endorsed this
alternate approach as a way to ensure that access to courts is limited
to those who participated in the administrative process.
After considering that and related comments, EPA decided to adopt a
more flexible, functional test that is tied directly to the mandate of
Sec. 101(e). This functional test and reasons for EPA's adoption of
today's rule are described in more detail above at I.3. However, this
rule does not affect States' ability to
[[Page 20976]]
adopt reasonable requirements that interested persons exhaust available
administrative remedies, including participating in the submittal of
public comments, to preserve their opportunity to challenge final
permitting actions in State court.
6. Time Period for Compliance
Any approved State section 402 permit program which requires
revision to conform to this part shall be so revised within one year of
the date of promulgation of this regulation, unless a State must amend
or enact a statute in order to make the required revision, in which
case such revision shall take place within 2 years. New States seeking
EPA authorization to operate the NPDES program must comply with this
regulation at the time authorization is requested. This is consistent
with current requirements for State programs found at Sec. 123.62(e).
In the March 17, 1995 proposal, EPA requested comment on whether a
shorter time frame should be imposed than what is provided at
Sec. 123.62(e) to comply with this regulation.
Commenters were divided on the issue of the time frame for
implementation. One commenter expressed concern that the two-year time
frame is too short and does not allow enough time for a legislature to
amend its rules in a reasoned and thoughtful manner. Another noted that
a State would require a full two years to enact legislative changes and
additional time to engage in administrative rulemaking, including
providing public notice and conducting a hearing, to determine the
level of participation that constitutes an ``interested person'' as
proposed. Yet another commenter indicated that States would require a
minimum of three years following promulgation to comply with the rule
to have sufficient time to develop, adopt, implement, and receive EPA
approval.
Other commenters stated that the two-year time frame is too long
and that compliance with the rule should be undertaken immediately or,
if a State needs to amend its statute, within the first legislative
session. Another commenter added that a 1-2 year compliance period is
unnecessary since legislation needed to comply with the rule is simple,
straightforward and easily accomplished.
While EPA believes it has adequate authority under the CWA to
impose a shorter time frame than that imposed under 40 CFR
Sec. 123.62(e), the Agency believes that the 1-2 year compliance period
as required under its existing regulations is the most appropriate time
frame for this rule because it provides States with adequate time to
make necessary changes while taking into account the need for
legislative action.
II. Summary of Response to Comments
A number of comments were received in response to the March 17,
1995 proposal. EPA's full response to those comments is provided in the
response to comments document included in the record for this
rulemaking. However, EPA has summarized its response to some of the
major comments below.
1. EPA Authority to Require Standing
A number of commenters asserted that the Clean Water Act does not
provide EPA with authority to prescribe State court judicial review
requirements for NPDES permits. For the reasons set forth above, and as
further detailed in the response to comments document, EPA believes
that it has authority under the Clean Water Act to promulgate today's
rule.
2. Judicial Review is Distinct from Public Participation
Commenters also contended that judicial review and public
participation are not the same and treated differently in the CWA and
applicable regulations. Thus, EPA may not impose judicial standing
requirements to resolve public participation concerns.
For reasons set forth above and as further detailed in the response
to comments document, EPA believes broad standing to challenge permits
in court to be essential to meaningful public participation in NPDES
programs. See Virginia v. Browner, No. 95-1052, slip op. at 17 (4th
Cir. March 26, 1996).
3. Rule would Impermissibly Affect State Sovereignty
Commenters stated that the proposed rule would require that a State
waive its sovereign immunity in a manner dictated by EPA in order to
obtain approval of its NPDES program. Commenters argued that this is
impermissible unless Congress has made its intent to do so unmistakably
clear in the language of the Clean Water Act (the ``plain statement
rule''). Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460 (1991); Will v.
Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989); Atascadero State
Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 242 (1985). They stated that the
Clean Water Act does not contain such a ``plain statement.''
Today's rule does not impermissibly impinge on a State's sovereign
immunity, nor does the ``plain statement rule'' have any application
here. This is because States voluntarily assume the NPDES program.
Section 402 of the CWA provides that States that wish to obtain
authorization from EPA to implement the NPDES program requirements may
apply to EPA and, where they meet the requirements of Sec. 402, be
approved to operate a permit program in lieu of the federal program.
States seek this authorization voluntarily, based on State interests;
there is no mandate that they do so. However, in choosing to regulate
in lieu of the federal government, a State must meet federal
requirements set forth in the CWA and implementing regulations. These
requirements will now include an explicit standing requirement. If a
State finds any of these conditions for federal approval unacceptable,
the State may decline the opportunity to implement the NPDES program
and leave such implementation to the federal government. The Supreme
Court has held that Congress may offer the States the choice of
regulating an activity according to federal standards or having State
law preempted by federal regulation (New York v. U.S., 505 U.S. 144,
167 (1992) (specifically referring to the Clean Water Act); Hodel v.
Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 288
(1981)).
Similarly, the ``plain statement rule'' applied in such cases as
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991), does not apply where Congress
has provided a choice for the States. As the Court stated in Gregory,
the requirement that Congress clearly state its intent to preempt
traditional State sovereign powers ``is nothing more than an
acknowledgment that the States retain substantial sovereign powers
under our constitutional scheme, powers with which Congress does not
readily interfere.'' Id. at 461. It is a rule of interpretation
designed to avoid a potential constitutional problem. Here, however, as
discussed above, there is no constitutional dilemma.
Because today's rule will be imposed only on States that
voluntarily seek authorization (or choose to retain authorization) for
a permit program under Sec. 402, it does not interfere with State
powers. Thus, no ``plain statement'' of Congressional intent is
necessary. In any case, this rule has a minimal effect upon State
standing, because it applies only to administration of the federally
authorized State NPDES program, but does not affect State standing
requirements in any other respect.
[[Page 20977]]
4. Potential Conflicts with the Tenth Amendment
Some commenters also argued that the proposal is suspect under the
Tenth Amendment because it would expand the standing rights already
afforded by State law, contrary to FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742
(1982) (standing and appeal provisions of Public Utilities Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978 upheld only because they did not expand standing
rights afforded by State law).
For reasons similar to those explained in paragraph 3 above, the
Agency does not believe this rule is suspect under the Tenth Amendment.
The CWA is a federal program that draws on Commerce Clause authority to
require nationwide adherence to federal standards protecting water
quality. Section 402 of the CWA provides that States that wish to
obtain authorization from EPA to implement the NPDES program
requirements may apply to EPA and, where they meet the requirements of
Sec. 402, be approved to operate a permit program in lieu of the
federal program. Similarly, to retain authorization, States must
continue to meet federal requirements, including the new one
promulgated today. States seek this authorization voluntarily. As noted
above, the Supreme Court has held that Congress may offer the States
the choice of regulating an activity according to federal standards or
having State law preempted by federal regulation. New York, Hodel.
Because States voluntarily choose to assume responsibility for the
Sec. 402 program, this rule does not require that States expand their
standing rights.
The commenter's reliance on FERC v. Mississippi is misplaced. In
fact, FERC supports the legality of today's rule. As in New York and
Hodel, the FERC Court upheld federal conditions on State implementation
of a federal program, including procedural requirements, on the grounds
that the federal law in question, like the Clean Water Act, allowed
States the choice to regulate according to federal requirements or
leave implementation to the federal government. Recently, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a standing rule under
the Clean Air Act (CAA) against similar Tenth Amendment challenges by
the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Court found that the CAA did not
compel States to modify their standing rules but merely induced them to
do so through financial sanctions and imposition of federal
requirements; this was found to not violate the Tenth Amendment.
Virginia v. Browner, No. 95-1052, slip op. (4th Cir. March 26, 1996).
5. The Potential for Waste and Abuse of Judicial Resources
One commenter stated that Congress has expressed concern about the
potential for waste and abuse involving State judicial resources (e.g.,
being subject to harassing lawsuits) that could result from the
proposed rule. (1972 Legis. Hist. at 467.)
Today's rule does not encourage harassing lawsuits. Instead, it
effectively balances the CWA's strong policy favoring public
participation in the development of water pollution controls (see CWA
Sec. 101(e)) with the policy to recognize, preserve, and protect the
primary rights and responsibilities of the States to prevent, reduce,
and eliminate pollution (see CWA Sec. 101(b)). The rule ensures that
citizens will be able to influence State permitting decisions through
public participation as Congress intended. In addition, States may
impose reasonable requirements that prospective plaintiffs exhaust
administrative remedies in order to preserve their opportunity to
challenge State-issued permits in State court.
In addressing comments on the proposed rule, EPA surveyed a number
of States that provide citizen standing to challenge permits in State
court (Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Georgia, Michigan, Iowa,
Colorado, California, and Washington) concerning the frequency of
judicial permit appeals as compared to the total number of permits
issued by the States in the last five calender years. EPA found the
frequency of such judicial appeals to be very low particularly when
compared to the total number of permits issued by those States. Four
States (Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, and Connecticut) reported that they
each had one permit judicially appealed within the last five years. The
number of permits issued by each of those States during that time
ranged from 116 (for Connecticut) to 1175 (for Iowa). Other States
reported similar rates of State permit judicial appeals. EPA has also
found very low rates of judicial permit appeals for NPDES permits that
it issues in States that have not been authorized to issue NPDES
permits. Finally, a number of commenters supported EPA's statement in
the proposed rule that the Agency did not expect that any significant
portion of permits would be challenged in State courts. See 60 FR at
14591. This information confirms EPA's belief that this rule will not
impose a discernable burden on State judicial resources.
6. Suggested Revisions
Several commenters noted that the rule must clearly reflect the
proper limits of standing to sue. In response to this and other related
comments, EPA has decided not to specify, as proposed, that ``any
interested person'' must be provided an opportunity for judicial review
of State-issued permits in State court. Instead, the Agency has adopted
a more flexible, functional final rule that is tied directly to the
statutory language of Sec. 101(e).
The final rule provides that States that administer or seek to
administer an authorized NPDES program must provide an opportunity for
judicial review in State court of State permitting decisions that is
sufficient to provide for, encourage, and assist public participation
in the permitting process. A State will meet this standard if State law
allows an opportunity for judicial review that is the same as that
available to obtain judicial review in federal court of federally-
issued permits. States may demonstrate to EPA that even if their
standing rules are not the same as these federal standing provisions,
they are nevertheless broad enough to provide for, encourage, and
assist public participation in the administrative process before the
State permitting agency. A State will not meet this standard if it
narrowly restricts the class of persons who may challenge the approval
or denial of permits (for example, if only the permittee is able to
obtain judicial review, or if a person must have a property interest in
close proximity to a discharge or surface waters in order to obtain
judicial review, or if the State requires that persons demonstrate
injury to a pecuniary interest in order to obtain judicial review).
(``A plaintiff need not show `pecuniary harm' to have Article III
standing; injury to health or to aesthetic, environmental, or
recreational interests will suffice.'' Virginia v. Browner, No. 95-
1052, slip op. at 17 (4th Cir. March 26, 1996), citing United States v.
Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP), 412 U.S.
669, 686-87 (1973); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734 (1972).)
EPA believes this approach will ensure the meaningfulness of public
participation in the State permitting process, without prescribing a
specific level of standing that all States must afford. Therefore, it
should affect even fewer States than the proposal.
7. Time Frame for Compliance
This issue is addressed above.
[[Page 20978]]
8. Indian Tribes
EPA did not propose to subject Indian permitting programs under
Sec. 402 to the requirements of today's rule. However, EPA did solicit
comment on this issue. Commenters raised several concerns with regard
to the treatment of Indian Tribes under the proposal. A few commenters
requested that the exemption for Tribes be removed from the rule and
stated that to exclude Tribes would be ``outside the realm'' of the
CWA. These commenters stated that Tribes should be treated as States
under CWA Sec. 518(e) and should not be exempted from the rule. Others
suggested that one alternative for addressing Tribal NPDES permits is
to use EPA's objection authority contained in CWA Sec. 402(d). One
commenter added that the rule is unnecessary with respect to Tribes
because Tribes have already provided for public participation,
including authorizing judicial review of Tribal administrative actions.
The Agency is not subjecting Tribal permitting programs under Sec. 402
to the requirements of this rule for the time being, as discussed in
the proposal and in more detail in the response to comments document.
The Agency will make a final determination at a later time whether to
extend the requirements of today's rule to Indian Tribes.
With regard to the suggestion that EPA use its objection authority
to oversee Tribal permit decisions, EPA does not agree that it should
use its authority to review permits prior to issuance as a substitute
for public participation in the permitting process. With respect to the
necessity of this rule for Tribes, EPA appreciates that some Indian
Tribes already provide for the participation of interested or aggrieved
parties in permitting matters. While EPA does not as a general matter
feel that Tribal procedures should be less rigorous with respect to
public participation than State procedures, this rule does raise
special issues regarding Federal Indian policy and law which EPA is
still assessing. EPA may propose regulatory action in the future with
respect to judicial review of Tribally-issued NPDES permits. This rule,
however, would not preclude a Tribe from voluntarily including a
judicial review process as part of its program application.
9. Virginia-Specific Issues
Some commentators raised the issue that this rule singles out the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and that EPA is proposing this rule to avoid
the process of deciding on a petition to withdraw Virginia's NPDES
authorization. Based on general information, EPA believes that there
may be a small number of States in addition to Virginia that have
restrictive standing laws pertaining to State judicial review of State-
issued NPDES permits. In addition, several other States have indicated
in comments to the rule that they may have to revise their current
program regulations in response to the proposal. Although today's rule
provides more flexibility for State programs with respect to standing
requirements than the proposal, EPA believes that a small number of
States in addition to Virginia might need to revise their programs to
comply with the final rule.
EPA has chosen to proceed with this rulemaking because the Agency
believes that adequate public participation in authorized State NPDES
permitting programs is fundamental to the effective implementation of
the CWA, and that limitations or potential limitations upon such
participation are best addressed through a regulation that will help
ensure an appropriate opportunity for public participation in all
authorized States. With respect to the Virginia withdrawal petition, it
is EPA's view that the appropriate mechanism for addressing the citizen
standing issues raised in that petition is to clarify the fundamental
elements of effective public participation programs in a rulemaking.
Other issues raised in the petition concerning the Virginia NPDES
program will be resolved in a separate proceeding.
One commenter stated that Virginia citizens are given full and
serious consideration when administrative decisions are made on permit
conditions. This commenter added that judicial standing is granted to
those who can demonstrate injury. Another stated that Virginia law does
not imply a restriction on third-party private property rights; rather,
third parties have a right to bring a claim before State court if their
property is damaged or they are otherwise harmed by a permitted
activity.
As discussed in more detail above, EPA has reason to believe that
Virginia does not provide for an effective public participation program
because it restricts standing to judicially contest final State-issued
permits to the discharger.2 Numerous commenters supported this
concern, which they asserted results in a situation where citizen
comments do not need to be taken seriously or can be ignored since
citizens have no ability to challenge permits in court. In any case,
today's rule is not about a single State or State program; rather, the
rule is intended to ensure that all authorized NPDES programs provide
the judicial standing necessary to ensure effective public
participation in the permitting program. Moreover, today's rule does
not require that a State meet a single standing formula; rather, a
State must demonstrate that its access to courts is sufficiently broad
to ensure adequate public participation in the permitting process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Impact of the Rule
Some commenters also questioned the impact of today's rule. One
commenter stated that EPA must conduct a regulatory impact analysis
(RIA) and request Office of Management and Budget review in accordance
with E.O. 12866 or withdraw the rule. This commenter noted that the
rule meets the definition of ``significant regulation'' and therefore
must be assessed in an RIA. Another commenter stated that the rule
affects small entities and EPA must prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis. One commenter stated that further analysis is necessary to
assess the potential impact of the rule.
EPA does not believe that the rule meets the definition of a
significant regulatory action, as defined in E.O. 12866. The rule
potentially impacts only very few States and is consistent with and
effectuates the public participation provisions of the CWA. OMB has
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of E.O. 12866 and is therefore not subject to its
review. With regard to the need for a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
EPA notes that the rule applies to States with authorization to
administer the NPDES permit program, and States are not considered
small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Nor does the
Agency believe that the rule will have a significant impact on small
businesses due to the potential for such businesses to incur increased
litigation costs. As described in more detail in responses to
individual comments in the record for this rulemaking, EPA's experience
with States that already provide broad standing to challenge permits
indicates that ensuring appropriate criteria for standing in the few
States that now unduly limit it will not result in a significant
portion of permits being challenged in State court. Thus, a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis is not necessary.
Nothing in this rule or preamble should be construed as addressing
the
[[Page 20979]]
standing of citizen plaintiffs under Secs. 309 or 505 of the Clean
Water Act.
11. Support for the Rule
Numerous commenters supported some or all of the rule. Many of them
agreed with the Agency's proposal to include language stating that
``any interested person'' should be able to appeal pollutant discharge
permits in State court. These commenters viewed the rule as necessary
to ensure meaningful public participation, in the permitting process.
As described above, EPA has chosen to not require that States
explicitly adopt an ``interested person'' standard, but instead has
decided to provide flexibility in this area consistent with the need
for effective public participation.
Commenters stated that the rule is necessary to ensure meaningful
public participation and expressed concern that if standing is not
broadened in those States that unduly restrict it, citizen comments
will not be taken seriously or may be ignored since citizens have no
ability to challenge permits in court. Other commenters stated that the
rule is necessary for citizens to challenge permit terms that directly
impact their property rights and valuable State resources. Other
commenters stated that the lack of meaningful public participation has
a direct adverse impact on business. Other commenters stated that the
rule would bring consistency, accountability, and credibility to the
permitting process and significantly improve the quality of the final
permits. EPA has addressed these comments in more detail in the
response to comments document but notes that promulgation of this rule
should address many of the concerns raised by these commenters.
III. Administrative Requirements
1. Compliance with Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant,''
and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to lead to a
rule that may:
(1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely and materially affect a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
EPA believes that only a very few authorized States may be impacted
by this rule. This rule is consistent with and effectuates the public
participation provisions of the CWA. It has been determined that this
rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review. As a
result, the Agency is not conducting a Regulatory Impact Analysis.
2. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and Compliance With Executive Order
12875
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 UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for the 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. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, Sec. 205 of 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.
In addition, under Sec. 203 of UMRA, before EPA establishes any
regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must develop a small
government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling timely input in the development of
EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The specific provisions of Secs. 202 and 205 of UMRA do not apply
because this rule does not contain any Federal mandates. As discussed
above, the rule does not impose any enforceable duty on any State,
local, or Tribal government or the private sector. Moreover, any duties
arising from this rule are the result of participation in a voluntary
Federal program. States are free to leave NPDES regulation to the
federal government if they find the requirements in today's rule
unacceptable. In any event, no mandates in this rule would result in
the expenditure of $100 million or more in any one year by governmental
or private entities. With respect to Sec. 203 of UMRA, this rule will
impact State governments only; there will be no significant impact or
unique effect on small governments.
EPA did consult with States and Tribes during the proposal and the
public comment period. The Agency contacted each State individually,
seeking its views on the proposal. With regard to Indian Tribes, EPA
also worked with representatives of Tribes as well as through the
Agency's American Indian Environmental Office to assure a full
opportunity for review and comment on the proposal and to ensure an
understanding of Tribal concerns or issues raised by this rulemaking.
3. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information requirements subject to OMB
review under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
4. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
EPA must prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for regulations
having a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule applies only to States with authorization to administer
the NPDES permit program. States are not considered small entities
under the RFA. Therefore, pursuant to Section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I certify that this final rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 123
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Water pollution control.
Dated: May 1, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in this preamble, part 123, Chapter I of
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is to be amended as
follows:
[[Page 20980]]
PART 123--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 123 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
2. Section 123.30 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 123.30 Judicial review of approval or denial of permits.
All States that administer or seek to administer a program under
this part shall provide an opportunity for judicial review in State
Court of the final approval or denial of permits by the State that is
sufficient to provide for, encourage, and assist public participation
in the permitting process. A State will meet this standard if State law
allows an opportunity for judicial review that is the same as that
available to obtain judicial review in federal court of a federally-
issued NPDES permit (see Sec. 509 of the Clean Water Act). A State will
not meet this standard if it narrowly restricts the class of persons
who may challenge the approval or denial of permits (for example, if
only the permittee can obtain judicial review, if persons must
demonstrate injury to a pecuniary interest in order to obtain judicial
review, or if persons must have a property interest in close proximity
to a discharge or surface waters in order to obtain judicial review.)
This requirement does not apply to Indian Tribes.
[FR Doc. 96-11328 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11297 Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulations; Compatibility with Regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20747-20753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11297]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Parts 172, 173, 174, and 176
[Docket No. HM-169A; Amdt. Nos. 172-143, 173-244, 174-80, 176-37]
RIN 2137-AB60
Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulations; Compatibility
with Regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; editorial revisions and response to a petition for
reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 28, 1995, RSPA published a final rule which
amended the Hazardous Materials Regulations pertaining to the
transportation of radioactive materials to harmonize them with those of
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and, thus, most major
nuclear nations of the world. Several substantive changes were made to
provide a more uniform degree of safety for various types of shipments.
These changes included requiring offerors and carriers to maintain
written radiation protection programs, revising the definition of and
packaging for low specific activity radioactive materials, and
requiring use of the International System of Units for the measurement
of activity in a package of radioactive material. This final rule makes
editorial and technical corrections to that final rule and responds to
a petition for reconsideration.
[[Page 20748]]
DATES: The effective date of these amendments is June 3, 1996.
Immediate compliance with the amendments is authorized.
The effective date for the final rule published under Docket HM-
169A on September 28, 1995 (60 FR 50292) remains April 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Wendell Carriker, Office of
Hazardous Materials Technology, (202) 366-4545, or John A. Gale, Office
of Hazardous Materials Standards, (202) 366-8553, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On September 28, 1995, RSPA published a final rule under Docket HM-
169A (60 FR 50292) which amended the Hazardous Materials Regulations
(HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) pertaining to the transportation of
radioactive materials to harmonize them with those of the International
Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA's) Safety Series No. 6, ``Regulations for
the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material Revised 1985 and
Supplemented 1988 and 1990'' (IAEA SS6-85) and, thus, most major
nuclear nations of the world. RSPA has received correspondence
identifying errors and a petition for reconsideration in response to
the final rule. This document incorporates editorial and technical
revisions to the final rule based on the merits of the correspondence
and other revisions that RSPA has determined are necessary to correct
or clarify the final rule.
II. Section-by-Section Review
Section 172.101. In the Hazardous Materials Table, RSPA is
correcting the shipping name for low specific activity material by
adding the suffix ``n.o.s.''. For the shipping name for surface
contaminated objects, RSPA is correcting the packaging references.
Section 172.203. In the final rule, RSPA inadvertently removed the
provision of Sec. 172.203(d)(1) which requires the addition of the
words ``radioactive material'' to a shipping description that does not
contain those words. By revising paragraph (d)(1) RSPA is reinstating
that requirement.
Section 172.310. Section 172.310 is revised by adding the word
``Each'' to the beginning of paragraph (b).
Section 172.403. Section 172.403 is revised to correct
typographical errors in the label table and to clarify that the
allowance to identify radionuclides in terms of curies only applies in
domestic transportation.
Section 172.803. In Sec. 172.803, RSPA is clarifying that a person,
determining if he or she is subject to the radiation protection program
based on the total transport index (TI) handled, can exclude the TI
from fissile packages that is calculated for criticality control
purposes. RSPA received a petition for reconsideration on Sec. 172.803,
which stated that RSPA should not limit the category of people who are
permitted to make the evaluation described in Sec. 172.803(d)(1)(ii) to
only certified health physicists or persons who are recommended by the
appropriate Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or state official. RSPA
requires that the evaluator be ``a person experienced with radiation
protection programs and transportation regulations and programs.''
Under Sec. 172.803(d)(1)(ii), a person's competency to make the
determination described in Sec. 172.803(d)(1)(i) may be evidenced by
his or her status as a certified health physicist or by a letter of
recommendation from a State Radiation Official. There is no requirement
for evidence of the evaluator's competency. Therefore, the petition for
reconsideration is denied. In addition, in Sec. 172.803(d)(1)(ii), RSPA
is removing the reference to the NRC because the NRC recently advised
RSPA that it will not provide letters of recommendation.
Appendix B to Part 172. Appendix B to Part 172 was added in the
final rule to specify the size of the trefoil symbol for package
markings, labels and placards. However, several persons advised RSPA
that the new trefoil size makes it very difficult to produce the
RADIOACTIVE placard and label in the design specified in the HMR. These
persons requested that labels and placards that were printed to the old
trefoil specifications continue to be allowed for an unlimited amount
of time. Upon further review of the amendment that adopted the new
trefoil size for placards and labels, RSPA believes that the new size
requirements impose unnecessary costs. Therefore, RSPA is revising
Appendix B to Part 172 to require that the inner circle of the trefoil
symbol on a radioactive label have a radius of at least 4 millimeters
and that the outer circle of the trefoil symbol on a radioactive
placard have a radius of at least 56.25 millimeters. In addition, RSPA
is allowing the continued use of those labels and placards that were
printed prior to April 1, 1996, in accordance with the regulations in
effect on March 30, 1996.
Section 173.411. For consistency with other sections of the HMR,
RSPA is removing the phrase ``greater than 20% increase'' from
Sec. 173.411(b)(2)(ii) and replacing it with the phrase ``significant
increase''. This change will make the requirements for Type 2 and 3
Industrial Packages consistent with the requirements for a Type A
package.
Section 173.417. In Sec. 173.417, Table 3 is reprinted in the
correct format, and paragraph (b)(2) is revised to reflect the
appropriate restrictions for the Specification 6M packaging, based upon
assigned criticality transport indices (TI). Clarifications are being
made to show that paragraph (b)(2)(i) applies to materials with
criticality TI's equal to zero and that paragraph (b)(2)(ii) and
footnote 7 apply to materials with criticality TI's greater than zero.
Section 173.422. Section 173.422 is revised to correctly note that
persons who ship limited quantities of Class 7 materials must comply
with the training requirements of Part 172, and that limited quantities
of a Class 7 material that is a hazardous substance or a hazardous
waste must comply with the shipping paper requirements of the HMR. In
addition, RSPA is providing an exception from the certification
requirements of Sec. 173.422(a) for limited quantities of Class 7
materials that are subject to the shipping paper requirements of the
HMR.
Section 173.425. Editorial errors in the table of activity limits
for limited quantities in Table 7 are corrected and footnote 2,
regarding luminous paint, is added back to the table.
Section 172.426. Section 173.426 is revised to correct section
references.
Section 173.427. In Sec. 173.427, paragraph (a)(3) is revised by
adding a reference to ``Sec. 173.467'' to make it clear that fissile
packages must comply with the provisions of Sec. 173.467. In addition,
in paragraph (c)(1), RSPA is removing the phrase ``in a closed
transport vehicle'' from the requirements for shipping bulk packages of
low specific activity material and surface contaminated objects. In
addition, RSPA is adding references to the NRC-approved packagings to
make it clear that these are authorized packagings for the shipment of
low specific activity material and surface contaminated objects.
Section 173.428. Section 173.428 is revised to correct section
references and a misspelled word.
Section 173.435. Several editorial corrections are made to the
Table of A1 and A2 values in Sec. 173.435. In addition, the
entry ``MFP'', which stands for mixed fission products, is added back
to the table.
Section 173.443. Section 173.443 is revised by correcting editorial
errors in Table 11.
[[Page 20749]]
Section 173.465. Section 173.465 is revised to correct a misspelled
word and to correct unit conversions.
Section 174.700. Section 174.700 is revised to correct a section
reference and by correcting the limit in paragraph (b) so that it
applies to each rail car and not to the entire train.
Section 176.700. Section 176.700 is revised to correct the
reference to the required marking requirements for low specific
activity radioactive material.
III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. 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 was not reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget. The rule is not considered significant
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of
Transportation (44 FR 11034). The original regulatory evaluation was
reexamined but was not modified because changes made under this rule do
not change the analysis in that evaluation.
B. Executive Order 12612
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 (``Federalism''). The
Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5101-5127)
contains an express preemption provision that preempts State, local,
and Indian tribe requirements on certain covered subjects. Covered
subjects are:
(i) the designation, description, and classification of hazardous
materials;
(ii) the packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and
placarding of hazardous materials;
(iii) the preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents
pertaining to hazardous materials and requirements respecting the
number, content, and placement of such documents;
(iv) the written notification, recording, and reporting of the
unintentional release in transportation of hazardous materials; or
(v) the design, manufacturing, fabrication, marking, maintenance,
reconditioning, repairing, or testing of a package or container which
is represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in the
transportation of hazardous materials.
This final rule concerns the packaging and classification of
radioactive materials. This final rule preempts State, local, or Indian
tribe requirements in accordance with the standards set forth above.
The Federal statute provides that if DOT issues a regulation concerning
any of the covered subjects after November 16, 1990, DOT must determine
and publish in the Federal Register the effective date of Federal
preemption (49 USC 5125(b)(2)). That effective date may not be earlier
than the 90th day following the date of issuance of the final rule and
not later than two years after the date of issuance. RSPA has
determined that the effective date of Federal preemption for these
requirements is August 2, 1996. Thus RSPA lacks discretion in this
area, and preparation of a federalism assessment is not warranted.
C. Executive Order 12778
Any interested person may petition RSPA's Administrator for
reconsideration of this final rule within 30 days of publication of
this rule in the Federal Register, in accordance with the procedures
set forth at 49 CFR 106.35. Neither the filing of a petition for
reconsideration nor any other administrative proceeding is required
before the filing of a suit in court for review of this rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule applies to
shippers and carriers of radioactive materials, some of whom are small
entities.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no new information collection requirements in this final
rule.
F. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading
of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 172
Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Labeling,
Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 173
Hazardous materials transportation, Packaging and containers,
Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Uranium.
49 CFR Part 174
Hazardous materials transportation, Radioactive materials, Railroad
safety.
49 CFR Part 176
Hazardous materials transportation, Maritime carriers, Radioactive
materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Parts 172, 173, 174 and
176 are amended as follows:
PART 172--HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TABLE, SPECIAL PROVISIONS, HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS COMMUNICATIONS, EMERGENCY RESPONSE INFORMATION, AND
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
1. The authority citation for Part 172 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.
Sec. 172.101 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 172.101, in the Hazardous Materials Table, the following
amendments are made:
a. For the entry``Radioactive material, low specific activity or
Radioactive material, LSA, n.o.s.'', in column (2), the words ``,
n.o.s.'' are added after ``activity''.
b. For the entry ``Radioactive material, surface contaminated
object or Radioactive material, SCO'', in column (7), the references
``421, 424, 426'' are removed, in Column (8A), the reference ``427'' is
revised to read ``421, 424, 426'', in Column (8C), the reference
``427'' is added.
3. In Sec. 172.203, paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) are revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 172.203 Additional description requirements.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) The words ``RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL'' unless these words are
contained in the proper shipping name.
(2) The name of each radionuclide in the Class 7 (radioactive)
material that is listed in Sec. 173.435 of this subchapter. For
mixtures of radionuclides, the radionuclides that must be shown must be
determined in accordance with Sec. 173.433(f) of this subchapter.
Abbreviations, e.g., ``99 Mo'', are authorized.
* * * * *
Sec. 172.310 [Amended]
3a. In Sec. 172.310, in paragraph (b), the wording ``Packaging
must'' is removed and ``Each packaging must'' is added in its place.
[[Page 20750]]
Sec. 172.403 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 172.403, the following amendments are made:
a. In paragraph (a), the reference ``Secs. 173.421 through
173.425'' is revised to read ``Secs. 173.421 through 173.428''.
b. In the table in paragraph (c), under the column heading
``Maximum radiation level at any point on the external surface'', for
the second entry the wording ``0.5 mSv/h (50 mrem)'' is revised to read
``0.5 mSv/h (50 mrem/h)'' and, for the third entry the wording ``0.05
mSv/h (50 mrem)'' is revised to read ``0.5 mSv/h (50 mrem/h)''.
c. In paragraph (g)(2), in the second sentence, the word
``Alternatively,'' is removed and ``Alternatively, for domestic
transport,'' is added in its place.
Sec. 172.803 [Amended]
5. In Sec. 172.803, the following amendments are made:
a. In the introductory text of paragraph (b) the word ``control''
is removed and ``controlled'' is added in its place.
b. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), the words ``200 TI'' are removed and
``200 TI, not including TI calculated for criticality control
purposes,'' is added in its place.
c. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii), in the last sentence, the words ``any
Regional Administrator of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or from''
are removed.
d. In paragraph (e), the paragraph designation (1) is added
following the paragraph heading.
6. In Appendix B to Part 172, the introductory text preceding the
symbol and the text following the symbol are revised to read as
follows:
Appendix B to Part 172--Trefoil Symbol
1. Except as provided in paragraph 2 of this appendix, the
trefoil symbol required for RADIOACTIVE labels and placards and
required to be marked on certain packages of Class 7 materials must
conform to the design and size requirements of this appendix.
2. RADIOACTIVE labels and placards that were printed prior to
April 1, 1996, in conformance with the requirements of this
subchapter in effect on March 30, 1996, may continue to be used.
* * * * *
1=Radius of Circle--
Minimum dimensions
4 mm (0.16 inch) for markings and labels
12.5 mm (0.5 inch) for placards
2=1\1/2\ Radii
3=5 radii for markings and labels
4\1/2\ radii for placards.
PART 173--SHIPPERS--GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS AND
PACKAGINGS
7. The authority citation for Part 173 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.
Sec. 173.403 [Amended]
8. In Sec. 173.403, under the definition Low Specific Activity
(LSA) material, in paragraph (2)(ii) the words ``essentially uniformly
distributed'' are revised to read ``distributed throughout'', and, in
paragraph (3)(i) the words ``essentially uniformly distributed
throughout'' are revised to read ``distributed throughout''.
Sec. 173.410 [Amended]
9. In Sec. 173.410, paragraph (f) is amended by removing the phrase
``(see Sec. 178.608 of this subchapter)'' and by revising the phrase
``(see Secs. 173.24 and 173.24a)'' to read ``(see Secs. 173.24,
173.24a, and 173.24b)''.
Sec. 173.411 [Amended]
10. In Sec. 173.411, in paragraph (b)(2)(ii), the words ``greater
than 20% increase'' are revised to read ``significant increase''.
11. In Sec. 173.417, in paragraph (a)(7), Table 3 is revised, and
paragraph (b)(2) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 173.417 Authorized fissile materials packages.
(a) * * *
(7) * * *
Table 3.--Allowable Content of Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6) ``Heels'' In a Specification 7A Cylinder
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum cylinder diameter Cylinder volume Maximum Maximum ``Heel'' weight per cylinder
--------------------------------------------------- uranium-235 -----------------------------------------------
enrichment UF6 Uranium-235
Centimeters Inches Liters Cubic feet (weight -----------------------------------------------
percent) kg lb kg lb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.7......... 5 8.8 0.311 100.0 0.045 0.1 0.031 0.07
20.3......... 8 39.0 1.359 12.5 0.227 0.5 0.019 0.04
30.5......... 12 68.0 2.410 5.0 0.454 1.0 0.015 0.03
76.0......... 30 725.0 25.64 5.0 11.3 25.0 0.383 0.84
122.0........ 48 3,084.0 1108.9 4.5 22.7 50.0 0.690 1.52
122.0........ 48 4,041.0 2142.7 4.5 22.7 50.0 0.690 1.52
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 10 ton.
\2\ 14 ton.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) DOT Specification 6M (Sec. 178.354 of this subchapter), metal
packaging. These packages must contain only solid Class 7 (radioactive)
materials that will not decompose at temperatures up to 121 deg.C (250
deg.F). Radioactive decay heat output may not exceed 10 watts. Class 7
(radioactive) materials in other than special form must be packaged in
one or more tightly sealed metal cans or polyethylene bottles within a
DOT Specification 2R (Sec. 178.360 of this subchapter) containment
vessel.
(i) For fissile material with a criticality TI equal to 0.0,
packages are limited to the following amounts of fissile Class 7
(radioactive) materials: 1.6 kilograms of uranium-235; 0.9 kilograms of
plutonium (except that due to the 10-watt thermal decay heat
limitation, the limit for plutonium-238 is 0.02 kilograms); and 0.5
kilograms of uranium-233. The maximum ratio of hydrogen to fissile
material may not exceed three, including all of the sources of hydrogen
within the DOT Specification 2R containment vessel.
(ii) Maximum quantities of fissile material and other restrictions
for materials with a criticality TI of greater than 0.0 are given in
Table 5. The minimum transport index to be assigned per package and,
for fissile material, controlled shipments, the allowable number of
similar packages per conveyance and per transport vehicle are shown in
Table 5. Where a maximum ratio of hydrogen to fissile material is
specified in Table 5, only the hydrogen interspersed with the fissile
material must be considered. For a uranium-233 shipment, the maximum
inside diameter of the inner containment vessel may not exceed 12.1
centimeters (4.75 inches). Where necessary, a tight-fitting steel
insert must be used to reduce a larger diameter
[[Page 20751]]
inner containment vessel specified in Sec. 178.354 of this subchapter
to the 12.1 centimeter (4.75 inch) limit. Table 5 is as follows:
Table 5.--Authorized Contents for Specification 6M Packages\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uranium-233\5\ Uranium-235\4\,\7\ Plutonium\2\,\3\,\4\ Maximum no.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- pkgs.
Metal or Compounds Metal or Compounds Metal or Compounds transported
alloy -------------------- alloy -------------------- alloy -------------------- Minimum as a
--------- ---------- ---------- transport fissile
index material
H/X=0\8\ H/X=0 H/X<=3 H/X=0 H/X=0 H/X<=3 H/X=0 H/X=0 H/X<=3 control
shipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.5..... 0.5 0.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 \9\0.9 \9\0.9 \9\0.9 0 N/A
3.6..... 4.4 2.9 7.2 7.6 5.3 3.1 4.1 3.4 0.1 1,250
\6\4.2.. 5.2 3.5 8.7 9.6 6.4 3.4 4.5 4.1 0.2 625
\6\5.2.. 6.8 4.5 11.2 13.9 8.3 4.2 4.5 0.5 250
...... 13.5 16.0 10.1 4.5 1.0 125
...... 26.0 16.1 5.0 25
...... 32.0 19.5 10.0 12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Quantity in kilograms.
\2\ Minimum percentage of plutonium-240 is 5 weight percent.
\3\ 4.5 kilogram limitation of plutonium due to watt decay heat limitation.
\4\ For a mixture of uranium-235 and plutonium an equal amount of uranium-235 may be substituted for any portion
of the plutonium authorized.
\5\ Maximum inside diameter of specification 2R containment vessel not to exceed 12.1 centimeters (4.75 inches)
(see paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section).
\6\ Granulated or powdered metal with any particle less than 6.4 millimeters (0.25 inch) in the smallest
dimension is not authorized.
7 Except for material with a criticality TI of 0.0, the maximum permitted uranium-235 enrichment is 93.5
percent.
\8\ H/X is the ratio of hydrogen to fissile atoms in the inner containment.
\9\ For Pu-238, the limit is 0.02 kg because of the 10 watt thermal decay heat limitation.
* * * * *
12. In Sec. 173.422, paragraph (b)(3) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 173.422 Additional requirements for excepted packages containing
Class 7 (radioactive) materials.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) The training requirements of subpart H of part 172 of this
subchapter and, for materials that meet the definition of a hazardous
substance or a hazardous waste, the shipping paper requirements of
subpart C of Part 172 of this subchapter.
Sec. 173.422 [Amended]
13. In addition, in Sec. 173.422, the following amendments are
made:
a. In paragraph (a), in the first sentence, the words ``Excepted
packages'' are revised to read ``Except for materials subject to the
shipping paper requirements of subpart C of Part 172 of this
subchapter, excepted packages''.
b. In paragraph (a)(4), the words ``empty packaging'' are revised
to read ``empty package''.
c. In paragraph (b)(1), the word ``and'' following the semicolon is
removed, and in paragraph (b)(2) the period is removed and ``; and'' is
added in its place.
14. In Sec. 173.425, Table 7 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 173.425 Table of activity limits--excepted quantities and
articles.
* * * * *
Table 7.--Activity Limits for Limited Quantities, Instruments, and Articles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instruments and articles
--------------------------------------------------
Nature of contents Limits for each Materials package limits \1\
instrument or article Package limits \1\
\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solids:
Special form............... 10-2A1 A1 10-3A1
Normal form................ 10-2A2 A2 10-3A2
Liquids:
Tritiated water:
<0.0037 TBq/liter (0.1 37 TBq (1,000 Ci)
Ci/L).
0.0037 TBq to 0.037 TBq/ 3.7 TBq (100 Ci)
L (0.1 Ci to 1.0 Ci/L).
>0.037 TBq/L (1.0 Ci/L) 0.037 TBq (1.0 Ci)
Other Liquids.............. 10-3A2 10-1A2 10-4A2
Gases:
Tritium \2\................ 2 x 10-2A2 2 x 10-1A2 2 x 10-2A2
Special form............... 10-3A1 10-2A1 10-3A1
Other form................. 10-3A2 10-2A2 10-3A2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For mixtures of radionuclides see Sec. 173.433(d).
\2\ These values also apply to tritium in activated luminous paint and tritium adsorbed on solid carriers.
[[Page 20752]]
Sec. 173.426 [Amended]
15. In Sec. 173.426, paragraph (c), the reference ``Sec. 173.421
(b), (c), and (d)'' is revised to read ``Sec. 173.421(a) (2), (3) and
(4)''.
16. In Sec. 173.427, paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) are added to read
as follows:
Sec. 173.427 Transport requirements for low specific activity (LSA)
Class 7 (radioactive) materials and surface contaminated objects (SCO).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) For domestic transportation only, in a packaging that complies
with the provisions of 10 CFR 71.52, and is transported in exclusive
use; or
(5) Any Type B, B(U) or B(M) packaging authorized pursuant to
Sec. 173.416.
* * * * *
Sec. 173.427 [Amended]
17. In addition, in Sec. 173.427, the following amendments are
made:
a. In paragraph (a)(3), the reference ``Sec. 173.451'' is revised
to read ``Secs. 173.451 and 173.467''.
b. In paragraph (b)(2) the word ``or'' at the end of the paragraph
is removed and in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) the period at the end of the
paragraph is removed and a semicolon is added in its place.
c. In paragraph (c)(1), the phrase ``, transported in a closed
transport vehicle'' is removed.
d. In paragraph (f), in Table 8, for the third entry, in column 1,
the words ``LSA-IIII'' is revised to read ``LSA-III''.
Sec. 173.428 [Amended]
18. In Sec. 173.428, in the introductory text, the word
``expected'' is revised to read ``excepted'' and, in paragraph (a), the
reference ``Sec. 173.421 (b), (c), and (e)'' is revised to read
``Sec. 173.421(a) (2), (3), and (5)''.
19. In Sec. 173.435, in the Table of A\1\ and A\2\ values
for radionuclides, the following entries are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 173.435 Table of A\1\ and A\2\ values for
radionuclides.
* * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific activity
Symbol of radionuclide Element and A1 (TBq) A1 (Ci) A2 (TBq) A2 (Ci) ---------------------------------
atomic number (TBq/g) (Ci/g)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Ag-110m........................ ................. 0.4 10.8 0.4 10.8 1.8 x 102 4.7 x 103
* * * * * * *
Am-242m........................ ................. 2 54.1 2 x 10-4 5.4.1 x 10-3 3.6 x 10-1 1.0 x 101
* * * * * * *
Ar-39.......................... ................. 20 541 20 541 1.3 3.4 x 101
* * * * * * *
Br-82.......................... ................. 0.4 10.8 0.4 10.8 4.0 x 104 1.1 x 106
* * * * * * *
C-11........................... Carbon(6)........ 1 27 0.5 13.5 3.1 x 107 8.4 x 108
* * * * * * *
Cm-244......................... ................. 4 108 4 x 10-4 1.08 x 10-2 3.0 8.1 x 105
* * * * * * *
Es-253......................... Einsteinium(99)a. 200 5400 2.1 x 10-2 5.4 x 100-1 .............. ................
* * * * * * *
Eu-150......................... ................. 0.7 18.9 0.7 18.9 6.1 x 104 1.6 x 106
Eu-155......................... ................. 20 541 2 54.1 1.8 x 101 4.9 x 102
* * * * * * *
F-18........................... Fluorine(9)...... 1 27.0 0.5 13.5 3.5 x 106 9.5 x 107
* * * * * * *
Fe-59.......................... ................. 0.8 21.6 0.8 21.6 1.8 x 103 5.0 x 104
* * * * * * *
Fm-257......................... ................. 10 270 8 x 10-3 21.6 x 10-1 .............. ................
* * * * * * *
Gd-148......................... ................. 3 81.1 3 x 10-4 8.11 x 10-3 1.2 3.2 x 101
* * * * * * *
Pd-107......................... ................. Unlimited Unlimited Unlimited Unlimited 1.9 x 10-5 5.1 x 10-4
* * * * * * *
Pt-197m........................ ................. 10 270 0.9 24.3 3.7 x 105 1.0 x 107
* * * * * * *
Rn-222......................... Radon(86)........ 0.2 5.41 4x10-3 0.108 5.7x103 1.5 x 105
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 20753]]
Sec. 173.443 [Amended]
20. In Sec. 173.443, in paragraph (a)(2), Table 11 is amended for
the first entry, in column 2 by removing ``0.41'' and adding ``0.4''
and, in column 3 by removing the number ``0-5'' and adding
``10-5''.
Sec. 173.465 [Amended]
21. In Sec. 173.465, paragraph (a), the word ``compression''is
removed and ``stacking'' is added in its place and, in paragraph
(e)(1), the wording ``(1.3 inches)''is removed and ``(1.25 inches)'' is
added in its place.
PART 174--CARRIAGE BY RAIL
22. The authority citation for part 174 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.
Sec. 174.700
[Amended]
23. In Sec. 174.700, in paragraph (b), the word ``rail'' is removed
and ``rail car'' is added in its place.
PART 176--CARRIAGE BY VESSEL
24. The authority citation for part 176 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.
Sec. 176.704 [Amended]
25. In Sec. 176.704, in paragraph (c), the wording ``LSA-I'' is
removed and ``LSA'' is added in its place.
Issued in Washington, DC on April 23, 1996, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.
Rose A. McMurray,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-11297 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.