issue-1996-05-22•Federal Register final rules — 1996-05-22
Federal Register final rules — 1996-05-22
issue-1996-05-22Federal Register final rules — 1996-05-22Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. X96-10522 Domestic Public Fixed Radio Services
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X96-10522]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 21
[MM Docket No. 94-131 and PP Docket No. 93-253, FCC 95-230]
Domestic Public Fixed Radio Services
CFR Correction
In title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 20 to 39,
revised as of October 1, 1995, in Sec. 21.902 the first paragraph (c),
(c)(1), and (c)(1)(i) beginning at the bottom of the first column on
page 91 should be removed. In the second column paragraph (c)(1)(ii)
was inadvertently omitted and should read as follows:
Sec. 21.902 Frequency interference.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) If the great circle path between the applicant's proposed
transmitter and the protected service area of any authorized, or
previously-proposed, cochannel or adjacent-channel station(s) is within
241.41 km (150 miles) or less and 90 percent or more of the path is
over water or within 16.1 km (10 miles) of the coast or shoreline of
the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, any of the
Great Lakes, or any bay associated with any of the above (see secs.
21.701(a), 21.901(a) and 74.902 of this chapter;
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12863 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur Dioxide)Final Decision
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25566-25580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12863]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 50
[AD-FRL-5508-5]
RIN 2060-AA61
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur
Dioxide)--Final Decision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with sections 108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act
(Act), EPA has reviewed and revised the air quality criteria upon which
the existing national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for sulfur
oxides are based. Based on that review, this document announces EPA's
final decision under section 109(d)(1) that revisions of the NAAQS for
sulfur oxides are not appropriate at this time, aside from several
minor technical changes.
In lieu of the two alternatives to short-term NAAQS proposed on
November 15, 1994, EPA will shortly propose revisions to 40 CFR part 51
to establish concern and intervention levels under section 303 of the
Act and associated guidance to assist States in addressing short-term
peaks of sulfur dioxide (SO2). Final action will be taken on
proposed changes to 40 CFR parts 53 and 58 when final action is taken
on the 40 CFR part 51 proposal and associated guidance.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 1996.
ADDRESSES: A docket containing information relating to EPA's review of
the SO2 NAAQS (Docket No. A-84-25) is available for public
inspection in the Air & Radiation Docket Information Center, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, South Conference Center, Room M-1500,
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC, telephone (202) 260-7548. The docket
may be inspected between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on weekdays, and a
reasonable fee may be charged for
[[Page 25567]]
copying. For the availability of related information, see SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Susan Lyon Stone, Air Quality
Strategies and Standards Division (MD-15), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919)
541-1146.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Related Information
The 1982 revised criteria document, Air Quality Criteria for
Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides (three volumes, EPA-600/8-82-
029af-cf, December 1982; Volume I, NTIS # PB-84-120401, $36.50 paper
copy and $9.00 microfiche; Volume II, NTIS # PB-84-120419, $77.00 paper
copy and $9.00 microfiche; Volume III, NTIS # PB-84-120427, $77.00
paper copy and $20.50 microfiche); the 1986 criteria document addendum,
Second Addendum to Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter and
Sulfur Oxides (1982): Assessment of Newly Available Health Effects
Information (EPA/600/8-86-020-F, NTIS # PB-87-176574, $36.50 paper copy
and $9.00 microfiche); the 1994 criteria document supplement,
Supplement to the Second Addendum (1986) to Air Quality Criteria for
Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides (1982): Assessment of New Findings
on Sulfur Dioxide Acute Exposure Health Effects in Asthmatic
Individuals (1994) (EPA-600/FP-93/002); the 1982 staff paper, Review of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur Oxides:
Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information (EPA-450/5-82-007,
November 1982; NTIS # PB-84-102920, $36.50 paper copy and $9.00
microfiche); the 1986 staff paper addendum, Review of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur Oxides: Updated Assessment of
Scientific and Technical Information (EPA-450/05-86-013, December 1986;
NTIS # PB-87-200259, $19.50 paper copy and $9.00 microfiche) and the
1994 staff paper supplement, Review of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards For Sulfur Oxides: Updated Assessment of Scientific and
Technical Information, Supplement to the 1986 OAQPS staff paper
addendum (1994) (EPA-452/R-94-013, September 1994; NTIS # PB-95-124160,
$27.00 paper copy and $12.50 microfiche) are available from: U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, 5285
Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, or call 1-800-553-NTIS.
(Add $3.00 handling charge per order.) Other documents generated in
connection with this standard review are also available in the EPA
docket identified above.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Legislative Requirements Affecting this Decision
1. Primary Standards
2. Related Control Requirements
B. Sulfur Oxides and Existing Standards for SO2
C. 1988 Proposal
D. 1994 Reproposal
E. Rulemaking Docket
II. Summary of Public Comments
A. Current 24-hour and Annual Standards
B. Regulatory Alternatives to Address Short-term Peak SO2
Exposures
III. Rationale for Final Decision
A. Current 24-hour and Annual Standards
B. Short-term Peak SO2 Exposures
1. Assessment of Health Effects Associated with Short-term
SO2 Exposures
2. Air Quality and Exposure Considerations
3. Conclusions
C. Final Decision on Primary Standards
D. Technical Changes
IV. Regulatory Impacts
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
C. Impact on Reporting Requirements
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Environmental Justice
References
Appendix I--1987 Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
Closure Letter
Appendix II--1994 CASAC Closure Letter
I. Background
A. Legislative Requirements Affecting This Decision
1. Primary Standards
Two sections of the Act govern the establishment and revision of
NAAQS. Section 108 (42 U.S.C. 7408) directs the Administrator to
identify pollutants which ``may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare'' and to issue air quality criteria for them.
These air quality criteria are to ``reflect the latest scientific
knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable
effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the
presence of (a) pollutant in the ambient air * * *''
Section 109 (42 U.S.C.7409) directs the Administrator to propose
and promulgate ``primary'' NAAQS for pollutants identified under
section 108. Section 109(b)(1) defines a primary standard as one ``the
attainment and maintenance of which, in the judgment of the
Administrator, based on the criteria and allowing an adequate margin of
safety, [is] requisite to protect the public health.'' For a discussion
of the margin of safety requirement, see the November 15, 1994 proposed
rule (59 FR 58958).
Section 109(d) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7409(d)) requires periodic
review and, if appropriate, revision of existing criteria and
standards. The process by which EPA has reviewed the criteria and
standards for sulfur oxides under section 109(d) is described in a
later section of this notice.
2. Related Control Requirements
States are primarily responsible for ensuring attainment and
maintenance of ambient air quality standards once the EPA has
established them. Under section 110 (42 U.S.C. 7410) and part D of
title I of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7501-7515), States are to submit, for EPA
approval, State implementation plans (SIP's) that provide for the
attainment and maintenance of such standards through control programs
directed to sources of the pollutants involved. The States, in
conjunction with EPA, also administer the prevention of significant
deterioration program (42 U.S.C. 7470-7479) for these pollutants. In
addition, Federal programs provide for nationwide reductions in
emissions of these and other air pollutants through the Federal motor
vehicle control program under title II of the Act (42 U.S.C. 7521-
7574), which involves controls for automobile, truck, bus, motorcycle,
and aircraft emissions; new source performance standards under section
111 (42 U.S.C. 7411); national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants under section 112 (42 U.S.C. 7412); and title IV of the Act
Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7651-76510), which specifically provides
for major reductions in SO2 emissions.
B. Sulfur Oxides and Existing Standards for SO2
The focus of this standard review is on the health effects of
SO2, alone and in combination with other pollutants. Other sulfur
oxide (SOx) vapors (e.g., sulfur trioxide, SO3) are not
commonly found in the atmosphere. Sulfur dioxide is a rapidly-diffusing
reactive gas that is very soluble in water. It is emitted principally
from combustion or processing of sulfur-containing fossil fuels and
ores. At elevated concentrations, SO2 can adversely affect human
health.
Sulfur dioxide occurs in the atmosphere with a variety of particles
and other gases and undergoes chemical and physical interactions with
them, forming sulfates and other transformation products. Information
on the effects of the principal atmospheric transformation products of
SO2 (i.e., sulfuric acid and sulfates) was
[[Page 25568]]
considered in the review of the particulate matter standards that
culminated in revision of the standards on July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24634);
it will be considered again in the next review of the particulate
matter standards, the commencement of which was announced on April 12,
1994 (59 FR 17375).
On April 30, 1971, EPA promulgated primary and secondary NAAQS for
sulfur oxides, measured as SO2, under section 109 of the Act (36
FR 8186). The existing primary standards for SO2 are 365
g/m3 (0.14 ppm), averaged over a period of 24 hours and
not to be exceeded more than once per year, and 80 g/m3
(0.030 ppm) annual arithmetic mean. The secondary standard was set at
1300 g/m3 (0.50 ppm) averaged over a period of 3 hours
and not to be exceeded more than once per year. The scientific and
technical bases for the current standards are contained in the original
criteria document, Air Quality Criteria for Sulfur Oxides (DHEW, 1970).
For a history of the effects of SO2 regulations on trends in
SO2 emissions and ambient concentrations, see the November 15,
1994 proposed rule (59 FR 58958).
Annual average SO2 levels range from less than 0.004 ppm in
remote rural sites to over 0.03 ppm in the most polluted urban
industrial areas. The highest short-term values are found in the
vicinity (< 20 km) of major point sources. In the absence of adequate
controls, maximum levels at such sites for 24-hour, 3-hour, and 1-hour
averages can reach or exceed 0.4 ppm, 1.4 ppm, and 2.3 ppm,
respectively. The origins, relevant concentrations and potential
effects of SO2 are discussed in greater detail in the revised
criteria document (EPA, 1982a), in the staff paper (EPA, 1982b), in the
criteria document addendum (EPA, 1986a), the staff paper addendum (EPA,
1986b), the criteria document supplement (EPA, 1994a), and the staff
paper supplement (EPA, 1994b).
C. 1988 Proposal
Based on reviews of the original air quality criteria and standards
for sulfur oxides, EPA published a proposed decision not to revise the
existing primary and secondary standards on April 26, 1988 (53 FR
14926).1 In reaching the provisional conclusion that the current
standards provided adequate protection against the health and welfare
effects associated with SO2, EPA was mindful of uncertainties in
the available evidence concerning the risk that elevated short-term (<
1-hour) SO2 concentrations might pose to asthmatic individuals
exercising in ambient air. The EPA specifically requested broad public
comment on the alternative of revising the current standards and adding
a new 1-hour primary standard of 0.4 ppm. The notice also announced
that if a 1-hour primary standard were adopted, consideration would be
given to replacing the current 3-hour secondary standard (1,300
g/m3 (0.50 ppm)) with a 1-hour secondary standard set
equal to the primary standard, and adopting an expected-exceedance form
for all of the standards.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The proposal notice contains a detailed history of the
process leading to the 1988 proposal.
\2\ EPA also concluded that it was not appropriate at that time
to propose a separate secondary SOx standard to provide increased
protection against acidic deposition-related effects of SOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the same notice, EPA also proposed minor technical revisions to
the standards, including restating the levels for the primary and
secondary standards in terms of ppm rather than g/m3,
adding explicit rounding conventions, and specifying data completeness
and handling conventions. In addition, EPA announced its intention to
retain the block averaging convention for the 24-hour, annual, and 3-
hour standards and proposed to eliminate any future questions in this
regard by adding clarifying language to 40 CFR 50.4 and 50.5. Based on
its assessment of the SO2 health effects information, EPA also
proposed to revise the significant harm levels for SO2 and the
associated example air pollution episode levels (40 CFR part 51).
Finally, EPA proposed some minor modifications to the ambient air
quality surveillance requirements (40 CFR part 58).
D. 1994 Reproposal
As a result of public comments on the 1988 proposal and other post-
proposal developments, EPA published a second proposal regarding
revision of the primary standards for sulfur oxides on November 15,
1994 (59 FR 58958).3 The 1994 reproposal was based in part on
supplements to the criteria document (EPA, 1994a) and staff paper (EPA,
1994b) that were prepared to take into account recent health studies.
Drafts of these documents were made available for review by the public
and by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) of EPA's
Science Advisory Board, which provided its advice and recommendations
in a letter dated June 1, 1994 (reprinted as Appendix II to this
preamble). These and other aspects of the administrative process
leading to the 1994 reproposal are described more fully in the
reproposal notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A final decision that revision of the secondary standard was
not appropriate was signed on April 15, 1993 and published in the
Federal Register on April 21, 1993 (58 FR 21351).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As in the 1988 proposal, EPA proposed to retain the existing 24-
hour and annual standards. The EPA also solicited comment on three
regulatory alternatives to further reduce the health risk posed by
exposure to high 5-minute peaks of SO2 if additional protection
were judged to be necessary. The three alternatives included: 1)
Revising the existing primary SO2 NAAQS by adding a new 5-minute
standard of 0.60 ppm SO2, 1 expected exceedance; 2) establishing a
new regulatory program under section 303 of the Act to supplement
protection provided by the existing NAAQS, with a trigger level of 0.60
ppm SO2, 1 expected exceedance; and 3) augmenting implementation
of existing standards by focusing on those sources or source types
likely to produce high 5-minute peak concentrations of SO2.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In a subsequent notice, EPA solicited comment on proposed
requirements for implementing each of the alternatives (59 FR 12492,
March 7, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the reproposal notice, EPA specifically requested public comment
in several key areas. First, EPA requested the submittal of factual
information on the frequency of occurrence of 5-minute peak SO2
levels in the ambient air, as well as information on the source or
source types and the nature of events that are most likely to give rise
to such peak SO2 levels. Second, EPA requested the submission of
data that would allow better characterization of the asthmatic
population at risk and the frequency that an asthmatic individual would
likely be exposed to peak concentrations of 0.60 ppm SO2 and
above, while at elevated ventilation rates. Third, EPA requested that
asthma specialists in the medical community submit their views on the
medical significance of the reported SO2 effects, and on whether a
numerical value below or above 0.60 ppm SO2 would be more
appropriate to protect asthmatic individuals.
The technical changes to the SO2 NAAQS that were first
proposed in 1988, including formally adopting the block averaging
convention, stating the standards in ppm rather than g/
m3, adopting explicit rounding and data completeness conventions
and other technical changes, were reproposed in this notice. Comments
on this reproposal were to be received by February 13, 1995.
On December 29, 1994 (59 FR 67255), EPA announced that a public
hearing on the reproposal would be held on February 8, 1995, and that
the public
[[Page 25569]]
comment period was being extended to March 15, 1995. The public hearing
was held at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental
Research Center Auditorium in Research Triangle Park, NC.
On March 14, 1995 (60 FR 13663), the public comment period was
extended again, to April 14, 1995, to allow additional time for
commenters to review the proposed requirements for implementing the
three regulatory alternatives (59 FR 12492, March 7, 1995) before
submitting comments on the 1994 reproposal.
E. Rulemaking Docket
The EPA established a standard review docket (Docket No. A-79-28)
for the sulfur oxides review in July 1979. The EPA also established a
rulemaking docket (Docket No. A-84-25) for the 1988 proposal as
required by section 307(d) of the Act. The standard review docket and a
separate docket established for criteria document revision (Docket No.
ECAO-CD-79-1) have been incorporated into the rulemaking docket.
II. Summary of Public Comments
There were 95 written comments received prior to the end of the
comment period on April 14, 1995. An additional 10 written comments
were received after the close of the comment period. Of the 105
submissions, 53 were provided by individual industrial companies or
industrial associations, 16 by Federal, State and local government
agencies, 7 by environmental and public interest groups, and 5 by
interested individuals, including one neighborhood association.
Comments also were received from physicians and other independent
experts knowledgeable about the health effects described in the
reproposal. Along with its written comments, one environmental group
submitted videotaped testimony.
In addition, 14 persons presented testimony at the February 8, 1995
public hearing. The written text of the comments presented, as well as
a transcript of the hearing, may be found in Docket No. A-84-25,
Category VIII-F, located in the Air and Radiation Docket Information
Center (see the Addresses section above).
A general summary of the public comments follows. Some of the most
significant comments are addressed, explicitly or implicitly, in other
sections of this preamble. A more detailed summary of the comments
received and EPA's responses to them has been placed in Docket No. A-
84-25, Category IX-C.
A. Current 24-hour and Annual Standards
Most commenters concurred with EPA's conclusion that the existing
24-hour and annual standards provide adequate protection against
SO2-induced health effects associated with those averaging
periods.
B. Regulatory Alternatives To Address Short-term Peak SO2
Exposures
Almost all commenters agreed on the basic nature of the health
effects associated with short-term exposure to SO2 in controlled
human exposure studies; that is, that brief (5-minute) exposures to 0.5
to 1.0 ppm SO2 caused a proportion of asthmatic subjects at
elevated ventilation rates to develop measurable and statistically
significant bronchoconstriction, producing a range of symptoms from
barely perceptible to severe enough to cause cessation of activity and
medication use. In contrast, the comments were sharply divided on
whether the existing standards should be supplemented by one of the
three regulatory alternatives identified in the 1994 reproposal.
In general, industry commenters and affiliated physicians argued
that additional regulatory protection from health effects associated
with exposure to short-term peaks of SO2 was unnecessary. Two
broad arguments were made for this position. First, these commenters
typically argued that the health effects associated with 5-minute peaks
in the range of 0.6 to 1.0 ppm SO2 are not significant because the
effects are transient, subsiding within 1 to 2 hours without
medication, do not include a late-phase inflammatory response, can be
avoided or ameliorated with medication, and are similar qualitatively
and quantitatively to the kinds of effects that asthmatic individuals
experience on an almost daily basis as a result of exposure to common
stimuli. Second, these commenters argued that exposures to 5-minute
peaks of SO2 are currently rare and, with the advent of title IV
reductions in SO2 emissions, likely to become even rarer. In this
regard, some commenters agreed with EPA's conclusion that the existing
standards markedly limit the occurrence of short-term peaks of
SO2.
Conversely, environmental and public interest groups and affiliated
physicians, citizens and physicians living in SO2-impacted areas,
and independent experts argued that health effects that cause cessation
of activity and medication use are adverse health effects, even if
transient and preventable or reversible with medication. Citizens and
physicians living in SO2-impacted areas also argued that asthmatic
individuals living around industrial sources of SO2 are repeatedly
exposed to short-term peaks of SO2, and that such repeated
exposures affect their health adversely through exacerbation of their
asthma and reduction in their quality of life. Some of these commenters
disagreed with EPA's conclusion that the existing standards limit the
occurrence of short-term peaks of SO2.
In general, Federal, State and local government agencies focused on
the same two broad issues as the other commenters (significance of the
health effects and likelihood of exposure) as a basis for supporting or
not supporting adoption of one of the three proposed regulatory
alternatives to address short-term peaks of SO2. In addition, most
governmental agencies submitted comments on implementation of the
alternatives and tended to favor one or another based on the
anticipated efficiency and effectiveness of implementing them. Of the
11 State agencies that commented, four favored adopting either the
proposed 5-minute NAAQS or the section 303 program. One State agency
recommended that EPA not adopt any of the proposed alternatives at this
time but continue to study the problem, adding that the proposed level
of the standard, 0.60 ppm SO2, might not be low enough to include
an adequate margin of safety. Another State agency was not in favor of
adopting any of the proposed regulatory alternatives because it already
had adequate authority to eliminate short-term peaks of SO2 in
problem areas. The remaining five State agencies opposed adoption of
any of the three proposed regulatory alternatives. Of the two local
agencies that commented, one opposed any new regulations. The other did
not comment on the need for new SO2 regulations but provided 5-
minute SO2 data from the local SO2 surveillance network and
relevant information about the causes and temporal distribution of 5-
minute peaks 0.60 ppm SO2. Of the three Federal
agencies that commented, all supported adoption of a 5-minute NAAQS or
the section 303 program alternative.
III. Rationale for Final Decision
A. Current 24-hour and Annual Standards
In the 1994 reproposal, EPA proposed to determine that revisions to
the 24-hour and annual standards were not appropriate. As in the 1988
proposal, EPA provisionally concluded that the current 24-hour and
annual standards
[[Page 25570]]
were both necessary and adequate to protect public health against
effects associated with those averaging periods. The EPA also
provisionally concluded that retaining the current 24-hour and annual
standards was consistent with the scientific data assessed in the
criteria document and staff paper and their addenda, and with the
advice and recommendations of the staff and CASAC (Appendix I).
Most comments on the 1994 reproposal focused on whether or not
there was a need to adopt one of the regulatory alternatives to limit
short-term peaks of SO2. Virtually every commenter that mentioned
the existing primary standards agreed with EPA's conclusion that these
standards were necessary and adequate to protect the public health
against effects associated with those averaging periods. No commenter
argued that the concentrations of these standards should be changed.
After taking into account the public comments, the Administrator
again concludes, based on the scientific data assessed in the criteria
document and staff paper and their addenda, and consistent with the
advice and recommendations of the staff and CASAC, that the 24-hour and
annual standards provide adequate protection against the health effects
associated with 24-hour and annual SO2 concentrations.
Accordingly, the Administrator concludes that revisions to the 24-hour
and annual standards are not appropriate at this time. In reaching this
decision, the Administrator notes that the health effects information
on 24-hour and annual SO2 exposures has remained largely unchanged
since 1988. As newer information becomes available and is incorporated
into new criteria documents, it will provide the basis for future
reviews of the 24-hour and annual standards.
B. Short-Term Peak SO2 Exposures
As reflected in the 1994 reproposal and in public comments on the
reproposal, the question of whether revision of the existing NAAQS is
appropriate to address risks that may be posed by short-term peaks of
SO2 depends upon two factors: (1) The nature and significance of
the health effects per se, and (2) the number of people likely to be
exposed under conditions likely to produce such effects. The next two
sections address these factors in turn, and the Administrator's overall
conclusions are discussed in section III.B.3.
1. Assessment of Health Effects Associated With Short-term SO2
Exposures
This section focuses on the nature and significance of health
effects that have been observed in controlled human exposure studies,
putting aside temporarily, questions about the likelihood of such
effects occurring under real-life conditions. Subsections a.-c. are
adopted from the summary discussion in the 1994 reproposal of several
important aspects of the health effects associated with short-term peak
concentrations of SO2. Additional references on these subjects are
provided in the reproposal notice. Public comments on the most
important and controversial aspects of the short-term SO2 health
effects are discussed in subsection d., with some indication of the
Administrator's conclusions on particular issues. The last subsection
contains the Administrator's overall conclusions regarding the
significance of health effects associated with exposure to short-term
peaks of SO2.
a. Sensitive Populations. It is clear that healthy, nonasthmatic
individuals are essentially unaffected by acute exposures to SO2
at concentrations below 2 ppm, and that the population of concern for
the effects of short-term SO2 exposure consists of mild and
moderate asthmatic children, adolescents and adults that are physically
active outdoors. This is a subset of the approximately 10 million
people or 4 percent of the population of the United States that are
estimated to have asthma (NIH, 1991). The true prevalence may be as
high as 7 to 10 percent of the population (Evans et al., 1987), because
some individuals with mild asthma may be unaware that they have the
disease and thus go unreported. The prevalence is higher among African-
Americans, older (8- to 11-year-old) children, and urban residents
(Schwartz et al., 1990).
b. Asthma. The Expert Panel Report from the National Asthma
Education Program of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NIH,
1991) has defined asthma as ``a lung disease with the following
characteristics: (1) airway obstruction that is reversible (but not
completely so in some patients) either spontaneously or with treatment,
(2) airway inflammation, and (3) increased airway responsiveness to a
variety of stimuli.'' Common symptoms include cough, wheezing,
shortness of breath, chest tightness, and sputum production. Asthma is
characterized by an exaggerated bronchoconstrictor response to many
physical challenges (e.g., cold or dry air, exercise) and chemical and
pharmacologic agents (e.g., histamine or methacholine).
Daily variability in lung function measurements is a typical
feature of asthma, with the poorest function (i.e., lowest forced
expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and highest specific airway
resistance (SRaw)) being experienced in the early morning hours
and the best function (i.e., highest FEV1 and lowest SRaw)
occurring in the mid-afternoon.
The degree of exercise tolerance varies with the severity of
disease. Mild asthmatic individuals have good exercise tolerance but
may not tolerate vigorous exercise such as prolonged running. Moderate
asthmatic individuals have diminished exercise tolerance, and
individuals with severe disease have very poor exercise tolerance that
markedly limits physical activity. Many asthmatic individuals
experience bronchoconstriction when exercising, even in clean air. This
response, called exercise-induced bronchoconstriction, is made worse by
cold, dry air. Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction is followed by a
refractory period of several hours during which an asthmatic individual
is less susceptible to bronchoconstriction (Edmunds et al., 1978). This
refractory period may alter an asthmatic individual's responsiveness to
SO2 or other inhaled substances.
c. Short-term SO2 Health Effects. The EPA's concern about the
potential public health consequences of exposures to short-term peaks
of SO2 arose from the extensive literature involving brief (2- to
10-min) controlled exposures of persons with mild (and in some cases
more moderate) asthma to concentrations of SO2 in the range of 0.1
ppm to 2 ppm while at elevated ventilation rates. The major effect of
SO2 on sensitive asthmatic individuals is bronchoconstriction,
usually evidenced in these studies by increased SRaw or decreased
FEV1, and the occurrence of clinical symptoms such as wheezing,
chest tightness, and shortness of breath. The proportion of asthmatic
individuals who respond, the magnitude of the response and the
occurrence of symptoms increase as SO2 concentrations and
ventilation rates increase. The health effects are relatively
transient. Numerous studies have shown that lung function typically
returns to normal for most subjects within an hour of exposure. No
substantial ``late phase'' responses have been noted for SO2,
unlike the case for more specific stimuli (e.g., pollen, dust mites, or
other allergens) in which ``late phase'' inflammatory responses often
occur 4-8 hours after exposure and are
[[Page 25571]]
often much more severe and dangerous than earlier immediate responses.
The available data also indicate that most types of regularly
administered asthma medications are not very effective in blocking the
SO2 response. The exception, however, is the most commonly used
class of asthma medications, the -sympathomimetic drugs (beta-
agonist bronchodilator), which are usually highly effective in
preventing the SO2 response from developing, if taken shortly
before exposure, or ameliorating the effect, if taken after symptoms
develop.
In assessing the results from the controlled human exposure
studies, it should be noted that the individuals who participate in
such studies typically have mild allergic asthma and can go without
medication altogether or can discontinue medication for brief periods
of time if exposures are conducted outside their normal allergy season.
In addition, the responses of African-American and Hispanic adolescents
and young adults to short-term SO2 exposures have not been studied
systematically. Finally, subjects who participate in controlled
exposure studies are also generally self-selected and this may
introduce some bias. Thus, the extent to which the participants in the
studies reflect the characteristics of the asthmatic population at
large is not known. Nevertheless, the high degree of consistency among
studies suggests that the subjects are generally representative of the
population at risk or that any selection bias is consistently present
across a diverse group of laboratories (EPA, 1994a).
The criteria document supplement (EPA, 1994a) contains a summary of
the literature on the health effects associated with brief exposures to
SO2. Recent studies have provided useful information about the
magnitude of responses in the range of 0.4 to 1.0 ppm SO2, the
range of interest identified in the 1988 proposal (53 FR 14948, April
26, 1988). Data from several of these recent large-scale chamber
studies were reexamined in Appendix B of the criteria document
supplement (EPA, 1994a) to provide a better understanding of the
responses observed in more sensitive subjects. Forced expiratory volume
in 1 second was used as a measure of lung function, in addition to
specific airway resistance, and other endpoints examined included
symptoms, alteration of workload, and medication usage occurring as a
consequence of these exposures.
Table B-1 of the criteria document supplement (EPA, 1994a)
summarizes the lung function changes in response to SO2
concentrations in the range of 0.6-1.0 ppm from controlled human
exposure studies. Because different studies used different measures of
lung function (FEV1 or SRaw), and different concentrations of
SO2, the discussion that follows describes group mean changes
first for the studies that used the measure SRaw, then group mean
changes for studies that used FEV1, and then finally the
individual responses.
The data indicate that, in terms of group mean changes, total
SRaw changes 5 were approximately twice as great at 0.6 ppm
and above as at 0.5 ppm and below. The differences were even more
pronounced when the changes in SRaw due to SO2 alone (i.e.,
after correction for the effects of exercise) were considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Since elevated ventilation sufficient for oronasal breathing
to occur is a requirement for most asthmatic persons to respond to
SO2, and because many asthmatic individuals experience
bronchoconstriction responses to exercise alone, it is useful to
distinguish between the two different effects. In this discussion,
``total FEV1 (or SRaw)'' refers to the total change in
lung function experienced by a subject as a result of an exposure to
SO2 while at exercise, while ``the effect of changes due to
SO2 alone'' refers to the total lung function change observed
minus the change seen for that subject from a control exposure at
exercise in clean air. Both measures have their utility: total
FEV1 or SRaw indicates the magnitude of overall lung
function change actually experienced by the subject, while the
change due to SO2 alone indicates how much of this total change
is attributable to the pollutant itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For FEV1, the differences in responses between 0.4 ppm and 0.6
ppm SO2 were not as pronounced. At 0.6 ppm SO2, group mean
decreases in total FEV1 of approximately 20 percent were observed
in the mild and moderate asthmatics studied. The changes in FEV1
due to SO2 alone resulted in decreases in FEV1 of
approximately 15 percent (EPA, 1994a, Table B-1).
In addition, at 0.6 ppm SO2, 25 percent or more of the
subjects had pronounced individual responses (either a 200 percent or
greater increase in SRaw or a 20 percent or greater decrease in
FEV1) due to SO2 alone (total changes in lung function for
these individuals would be expected to be even greater). In contrast,
at 0.5 ppm SO2, these more pronounced individual
responses were less frequent, occurring in fewer than 25 percent of the
subjects for both measures of lung function for all but one group
studied (EPA, 1994a, p. B-2).
While not examined in as much detail as lung function, other
indicators of severity also tend to increase with increasing SO2
concentration. In one study, for example, four of 24 moderate/severe
asthmatic subjects were required to reduce their exercise level because
of asthma symptoms at 0.6 ppm SO2. This occurred only once at each
of the lower concentrations (EPA, 1994a). Two recent studies, which
considered medication used to mitigate the effects of SO2 as a
health endpoint and which followed the subjects' medication use in
detail, found approximately twice as many subjects took medication
immediately after exposure to 0.6 ppm SO2 than after exposure to
0.3 ppm SO2 (EPA, 1994a, Table 7, p. 40).
Considering the variety of endpoints for which information is
available, clearly the effects beginning at 0.6 ppm and up to 1.0 ppm
are more pronounced than those at lower concentrations. This is in
agreement with the conclusions reached in the staff paper addendum
(EPA, 1986b), which stated that there were ``clearer indications of
clinically or physiologically significant effects at 0.6 to 0.75 ppm
SO2 and above.''
The staff also compared the effects of SO2 observed in these
recent controlled human exposure studies to the effects of moderate
exercise, typical daily variation in lung function, and the severity of
frequently-experienced asthma symptoms. The effects of 0.6 ppm SO2
exposure at moderate exercise, as measured by FEV1, exceeded
either the typical effect of exercise alone or typical daily variations
in FEV1 (EPA, 1994a, sections 4.3 and 5.3). For symptomatic
responses, two to eight times as many subjects, after exposure at
exercise to 0.6 ppm SO2, experienced symptoms of at least moderate
severity (13-62 percent of subjects) than after exercise in clean air
alone (4-19 percent of subjects) (EPA, 1994a, p. B-12). In addition, a
significant portion of subjects (approximately 15 to 60 percent,
depending on asthma status) participating in certain controlled human
exposure studies seemed to experience symptoms more frequently in
response to 0.6 ppm SO2 than at any other time during their
participation in the studies (EPA, 1994a, p. B-12).
Furthermore, the response seen in the most sensitive 25 percent of
responders at 0.6 ppm equalled or exceeded approximately a 30 percent
decline in FEV1 for mild asthmatic subjects, and approximately a
40 percent decline for moderate asthmatic individuals. By comparison,
during clinical bronchoprovocation testing, changes are not usually
induced beyond a 20 percent decrease in FEV1.
In addition, while at least some subjects can experience such a 20
percent decline without experiencing symptoms, in recent studies
focusing on effects at 0.6 ppm SO2, from 33-43 percent of moderate
asthmatics and from 6-35 percent of mild asthmatics experienced at
least a 20 percent
[[Page 25572]]
decrease in total FEV1 in conjunction with symptoms rated as being
of moderate severity or worse. It should be noted that the asthmatic
subjects with moderate/severe disease started an exposure with
compromised lung function compared to mild asthmatic subjects. While
the response to SO2 was similar in the mild versus the moderate/
severe asthmatic subjects, similar functional declines beginning from a
different baseline may have different biological importance (EPA,
1994a, pp. 21-25).
In the staff paper addendum, ``bronchoconstriction * * *
accompanied by at least noticeable symptoms,'' was seen as an
appropriate measure of concern (EPA, 1986b, p. 37).
However, a substantial proportion of the subjects in these more
recent studies experienced greater effects, bronchoconstriction with at
least moderate symptoms, beginning at 0.6 ppm SO2 (EPA, 1994a).
Considering the recent body of evidence along with previous
studies, the criteria document supplement (EPA, 1994a) concluded that
substantial percentages ( 25 percent) of mild or moderate
asthmatic individuals exposed to 0.6 to 1.0 ppm SO2 during
moderate exercise would be expected to have respiratory function
changes and severity of symptoms distinctly exceeding those experienced
as typical daily variation in lung function or in response to other
stimuli, such as moderate exercise. The severity of effects for many of
the responders is likely to be of sufficient concern to cause
disruption of ongoing activities, use of bronchodilator medication,
and/or possible seeking of medical attention. At most, only 10 to 20
percent of mild or moderate asthmatic individuals are likely to exhibit
lung function decrements in response to SO2 exposures of 0.2 to
0.5 ppm that would be of distinctly larger magnitude than typical
diurnal variation in lung function or changes in lung function
experienced by them in response to other often-encountered stimuli.
Furthermore, it appears likely that only the most sensitive responders
might experience sufficiently large lung function changes and/or
respiratory symptoms of such severity as to be of potential health
concern; that is, leading to the disruption of ongoing activities, the
need for bronchodilator medication, or seeking of medical attention.
d. Public Comments on Significance of Health Effects. In regard to
the measured changes in lung function (expressed as FEV1 or
SRaw), commenters did not disagree with the EPA's summary of the
available literature contained in the November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58958)
reproposal. Where there continues to be a real divergence of opinion
among asthma specialists and others is on interpretation of the
results, or on the medical significance of the lung function changes
that have been measured in exercising asthmatic subjects and summarized
in the various EPA documents. At issue are not the published data about
SO2-induced bronchoconstriction, but how they are interpreted.
As noted in the 1994 reproposal, bronchoconstriction caused by
brief exposure to 0.6 to 1.0 ppm SO2 is transient. Measurements of
lung function start to improve when the exposure ceases, or when the
subject ceases to exercise and the ventilation rate decreases to
resting levels; after 5 minutes of exposure, the magnitude of the
response does not worsen even if exposure and elevated ventilation rate
continue. Most often, lung function returns to preexposure levels
within 1 hour, occasionally taking up to 2 hours to return to normal. A
dose of one of the most commonly used classes of medication, inhaled
beta2-agonists, rapidly attenuates or prevents the response. The
transient nature of the response led some commenters to argue that the
health effects are not significant. These commenters stated that
although they would advise an asthmatic individual to take medication,
cease activity or avoid the stimulus, this behavior was an everyday
part of an asthmatic individual's life and not cause for medical
concern. Other commenters argued that any effect which may entail
bronchoconstriction severe enough to limit activity or cause medication
use is a significant health effect.
Many commenters argued that the documented effects are not
medically significant because, as one commenter put it, ``changes in
lung function are not meaningful endpoints in themselves, but must be
placed in the context of asthmatics' typical respiratory function,
which is both highly variable and reactive to many stimuli and
conditions'' (see Docket No. A-84-25, VIII-D-71). In general, these
commenters argued that the responses to short-term peaks of SO2 in
the range of 0.6 to 1.0 ppm are similar in nature and magnitude to the
well-tolerated responses to a variety of non-specific stimuli (cold,
dry air, exercise, irritants such as perfume) encountered on a daily
basis by most asthmatic individuals and are not in themselves
deleterious to the asthmatic individual's health. Other commenters
argued that this fact does not justify the neglect of potential ambient
air SO2 effects, and that unusual susceptibility to an inhaled
pollutant does not simply constitute a problem for the susceptible
individual.
Despite these opposing points of view, there was some agreement
that frequency of occurrence of SO2-induced health effects could
make a difference in the concern that a physician feels. That is, some
physicians felt that the documented SO2-induced health effects
were well tolerated by asthmatic individuals; however, if the effects
occurred frequently enough, then they would be cause for medical
concern (public hearing transcript, 1995, p. 155). Other physicians
felt that such effects are a cause for concern despite their transient
and reversible nature; if exposures occurred rarely enough, however,
these physicians would be less concerned (public hearing transcript,
1995, p. 89-90). Several commenters also noted that cold air appears to
act at least additively with SO2, and that the bronchoconstrictive
effect of cold air which contains SO2 is larger than that of
either exposure condition alone.
Some commenters took issue with EPA's assessment of the proportion
of asthmatic individuals who would experience meaningful symptoms or
have any disruption of daily activities. Based on personal experience,
one commenter stated that most asthmatics do not begin to perceive
bronchoconstriction until FEV1 falls to about 50 percent of its normal
value and SRaw increases about 400 percent (see Docket No. A-84-
25, VIII-D-71). Other commenters agreed that the kinds of symptomatic
responses experienced by asthmatic subjects exposed to SO2 in the
reviewed chamber studies are no more than brief, perceptible reactions
that might temporarily disrupt activities, but are well tolerated and
do not endanger the individuals' health or cause them to seek medical
attention. On the other hand, commenters who believed the effects were
significant argued that transient and reversible decrements in lung
function are adverse if they cause physical discomfort, interfere with
normal activity or impair the performance of daily activities, or
aggravate chronic respiratory disease by increasing the frequency or
severity of asthma attacks. Several commenters argued that measurable
effects have occurred after brief exposures, with elevated ventilation
rates, to concentrations as low as 0.25 to 0.28 ppm SO2, and thus
that the proposed 5-minute standard of 0.60 ppm SO2 leaves no
margin of safety. However, as stated above, considering a variety of
endpoints for which information is available, clearly the effects
beginning at 0.6 ppm and up to 1.0 ppm are more
[[Page 25573]]
pronounced than at lower concentrations.
As noted in the criteria document supplement (EPA, 1994a), the
staff paper supplement (EPA, 1994b) and the November 15, 1994
reproposal (59 FR 58958), unlike the effects of allergens and viral
infections, there is no evidence that short-term exposure to SO2
while at an elevated ventilation rate leads to any ``late phase''
response. ``Late-phase'' bronchoconstriction is indicative of a more
serious inflammatory reaction which takes much longer to resolve and
which can lead to emergency room visits and/or hospitalization. The
``late phase'' inflammatory response can also cause the airways to
become more sensitive to other stimuli. Since this type of response has
not been observed with brief exposures in the range of 0.6 to 1.0 ppm
SO2, many commenters argued that the health of asthmatic
individuals is not affected by such exposures.
The ability of inhaled beta2-agonists, the most commonly
prescribed class of asthma medications, to prevent or ameliorate the
effects of SO2 exposure was frequently cited as one reason why
most asthmatic individuals are unlikely to experience
bronchoconstriction due to exposure to short-term peaks of SO2.
These commenters argued that since most asthmatic individuals
experience exercise-induced bronchoconstriction, they are highly likely
to premedicate with an inhaled beta2-agonist medication prior to
exercise and therefore be protected from SO2-induced health
effects. Further, these commenters stated that the highly variable
compliance rates for medicine usage cited by EPA in the criteria
document supplement (EPA, 1994a), staff paper supplement (EPA, 1994b)
and November 15, 1994 reproposal (59 FR 58958) do not apply to
physically active asthmatic individuals, for whom medication compliance
rates are significantly better.
Conversely, many other commenters agreed with EPA that medication
compliance rates can be very poor, even for individuals who are
physically active, like children, and that many asthmatic individuals
use medication only after symptoms occur. These individuals would be at
risk for experiencing SO2-induced bronchoconstriction. Some
commenters, including one from a State's Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment, which recently reviewed that State's 1-hour SO2
standard (see Docket No. A-84-25, VIII-D-65), commented that an optimal
medication regimen from the standpoint of reducing SO2-induced
bronchoconstriction may result in undesirable side effects. Some of
these commenters also noted that SO2 exposure could cause
asymptomatic, exercise-induced bronchoconstriction to become
symptomatic, thereby causing an asthmatic individual to take medicine
that would normally not be needed. Several commenters argued that
relying on medication use instead of regulation was poor public policy.
Some of these commenters also argued that asthmatic individuals of
lower socioeconomic status may not be able to afford medication or have
limited access to health care. In the Administrator's judgment, these
concerns about accessibility of medication and health care, and the
variability of medication compliance rates, are legitimate ones.
Although the use of medication may substantially reduce the incidence
and/or severity of SO2-induced bronchoconstriction, the mere
availability of medication does not necessarily mean that all asthmatic
individuals will necessarily be protected from this effect. The
Administrator therefore concludes that this factor should not be
regarded as dispositive in assessing the appropriateness of regulatory
action to provide additional protection against short-term SO2
peaks.
Many commenters argued that there are no epidemiological studies
which show an association between short-term peaks of SO2 and
adverse health effects such as asthma symptoms or increased visits to
physicians or hospital emergency rooms. Some of these commenters argued
that the changes in lung function and symptoms found in some subjects
in controlled human exposure studies may not be indicative of what
would occur in real-world situations. The reason that there are no
epidemiological studies showing an association between short-term (5-
to 10-minute) peaks of SO2 and real-world health effects is that
apparently no studies have been conducted to examine the association or
lack thereof of short-term SO2 peaks and adverse health effects.
This is most likely because it would be difficult to design and conduct
an epidemiological study that could detect possible associations
between very brief (5- to 10-minute), geographically localized, peak
SO2 exposures and respiratory effects in asthmatic individuals.
Furthermore, the responses of naturally-breathing asthmatics exposed to
SO2 under controlled conditions in an environmental chamber
presumably reflect responses that would be observed in the ambient
(``real-world'') environment under similar conditions of activity
level, air temperature, and humidity. Although there is evidence that
other inhaled materials that modify airway responsiveness can influence
the response to SO2, there is no reason, at the present time, to
suggest that the ambient pollutant mixture would cause either a
suppression or an augmentation of SO2 effects through some, as yet
unrecognized, chemical interaction.
e. Significance of Health Effects. Taking into account the
available health effects studies and the body of comments on the health
effects, the Administrator agrees with the staff assessment that a
substantial percentage (20 percent or more) of mild-to-moderate
asthmatic individuals exposed to 0.6 to 1.0 ppm SO2 for 5 to 10
minutes at elevated ventilation rates, such as would be expected during
moderate exercise, would be expected to have lung function changes and
severity of respiratory symptoms that clearly exceed those experienced
from typical daily variation in lung function or in response to other
stimuli (e.g., moderate exercise or cold/dry air). For many of the
responders, the effects are likely to be both perceptible and thought
to be of some health concern; that is, likely to cause some disruption
of ongoing activities, use of bronchodilator medication, and/or
possibly seeking of medical attention. The EPA agrees with other
commenters that the frequency with which such effects are experienced
may affect the public health concern that is appropriate. Taking into
account the broad range of opinions expressed by CASAC members, medical
experts, and the public, the Administrator concludes that repeated
occurrences of such effects should be regarded as significant from a
public health standpoint. Accordingly, the Administrator also concurs
with the staff judgment that the likely frequency of occurrence of such
effects should be a consideration in assessing the overall public
health risk in a given situation.
2. Air Quality and Exposure Considerations
Another major basis for considering whether additional regulatory
measures are appropriate to reduce the occurrence of short-term peaks
of SO2 has been the estimation of the geographic extent and the
frequency of 5-minute peaks greater than 0.60 ppm SO2 in the
ambient air, and the likelihood that these peaks would result in
exposure conditions that could cause significant health effects. As
discussed in the staff paper supplement (EPA, 1994b) and the 1994
reproposal, the occurrence of short-term peaks of SO2 is
relatively infrequent and highly localized around point sources of
[[Page 25574]]
SO2. None of the air quality or exposure information subsequently
received by EPA has changed this assessment.
In 1993 and again in 1994, EPA requested that States collect and
submit 5-minute SO2 ambient monitoring data from source-based
monitors. Data were submitted from both industry and State-run monitors
and while much of this information was considered in the 1994 staff
paper supplement (EPA 1994b) and in the 1994 reproposal, a few sites
subsequently provided more data. Available data have been compiled and
statistical parameters calculated in a report for EPA by Systems
Applications International or SAI (1996).6 In general, the data
confirm that a substantial number of short-term peaks greater than 0.60
ppm can occur in the vicinity of certain sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The 5-minute concentrations ranged from 0 to > 2.5 ppm
SO2. The number of observations recorded at any monitor ranged
from 308 to 48,795 hours, with the mean number of observations
equalling 7,646 hours (a complete year of hourly maximum 5-minute
averages would contain 8,760 observations). There were 63 monitors,
located in 16 States, with continuous data sets of either the
maximum 5-minute block average per hour or all of the 5-minute block
averages per hour. For data sets containing all of the 5-minute
block averages per hour, the maximum 5-minute block average for each
hour was extracted and that parameter was used throughout the
analysis. Of the 63 monitors, 26 (41 percent) registered 1 or more
concentrations greater than the proposed short-term standard of 0.60
ppm SO2 during the time periods represented for the monitors
involved. For any given monitor, the number of such exceedances
ranged from 0 to 139, which corresponds to 0 to 3 percent of the
hours represented in the data. Of the 26 monitors measuring at least
1 exceedance, 11 monitors recorded from 1 to 5 exceedances, while 8
monitors in 4 communities recorded from 25 to 139 exceedances. While
these data came from sourcebased monitors, the existing SO2
monitoring network is designed to characterize ambient air quality
associated with 3-hour, 24-hour, and annual SO2 concentrations
rather than to detect short-term peak SO2 levels. This could
have resulted in underestimates of the maximum 5-minute block
averages recorded. Therefore, changes in monitor siting and density
near SO2 sources most likely to produce high 5-minute peaks
could increase both the number of exceedances and the concentrations
of the maximum 5-minute block averages recorded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As indicated previously, an important consideration is whether such
short-term peaks of SO2 are likely to cause episodes of
bronchoconstriction in asthmatic individuals. Thus, one method of
assessing the public health significance of SO2-induced effects is
to estimate the likelihood that asthmatic individuals will be exposed
to such peaks while simultaneously at elevated ventilation rates (EPA,
1994a, p.51). It should be noted, however, that not all asthmatic
individuals who experience such exposures will necessarily experience
SO2-induced health effects, either because of individual
variability or other factors.
At the time of the 1994 reproposal, three exposure analyses were
available that estimated the frequency of SO2 exposures that could
result in measurable health effects. Two of the analyses estimated the
potential frequency of exposure events resulting from operation of
utility boilers nationwide. For these two studies, detailed information
on actual emissions was available on a plant-by-plant basis (Burton et
al., 1987; Rosenbaum et al., 1992) to use in estimating ambient
SO2 concentrations and then exposures. The utility analyses
estimated there would be 68,000 exposure events per year at
0.5 ppm SO2, which would affect approximately 44,000 asthmatic
individuals at elevated ventilation rates. Taking into account full
implementation of the title IV program of the Act, in the year 2015,
the number of exposure events at 0.5 ppm SO2
attributable to the utility sector was estimated to drop to 40,000 per
year, contingent on trading decisions.
The third exposure analysis available at the time of the 1994
reproposal estimated nationwide SO2 exposures resulting from the
operation of nonutility sources. Because actual data were not
available, some conservative assumptions had to be made about operating
parameters, which increased the uncertainties in the analysis
(Stoeckenius et al., 1990). Probably the largest single source of
uncertainty in this analysis was the emissions estimates used for the
nonutility sources. The analysis estimated 114,000 to 326,000 exposures
to 0.5 ppm SO2 per year around nonutility sources. These exposures
were estimated to affect 24,000 to 122,000 asthmatic individuals at
elevated ventilation rates, implying that exposed individuals may be
exposed more than four times a year, on average.
Combining the utility and nonutility exposure estimates results in
a prediction of 180,000 to 395,000 total exposure events to 0.5 ppm
SO2 nationwide, per year. These analyses indicate that 68,000 to
166,000 asthmatic individuals (or 0.7 to 1.8 percent of the total
asthmatic population) potentially could be exposed one or more times,
while outdoors at exercise, to 5 minute peaks of SO2
0.5 ppm. The number of asthmatic individuals likely to be exposed to
0.60 ppm SO2 under the same conditions, of course,
would be smaller. The methodologies employed in these analyses,
together with the associated uncertainties, are discussed in some
detail in the staff paper supplement (EPA, 1994b, pp. 46-47, Appendix
B).
In response to the 1994 reproposal, several industry associations
sponsored and submitted as a public comment a revised analysis of
exposures around four types of nonutility sources (industrial/
commercial/institutional boilers, kraft and sulfite process pulp and
paper mills, and copper smelters) by Sciences International, Inc.
(1995). This study incorporated new data and additional analyses
designed to eliminate the need for some of the more conservative
assumptions employed in the Stoeckenius et al. (1990) study. A
principal feature of the new study is the use of improved source and
emissions data for all four source categories examined and especially
for sulfite process pulp mills and copper smelters. The new analysis
estimated significantly fewer expected exposure events for the four
source categories examined. In the original study, the four categories
were estimated to contribute a total of 73,000 to 259,000 exposure
events (Stoeckenius et al., 1990). In the revised analysis, this range
decreased by an order of magnitude, to between 7,892 and 23,099 events.
The same basic procedures were used to calculate expected exposures in
both the 1990 and 1995 studies. However, a direct comparison of the
results of the two exposure analyses may not be possible due to
differences in some key details between the two studies, which are
highlighted in a technical review by Stoeckenius (1995) of the Sciences
International, Inc. (1995) exposure analysis. In general, that review
indicates that while the Stoeckenius et al. (1990) study utilized
several very conservative assumptions, which most likely led to an
overestimate of exposures for these three source categories. The
Sciences International, Inc. (1995) reanalysis did not provide reliable
estimates of the degree of conservatism resulting from the original
assumptions which could then be used for the purpose of comparison. In
contrast, the updated information and data for copper smelters used in
the Sciences International, Inc. (1995) reanalysis most likely resulted
in a more accurate estimate of exposures for that source category than
did previously available estimates (Stoeckenius, 1995).
Another industry commenter submitted an exposure analysis (see
Docket No. A-84-25, VIII-G-08) that utilized actual SO2 ambient
air monitoring and demographic data from a community located near a
copper-smelting facility. The results of this analysis indicate that
the probability of SO2-related episodes of bronchoconstriction in
the sensitive
[[Page 25575]]
population of asthmatic individuals in the community is very low. There
was no evidence of an association between 5-minute concentrations of
SO2 > 0.60 ppm and episodes of bronchoconstriction in the
sensitive population.
These exposure analyses and the body of 5-minute SO2
monitoring data underscore the views of the Administrator, the staff
and the CASAC, reflected in the 1994 reproposal, that the likelihood
that asthmatic individuals will be exposed to 5-minute peak SO2
concentrations of concern, while outdoors and at elevated ventilation
rates, is very low when viewed from a national perspective. Even in
communities where frequent 5-minute peaks have been recorded, the
likelihood of exposure is highly variable. One county public health
agency submitted 5-minute SO2 monitoring data (see Docket No. A-
84-25, VIII-D-15), for the years 1993-1994, from the 10 continuous
SO2 monitors in the local surveillance network. Only monitors
located near large industrial sources of SO2 measured exceedances
of 0.60 ppm SO2. Of 29 exceedances measured over a 2-year period,
approximately half of the exceedances were associated with breakdowns
of the desulfurization equipment used to control SO2 emissions
from coke plants in the county. The agency noted that more than 70
percent of the hours in which exceedances were measured occurred very
late at night or early in the morning, which would reduce the
likelihood of the exceedances affecting the sensitive population.
Nonetheless, the 5-minute monitoring data indicate that some
communities in proximity to SO2 sources are repeatedly subjected
to high short-term concentrations of SO2 in the ambient air.
Asthmatic individuals who reside in proximity to certain individual
sources may be at greater risk of being exposed to such peak SO2
levels while at elevated ventilation rates, and, therefore, at greater
risk of suffering health effects than the asthmatic population as a
whole. This conclusion is supported by the comments of citizens and
physicians living in areas where high 5-minute peaks of SO2 have
been recorded. Citizens have reported, for example, that they developed
asthma upon moving to an SO2-impacted area; that their asthma is
better, both in terms of symptoms and indicators such as peak flow
measurements when they leave the SO2-impacted area on vacation or
for medical treatment; and that their peak flow measurements decrease
when the wind is blowing from the direction of the local SO2
source(s). These citizens express the belief that ambient SO2
concentrations are responsible for their symptoms. Physicians have
commented that they believe that ambient air SO2 concentrations in
their communities are negatively affecting the health of their
patients. Most of these comments came from two of the six communities
for which SO2 monitoring data show repeated high 5-minute peaks
greater than 0.60 ppm SO2.
The data also indicate that asthmatic individuals living in
communities in which 5-minute peaks greater than 0.60 ppm SO2
rarely occur may be subject to much less risk of experiencing health
effects that cause cessation of activities or increased medication use.
Even when monitors record a substantial number of such peaks, the
likelihood that a significant number of asthmatic individuals will be
exposed to such peaks with some frequency while at elevated ventilation
rates may range from nonexistent to fairly high depending upon such
localized factors as the magnitude and frequency of the peaks, the
times of occurrence, meteorological conditions in the area, the density
of the population near the source(s) involved, and daily activity
patterns. Thus, estimation of risk must be done on a case-by-case basis
and be based on site-specific factors. In short, the data clearly show
that 5-minute peaks greater than 0.60 ppm SO2 can occur around
particular industrial point sources of SO2, that such peaks are
not ubiquitous from a national perspective but instead appear to occur
only in the vicinity of such sources, and that the risk of exposures
that could cause significant health effects in asthmatic individuals
cannot be estimated based solely on the number of recorded high 5-
minute peaks of SO2, but instead must be estimated using site-
specific factors.
3. Conclusions
For reasons discussed above, based on her assessment of the
relevant scientific and technical information and taking into account
public comment, it is the Administrator's judgment that 5-minute peak
SO2 levels do not pose a broad public health problem when viewed
from a national perspective. As discussed in some detail in the 1994
reproposal, the existing suite of SO2 standards and associated
control strategies clearly limit both the occurrence of high 5-minute
peak SO2 levels, and the likelihood that asthmatic individuals
will be exposed to them while outdoors and at elevated ventilation
rates.
In considering the residual risk posed by such peak concentrations,
the Administrator has taken a number of factors into account. As
discussed in the criteria document and staff paper supplements (EPA
1994a, p. 51, EPA 1994b, p. 59), an important consideration in
determining the public health risk posed by 5-minute concentrations in
the range of 0.60 to 1.0 ppm SO2 is the frequency with which an
asthmatic individual may be exposed while at an elevated ventilation
rate. As discussed earlier, there is some agreement that infrequent
exposures in this range may not be a cause for significant concern. As
the frequency of exposure increases, so does concern about the
associated public health risk. Asthmatic individuals living in
communities in which 5-minute peaks in the range of 0.60 to 1.0 ppm
SO2 rarely occur may be unlikely to experience exposure events
that would cause them to cease their activities or increase medication
use. In particular locations, of course, the concentrations involved in
exposure events can exceed 1.0 ppm SO2, and could induce a greater
response in an exposed asthmatic individual than lower concentrations.
Thus, frequency of exposure events alone is not an adequate indicator
of the risk to public health. As discussed above, factors such as the
magnitude of 5-minute SO2 peaks, time of day, activity patterns,
and the size of the population exposed are also relevant. As a result,
whether 5-minute peak SO2 concentrations will pose a significant
public health risk depends largely on highly localized factors.
Given the localized, infrequent and site-specific nature of the
risk involved, the Administrator has concluded that short-term peak
concentrations of SO2 do not constitute the type of ubiquitous
public health problem for which establishing a NAAQS would be
appropriate. For similar reasons, the Administrator concludes that
adoption of a section 303 program employing a uniform, nationwide
trigger level would not be an appropriate response. With respect to the
third alternative identified in the 1994 reproposal (augmenting
implementation of existing SO2 NAAQS), it has become increasingly
clear that even full attainment of the existing SO2 standards
would not preclude the occurrence of high 5-minute SO2 peaks in
particular locations. Moreover, given the site-specific nature of the
problem, States can more effectively identify for monitoring purposes,
sources that may be causing or contributing to high 5-minute SO2
concentrations.
For the reasons discussed previously, the Administrator has
concluded that repeated exposures to 5-minute peak SO2 levels of
0.60 ppm and above could
[[Page 25576]]
pose a risk of significant health effects for asthmatic individuals at
elevated ventilation rates in some localized situations. The
Administrator has also concluded that the residual health risks posed
by short-term concentrations are most appropriately addressed at the
State level. In the Administrator's judgment, the States are in a far
better position than EPA to assess the highly localized and site-
specific factors that determine whether the occurrence of such
concentrations in a given area poses a significant public health risk
to the local population, and if so, to fashion an appropriate remedial
response. This view was also advanced by some States in their comments
on the 1994 reproposal.
To assist the States in addressing short-term peak SO2 levels,
EPA will publish a reproposal notice superseding the March 1995 notice
(59 FR 12492) that proposed revisions to 40 CFR part 51 establishing a
new program under section 303 of the Act that would differ from that
contemplated in the 1994 reproposal. The new program would also differ
from existing programs under section 303 that are designed to protect
against episodic events.
In particular, EPA plans to propose two new levels as guides to
State action: A ``concern level'' at 0.60 ppm SO2, 5-minute block
average; and an ``intervention level'' at 2.0 ppm SO2, 5-minute
block average. Under the program to be proposed, the States would
determine whether 5-minute peak SO2 levels recorded in the range
of 0.60 to 2.0 ppm SO2 posed a significant public health risk and,
if so, the appropriate remedial response. To assist the States in
reaching such determinations, the proposal will identify, in the form
of guidance, factors that EPA believes should be considered in
assessing whether recorded peaks pose a significant health risk to the
local population. Among other things, the factors would include the
frequency and magnitude of observed 5-minute peaks, and the likelihood
and frequency of exposures for asthmatic individuals at elevated
ventilation rates. In assessing whether observed 5-minute peaks in this
range posed a significant public health risk, thus warranting
intervention, the States would be advised to take into account the
above factors, as well as others they might deem appropriate. It is the
Administrator's judgment that establishing such a program, in which the
States would determine at the local level whether peak SO2 levels
in the range of 0.60 to 2.0 ppm SO2 posed a significant public
health risk and, if so, the appropriate remedial response, is the most
effective approach for addressing this potential public health problem.
C. Final Decision on Primary Standards
For the reasons discussed above, and in the November 15, 1994
reproposal notice (58 FR 58958), it is the Administrator's judgment
under section 109(d)(1) that revisions to the existing primary SO2
NAAQS are not appropriate at this time. As provided for under the Act,
the EPA will continue to assess the scientific information on health
effects associated with 5-minute, 24-hour and annual SO2 exposures
as it emerges from research and ongoing SO2 monitoring programs,
and will update the air quality criteria for sulfur oxides accordingly.
The revised criteria will provide the basis for the next review of the
primary NAAQS for SO2.
D. Technical Changes
There were relatively few comments on the proposed technical
changes. Several environmental an
FR Doc. 96-12863 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur Dioxide)Final Decision
d public interest groups and one State
preferred the running averaging convention, while industry comments
supported the block averaging convention. A small number of comments
were also received both for and against the change from mg/
m\3\ to ppm. Taking these comments into account, EPA has decided to
promulgate the technical changes set forth in the 1994 reproposal.
First, the block averaging convention will be retained, and language
clarifying this point will be adopted in the regulation (40 CFR 50.4
and 50.5). Under the block convention, periods such as 24 hours and 3
hours are measured sequentially and do not overlap; when one averaging
period ends, the next begins.
Although the wording of the original 24-hour, 3-hour, and annual
SO2 standards may have been ambiguous on the matter, the earliest
actions of the EPA signify that the block averaging convention was
intended for these standards (OAQPS, l986), and block averages have
generally been used in implementing the standards. Given a fixed
standard level, the use of the alternative, running averages, would
represent a tightening of the standards (Faoro, 1983; Possiel, 1985).
For reasons explained in this notice and in the April 21, 1993, notice
on the secondary NAAQS (58 FR 21351), the Administrator has already
determined that protection of the public health and welfare does not
require tightening the existing standards. Therefore, EPA will retain
the block averaging convention for the 24-hour, 3-hour, and annual
standards.
The second technical change to be adopted is that the levels for
the primary and secondary NAAQS will be stated in ppm rather than
g/m\3\ (40 CFR 50.4 and 50.5). This will be done to make the
SO2 NAAQS consistent with those for other pollutants and to
facilitate public understanding of the standards. Although the ppm
levels are slightly less than their current g/m\3\
counterparts, the differences are considered negligible (Frank, 1988).
Finally, the explicit rounding conventions and the data
completeness and handling conventions put forth in the reproposal will
be adopted.
IV. Regulatory Impacts
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, the Agency must determine whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one 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 entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations or 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.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified
EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA has submitted this action
to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented in the public docket and made
available for public inspection at EPA's Air and Radiation Docket
Information Center (Docket No. A-84-25).
The EPA has judged that today's decision on the SO2 primary
NAAQS is not an economically-significant regulatory action as defined
by Executive Order 12866 because there are no additional costs or other
impacts as a result of not revising the standards. The EPA, therefore,
has deemed unnecessary the preparation of a final regulatory impact
statement.
[[Page 25577]]
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 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. The
Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that all Federal agencies consider
the impacts of final regulations on small entities, which are defined
to be small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). A decision not to revise the
existing primary NAAQS for SO2 would, of course, impose no new
requirements on small entities. In addition, the SIPs necessary to
implement the existing primary standards have been substantially
adopted and implemented. Additional SIP requirements will be needed
only for those areas or sources which are designated as nonattainment
for the existing primary standards now or in the future. Given the
current air quality and attainment status, however, it is very unlikely
that new SIP requirements would be required that would significantly
affect a substantial number of small entities.
C. Impact on Reporting Requirements
There are no reporting requirements directly associated with an
ambient air quality standard promulgated under section 109 of the Act
(42 U.S.C. 7400). There are, however, reporting requirements associated
with related sections of the Act, particularly sections 107, 110, 160,
and 317 (42 U.S.C. 7407, 7410, 7460, and 7617). This final action will
not result in any changes in these reporting requirements since it
would retain the existing levels and averaging times for the primary
standards. The current standards are covered under EPA Information
Collection Request Number 940.13.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under sections 202, 203, and 205,
respectively, of the UMRA, EPA generally must: (1) Prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final
rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to
State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year; (2) develop a
small government agency plan; and (3) 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.
Because the Administrator has decided not to revise the existing
primary NAAQS for SO2, this action will not impose any new
expenditures on governments or on the private sector, or establish any
new regulatory requirements affecting small governments. Accordingly,
EPA has determined that the provisions of sections 202, 203, and 205 of
the UMRA do not apply to this final decision.
E. Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12848 requires that each Federal agency make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionally high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minorities and low-income populations. These requirements
were addressed in the draft Regulatory Impact Analysis (59 FR 58958;
November 15, 1994) and taken into account by EPA in reaching its
determination that revisions to the existing primary SO2 NAAQS are
not appropriate at this time.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 50
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: May 14, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
References
Burton, C.S.; Stockenius, T.E.; Stocking, T.S.; Carr, E.L.; Austin,
B.S.; Roberson, R.L. (1987) Assessment of exposures of exercising
asthmatics to short-term SO2 levels as a result of emissions
from U.S. fossil-fueled power plants. Systems Applications, Inc.,
San Rafael, CA. Pub. No. 87/176, September 23, 1987.
DHEW [U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare] (1970), Air
Quality Criteria for Sulfur Oxides, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC, AP-50.
Edmunds, A.T.; Tooley, M.; Godfrey, S. (1978) The refractory period
after exercise-induced asthma: its duration and relation to the
severity of exercise, Am. Rev. Resp. Dis. 117:247-254.
EPA (1982a), Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter and Sulfur
Oxides, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Research
Triangle Park, NC, EPA-600/8-82-029a-c.
EPA (1982b), Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Sulfur Oxides: Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information-OAQPS Staff Paper, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-450/5-82-007.
EPA (1986a), Second Addendum to Air Quality Criteria for Particulate
Matter and Sulfur Oxides (1982): Assessment of Newly Available
Health Effects Information, Environmental Criteria and Assessment
Office, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-450/5-86-012.
EPA (1986b), Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Sulfur Oxides: Updated Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information, Addendum to the 1982 OAQPS Staff Paper, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC EPA-450/
05-86-013.
EPA (1994a), Supplement to the Second Addendum (1986) to Air Quality
Criteria for Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides (1982): Assessment
of New Findings on Sulfur Dioxide Acute Exposure Health Effects in
Asthmatic Individuals, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,
Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA/600/FP-93/002.
EPA (1994b), Review of the Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur
Oxides: Updated Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information,
Supplement to the 1986 OAQPS Staff Paper Addendum, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA/452/
R-94-013.
Evans, R., III; Mullally, D. I.; Wilson, R. W.; Gergen, P. J.;
Rosenberg, H. M.; Grauman, J. S.; Chevarley, F. M.; Feinleib, M.
(1987), National trends in the morbidity and mortality of asthma in
the US. Prevalence, hospitalization and death from asthma over two
decades: 1965-1984, Chest 91(suppl.): 65S-74S.
Faoro, B., U.S. EPA, Data Analysis Section (1983), Comparison of
Second Max Non-Overlapping and Midnight-to-Midnight (Block) Average,
Memorandum to William F. Hunt Jr., Chief, Data Analysis Section,
August 15, 1983, Docket No. A-79-28, II-B-11.
Frank, N. U.S. EPA, Technical Support Division (1988), Memorandum to
John Haines, Air Quality Management Division, January 5, 1988,
Docket No. A-84-25, II-B-3.
National Institutes of Health (1991), Guidelines for the diagnosis
and management of asthma, Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute,
National Asthma Education Program; publication no. 91-3042.
OAQPS [Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards] (1986), Proper
Interpretation of the Averaging Convention for the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Sulfur Oxides, OAQPS Staff Position Paper,
March 1986, Docket No. A-79-28, II-A-15.
[[Page 25578]]
Possiel, N.C., U.S. EPA, Model Applications Section (1985), Analysis
of Running Versus Block SO2 Model Estimates, Memorandum to
Henry C. Thomas, Standards Development Section, August 27, 1985,
Docket No. A-79-28, II-B-12.
Public Hearing (1995), Transcript of meeting held in Research
Triangle Park, NC on February 8, 1995, Docket No. A-84-25, VIII-F-
17.
Rosenbaum, A.S.; Hudischewskyj, A.B.; Roberson, R.L.; Burton, C.S.
(1992) Estimates of Future Exposures of Exercising Asthmatics to
Short-term Elevated SO2 Concentrations Resulting from Emissions
of U.S. Fossil-fueled Power Plants: Effects of the 1990 Amendments
to the Clean Air Act and a 5-minute Average Ambient SO2
Standard. Pub. No. SYSAPP-92/016, April 23, 1992.
Schwartz, J.; Gold, D.; Dockery, D. W.; Weiss, S. T.; Speizer, F. E.
(1990), Predictors of asthma and persistent wheeze in a national
sample of children in the United States: association with social
class, perinatal events, and race, Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 142: 555-
562.
Sciences International, Inc. (1995), Estimate of the Nationwide
Exercising Asthmatic Exposure Frequency to Short-Term Peak Sulfur
Dioxide Concentrations in the Vicinity of Non-Utility Sources.
Alexandria, VA, Docket No. A-84-25, VIII-D-71.
Stoeckenius, T.E. (1995), Technical Review of NMA's Report on:
`Estimate of the Nationwide Exercising Asthmatic Exposure Frequency
to Short-Term Peak Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations in the Vicinity of
Non-Utility Sources.' ENVIRON International Corporation, Novato, CA,
Docket No. A-84-25, VIII-A-01.
Stoeckenius, T.E.; Garelick, B.; Austin, B.S.; O'Connor, K.;
Pehling, J.R. (1990). Estimates of Nationwide Asthmatic Exposures to
Short-term Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations in the Vicinity of Non-
Utility Sources. Systems Applications Inc., San Rafael, CA, Pub. No.
SYSAPP-90/129, December 6, 1990.
Systems Applications International (1996) Summary of 1988-1995
Ambient 5-Minute SO2 Concentration Data. Systems Applications
International, Research Triangle Park, NC, Docket No. A-84-25, VIII-
A-02.
Appendix I to the Preamble
February 19, 1987
The Honorable Lee M. Thomas,
Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
20460
Dear Mr. Thomas: The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC) has completed its review of the 1986 Addendum to the 1982
Staff Paper on Sulfur Oxides (Review of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Sulfur Oxides: Updated Assessment of
Scientific and Technical Information) prepared by the Agency's
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS).
The Committee unanimously concludes that this document is
consistent in all significant respects with the scientific evidence
presented and interpreted in the combined Air Quality Criteria
Document for Particulate Matter/Sulfur Oxides (1982) and its 1986
Addendum, on which CASAC issued its closure letter on December 15,
1986. The Committee believes that the 1986 Addendum to the 1982
Staff Paper on Sulfur Oxides provides you with the kind and amount
of technical guidance that will be needed to make appropriate
decisions with respect to the standards. The Committee's major
findings and conclusions concerning the various scientific issues
and studies discussed in the staff paper addendum are contained in
the attached report.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the Committee's views
on this important public health and welfare issue.
Sincerely,
Morton Lippmann, Ph.D.,
Chairman, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
cc: A. James Barnes
Gerald Emison
Lester Grant
Vaun Newill
John O'Connor
Craig Potter
Terry Yosie
Summary of Major Scientific Issues and CASAC Conclusions on the 1986
Draft Addendum to the 1982 Sulfur Oxides Staff Paper
The Committee found the technical discussions contained in the
staff paper addendum to be scientifically thorough and acceptable,
subject to minor editorial revisions. This document is consistent in
all significant respects with the scientific evidence presented in the
1982 combined Air Quality Criteria Document for Particulate Matter/
Sulfur Oxides and its 1986 Addendum, on which the Committee issued its
closure letter on December 15, 1986.
Scientific Basis for Primary Standards
The Committee addressed the scientific basis for a 1-hour, 24-hour,
and annual primary standards at some length in its August 26, 1983
closure letter on the 1982 Sulfur Oxides Staff Paper. That letter was
based on the scientific literature which had been published up to 1982.
The present review has examined the more recently published studies.
It is clear that no single study of SO2 can fully address the
range of public health issues that arise during the standard setting
process. The Agency has completed a thorough analysis of the strengths
and weaknesses of various studies and has derived its recommended
ranges of interest by evaluating the weight of the evidence. The
Committee endorses this approach.
The Committee wishes to comment on several major issues concerning
the scientific data that are available. These issues include:
Recent studies more clearly implicate particulate matter
than SO2 as a longer-term public health concern at low exposure
levels.
A majority of Committee members believe that the effects
reported in the clinical studies of asthmatics represent effects of
significant public health concern.
The exposure uncertainties associated with a 1-hour
standard are quite large. The relationship between the frequency of
short-term peak exposures and various scenarios of asthmatic responses
is not well understood. Both EPA and the electric power industry are
conducting further analyses of a series of exposure assessment issues.
Such analyses have the potential to increase the collective
understanding of the relationship between SO2 exposures and
responses observed in subgroups of the general population.
The number of asthmatics vulnerable to peak exposures near
electric power plants, given the protection afforded by the current
standards, represents a small number of people. Although the Clean Air
Act requires that sensitive population groups receive protection, the
size of such groups has not been defined. CASAC believes that this
issue represents a legal/policy matter and has no specific scientific
advice to provide on it.
CASAC's advice on primary standards for three averaging times is
presented below:
1-Hour Standard--It is our conclusion that a large, consistent data
base exists to document the bronchoconstrictive response in mild to
moderate asthmatics subjected in clinical chambers to short-term, low
levels of sulfur dioxide while exercising. There is, however, no
scientific basis at present to support or dispute the hypothesis that
individuals participating in the SO2 clinical studies are
surrogates for more sensitive asthmatics. Estimates of the size of the
asthmatic population that experience exposures to short-term peaks of
SO2 (0.2-0.5 parts per million (ppm) SO2 for 5-10 minutes)
during light to moderate exercise, and that can be expected to exhibit
a bronchoconstrictive response, varies from 5,000 to 50,000.
The majority of the Committee believes that the scientific evidence
supporting the establishment of a new 1-hour standard is stronger than
it was in 1983. As a result, and in view of the significance of the
effects reported in
[[Page 25579]]
these clinical studies, there is strong, but not unanimous support for
the recommendation that the Administrator consider establishing a new
1-hour standard for SO2 exposures. The Committee agrees that the
range suggested by EPA staff (0.2--0.5 ppm) is appropriate, with
several members of the Committee suggesting a standard from the middle
of this range. The Committee concludes that there is not a
scientifically demonstrated need for a wide margin of safety for a 1-
hour standard.
24-Hour Standard--The more recent studies presented and analyzed in
the 1986 staff paper addendum, in particular, the episodic lung
function studies in children (Dockery et al., and Dassen et al.) serve
to strengthen our previous conclusion that the rationale for
reaffirming the 24-hour standard is appropriate.
Annual Standard--The Committee reaffirms its conclusion, voiced in
its 1983 closure letter, that there is no quantitative basis for
retaining the current annual standard. However, a decision to abolish
the annual standard must be considered in the light of the total
protection that is to be offered by the suite of standards that will be
established.
The above recommendations reflect the consensus position of CASAC.
Not all CASAC reviewers agree with each position adopted because of the
uncertainties associated with the existing scientific data. However, a
strong majority supports each of the specific recommendations presented
above, and the entire Committee agrees that this letter represents the
consensus position.
Secondary Standards
The 3-hour secondary standard was not addressed at this review.
Appendix II to the Preamble
June 1, 1994.
Honorable Carol M. Browner,
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street,
SW., Washington, D.C. 20460
Subject: Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Closure on the
Supplements to Criteria Document and Staff Position Papers for
SO2
Dear Ms. Browner: The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC) at a meeting on April 12, 1994, completed its review of the
documents: Supplement to the Second Addendum (1986) to Air Quality
Criteria for Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides; Assessment of New
Findings on Sulfur Dioxide and Acute Exposure Health Effects in
Asthmatics; and Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Sulfur Oxides: Updated Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information, Supplement to the 1986 OAQPS Staff Paper Addendum. The
Committee notes, with satisfaction, the improvements made in the
scientific quality and completeness of the documents.
With the changes recommended at our March 12 session, written
comments submitted to the Agency subsequent to the meeting, and the
major points provided below, the documents are consistent with the
scientific evidence available for sulfur dioxide. They have been
organized in a logical fashion and should provide an adequate basis
for a regulatory decision. Nevertheless, there are four major points
which should be called to your attention while reviewing these
materials:
1. A wide spectrum of views exists among the asthma specialists
regarding the clinical and public health significance of the effects
of 5 to 10 minute concentrations of sulfur dioxide on asthmatics
engaged in exercise. On one end of the spectrum is the view that
spirometric test responses can be observed following such short-term
exposures and they are a surrogate for significant health effects.
Also, there is some concern that the effects are underestimated
because moderate asthmatics, not severe asthmatics, were used in the
clinical tests. At the other end of the spectrum, the significance
of the spirometric test results are questioned because the response
is similar to that evoked by other commonly encountered, non-
specific stimuli such as exercise alone, cold, dry air inhalation,
vigorous coughing, psychological stress, or even fatigue. Typically,
the bronchoconstriction reverses itself within one or two hours, is
not accompanied by a late-phase response (often more severe and
potentially dangerous than the immediate response), and shows no
evidence of cumulative or long-term effects. Instead, it is
characterized by a short-term period of bronchoconstriction, and can
be prevented or ameliorated by beta-agonist aerosol inhalation.
2. It was the consensus of CASAC that the exposure scenario of
concern is a rare event. The sensitive population in this case is an
unmedicated asthmatic engaged in moderate exercise who happens to be
near one of the several hundred sulfur dioxide sources that have the
potential to produce high ground-level sulfur dioxide concentrations
over a small geographical area under rare adverse meteorological
conditions. In addition, CASAC pointed out that sulfur dioxide
emissions have been significantly reduced since EPA conducted its
exposure analysis and emissions will be further reduced as the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments are implemented. Consequently, such
exposures will become even rarer in the future.
3. It was the consensus of CASAC that any regulatory strategy to
ameliorate such exposures be risk-based--targeted on the most likely
sources of short-term sulfur dioxide spikes rather than imposing
short-term standards on all sources. All of the nine CASAC Panel
members recommended that Option 1, the establishment of a new 5-
minutes standard, not be adopted. Reasons cited for this
recommendation included: the clinical experiences of many ozone
experts which suggest that the effects are short-term, readily
reversible, and typical of response seen with other stimuli.
Further, the committee viewed such exposures as rare events which
will even become rarer as sulfur dioxide emissions are further
reduced as the 1990 amendments are implemented. In addition, the
committee pointed out that enforcement of a short-term NAAQS would
require substantial technical resources. Furthermore, the committee
did not think that such a standard would be enforceable (see below).
4. CASAC questioned the enforceability of a 5-minute NAAQS or
``target level.'' Although the Agency has not proposed an air
monitoring strategy, to ensure that such a standard or ``target
level'' would not be exceeded, we infer that potential sources would
have to be surrounded by concentric circles of monitors. The
operation and maintenance of such monitoring networks would be
extremely resource intensive. Furthermore, current instrumentation
used to routinely monitor sulfur dioxide does not respond quickly
enough to accurately characterize 5-minute spikes.
The Committee appreciates the opportunity to participate in this
review and looks forward to receiving notice of your decision on the
standard. Please do not hesitate to contact me if CASAC can be of
further assistance on this matter.
Sincerely,
George T. Wolff, Ph.D.,
Chair, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter I of title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 50--NATIONAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 109 and 301(a), Clean Air Act, as amended (42
U.S.C. 7409, 7601(a)).
2. Section 50.4 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 50.4 National primary ambient air quality standards for sulfur
oxides (sulfur dioxide).
(a) The level of the annual standard is 0.030 parts per million
(ppm), not to be exceeded in a calendar year. The annual arithmetic
mean shall be rounded to three decimal places (fractional parts equal
to or greater than 0.0005 ppm shall be rounded up).
(b) The level of the 24-hour standard is 0.14 parts per million
(ppm), not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year. The 24-hour
averages shall be determined from successive nonoverlapping 24-hour
blocks starting at midnight each calendar day and shall be rounded to
two decimal places (fractional parts equal to or greater than 0.005 ppm
shall be rounded up).
[[Page 25580]]
(c) Sulfur oxides shall be measured in the ambient air as sulfur
dioxide by the reference method described in Appendix A to this part or
by an equivalent method designated in accordance with part 53 of this
chapter.
(d) To demonstrate attainment, the annual arithmetic mean and the
second-highest 24-hour averages must be based upon hourly data that are
at least 75 percent complete in each calendar quarter. A 24-hour block
average shall be considered valid if at least 75 percent of the hourly
averages for the 24-hour period are available. In the event that only
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, or 23 hourly averages are available, the 24-hour
block average shall be computed as the sum of the available hourly
averages using 18, 19, etc. as the divisor. If fewer than 18 hourly
averages are available, but the 24-hour average would exceed the level
of the standard when zeros are substituted for the missing values,
subject to the rounding rule of paragraph (b) of this section, then
this shall be considered a valid 24-hour average. In this case, the 24-
hour block average shall be computed as the sum of the available hourly
averages divided by 24.
3. Section 50.5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 50.5 National secondary ambient air quality standard for sulfur
oxides (sulfur dioxide).
(a) The level of the 3-hour standard is 0.5 parts per million
(ppm), not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year. The 3-hour
averages shall be determined from successive nonoverlapping 3-hour
blocks starting at midnight each calendar day and shall be rounded to 1
decimal place (fractional parts equal to or greater than 0.05 ppm shall
be rounded up).
(b) Sulfur oxides shall be measured in the ambient air as sulfur
dioxide by the reference method described in appendix A of this part or
by an equivalent method designated in accordance with Part 53 of this
chapter.
(c) To demonstrate attainment, the second-highest 3-hour average
must be based upon hourly data that are at least 75 percent complete in
each calendar quarter. A 3-hour block average shall be considered valid
only if all three hourly averages for the 3-hour period are available.
If only one or two hourly averages are available, but the 3-hour
average would exceed the level of the standard when zeros are
substituted for the missing values, subject to the rounding rule of
paragraph (a) of this section, then this shall be considered a valid 3-
hour average. In all cases, the 3-hour block average shall be computed
as the sum of the hourly averages divided by 3.
[FR Doc. 96-12863 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12856 Defense Finance and Accounting Service
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25561-25566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12856]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Finance and Accounting Service
32 CFR Part 324
[DFAS Reg. 5400.11-R]
DFAS Privacy Act Program
AGENCY: Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DOD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule establishes the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service Privacy Act Program. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service
(DFAS) was established to provide finance and accounting services for
the DoD Components and other Federal activities, as designated by the
Comptroller, DoD.
The Defense Finance and Accounting Service was activated on January
15, 1991, to improve the overall effectiveness of DoD financial
management through the consolidation, standardization and integration
of finance and accounting systems, procedures and operations. DFAS is
also responsible for identifying and implementing finance and
accounting requirements, systems and functions for appropriated and
non-appropriated funds, as well as working capital, revolving funds and
trust fund activities--including security assistance.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Genevieve Turney (703) 607-5165 or
DSN 327-5165.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866. The Director,
Administration and Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense has
determined that this Privacy Act rule for the Department of Defense
does not constitute `significant regulatory action'. Analysis of the
rule indicates that it does not have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more; does not create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
does not materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; does not raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of
legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth
in Executive Order 12866 (1993).
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980. The Director, Administration and
Management, Office of the Secretary of Defense certifies that this
Privacy Act rule for the Department of Defense does not have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because it is concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act
systems of records within the Department of Defense.
Paperwork Reduction Act. The Director, Administration and Management,
Office of the Secretary of Defense certifies that this Privacy Act rule
for the Department of Defense imposes no information requirements
beyond the Department of Defense and that the information collected
within the Department of Defense is necessary and consistent with 5
U.S.C. 552a, known as the Privacy Act of 1974.
This rule establishes the Defense Finance and Accounting Service
(DFAS) Privacy Act Program. DFAS was established to provide finance and
accounting services for the DoD Components and other Federal
activities, as designated by the Comptroller, DoD. The proposed rule
was previously published on March 1, 1996, at 61 FR 8003. No comments
were received resulting in any contrary determinations, therefore, DFAS
is adopting the rule as published.
List of subjects in 32 CFR part 324
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 324 is added to read as follows:
PART 324-DFAS PRIVACY ACT PROGRAM
Subpart A-General Information
324.1 Issuance and purpose.
324.2 Applicability and scope.
324.3 Policy.
324.4 Responsibilities.
Subpart B-Systems of Records
324.5 General information.
324.6 Procedural rules.
324.7 Exemption rules.
Subpart C-Individual Access to Records
324.8 Right of access.
324.9 Notification of record's existence.
324.10 Individual requests for access.
324.11 Denials.
324.12 Granting individual access to records
324.13 Access to medical and psychological records.
324.14 Relationship between the Privacy Act and the Freedom of
Information Act.
Appendix A to part 324 - DFAS Reporting Requirements
[[Page 25562]]
Appendix B to part 324 - System of Records Notice
Authority: Pub. L. 93-579, 88 Stat 1896 (5 U.S.C. 552a).
Subpart A - General information
Sec. 324.1 Issuance and purpose.
The Defense Finance and Accounting Service fully implements the
policy and procedures of the Privacy Act and the DoD 5400.11-R \1\,
`Department of Defense Privacy Program' (see 32 CFR part 310). This
regulation supplements the DoD Privacy Program only to establish policy
for the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) and provide DFAS
unique procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Copies may be obtained at cost from the National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 324.2 Applicability and scope.
This regulation applies to all DFAS, Headquarters, DFAS Centers,
the Financial System Organization (FSO), and other organizational
components. It applies to contractor personnel who have entered a
contractual agreement with DFAS. Prospective contractors will be
advised of their responsibilities under the Privacy Act Program.
Sec. 324.3 Policy.
DFAS personnel will comply with the Privacy Act of 1974, the DoD
Privacy Program and the DFAS Privacy Act Program. Strict adherence is
required to ensure uniformity in the implementation of the DFAS Privacy
Act Program and to create conditions that will foster public trust.
Personal information maintained by DFAS organizational elements will be
safeguarded. Information will be made available to the individual to
whom it pertains to the maximum extent practicable. Specific DFAS
policy is provided for Privacy Act training, responsibilities,
reporting procedures and implementation requirements. DFAS Components
will not define policy for the Privacy Act Program.
Sec. 324.4 Responsibilities.
(a) Director, DFAS.
(1) Ensures the DFAS Privacy Act Program is implemented at all DFAS
locations.
(2) The Director, DFAS, will be the Final Denial Appellate
Authority. This authority may be delegated to the Director for Resource
Management.
(3) Appoints the Director for External Affairs and Administrative
Support, or a designated replacement, as the DFAS Headquarters Privacy
Act Officer.
(b) DFAS Headquarters General Counsel.
(1) Ensures uniformity is maintained in legal rulings and
interpretation of the Privacy Act.
(2) Consults with DoD General Counsel on final denials that are
inconsistent with other final decisions within DoD. Responsible to
raise new legal issues of potential significance to other Government
agencies.
(3) Provides advice and assistance to the DFAS Director, Center
Directors, and the FSO as required, in the discharge of their
responsibilities pertaining to the Privacy Act.
(4) Acts as the DFAS focal point on Privacy Act litigation with the
Department of Justice.
(5) Reviews Headquarters' denials of initial requests and appeals.
(c) DFAS Center Directors.
(1) Ensures that all DFAS Center personnel, all personnel at
subordinate levels, and contractor personnel working with personal data
comply with the DFAS Privacy Act Program.
(2) Serves as the DFAS Center Initial Denial Authority for requests
made as a result of denying release of requested information at
locations within DFAS Center authority. Initial denial authority may
not be redelegated. Initial denial appeals will be forwarded to the
appropriate DFAS Center marked to the attention of the DFAS Center
Initial Denial Authority.
(d) Director, FSO.
(1) Ensures that FSO and subordinate personnel and contractors
working with personal data comply with the Privacy Act Program.
(2) Serves as the FSO Initial Denial Authority for requests made as
a result of denying release of requested information at locations
within FSO authority. FSO Initial denial authority may not be
redelegated.
(3) Appoints a Privacy Act Officer for the FSO and each Financial
System Activity (FSA).
(e) DFAS Headquarters Privacy Act Officer.
(1) Establishes, issues and updates policy for the DFAS Privacy Act
Program and monitors compliance. Serves as the DFAS single point of
contact on all matters concerning Privacy Act policy. Resolves any
conflicts resulting from implementation of the DFAS Privacy Act Program
policy.
(2) Serves as the DFAS single point of contact with the Department
of Defense Privacy Office. This duty may be delegated.
(3) Ensures that the collection, maintenance, use and/or
dissemination of records of identifiable personal information is for a
necessary and lawful purpose, that the information is current and
accurate for the intended use and that adequate security safeguards are
provided.
(4) Monitors system notices for agency systems of records. Ensures
that new, amended, or altered notices are promptly prepared and
published. Reviews all notices submitted by the DFAS Privacy Act
Officers for correctness and submits same to the Department of Defense
Privacy Office for publication in the Federal Register. Maintains and
publishes a listing of DFAS Privacy Act system notices.
(5) Establishes DFAS Privacy Act reporting requirement due dates.
Compiles all Agency reports and submits the completed annual report to
the Defense Privacy Office. DFAS reporting requirements are provided in
Appendix A to this part.
(6) Conducts annual Privacy Act Program training for DFAS
Headquarters (HQ) personnel. Ensures that subordinate DFAS Center and
FSO Privacy Act Officers fulfill annual training requirements.
(f) FSO and Financial System Activities (FSAs) Legal Support. The
FSO and subordinate FSA organizational elements will be supported by
the appropriate DFAS-HQ or DFAS Center General Counsel office.
(g) DFAS Center(s) Assistant General Counsel.
(1) Ensures uniformity is maintained in legal rulings and
interpretation of the Privacy Act and this regulation. Consults with
the DFAS-HQ General Counsel as required.
(2) Provides advice and assistance to the DFAS Center Director and
the FSA in the discharge of his/her responsibilities pertaining to the
Privacy Act.
(3) Coordinates on DFAS Center and the FSA denials of initial
requests.
(h) DFAS Center Privacy Act Officer.
(1) Implements and administers the DFAS Privacy Act Program for all
personnel, to include contractor personnel, within the Center,
Operating Locations (OpLocs) and Defense Accounting Offices (DAOs).
(2) Ensures that the collection, maintenance, use, or dissemination
of records of identifiable personal information is in a manner that
assures that such action is for a necessary and lawful purpose; the
information is timely and accurate for its intended use; and that
adequate safeguards are provided to prevent misuse of such information.
Advises the Program Manager that systems notices must be published in
the Federal Register prior to collecting or maintenance of the
information. Submits system notices to the DFAS-HQ Privacy Act Officer
for
[[Page 25563]]
review and subsequent submission to the Department of Defense Privacy
Office.
(3) Administratively controls and processes Privacy Act requests.
Ensures that the provisions of this regulation and the DoD Privacy Act
Program are followed in processing requests for records. Ensures all
Privacy Act requests are promptly reviewed. Coordinates the reply with
other organizational elements as required.
(4) Prepares denials and partial denials for the Center Director's
signature and obtain required coordination with the assistant General
Counsel. Responses will include written justification citing a specific
exemption or exemptions.
(5) Prepares input for the annual Privacy Act Report as required
using the guidelines provided in Appendix A to this part.
(6) Conducts training on the DFAS Privacy Act Program for Center
personnel.
(i) FSO Privacy Act Officer.
(1) Implements and administers the DFAS Privacy Act Program for all
personnel, to include contractor personnel, within the FSO.
(2) Ensures that the collection, maintenance, use, or dissemination
of records of identifiable personal information is in a manner that
assures that such action is for a necessary and lawful purpose; the
information is timely and accurate for its intended use; and that
adequate safeguards are provided to prevent misuse of such information.
Advises the Program Manager that systems notices must be published in
the Federal Register prior to collecting or maintenance of the
information. Submits system notices to the DFAS-HQ Privacy Act Officer
for review and subsequent submission to the Department of Defense
Privacy Office.
(3) Administratively controls and processes Privacy Act requests.
Ensures that the provisions of this regulation and the DoD Privacy Act
Program are followed in processing requests for records. Ensure all
Privacy Act requests are promptly reviewed. Coordinate the reply with
other organizational elements as required.
(4) Prepares denials and partial denials for signature by the
Director, FSO and obtains required coordination with the assistant
General Counsel. Responses will include written justification citing a
specific exemption or exemptions.
(5) Prepares input for the annual Privacy Act Report (RCS: DD
DA&M(A)1379) as required using the guidelines provided in Appendix A to
this part.
(6) Conducts training on the DFAS Privacy Act Program for FSO
personnel.
(j) DFAS employees.
(1) Will not disclose any personal information contained in any
system of records, except as authorized by this regulation.
(2) Will not maintain any official files which are retrieved by
name or other personal identifier without first ensuring that a system
notice has been published in the Federal Register.
(3) Reports any disclosures of personal information from a system
of records or the maintenance of any system of records not authorized
by this regulation to the appropriate Privacy Act Officer for action.
(k) DFAS system managers (SM).
(1) Ensures adequate safeguards have been established and are
enforced to prevent the misuse, unauthorized disclosure, alteration, or
destruction of personal information contained in system records.
(2) Ensures that all personnel who have access to the system of
records or are engaged in developing or supervising procedures for
handling records are totally aware of their responsibilities to protect
personal information established by the DFAS Privacy Act Program.
(3) Evaluates each new proposed system of records during the
planning stage. The following factors should be considered:
(i) Relationship of data to be collected and retained to the
purpose for which the system is maintained. All information must be
relevant to the purpose.
(ii) The impact on the purpose or mission if categories of
information are not collected. All data fields must be necessary to
accomplish a lawful purpose or mission.
(iii) Whether informational needs can be met without using personal
identifiers.
(iv) The disposition schedule for information.
(v) The method of disposal.
(vi) Cost of maintaining the information.
(4) Complies with the publication requirements of DoD 5400.11-R,
`Department of Defense Privacy Program' (see 32 CFR part 310). Submits
final publication requirements to the appropriate DFAS Privacy Act
Officer.
(l) DFAS program manager(s). Reviews system alterations or
amendments to evaluate for relevancy and necessity. Reviews will be
conducted annually and reports prepared outlining the results and
corrective actions taken to resolve problems. Reports will be forwarded
to the appropriate Privacy Act Officer.
(m) Federal government contractors. When a DFAS organizational
element contracts to accomplish an agency function and performance of
the contract requires the operation of a system of records or a portion
thereof, DoD 5400.11-R, `Department of Defense Privacy Program' (see 32
CFR part 310) and this part apply. For purposes of criminal penalties,
the contractor and its employees shall be considered employees of DFAS
during the performance of the contract.
(1) Contracting Involving Operation of Systems of Records.
Consistent with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) \2\ and the DoD
Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (DFAR) \3\, Part
224.1, contracts involving the operation of a system of records or
portion thereof shall specifically identify the record system, the work
to be performed and shall include in the solicitations and resulting
contract such terms specifically prescribed by the FAR and DFAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Copies may be obtained at cost from the Superintendent of
Documents, P.O. Box 37195, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954.
\3\ See footnote 2 to Sec. 324.4(m)(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Contracting. For contracting subject to this part, the Agency
shall:
(i) Informs prospective contractors of their responsibilities under
the DFAS Privacy Act Program.
(ii) Establishes an internal system for reviewing contractor
performance to ensure compliance with the DFAS Privacy Act Program.
(3) Exceptions. This rule does not apply to contractor records that
are:
(i) Established and maintained solely to assist the contractor in
making internal contractor management decisions, such as records
maintained by the contractor for use in managing the contract.
(ii) Maintained as internal contractor employee records, even when
used in conjunction with providing goods or services to the agency.
(4) Contracting procedures. The Defense Acquisition Regulatory
Council is responsible for developing the specific policies and
procedures for soliciting, awarding, and administering contracts.
(5) Disclosing records to contractors. Disclosing records to a
contractor for use in performing a DFAS contract is considered a
disclosure within DFAS. The contractor is considered the agent of DFAS
when receiving and maintaining the records for the agency.
[[Page 25564]]
Subpart B - Systems of Records
Sec. 324.5 General information.
(a) The provisions of DoD 5400.11-R, `Department of Defense Privacy
Program' (see 32 CFR part 310) apply to all DFAS systems of records.
DFAS Privacy Act Program Procedural Rules, DFAS Exemption Rules and
System of Record Notices are the three types of documents relating to
the Privacy Act Program that must be published in the Federal Register.
(b) A system of records used to retrieve records by a name or some
other personal identifier of an individual must be under DFAS control
for consideration under this regulation. DFAS will maintain only those
Systems of Records that have been described through notices published
in the Federal Register.
(1) First amendment guarantee. No records will be maintained that
describe how individuals exercise their rights guaranteed by the First
Amendment unless maintenance of the record is expressly authorized by
Statute, the individual or for an authorized law enforcement purpose.
(2) Conflicts. In case of conflict, the provisions of DoD 5400.11-R
take precedence over this supplement or any DFAS directive or procedure
concerning the collection, maintenance, use or disclosure of
information from individual records.
(3) Record system notices. Record system notices are published in
the Federal Register as notices and are not subject to the rule making
procedures. The public must be given 30 days to comment on any proposed
routine uses prior to implementing the system of record.
(4) Amendments. Amendments to system notices are submitted in the
same manner as the original notices.
Sec. 324.6 Procedural rules.
DFAS procedural rules (regulations having a substantial and direct
impact on the public) must be published in the Federal Register first
as a proposed rule to allow for public comment and then as a final
rule. Procedural rules will be submitted through the appropriate DFAS
Privacy Act Officer to the Department of Defense Privacy Office.
Appendix B to this part provides the correct format. Guidance may be
obtained from the DFAS-HQ and DFAS Center Records Managers on the
preparation of procedural rules for publication.
Sec. 324.7 Exemption rules.
(a) Submitting proposed exemption rules. Each proposed exemption
rule submitted for publication in the Federal Register must contain:
The agency identification and name of the record system for which an
exemption will be established; The subsection(s) of the Privacy Act
which grants the agency authority to claim an exemption for the system;
The particular subsection(s) of the Privacy Act from which the system
will be exempt; and the reasons why an exemption from the particular
subsection identified in the preceding subparagraph is being claimed.
No exemption to all provisions of the Privacy Act for any System of
records will be granted. Only the Director, DFAS may make a
determination that an exemption should be established for a system of
record.
(b) Submitting exemption rules for publication. Exemption rules
must be published in the Federal Register first as proposed rules to
allow for public comment, then as final rules. No system of records
shall be exempt from any provision of the Privacy Act until the
exemption rule has been published in the Federal Register as a final
rule. The DFAS Privacy Act Officer will submit proposed exemption
rules, in proper format, to the Defense Privacy Office, for review and
submission to the Federal Register for publication. Amendments to
exemption rules are submitted in the same manner as the original
exemption rules.
(c) Exemption for classified records. Any record in a system of
records maintained by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service which
falls within the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) may be exempt from
the following subsections of 5 U.S.C. 552a: (c)(3), (d), (e)(1),
(e)(4)(G)-(e)(4)(I) and (f) to the extent that a record system contains
any record properly classified under Executive Order 12589 and that the
record is required to be kept classified in the interest of national
defense or foreign policy. This specific exemption rule, claimed by the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service under authority of 5 U.S.C.
552a(k)(1), is applicable to all systems of records maintained,
including those individually designated for an exemption herein as well
as those not otherwise specifically designated for an exemption, which
may contain isolated items of properly classified information
(1) General exemptions. (Reserved)
(2) Specific exemptions. (Reserved)
Subpart C - Individual Access to Records
Sec. 324.8 Right of access.
The provisions of DoD 5400.11-R, `Department of Defense Privacy
Program' (see 32 CFR part 310) apply to all DFAS personnel about whom
records are maintained in systems of records. All information that can
be released consistent with applicable laws and regulations should be
made available to the subject of record.
Sec. 324.9 Notification of record's existence.
All DFAS Privacy Act Officers shall establish procedures for
notifying an individual, in response to a request, if the system of
records contains a record pertaining to him/her.
Sec. 324.10 Individual requests for access.
Individuals shall address requests for access to records to the
appropriate Privacy Act Officer by mail or in person. Requests for
access should be acknowledged within 10 working days after receipt and
provided access within 30 working days. Every effort will be made to
provide access rapidly; however, records cannot usually be made
available for review on the day of request. Requests must provide
information needed to locate and identify the record, such as
individual identifiers required by a particular system, to include the
requester's full name and social security number.
Sec. 324.11 Denials.
Only a designated denial authority may deny access. The denial must
be in writing.
Sec. 324.12 Granting individual access to records.
(a) The individual should be granted access to the original record
(or exact copy) without any changes or deletions. A record that has
been amended is considered the original.
(b) The DFAS component that maintains control of the records will
provide an area where the records can be reviewed. The hours for review
will be set by each DFAS location.
(c) The custodian will require presentation of identification prior
to providing access to records. Acceptable identification forms include
military or government civilian identification cards, driver's license,
or other similar photo identification documents.
(d) Individuals may be accompanied by a person of their own
choosing when reviewing the record; however, the custodian will not
discuss the record in the presence of the third person without written
authorization.
(e) On request, copies of the record will be provided at a cost of
$.15 per page. Fees will not be assessed if the cost is less that
$30.00. Individuals requesting copies of their official personnel
records are entitled to one
[[Page 25565]]
free copy and then a charge will be assessed for additional copies.
Sec. 324.13 Access to medical and psychological records.
Individual access to medical and psychological records should be
provided, even if the individual is a minor, unless it is determined
that access could have an adverse effect on the mental or physical
health of the individual. In this instance, the individual will be
asked to provide the name of a personal physician, and the record will
be provided to that physician in accordance with guidance in Department
of Defense 5400.11-R, `Department of Defense Privacy Program' (see 32
CFR part 310).
Sec. 324.14 Relationship between the Privacy Act and the Freedom of
Information Act.
Access requests that specifically state or reasonably imply that
they are made under FOIA, are processed pursuant to the DFAS Freedom of
Information Act Regulation. Access requests that specifically state or
reasonably imply that they are made under the PA are processed pursuant
to this regulation. Access requests that cite both the FOIA and the PA
are processed under the Act that provides the greater degree of access.
Individual access should not be denied to records otherwise releasable
under the PA or the FOIA solely because the request does not cite the
appropriate statute. The requester should be informed which Act was
used in granting or denying access.
Appendix A to part 324-DFAS Reporting Requirements
By February 1, of each calendar year, DFAS Centers and Financial
Systems Organizations will provide the DFAS Headquarters Privacy Act
Officer with the following information:
1. Total Number of Requests for Access:
a. Number granted in whole:
b. Number granted in part:
c. Number wholly denied:
d. Number for which no record was found:
2. Total Number of Requests to Amend Records in the System:
a. Number granted in whole:
b. Number granted in part:
c. Number wholly denied:
3. The results of reviews undertaken in response to paragraph 3a of
Appendix I to OMB Circular A-130 \4\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Copies available from the Office of Personnel Management,
1900 E. Street, Washington, DC 20415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix B to part 324-System of Records Notice
The following data captions are required for each system of records
notice published in the Federal Register. An explanation for each
caption is provided.
1. System identifier. The system identifier must appear in all
system notices. It is limited to 21 positions, including agency code,
file number, symbols, punctuation, and spaces.
2. Security classification. Self explanatory. (DoD does not publish
this caption. However, each agency is responsible for maintaining the
information.)
3. System name. The system name must indicate the general nature of
the system of records and, if possible, the general category of
individuals to whom it pertains. Acronyms should be established
parenthetically following the first use of the name (e.g., `Field Audit
Office Management Information System (FMIS)'). Acronyms shall not be
used unless preceded by such an explanation. The system name may not
exceed 55 character positions, including punctuation and spaces.
4. Security classification. This category is not published in the
Federal Register but is required to be kept by the Headquarters Privacy
Act Officer.
5. System location. a. For a system maintained in a single
location, provide the exact office name, organizational identity,
routing symbol, and full mailing address. Do not use acronyms in the
location address.
b. For a geographically or organizationally decentralized system,
describe each level of organization or element that maintains a portion
of the system of records.
c. For an automated data system with a central computer facility
and input or output terminals at geographically separate locations,
list each location by category.
d. If multiple locations are identified by type of organization,
the system location may indicate that official mailing addresses are
published as an appendix to the agency's compilation of systems of
records notices in the Federal Register. If no address directory is
used, or if the addresses in the directory are incomplete, the address
of each location where a portion of the record system is maintained
must appear under the `system location' caption.
e. Classified addresses shall not be listed but the fact that they
are classified shall be indicated.
f. The U.S. Postal Service two-letter state abbreviation and the
nine-digit zip code shall be used for all domestic addresses.
6. Categories of individuals covered by the system. Use clear, non
technical terms which show the specific categories of individuals to
whom records in the system pertain. Broad descriptions such as `all
DFAS personnel' or `all employees' should be avoided unless the term
actually reflects the category of individuals involved.
7. Categories of records in the system. Use clear, non technical
terms to describe the types of records maintained in the system. The
description of documents should be limited to those actually retained
in the system of records. Source documents used only to collect data
and then destroyed should not be described.
8. Authority for maintenance of the system. The system of records
must be authorized by a Federal law or Executive Order of the
President, and the specific provision must be cited. When citing
federal laws, include the popular names (e.g., `5 U.S.C. 552a, The
Privacy Act of 1974') and for Executive Orders, the official titles
(e.g., `Executive Order 9397, Numbering System for Federal Accounts
Relating to Individual Persons').
9. Purpose(s). The specific purpose(s) for which the system of
records was created and maintained; that is, the uses of the records
within DFAS and the rest of the Department of Defense should be listed.
10. Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including
categories of users and purposes of the uses. All disclosures of the
records outside DoD, including the recipient of the disclosed
information and the uses the recipient will make of it should be
listed. If possible, the specific activity or element to which the
record may be disclosed (e.g., `to the Department of Veterans Affairs,
Office of Disability Benefits') should be listed. General statements
such as `to other Federal Agencies as required' or `to any other
appropriate Federal Agency' should not be used. The blanket routine
uses, published at the beginning of the agency's compilation, applies
to all system notices, unless the individual system notice states
otherwise.
11. Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies: This entry is
optional for certain debt collection systems of records.
12. Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing,
retaining, and disposing of records in the system. This section is
divided into four parts.
13. Storage: The method(s) used to store the information in the
system (e.g., `automated, maintained in computers
[[Page 25566]]
and computer output products' or `manual, maintained in paper files' or
`hybrid, maintained in paper files and in computers') should be stated.
Storage does not refer to the container or facility in which the
records are kept.
14. Retrievability: How records are retrieved from the system
(e.g., `by name,' `by SSN,' or `by name and SSN') should be indicated.
15. Safeguards: The categories of agency personnel who use the
records and those responsible for protecting the records from
unauthorized access should be stated. Generally the methods used to
protect the records, such as safes, vaults, locked cabinets or rooms,
guards, visitor registers, personnel screening, or computer `fail-safe'
systems software should be identified. Safeguards should not be
described in such detail as to compromise system security.
16. Retention and disposal: Describe how long records are
maintained. When appropriate, the length of time records are maintained
by the agency in an active status, when they are transferred to a
Federal Records Center, how long they are kept at the Federal Records
Center, and when they are transferred to the National Archives or
destroyed should be stated. If records eventually are destroyed, the
method of destruction (e.g., shredding, burning, pulping, etc.) should
be stated. If the agency rule is cited, the applicable disposition
schedule shall also be identified.
17. System manager(s) and address. The title (not the name) and
address of the official or officials responsible for managing the
system of records should be listed. If the title of the specific
official is unknown, such as with a local system, the local director or
office head as the system manager should be indicated. For
geographically separated or organizationally decentralized activities
with which individuals may correspond directly when exercising their
rights, the position or title of each category of officials responsible
for the system or portion thereof should be listed. Addresses that
already are listed in the agency address directory or simply refer to
the directory should not be included.
18. Notification procedures. (1) Notification procedures describe
how an individual can determine if a record in the system pertains to
him/her. If the record system has been exempted from the notification
requirements of subsection (f)(l) or subsection (e)(4)(G) of the
Privacy Act, it should be so stated. If the system has not been
exempted, the notice must provide sufficient information to enable an
individual to request notification of whether a record in the system
pertains to him/her. Merely referring to a DFAS regulation is not
sufficient. This section should also include the title (not the name)
and address of the official (usually the Program Manager) to whom the
request must be directed; any specific information the individual must
provide in order for DFAS to respond to the request (e.g., name, SSN,
date of birth, etc.); and any description of proof of identity for
verification purposes required for personal visits by the requester.
19. Record access procedures. This section describes how an
individual can review the record and obtain a copy of it. If the system
has been exempted from access and publishing access procedures under
subsections (d)(1) and (e)(4)(H), respectively, of the Privacy Act, it
should be so indicated. If the system has not been exempted, describe
the procedures an individual must follow in order to review the record
and obtain a copy of it, including any requirements for identity
verification. If appropriate, the individual may be referred to the
system manager or another DFAS official who shall provide a detailed
description of the access procedures. Any addresses already listed in
the address directory should not be repeated.
20. Contesting records procedures. This section describes how an
individual may challenge the denial of access or the contents of a
record that pertains to him or her. If the system of record has been
exempted from allowing amendments to records or publishing amendment
procedures under subsections (d)(1) and (e)(4)(H), respectively, of the
Privacy Act, it should be so stated. If the system has not been
exempted, this caption describes the procedures an individual must
follow in order to challenge the content of a record pertaining to him/
her, or explain how he/she can obtain a copy of the procedures (e.g.,
by contacting the Program Manager or the appropriate DFAS Privacy Act
Officer).
21. Record source categories: If the system has been exempted from
publishing record source categories under subsection (e)(4)(I) of the
Privacy Act, it should be so stated. If the system has not been
exempted, this caption must describe where DFAS obtained the
information maintained in the system. Describing the record sources in
general terms is sufficient; specific individuals, organizations, or
institutions need not be identified.
22. Exemptions claimed for the system. If no exemption has been
established for the system, indicate `None.' If an exemption has been
established, state under which provision of the Privacy Act it is
established (e.g., `Portions of this system of records may be exempt
under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).')
Dated: May 15, 1996.
L. M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 96-12856 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12851 Determination of Eligibility for Free Meals by Summer Food Service Program Sponsors and Free and Reduced Price Meals by Child and Adult Care Food Program Institutions
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25550-25555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12851]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Consumer Service
7 CFR Parts 225 and 226
RIN 0584-AB17
Determination of Eligibility for Free Meals by Summer Food
Service Program Sponsors and Free and Reduced Price Meals by Child and
Adult Care Food Program Institutions
AGENCY: Food and Consumer Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule amends the regulations governing the collection of
social security numbers and household income information on the
application for free meals under the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP)
for Children, and for free and reduced price meals under the Child and
Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). The rule removes the requirement that
households provide the social security numbers of all adult members of
the household and requires the household to provide only the social
security number of the adult household member who signs the
application. Finally, when reporting household income, the household
will no longer be required to indicate how often individual income
amounts are received, or to calculate its total current income. All of
the above provisions are intended to reduce paperwork and facilitate
eligibility determinations for free and reduced price meals by
simplifying the application requirements for both households and
approving officials, while maintaining program integrity.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 21, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert M. Eadie or Edward Morawetz,
Policy and Program Development Branch, Child Nutrition Division, Food
and Consumer Service, Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center
Drive, Room 1007, Alexandria, Virginia 22302 or telephone 703-305-2620.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866, and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has also been reviewed with regard to the requirements of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The Administrator of
the Food and Consumer Service has certified that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The effect of the provisions of this rule will be to reduce
paperwork and facilitate eligibility determinations for free and
reduced price meals by simplifying the application requirements for
both households and approving officials, while maintaining program
integrity.
Executive Order 12372
The CACFP and SFSP are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.558 and 10.559, respectively, and are subject
to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires
intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials (7 CFR
Part 3015, Subpart V, and final rule related notice published at 48 FR
29114, June 24, 1983).
Information Collection
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501-3520), the reporting and recordkeeping changes included in this
rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under control numbers 0584-0055 and 0584-0280.
Executive Order 12778
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule is intended to have preemptive effect with
respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which
conflict with its provisions or which would otherwise impede its full
implementation. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect
unless so specified in the ``Effective Date'' section of this preamble.
Prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule or the
application of its provisions, all applicable administrative procedures
must be exhausted. In the SFSP, the administrative procedures are set
forth under the following regulations: (1) Program sponsors and food
service management companies must follow State agency hearing
procedures issued pursuant to 7 CFR Sec. 225.13; and (2) Disputes
involving procurement by State agencies and sponsors must follow
administrative appeal procedures to the extent required by 7 CFR
Sec. 225.17 and 7 CFR Part 3015. In the CACFP, the administrative
procedures are set forth under the following regulations: (1)
Institution appeal procedures in 7 CFR Sec. 226.6(k); and (2) Disputes
involving procurement by State agencies and institutions must follow
administrative appeal procedures to the extent required by 7 CFR
Sec. 226.22 and 7 CFR Part 3015.
This rule codifies the amendments set forth under sections
202(b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(B)(i) of the Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act of 1989 (Pub. L. 101-147) regarding the collection
of social security numbers and total income calculations for programs
under the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) and the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.). Section 202(c) of
Pub. L. 101-147 required that final regulations be issued incorporating
these amendments by July 1, 1990. However, we were unable to issue
regulations on the collection of social security numbers and total
income calculation amendments before the statutory deadline. The
provisions were implemented by a policy memorandum issued on May 18,
1990.
This rule is being issued as a final rule, rather than a proposed
rule, because of the mandated implementation date. Further, this rule
is being issued as a final rule because of the need to formally
implement these changes to the application procedures. Although a
policy memorandum has already been distributed to give State agencies
guidance, the SFSP and CACFP regulations must be amended to codify the
changes mandated by sections 202(b)(2)(A) and 202(b)(2)(B)(i) of Pub.
L. 101-147. Final regulations have already been promulgated
incorporating these changes for the National School Lunch, School
Breakfast and Special Milk Programs (56 FR 33857, July 24, 1991). For
consistency and simplicity, it is important that the SFSP and CACFP
regulations be amended to conform with the National School Lunch,
School Breakfast, and Special Milk Program regulations. Finally, the
changes to the application being made by this rulemaking will simplify
the application procedures for households. For these reasons, the
Administrator of the Food and Consumer Service has determined, in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), that it is impracticable and
[[Page 25551]]
contrary to public interest to take prior public comment and that good
cause therefore exists for publishing this rule without prior public
notice and comment.
Background
For the purpose of determining eligibility for free meals in the
SFSP and free and reduced price meals in the CACFP, sponsors/
institutions must distribute free meal or free and reduced price meal
applications to the families of enrolled participants. Prior to the
amendments made by Pub. L. 101-147, under both programs, households
applying for benefits were required to submit an application containing
complete documentation of eligibility, as defined in Sections 225.2,
``Documentation,'' and 225.15(f) of the SFSP regulations (7 CFR Part
225) and Sections 226.2, ``Documentation,'' and 226.23(e)(1) of the
CACFP regulations (7 CFR Part 226). Under current Sections 225.15(f)(3)
and 226.23(e)(1)(iv) of the SFSP and CACFP regulations, respectively,
``documentation'' for participating children who were members of Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) assistance units or food stamp
households means the completion of the following information on the
application: the child's name; a current food stamp or AFDC case
number; and the signature of an adult household member. Under current
Section 226.23(e)(1)(v) of the CACFP regulations, for adult
participants who were members of food stamp households or who receive
assistance under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the Aged,
Blind and Disabled Program or under the Grant to States for Medical
Assistance Programs (Medicaid), ``documentation'' of eligibility means
the completion of the following information on the application: the
name of the adult participant; his/her food stamp case number or SSI or
Medicaid identification number; and the signature of an adult household
member.
In all other cases, under current regulations, documentation for
all children in the SFSP and for all children and adults applying for
participation in the CACFP consists of a completed free meal or free
and reduced price meal application that, pursuant to Section
225.15(f)(2) of the SFSP regulations and Sections 226.23(e)(1)(ii) and
(iii) of the CACFP regulations includes: the names of the child or
adult for whom application is being made; the names of all other
household members; social security numbers for all adult household
members or an indication that an adult household member did not have a
social security number; the total current income and the income
received by each household member identified by source; and the
signature of an adult household member. The official responsible for
making eligibility determinations (the ``determining official'') for
free or reduced price benefits is required to review the application to
ensure that it is complete and, for households that submitted income
information, to compare the household size and income to the Income
Eligibility Guidelines issued annually by the Department. Households
that provide a food stamp, AFDC, Medicaid or SSI number on the
application are considered categorically eligible for free meals.
Social Security Numbers
Section 202(b)(2)(A) of Pub. L. 101-147, enacted on November 10,
1989, amended section 9(d)(1) of the National School Lunch Act (42
U.S.C. 1758(d)(1)) to eliminate the requirement for the collection of
the social security numbers of all adult household members as a
condition of eligibility for participants who are not categorically
eligible for benefits. Rather, the law now requires that the member of
the household who executes the application include the social security
number of the parent or guardian who is the primary wage earner
responsible for the care of the child for whom application is made, or
the number of another appropriate adult member of the child's
household, as determined by the Secretary. Additionally, section
9(d)(1), as further amended by section 202(b)(2)(A) of Pub. L. 101-147,
requires that the household provide the social security numbers of each
adult household member if the application is selected for verification
of eligibility.
On May 9, 1990, the Department issued an interim rule at 55 FR
19237 which implemented sections 202(b)(2)(A) and (B) of Pub. L. 101-
147 in the National School Lunch, School Breakfast and Special Milk
Programs. That interim rule gave households the option of providing
either the social security number of the primary wage earner or that of
the household member signing the application. This option was provided
in the interim rule because the Department wished to provide households
with flexibility in complying with the social security number
requirement. In order to provide guidance to SFSP and CACFP
administrators and beneficiaries prior to the July 1, 1990, legislative
deadline, and in the interest of maintaining as much consistency as
possible in the free and reduced price meal application process among
the Child Nutrition Programs, an identical policy was established for
the SFSP and the CACFP in a policy memorandum issued by the Department
on May 18, 1990.
Commenters on the interim rule for the school programs, as well as
other State and local school officials who have informally advised the
Department of their experiences with the application process, believe
that providing households with this option would actually result in
complicating, rather than simplifying, the application process and
would add to paperwork and administrative burdens. In response to those
comments, the final rule governing free and reduced price applications
in the National School Lunch, School Breakfast and Special Milk
Programs requires only that the social security number of the adult
household member who signs the application be provided (56 FR 33857,
July 24, 1991). In lieu of providing a social security number, the
adult household member signing the application may indicate that he or
she does not possess one. In making this change from the interim rule,
the Department believed that the final School Programs rule further
simplified the application process, while maintaining program
integrity, since the adult who signs the application must also certify
that the information on the application is true and correct. Based on
the foregoing, and in an effort to maintain consistency among the Child
Nutrition Programs, this interim rule adopts the same application
requirements for the SFSP and the CACFP.
Accordingly, this rule amends Sections 225.2, ``Documentation,''
and 225.15(f)(2)(iii) of the SFSP regulations and Sections 226.2,
``Documentation,'' and 226.23(e)(1)(ii)(C) and (iii)(C) of the CACFP
regulations to require a completed application to include the social
security number of the adult household member who signs the
application. As permitted in current regulations, if the adult
household member signing the application does not have a social
security number, the household may indicate this fact in lieu of
providing a social security number.
In a related area, section 7(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5
U.S.C. 552a note) requires agencies to give advance notice and
disclosure to the public of any requirement to provide social security
numbers and of the uses to be made of those social security numbers. In
accordance with this law, the Department requires that any individual
[[Page 25552]]
required to disclose his/her social security number must be informed:
(1) whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary; (2) by what
statutory authority or other authority each number is solicited; and
(3) what uses will be made of the number. The current SFSP and CACFP
regulations at Section 225.15(f)(2)(vi), and Sections
226.23(e)(1)(ii)(F) and (iii)(E) contain the Department's prototype
Privacy Act Statements for free and reduced price applications. They
reflect the statutory requirement in effect prior to the enactment of
Pub. L. 101-147 that the application contain the social security number
of each adult household member. These prototype Privacy Act Statements
must also be modified to include the requirement that only the social
security number of the adult household member signing the application
need be provided (or an indication that he or she does not possess
one). In addition, a new Section 225.15(f)(4) must be added and Section
226.23(h)(2)(iii) must be revised to require that households selected
for verification provide the social security number for each adult
household member (or an indication that the member does not possess a
number) and that the notice of selection for verification also include
a statement which meets the requirements of section 7(b) of the Privacy
Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a note). State agencies and institutions
should contact their own legal counsel to ensure that their notices
comply with the Privacy Act requirements.
Accordingly, this rule amends Section 225.15(f)(2)(vi) of the SFSP
regulations and Sections 226.23(e)(1)(ii)(F) and (iii)(E) of the CACFP
regulations to make the aforementioned changes to each Program's
prototype Privacy Act statement. In addition, Section 225.15(f)(4) has
been added to the SFSP regulations and Section 226.23(h)(2)(iii) of the
CACFP regulations has been revised to require that households selected
for verification must provide the social security number of each adult
member, or an indication that a household member does not possess one.
This rule also makes several technical changes to Part 226 to
conform with the requirement that only the social security number of
the adult household member signing the application for free and reduced
price meals must be provided. Specifically, this rule amends the
provisions found at Sections 226.15(e)(2), 226.15(e)(3), 226.17(b)(7),
226.18(f), 226.19(b)(8)(i), and 226.19a(b)(8) which govern various
documentation and record retention requirements for participation in
the CACFP. This rulemaking amends these sections to require that the
documentation for eligibility and retention of information conform with
Section 226.23(e)(1). As mentioned above, as a result of this rule,
Section 226.23(e)(1) will now require only the social security number
of the adult household member signing the application. In lieu of
providing a social security number, the adult household member signing
the application may indicate that he or she does not possess one.
Income Information
Section 202(b)(2)(B)(i) of Pub. L. 101-147 amended section
9(d)(2)(A) of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(d)(2)(A))
to require that households provide appropriate documentation relating
to their income so that individuals responsible for approving free and
reduced price applications may calculate the total current income for
use in determining eligibility for benefits. The current regulations at
Sections 225.2, ``Documentation,'' and 225.15(f)(2) and Sections 226.2,
``Documentation,'' and 226.23(e)(1)(ii)(D) and (iii)(D), require that
households provide the total household income on the application, as
well as the income received by each household member, identified by
source and amount. Based on the language of Pub. L. 101-147, this rule
eliminates the requirement that the applicant household calculate total
income. The elimination of this requirement will further simplify the
application process and will reduce the burden on determining
officials, who previously had to contact the household when there were
inconsistencies between the sum of the income received by each
household member identified by source and the total income figure for
the household. As a result of this interim rule, the determining
official will now use the income information provided by households to
calculate the household's total current income. Households will still
be required to indicate the amount of income received by each household
member, identified by source.
A technical change is also being made to Sections 225.2,
``Documentation,'' and 225.15(f)(2) of the SFSP regulations and
Sections 226.2, ``Documentation,'' and 226.23(e)(1)(ii)(D) and (iii)(D)
of the CACFP regulations to add, as necessary, the phrase ``other cash
income'' to the examples of sources of income (i.e., earnings, wages,
welfare, pensions, support payments, unemployment compensation, and
social security). This technical change is being made to bring about
consistency within each Part, as well as with the other child nutrition
programs covered by 7 CFR Part 245 (Determining Eligibility for Free
and Reduced Price Meals and Free Milk in Schools). No change is being
made regarding the type of income to be reported on free and reduced
price meal applications. Further, a technical amendment is being made
to Section 225.15(f)(2)(iv) to make the language describing the sources
of income conform with the examples of sources of income found in
Section 225.2, ``Documentation,'' and with the sources of income
regulations under the National School Lunch, School Breakfast, and
Special Milk Programs. A technical change is also being made to
incorporate the undesignated paragraph into the introductory paragraph
in Section 225.15(f)(3).
Accordingly, the Department is amending Section 225.2,
``Documentation,'' and Section 225.15(f)(2) of the SFSP regulations and
Sections 226.2, ``Documentation,'' and 226.23(e)(1)(ii)(D) and (iii)(D)
of the CACFP regulations to eliminate the requirement that households
provide their total income on the application and to make the other
technical changes discussed above.
Definition of Income
To simplify the application process, the Department is amending the
definition of ``Current income'' at Section 226.2 of the CACFP
regulations and adding a definition of ``Current income'' at Section
225.2 of the SFSP regulations to reflect the actual treatment of income
by households submitting income information on the application and by
determining officials reviewing that information. Currently, in Section
226.2, ``Current income'' is defined as ``income received during the
month prior to application for free or reduced-price meals and
multiplied by 12.'' The definition further requires that, if this
income does not accurately reflect the household's annual income, the
income determination must be based on the household's projected annual
income. In practice, however, most determining officials do not convert
the income amounts listed for each household member to an annual income
figure. Rather, if any income is reported as other than a monthly
amount, most determining officials convert these income amounts to a
monthly income figure and base eligibility on total monthly household
income.
Therefore, the definition of ``Current income'' added to Section
225.2 and the definition of ``Current income'' at Section 226.2, as
amended by this rule,
[[Page 25553]]
define ``Current income'' simply as income received during the month
prior to application, and the reference to annualization is being
deleted. If the prior month's income is not representative of the
household's annual rate of income, the household must still report its
projected annual income.
Accordingly, Section 226.2 of the CACFP regulations is amended, and
a definition of ``Current income'' is added to Section 225.2 of the
SFSP regulations, to define ``Current income'' as income received
during the month prior to application for free or reduced-price meals.
Technical Changes to OMB Control Numbers
The OMB Control Number table found at Section 225.20 is revised to
reflect current OMB control numbers for information collection/
recordkeeping requirements for the following Sections: 225.3-225.4;
225.6-225.10; 225.12- 224.13; and 225.15-225.18.
Request for Comments
Since the Department has exercised some discretion in the
implementation of these provisions, comments and suggestions are
particularly encouraged on the following amendments: (1) the
requirement that only the social security number of the adult household
member who executes the application be provided; and (2) the
requirement that households report only monthly income for each member.
The Department reminds commenters that the changes to the application
requirements are intended to reduce paperwork by simplifying the
application requirements while maintaining program integrity.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 225
Food assistance programs, Grant programs--health, infants and
children.
7 CFR Part 226
Day care, Food assistance programs, Grant programs--health, infants
and children, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surplus
agricultural commodities.
Accordingly, 7 CFR Parts 225 and 226 are amended as follows:
PART 225--SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for Part 225 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 9, 13 and 14, National School Lunch Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 1758, 1761 and 1762a).
2. In Section 225.2:
a. A new definition of Current income is added in alphabetical
order.
b. Paragraph (a) of the definition of Documentation is revised.
The addition and revision specified above read as follows:
Sec. 225.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Current income means income, as defined in Section
225.15(f)(2)(iv), received during the month prior to application for
free meals. If such income does not accurately reflect the household's
annual income, income shall be based on the projected annual household
income. If the prior year's income provides an accurate reflection of
the household's current annual income, the prior year may be used as a
base for the projected annual income.
* * * * *
Documentation means (a) the completion of the following information
on a free meal application:
(1) names of all household members;
(2) income received by each household member, identified by source
of income (such as earnings, wages, welfare, pensions, support
payments, unemployment compensation, social security and other cash
income);
(3) the signature of an adult household member; and
(4) the social security number of the adult household member who
signs the application, or an indication that the he/she does not
possess a social security number; or,
* * * * *
3. In Section 225.15:
a. Paragraphs (f)(2)(iii) and (f)(2)(iv) are revised;
b. Paragraph (f)(2)(vi) is amended by removing the first four
sentences and by adding four new sentences in their place and by adding
a new sentence before the word ``and'' at the end of the paragraph;
c. Paragraph (f)(3) is amended by removing the undesignated text
following paragraph (f)(3)(ii) and by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (f)(3); and
d. A new paragraph (f)(4) is added.
The additions and revisions specified above read as follows:
Sec. 225.15 Management responsibilities of sponsors.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) the social security number of the adult household member who
signs the application, or an indication that he/she does not possess a
social security number;
(iv) the income received by each household member, identified by
source of income (such as earnings, wages, welfare, pensions, support
payments, unemployment compensation, social security, and other cash
income);
* * * * *
(vi) a statement which includes substantially the following
information: ``Section 9 of the National School Lunch Act requires
that, unless a food stamp or AFDC case number is provided for your
child, you must include the social security number of the adult
household member signing the application, or indicate that the
household member does not have a social security number. Provision of a
social security number is not mandatory, but if a social security
number is not provided or an indication is not made that the signer
does not have a social security number, the application cannot be
approved. This notice must be brought to the attention of the household
member whose social security number is disclosed. The social security
number may be used to identify the household member in carrying out
efforts to verify the correctness of information stated on the
application. * * * The sponsor shall take the income information
provided by the household on the application and calculate the
household's total current income;
* * * * *
(3) If they so desire, households applying on behalf of children
who are members of food stamp households or AFDC assistance units may
apply for free meal benefits using the procedures described in this
paragraph rather than the procedures described in paragraph (f)(2) of
this section. In accordance with paragraph (f)(2)(vi) of this section,
if a food stamp or AFDC case number is provided, it may be used to
verify the current food stamp or AFDC certification for the child(ren)
for whom free meal benefits are being claimed. Whenever households
applying for benefits for children not receiving food stamp or AFDC
benefits, they must apply for those children in accordance with the
requirements set forth in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. Households
applying on behalf of children who are members of food stamp households
or AFDC assistance units shall be required to provide:
* * * * *
(4) Households selected to provide verification shall provide a
social security number for each adult household member or an indication
that such member does not have one. The notice to households of
selection for verification shall include the following:
(i) Section 9 of the National School Lunch requires that unless the
child's
[[Page 25554]]
food stamp or AFDC case number is provided, households selected for
verification must provide the social security number of each adult
household member;
(ii) In lieu of providing a social security number, an adult
household member may indicate that he/she does not possess one;
(iii) Provision of a social security number is not mandatory but if
a social security number is not provided for each adult household
member or an indication is not made that he/she does not possess one,
benefits will be terminated;
(iv) The social security number may be used to identify household
members in carrying out efforts to verify the correctness of
information stated on the application and continued eligibility for the
program. These verification efforts may be carried out through program
reviews, audits, and investigations and may include contacting
employers to determine income, contacting a food stamp or welfare
office to determine current certification for receipt of food stamps or
AFDC benefits, contacting the State employment security office to
determine the amount of benefits received and checking the
documentation produced by household members to prove the amount of
income received. These efforts may result in loss or reduction of
benefits, administrative claims or legal actions if incorrect
information was reported; and
(v) This information must be provided to the attention of each
adult household member disclosing his/her social security number. State
agencies shall ensure that the notice complies with section 7 of Pub.
L. 93-579 (Privacy Act of 1974). These households shall be provided
with the name and phone number of an official who can assist in the
verification effort. Selected households shall also be informed that,
in lieu of any information that would otherwise be required, they can
submit proof of current food stamp or AFDC Program certification as
described in paragraph (f)(3) of this section to verify the free meal
eligibility of a child who is a member of a food stamp household or
AFDC assistance unit. All households selected for verification shall be
advised that failure to cooperate with verification efforts will result
in the termination of benefits.
* * * * *
4. In Section 225.20, the OMB Control Number table is revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 225.20 Information collection/recordkeeping--OMB assigned control
numbers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current OMB
7 CFR section where requirements are described control No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
225.3-225.4................................................ 0584-0280
225.6-225.10............................................... 0584-0280
225.12-225.13.............................................. 0584-0280
225.15-225.18.............................................. 0584-0280
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 226--CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM
5. The authority citation for Part 226 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 9, 11, 14, 16, and 17, National School Lunch
Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1758, 1759a, 1762a, 1765 and 1766).
6. In Section 226.2:
a. The definition of Current income is amended by removing the
words ``and multiplied by 12''; and
b. The definition of Documentation is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 226.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Documentation means (a) the completion of the following information
on a free and reduced-price application:
(1) names of all household members;
(2) income received by each household member, identified by source
of income (such as earnings, wages, welfare, pensions, support
payments, unemployment compensation, social security and other cash
income);
(3) the signature of an adult household member; and
(4) the social security number of the adult household member who
signs the application, or an indication that he/she does not possess a
social security number; or
(b) For a child who is a member of a food stamp household or an
AFDC assistance unit, ``documentation'' means the completion of only
the following information on a free and reduced-price application:
(1) the name(s) and appropriate food stamp or AFDC case number(s)
for the child(ren); and
(2) the signature of an adult member of the household; or
(c) For an adult participant who is a member of a food stamp
household or is an SSI or Medicaid participant, as defined in this
section, ``documentation'' means the completion of only the following
information on a free and reduced- price application:
(1) the name(s) and appropriate food stamp case number(s) for the
participant(s) or the adult participant's SSI or Medicaid
identification number, as defined in this section; and
(2) the signature of an adult member of the household.
* * * * *
7. In Section 226.15, paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) are revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 226.15 Institution Provisions.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Documentation of the enrollment of each participant at child
care centers, adult day care centers and outside-school-hours care
centers including information used to determine eligibility for free or
reduced price meals in accordance with Sec. 226.23(e)(1).
(3) Documentation of the enrollment of each child at day care homes
and information used to determine the eligibility of enrolled
providers' children for free or reduced price meals in accordance with
Sec. 226.23(e)(1).
* * * * *
8. In Section 226.17, paragraph (b)(7) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 226.17 Child Care Center Provisions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(7) Child care centers shall collect and maintain documentation of
the enrollment of each child, including information used to determine
eligibility for free and reduced price meals in accordance with
Sec. 226.23(e)(1).
* * * * *
Sec. 226.18 [Amended]
9. In Section 226.18, paragraph (f) is amended by adding the words
``, in which case the day care home must maintain documentation of the
information used to determine the eligibility of enrolled providers'
children for free or reduced price meals in accordance with
Sec. 226.23(e)(1)'' at the end of the paragraph.
10. In Section 226.19, paragraph (b)(8)(i) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 226.19 Outside-school-hours care center provisions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(8) * * *
(i) Documentation of enrollment for all children, including
information used to determine eligibility for free or reduced price
meals in accordance with Sec. 226.23(e)(1);
* * * * *
11. In Section 226.19a, paragraph (b)(8) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 226.19a Adult day care center provisions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(8) Adult day care centers shall collect and maintain documentation
of the
[[Page 25555]]
enrollment of each adult participant including information used to
determine eligibility for free and reduced price meals in accordance
with Sec. 226.23(e)(1).
* * * * *
12. In Section 226.23:
a. Paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(C) is revised;
b. Paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(D) is amended by removing the words ``total
current household income, and the'';
c. Paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(F) is amended by removing the first four
sentences and by adding six new sentences in their place.
d. Paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(C) is revised;
e. Paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(D) is amended by removing the words
``total current household income, and the'';
f. Paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(E) is amended by removing the first four
sentences and by adding six new sentences in their place;
g. Paragraph (e)(4) is amended by adding a new sentence at the
beginning of the paragraph;
h. Paragraphs (h)(2)(iv) through (h)(2)(viii) are redesignated as
paragraphs (h)(2)(v) through (h)(2)(ix); and
i. Paragraph (h)(2)(iii) is amended by redesignating all text after
the second sentence as paragraph (h)(2)(iv), and by revising the
remaining text in paragraph (h)(2)(iii).
The additions and revisions specified above read as follows:
Sec. 226.23 Free and reduced-price meals.
* * * * *
(e)(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) The social security number of the adult household member who
signs the application, or an indication that he/she does not possess a
social security number;
* * * * *
(F) A statement which includes substantially the following
information: ``Section 9 of the National School Lunch Act requires
that, unless a food stamp or AFDC case number is provided for your
child, you must include a social security number on the application.
This must be the social security number of the adult household member
signing the application. If the adult household member signing the
application does not possess a social security number, he/she must
indicate so on the application. Provision of a social security number
is not mandatory, but if a social security number is not provided or an
indication is not made that the adult household member signing the
application does not have one, the application cannot be approved. This
notice must be brought to the attention of the household member whose
social security number is disclosed. The social security number may be
used to identify the household member in carrying out efforts to verify
the correctness of information stated on the application. * * *
* * * * *
(iii) * * *
(C) The social security number of the adult household member who
signs the application, or an indication that he/she does not possess a
social security number;
* * * * *
(E) A statement which includes substantially the following
information: ``Section 9 of the National School Lunch Act requires
that, unless a food stamp case number or SSI or Medicaid assistance
identification number is provided for the adult for whom benefits are
sought, you must include a social security number on the application.
This must be the social security number of the adult household member
signing the application. If the adult household member signing the
application does not possess a social security number, he/she must
indicate so on the application. Provision of a social security number
is not mandatory, but if a social security number is not provided or an
indication is not made that the adult household member signing the
application does not have one, the application cannot be approved. This
notice must be brought to the attention of the household member whose
social security number is disclosed. The social security number may be
used to identify the household member in carrying out efforts to verify
the correctness of information stated on the application. * * *
* * * * *
(4) * * * The institution shall take the income information
provided by the household on the application and calculate the
household's total current income. * * *
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Households shall be informed in writing that they have been
selected for verification and they are required to submit the requested
verification information to confirm their eligibility for free or
reduced-price benefits by such date as determined by the State agency.
Those households shall be informed of the type or types of information
and/or documents acceptable to the State agency and the name and phone
number of an official who can answer questions and assist the household
in the verification effort. This information must include a social
security number for each adult household member or an indication that
he/she does not have one. State agencies shall inform selected
households that:
(A) Section 9 of the National School Lunch Act requires that,
unless households provide the child's food stamp or AFDC case number,
or the adult participant's food stamp case number or SSI or Medicaid
assistance identification number, those selected for verification must
provide the social security number of each adult household member;
(B) In lieu of providing a social security number, an adult
household member may indicate that he/she does not possess one;
(C) Provision of a social security number is not mandatory, but if
a social security number is not provided for each adult household
member or an indication is not made that he/she does not possess one,
benefits will be terminated;
(D) The social security number may be used to identify household
members in carrying out efforts to verify the correctness of
information stated on the application and continued eligibility for the
program. These verification efforts may be carried out through program
reviews, audits, and investigations and may include contacting
employers to determine income, contacting Federal, State or local
agencies to determine current certification for receipt of food stamps
or AFDC, SSI or Medicaid benefits, contacting the State employment
security office to determine the amount of benefits received, and
checking the documentation produced by household members to prove the
amount of income received. These efforts may result in loss or
reduction of benefits, administrative claims or legal actions if
incorrect information was reported; and
(E) This information must be provided to the attention of each
adult household member disclosing his/her social security number. State
agencies shall ensure that the notice complies with section 7 of Pub.
L. 93-579 (Privacy Act of 1974). These households shall be provided
with the name and phone number of an official who can assist in the
verification effort.
* * * * *
Dated: April 30, 1996.
William E. Ludwig,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-12851 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-30-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12836 Vegetables; Import Regulations; Modification of Regulatory Time Periods for Imported Onions
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25555-25557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12836]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 25556]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 980
[FV95-980-1FR]
Vegetables; Import Regulations; Modification of Regulatory Time
Periods for Imported Onions
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule modifies the time periods when imported onions
are regulated based on the grade, size, quality, and maturity
requirements of the South Texas onion and Idaho-Eastern Oregon onion
marketing orders. The change is needed to make the onion import
requirements consistent with regulatory time period changes made under
the South Texas onion marketing order.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Matthews, Marketing
Specialist, Marketing Order Administration Branch, F&V, AMS, USDA, room
2523-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456; telephone: (202)
690-0464; Fax number (202) 720-5698.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under section 8e of the
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-
674), hereinafter referred to as the ``Act.''
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this 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 retroactive
effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws,
regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures which
must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of
this rule.
Pursuant to 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. There are approximately
148 importers of onions who will be affected by this rule. Small
agricultural service firms, which include onion importers, have been
defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as those
having annual receipts of less than $5,000,000. The majority of onion
importers may be classified as small entities.
Import regulations issued under the Act are based on regulations
established under Federal marketing orders which regulate the handling
of domestically produced products. Thus, this final rule should have
small entity orientation, and impact on both small and large business
entities in a manner comparable to rules issued under marketing orders.
This rule modifies the dates when imported onions are regulated, based
on requirements of the South Texas onion and Idaho-Eastern Oregon onion
marketing orders.
Section 8e of the Act provides that whenever certain specified
commodities, including onions, are regulated under a Federal marketing
order, imports of that commodity into the United States are prohibited
unless they meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, and
maturity requirements. Section 8e also provides that whenever two or
more marketing orders regulate the same commodity produced in different
areas of the United States, the Secretary shall determine with which
area the imported commodity is in most direct competition and apply
regulations based on that area to the imported commodity.
Marketing Order No. 958 regulates onions grown in certain counties
of Idaho and Eastern Oregon and Marketing Order No. 959 regulates
onions grown in South Texas. Fresh onion shipments from Idaho-Eastern
Oregon are regulated throughout the year, while onion shipments from
South Texas had been regulated from March 1 through June 15 each year.
On the basis of past shipment data, the Secretary determined that
onions imported during the March 10 through June 15 period were in most
direct competition with onions grown in South Texas and found that the
minimum grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements for onions
imported during that period should be the same as those established for
South Texas onions under Marketing Order No. 959. The Secretary further
determined that onions imported during the June 16 through March 9
period were in most direct competition with onions grown in Idaho-
Eastern Oregon and that the minimum grade, size, quality, and maturity
requirements for onions imported during that period should be the same
as those established for Idaho-Eastern Oregon onions under Marketing
Order No. 959.
Based on a recommendation of the South Texas Onion Committee
(committee), the agency responsible for local administration of
Marketing Order No. 959, the Department has changed the end of the
South Texas regulatory period from June 15 to June 4. Because South
Texas onions will no longer be regulated after June 4, and Idaho-
Eastern Oregon onions are regulated throughout the year, the Department
has determined that onions imported during the March 10 through June 4
period are in most direct competition with onions produced in South
Texas and that the minimum grade, size, quality, and maturity
requirements established under the South Texas marketing order should
apply to onions imported during the March 10 through June 4 period,
instead of the previous March 10 through June 15 period. Imports of
onions during the June 5 through March 9 period will be required to
meet minimum grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements based on
those established under the Idaho-Eastern Oregon marketing order.
The proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
February 9, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 4941), with a 30-day comment
period ending March 11, 1996. No comments were received.
In accordance with section 8e of the Act, the U.S. Trade
Representative has concurred with the issuance of this final rule.
Based on the above, the AMS has determined that this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
After consideration of all relevant matter presented, it is hereby
found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate
the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C 553, it is further found that good cause exists
for not postponing the effective date of this action until 30 days
after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) This regulation
imposes no additional restrictions on onion importers by ending import
requirements based on South Texas on June 4 of each season rather than
June 15 of each season; (2) section 8e of the Act requires import
requirements based on South Texas (7 CFR part 959) to change to those
based on Idaho-Eastern Oregon (7 CFR part 958) when South Texas is no
longer the area of production with which the imported commodity is in
most direct competition; (3) changing the ending date of the domestic
regulation was discussed at a public meeting, and all interested
persons had an opportunity to provide input; and (4) there are no
[[Page 25557]]
regulatory burdens imposed by this rule which require special
preparations of importers.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 980
Food grades and standards, Imports, Marketing agreements, Onions,
Potatoes, Tomatoes.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 980 is hereby
amended as follows:
PART 980--VEGETABLES; IMPORT REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 980 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
Sec. 980.117 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 980.117, paragraph (a)(2) is amended by removing ``June
16'' and adding in its place ``June 5'' and by removing ``June 15'' and
adding in its place ``June 4''; paragraph (b)(1) is amended by removing
``June 16'' and adding in its place ``June 5''; and paragraph (b)(2) is
amended by removing ``June 15'' and adding in its place ``June 4.''
Dated: May 14, 1996.
Robert C. Keeney,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-12836 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12835 Processed Fruits and Vegetables, Processed Products Thereof, and Certain Other Processed Food Products Regulations Governing Inspection and Certification
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25549-25550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12835]
========================================================================
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. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 25549]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 52
[FV-96-326]
Processed Fruits and Vegetables, Processed Products Thereof, and
Certain Other Processed Food Products Regulations Governing Inspection
and Certification
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule revises the Regulations Governing Inspection
and Certification of Processed Fruits and Vegetables and Certain Other
Products \1\ by increasing the lot inspection and less than year round
fees charged for the inspection of processed fruits and vegetables and
certain other products. These revisions are necessary in order to
recover, as nearly as practicable, the costs of performing inspection
services under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946.
\1\ May include the following: Honey; molasses, except for
stockfeed; nuts and nut products, except oil; sugar (cane, beet, and
maple); sirups (blended), sirups, except from grain; tea, cocoa,
coffee, spices, condiments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James R. Rodeheaver, Branch Chief,
Processed Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Agricultural
Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 96456, Room
0709 South Building, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456, Telephone (202) 720-
4693.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule has been determined to be not
significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866, and therefore has
not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive
effect. This rule would not preempt any State or local laws,
regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures which
must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of
this rule.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), has certified that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The final rule reflects certain fee increases needed to recover the
costs of services rendered in accordance with the Agricultural
Marketing Act (AMA) of 1946. The inspection, grading and certification
program for processed fruits and vegetables and related products is
voluntary.
The AMA authorizes voluntary official inspection, grading, and
certification on a user-fee basis, of processed food products including
processed fruits, vegetables, and processed products made from them.
The AMA provides that reasonable fees be collected from the user of the
program services to cover as nearly as practicable the costs of
services rendered. This final rule amends the schedule of fees and
charges for lot inspection and less than year round inspection services
rendered to the processed fruit and vegetable industry to reflect the
costs currently associated with the program.
AMS regularly reviews these programs to determine if fees are
adequate. Employee salary and benefits are major program costs that
account for approximately 85 percent of the total operating budget. A
general and locality salary increase for Federal employees, ranging
from 3.09 to 6.25 percent depending on locality, effective January
1995, has materially affected program costs. Another general and
locality salary increase, ranging from 2.39 to 2.87 percent depending
upon locality (amounting to approximately $625,000), was effective
January 1996; further standardization program costs, previously funded
by appropriated funds, must be paid for by user fees.
While a concerted effort to cut costs resulted in overhead savings
of $623,926 in FY95 over FY94, the last fee increase in August 1994 did
not result in collection of enough revenue to cover all these increases
and still maintain an adequate reserve balance (four months of costs)
called for by Agency policy and prudent financial management. Currently
the Processed Products Branch (PPB) trust fund reserve balance for all
programs is approximately $1.480 mil. under the desirable level of
$11.031. Further action is necessary to meet rising costs and maintain
adequate reserve balances. This action will assist in moving the PPB
trust fund toward a more adequate level and will result in an estimated
$368,000 in additional revenues. Projected FY96 revenues for the lot
inspection and less than year round inspection programs are $8.291 mil.
with costs projected at $8.194 and a reserve of $2.682.
A notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal
Register (61 FR 9654) on March 11, 1996 with a thirty day comment
period. The comment period closed on April 11, 1996. Interested persons
were invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting
written comments on the proposal to the Agricultural Marketing Service.
No comments were received regarding this proposed rule.
After consideration of all relevant matter presented, this action
makes final the changes as proposed on March 11, 1996. The changes are
made effective October 6, 1996 to coincide with the beginning of the
first accounting period in the 1997 fiscal year.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 52
Food grades and standards, Food labeling, Frozen foods, Fruit
juices, Fruits, Reporting and record keeping requirements, and
Vegetables.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Part 52 is amended
as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 52 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.
Sec. 52.42 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 52.42, the figure ``$39.50'' is revised to read
``$41.00''.
[[Page 25550]]
Sec. 52.50 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 52.50, the figure ``$39.50'' is revised to read
``$41.00''.
Sec. 52.51 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 52.51, paragraph (c)(2) is amended by removing the
figure ``$39.50'' and adding in its place ``$42.00'' and paragraph
(d)(1)is amended by removing the figure ``$39.50'' and adding in its
place ``$42.00''.
Dated: May 16, 1996.
Robert C. Keeney,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-12835 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12817 Trade Regulation Rule on Misbranding and Deception as to Leather Content of Waist Belts
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25560-25561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12817]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 405
Trade Regulation Rule on Misbranding and Deception as to Leather
Content of Waist Belts
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission announces the removal of the
Trade Regulation Rule concerning Misbranding and Deception as to
Leather Content of Waist Belts (Leather Belt Rule or Rule), 16 CFR Part
405. The Commission has reviewed the rulemaking record and determined
that the Leather Belt Rule is no longer necessary. The proposed Guides
for Select Leather and Imitation Leather Products will cover belts and
the benefits of the Rule are retained through the inclusion of belts in
the proposed Guides. Repealing the Leather Belt Rule eliminates
unnecessary duplication. Further, if necessary, the Commission can
address misrepresentations involving leather belts on a case-by-case
basis, administratively under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission
Act (FTC Act), 15 U.S.C. 45, or through enforcement actions under
Section 13(b), 15 U.S.C. 53(b), in federal district court. Such actions
can provide additional guidance to industry members on what practices
are unfair or deceptive.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the Statement of Basis and Purpose
should be sent to the FTC's Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th
Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; (202)
326-2222; TTY for the hearing impaired (202) 326-2502.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lemuel Dowdy or Edwin Rodriguez, Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission,
Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Sixth Street
and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2981 or
(202) 326-3147.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statement of Basis and Purpose
I. Background
The Trade Regulation Rule concerning Misbranding and Deception as
to Leather Content of Waist Belts, 16 CFR Part 405, was promulgated on
June 27, 1964, to remedy deceptive practices involving
misrepresentations about the leather content of waist belts that are
not offered for sale as part of a garment. The Rule prohibits
representations that belts are made from the hide or skin of an animal
when such is not the case, or that belts are made of a specified animal
hide or skin when such is not the case. In addition, the Rule requires
that belts made of split leather, and ground, pulverized or shredded
leather bear a label or tag disclosing the kind of leather of which the
belt is composed. The Rule also requires that non-leather belts having
the appearance of leather bear a tag or label disclosing their
composition or disclosing that they are not leather.
As part of its continuing review of its trade regulation rules to
determine their current effectiveness and impact, the Commission
published a Federal Register notice on March 27, 1995, 60 FR 15725,
asking questions about the benefits and burdens of the Rule to
consumers and industry. On the same date, the Commission published a
Federal Register notice, 60 FR 15724, soliciting comment on its
Industry Guides for luggage, shoes, and ladies' handbags.\1\ After
reviewing the comments received in response to these two notices, on
September 18, 1995, the Commission published an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking comment on its proposal to repeal
the Leather Belt Rule, 60 FR 48070. On the same day, the Commission
published two other notices, one announcing the rescission of the three
separate guides for luggage, shoes, and handbags, 60 FR 48027, and the
second seeking comment on one set of proposed, consolidated guidelines,
entitled the Guides for Select Leather and Imitation Leather Products,
60 FR 48056. The ANPR proposing the repeal of the Rule stated that,
because the proposed Guides would cover belts, the Commission had
tentatively determined that a separate Leather Belt Rule was no longer
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Guides for the Luggage and Related Products Industry, 16
CFR Part 24; Guides for Shoe Content Labeling and Advertising, 16
CFR Part 231; and Guides for the Ladies' Handbag Industry, 16 CFR
Part 247.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission received two comments in response to the ANPR.\2\
One of these comments supported retention of the existing Leather Belt
Rule because the commenter believed that rescission of the Rule may
decrease the accuracy of the labeling of waist belts.\3\ The other
comment supported consolidating the Rule into one set of guidelines
governing disclosures of the content of leather products.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The comments were submitted by Larry E. Gundersen (1), a
consumer, and Humphreys Inc. (2), a manufacturer of leather belts.
\3\ Gundersen (1).
\4\ Humphreys Inc. (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reviewing the comments submitted, on March 5, 1996, the
Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), 61 FR 8499,
initiating a rulemaking proceeding to consider whether the Leather Belt
Rule should be repealed or remain in effect. The Commission stated it
would hold a public hearing for the presentation of testimony, if there
was interest. No one requested that the Commission hold a hearing. In
response to the NPR, the Commission received one comment, which
expressed no objection to the repeal of the Leather Belt Rule.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This comment was submitted by Luggage and Leather Goods
Manufacturers of America, Inc. (LLGMA). The comment also expressed
no objection to the inclusion of belts in the Guides for Select
Leather and Imitation Leather Products and stated that LLGMA would
publish the Guides in its magazine when they are adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Basis for Repeal of Rule
The Commission has decided to repeal the Leather Belt Rule for the
reasons discussed in the NPR. In sum, the Commission has determined
that the benefits of the Rule are retained through the inclusion of
belts in the proposed Guides for Select Leather and Imitation Leather
Products. While repealing the Rule would eliminate the Commission's
ability to obtain civil penalties for any future misrepresentations of
the leather content of belts, the Commission has determined that this
action would not seriously jeopardize the Commission's ability to act
effectively to prevent the mislabeling of leather belts. Any
significant problems that might arise could be addressed on a case-by-
case basis, administratively under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C.
45, or through enforcement actions under Section 13(b), 15 U.S.C.
53(b), in federal district court. Prosecuting serious or knowing
misrepresentations in district court allows the Commission to seek
injunctive relief as well as equitable
[[Page 25561]]
remedies, such as redress or disgorgement. Any necessary administrative
or district court actions would also serve to provide industry members
with additional guidance about what practices are unfair or deceptive.
In addition, the Commission has concluded that including belts in
the proposed Guides and eliminating the Rule reduces duplication and
streamlines the regulatory scheme, thereby responding to President
Clinton's National Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, which, among
other things, urges agencies to eliminate obsolete or unnecessary
regulations. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that a separate
Leather Belt Rule is not necessary and hereby announces the repeal of
the Rule.
III. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-11, requires an
analysis of the anticipated impact of the repeal of the Rule on small
businesses. The reasons for repeal of the Rule have been explained in
this Notice. Repeal of the Rule would appear to have little or no
effect on small business. The Commission did not receive any
information in response to the ANPR and NPR that supports a different
conclusion. Moreover, the commission is not aware of any existing
federal laws and regulations that would conflict with repeal of the
Rule. For these reasons, the Commission certifies, pursuant to Section
605 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Leather Belt Rule imposes third-party disclosure requirements
that constitute ``information collection requirements'' under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Accordingly, repeal of
the Rule would eliminate any burdens on the public imposed by these
disclosure requirements.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 405
Advertising, Clothing, Labeling, Leather and leather products
industry, Trade practices.
PART 405--[REMOVED]
The Commission, under authority of Section 18 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, amends chapter 1 of title 16 of the Code
of Federal Regulations by removing Part 405.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41-58.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-12817 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12799 Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Pacific Ocean Perch in the Western Aleutian District
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12799]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 675
[Docket No. 960129019-6019-01; I.D. 051696A]
Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Pacific
Ocean Perch in the Western Aleutian District
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Closure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting retention of Pacific ocean perch in the
Western Aleutian District of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
management area (BSAI). NMFS is requiring that catches of Pacific ocean
perch in the Western Aleutian District be treated in the same manner as
prohibited species and discarded at sea with a minimum of injury. This
action is necessary because the Pacific ocean perch total allowable
catch (TAC) in the Western Aleutian District has been caught.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), May 19, 1996,
until 12 midnight A.l.t., December 31, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Furuness, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive
economic zone is managed by the NMFS according to the Fishery
Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council under authority of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation
and Management Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is governed by regulations
implementing the FMP at 50 CFR parts 620 and 675.
In accordance with Sec. 675.20 (a)(7)(ii), the Pacific ocean perch
TAC for the Western Aleutian District was established by the Final 1996
Harvest Specifications of Groundfish (61 FR 4311, February 5, 1996),
and increased by an apportionment from the reserve (61 FR 16085, April
11, 1996) to 6,050 metric tons (mt).
The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined, in accordance
with Sec. 675.20(a)(9), that the TAC for Pacific ocean perch in the
Western Aleutian District has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is
requiring that further catches of Pacific ocean perch in the Western
Aleutian District be treated as prohibited species in accordance with
Sec. 675.20(c)(3).
Classification
This action is taken under 50 CFR 675.20 and is exempt from review
under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: May 16, 1996.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-12799 Filed 5-17-96; 1:41 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12776 Radio Broadcasting Services; Bon Air, Chester, Mechanicsville, Ruckersville, Williamsburg and Fort Lee, VA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25594-25595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12776]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No.90-67, RM-7482, RM-7026, RM-7057]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Bon Air, Chester, Mechanicsville,
Ruckersville, Williamsburg and Fort Lee, VA
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; petition for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document grants in part the petition for reconsideration
filed by Capitol Broadcasting Company of Virginia, denies the petition
for partial reconsideration filed by Keymarket of Virginia, Inc. and
affirms the result in Second Report and Order, 57 FR 45578 (October 2,
1992). The Second Report and Order granted a change of community of
license of Station WDCK(FM)(formerly WQSF(FM)) from Williamsburg to
Fort Lee, Virginia. This document also dismisses a petition for
[[Page 25595]]
reconsideration filed by Roy H. Park Broadcasting of Virginia, Inc., at
the party's request. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victoria M. McCauley, Mass Media
Bureau, (202) 418-2130.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Memorandum Opinion and Order, MM Docket No. 90-67 adopted May 3, 1996
and released May 13, 1996. The full text of this Commission decision is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington DC.
The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Service,
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC
20037.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
Douglas W. Webbink,
Chief, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-12776 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12625 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for Ozone-Depleting Substances
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25585-25594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12625]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 82
[FRL-5467-1]
RIN 2060-AG12
Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Listing of Substitutes for
Ozone-Depleting Substances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes restrictions or prohibitions on
substitutes for ozone depleting substances (ODSs) under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) program. SNAP implements section 612 of the amended Clean
Air Act of 1990 which requires EPA to evaluate and regulate substitutes
for the ODSs to reduce overall risk to human health and the
environment. Through these evaluations, SNAP generates lists of
acceptable and unacceptable substitutes for each of the major
industrial use sectors. The intended effect of the SNAP program is to
expedite movement away from ozone depleting compounds while avoiding a
shift into high-risk substitutes posing other environmental problems.
On March 18, 1994, EPA promulgated a final rulemaking setting forth
its plan for administering the SNAP program (59 FR 13044), and issued
decisions on the acceptability and unacceptability of a number
substitutes. In this Final Rulemaking (FRM), EPA is issuing its
preliminary decisions on the acceptability of certain substitutes not
previously reviewed by the Agency. To arrive at determinations on the
acceptability of substitutes, the Agency completed a cross-media
evaluation of risks to human health and the environment by sector end-
use.
DATES: Effective date June 21, 1996.
The information collection requirements contained in Appendix C of
subpart G of part 82 have not been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and are not effective until OMB has approved them. EPA
will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB
approval.
ADDRESSES: Public Docket: Public comments and data specific to this
final rule are in Docket A-91-42, Central Docket Section, South
Conference Room 4, U.S. Environmental Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. The docket may be inspected between 8 a.m. and 4
p.m. on weekdays. Telephone (202) 260-7549; fax (202) 260-4400. As
provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for
photocopying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Smagin at (202) 233-9126 or fax
(202) 233-9577, Stratospheric Protection Division, USEPA, Mail Code
6205J, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview of This Action
This action is divided into five sections, including this overview:
I. Overview of This Action
II. Section 612 Program
A. Statutory Requirements
B. Regulatory History
III. Listing of Substitutes
IV. Administrative Requirements
V. Additional Information
Appendix: Summary of Listing Decisions
II. Section 612 Program
A. Statutory Requirements
Section 612 of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to develop a
program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA
is referring to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy
(SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:
Rulemaking--Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making
it unlawful to replace any class I (chlorofluorocarbon, halon, carbon
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, and
hydrobromofluorocarbon) or class II (hydrochlorofluorocarbon) substance
with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present
adverse effects to human health or the environment where the
Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the
overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is currently
or potentially available.
Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes--Section 612(c) also
requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable for
specific uses. EPA must publish a corresponding list of acceptable
alternatives for specific uses.
Petition Process--Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to
petition EPA to add a substitute to or delete a substitute from the
lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90
days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition,
EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional six months.
90-day Notification--Section 612(e) requires EPA to require any
person who
[[Page 25586]]
produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the
Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals are
introduced into interstate commerce for significant new uses as
substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also provide the
Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety studies on
such substitutes.
Outreach--Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall
seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources
to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying and
developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial
applications.
Clearinghouse--Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a
public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and
alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and
manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.
B. Regulatory History
On March 18, 1994, EPA published the Final Rulemaking (FRM) (59 FR
13044) which described the process for administering the SNAP program
and issued EPA's first acceptability lists for substitutes in the major
industrial use sectors. These sectors include: refrigeration and air
conditioning; foam blowing; solvent cleaning; fire suppression and
explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and
inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal
industrial sectors that historically consume large volumes of ozone-
depleting compounds.
The Agency defines a ``substitute'' as any chemical, product
substitute, or alternative manufacturing process, whether existing or
new, that could replace a class I or class II substance. Anyone who
produces a substitute must provide the Agency with health and safety
studies on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into
interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative. This
requirement applies to chemical manufacturers, but may include
importers, formulators or end-users when they are responsible for
introducing a substitute into commerce.
III. Listing of Substitutes
To develop the lists of unacceptable and acceptable substitutes,
EPA conducts screens of health and environmental risks posed by various
substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds in each use sector. The
outcome of these risks screens can be found in the public docket, as
described above in the Addresses portion of this notice.
Under section 612, the Agency has considerable discretion in the
risk management decisions it can make in SNAP. The Agency has
identified five possible decision categories: acceptable, acceptable
subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits;
unacceptable; and pending. Acceptable substitutes can be used for all
applications within the relevant sector end-use. Conversely, it is
illegal to replace an ODS with a substitute listed by SNAP as
unacceptable. A pending listing represents substitutes for which the
Agency has not received complete data or has not completed its review
of the data.
After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may make a determination
that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions of use are
met to minimize risks to human health and the environment. Use of such
substitutes in ways that are inconsistent with such use conditions
renders these substitutes unacceptable.
Even though the Agency can restrict the use of a substitute based
on the potential for adverse effects, it may be necessary to permit a
narrowed range of use within a sector end-use because of the lack of
alternatives for specialized applications. Users intending to adopt a
substitute acceptable with narrowed use limits must ascertain that
other acceptable alternatives are not technically feasible. Companies
must document the results of their evaluation, and retain the results
on file for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. This documentation
shall include descriptions of substitutes examined and rejected,
processes or products in which the substitute is needed, reason for
rejection of other alternatives, e.g., performance, technical or safety
standards, and the anticipated date other substitutes will be available
and projected time for switching to other available substitutes. Use of
such substitutes in application and end-uses which are not specified as
acceptable in the narrowed use limit renders these substitutes
unacceptable.
In this Final Rulemaking (FRM), EPA is issuing decisions on the
acceptability of certain substitutes not previously reviewed by the
Agency. The proposed rulemaking for these decisions was published on
October 2, 1995 (60 FR 51383). As described in the proposed rule, EPA
believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking is required to place any
alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute
as acceptable only under certain use conditions or narrowed use limits,
or to remove an alternative from either the list of prohibited or
acceptable substitutes.
EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are required to
list alternatives as acceptable with no limitations. Such listings do
not impose any sanction, nor do they remove any prior license to use a
substitute. Consequently, EPA adds substitutes to the list of
acceptable alternatives without first requesting comment on new
listings. Updates to the acceptable and pending lists are published as
separate Notices in the Federal Register.
Parts A. through C. below present a detailed discussion of the
substitute listing determinations by major use sector. Tables
summarizing listing decisions in this Final Rulemaking are in Appendix
below. The comments contained in the Appendix provide additional
information on a substitute. Since comments are not part of the
regulatory decision, they are not mandatory for use of a substitute.
Nor should the comments be considered comprehensive with respect to
other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute.
However, EPA encourages users of acceptable substitutes to apply all
comments in their application of these substitutes. In many instances,
the comments simply allude to sound operating practices that have
already been identified in existing industry and/or building-code
standards. Thus, many of the comments, if adopted, would not require
significant changes in existing operating practices for the affected
industry.
A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Response to Comment
EPA received one comment supporting the requirement to use unique
fittings when retrofitting motor vehicle air conditioning systems
(MVACS). The commenter, however, requested EPA reduce the information
required on the label. EPA based the labeling requirements very closely
on SAE J1660 and a petition by the Mobile Air Conditioning Society
(MACS), and believes all of the information proposed in the NPRM is
necessary, as clarified below. The commenter requested that EPA remove
each of the following pieces of information from the label.
Technician name and address.
EPA requires this information to ensure that both the consumer and
various agencies know exactly who worked on the vehicle. In addition,
this information allows the consumer to check that the technician is
certified to work on MVACS.
ASHRAE designation.
[[Page 25587]]
The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) assigns unique numbers to new
refrigerants. Refrigerant properties depend very strongly on both the
components and the individual percentages within a blend. The
composition of all ASHRAE-designated refrigerants is public, and EPA
believes it is important for consumers and technicians to be aware of
such information if it is available.
Lubricant Manufacturer.
Given the large number of new refrigerants and lubricants, EPA
believes the consumer is best served by having this information. This
information is particularly important since it is extremely difficult
to test every possible refrigerant/lubricant combination in every
vehicle.
``Ozone depleter'' phrase.
The commenter reasoned that SNAP acceptability was the only
relevant criterion to protect the ozone layer. Until November 15, 1995,
however, only ozone-depleting substances were required to be recovered
from MVACS, and since the composition of certain blends was
confidential, EPA believed it was important to alert technicians of the
necessity of recovering the refrigerant during servicing and disposal.
EPA still believes that this statement does not add significantly to
the label size and provides useful information to the consumer.
Flammability phrase.
The commenter requested that this phrase be shortened from ``This
refrigerant is FLAMMABLE. Take appropriate precautions.'' to
``FLAMMABLE''. However, because flammable refrigerants are not
currently in use, EPA believes it is extremely important to draw
attention to a flammable substitute. Technicians and consumers need to
be aware of the potential hazards posed by flammable refrigerants, and
the entire phrase serves that purpose better than a single word.
In addition to the above rationale, the labeling requirements
cannot be changed each time EPA lists a new refrigerant as acceptable
for use in MVACS subject to use conditions. The labeling requirements
were finalized on June 13, 1995 (60 FR 51383) for HCFC Blend Beta, R-
401C, and HFC-134a. It is not reasonable to require vendors of those
refrigerants to modify their labels or to meet standards not imposed on
subsequent refrigerants. EPA believes the labeling requirements are
necessary and appropriate to help the MVAC industry in its transition
away from CFC-12 in as smooth and safe a manner as possible.
2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. CFC-12 Automobile and Non-automobile Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners,
Retrofit and New
EPA is concerned that the existence of several substitutes in this
end-use may increase the likelihood of significant refrigerant cross-
contamination and potential failure of both air conditioning systems
and recovery/recycling equipment. In addition, a smooth transition to
the use of substitutes strongly depends on the continued purity of the
recycled CFC-12 supply. In order to prevent cross-contamination and
preserve the purity of recycled refrigerants, EPA is imposing several
conditions on the use of all motor vehicle air conditioning
refrigerants. For the purposes of this rule, no distinction is made
between ``retrofit'' and ``drop-in'' refrigerants; retrofitting a car
to use a new refrigerant includes all procedures that result in the air
conditioning system using a new refrigerant. Please note that EPA only
reviews refrigerants based on environmental and health factors.
When retrofitting a CFC-12 system to use any substitute
refrigerant, the following conditions must be met:
Each refrigerant may only be used with a set of fittings
that is unique to that refrigerant. These fittings (male or female, as
appropriate) must be used with all containers of the refrigerant, on
can taps, on recovery, recycling, and charging equipment, and on all
air conditioning system service ports. These fittings must be designed
to mechanically prevent cross-charging with another refrigerant. A
refrigerant may only be used with the fittings and can taps
specifically intended for that refrigerant. Using an adapter or
deliberately modifying a fitting to use a different refrigerant will be
a violation of this use condition. In addition, fittings shall meet the
following criteria, derived from Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
standards and recommended practices:
--When existing CFC-12 service ports are to be retrofitted, conversion
assemblies shall attach to the CFC-12 fitting with a thread lock
adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism in a manner
that permanently prevents the assembly from being removed.
--All conversion assemblies and new service ports must satisfy the
vibration testing requirements of sections 3.2.1 or 3.2.2 of SAE J1660,
as applicable, excluding references to SAE J639 and SAE J2064, which
are specific to HFC-134a.
--In order to prevent discharge of refrigerant to the atmosphere,
systems shall have a device to limit compressor operation before the
pressure relief device will vent refrigerant. This requirement is
waived for systems that do not feature such a pressure relief device.
--All CFC-12 service ports not retrofitted with conversion assemblies
shall be rendered permanently incompatible for use with CFC-12 related
service equipment by fitting with a device attached with a thread lock
adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism in a manner
that prevents the device from being removed.
When a retrofit is performed, a label must be used as
follows:
--The person conducting the retrofit must apply a label to the air
conditioning system in the engine compartment that contains the
following information:
*The name and address of the technician and the company performing the
retrofit
*The date of the retrofit
*The trade name, charge amount, and, when applicable, the ASHRAE
refrigerant numerical designation of the refrigerant
*The type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used
*If the refrigerant is or contains an ozone-depleting substance, the
phrase ``ozone depleter''
*If the refrigerant displays flammability limits as measured according
to ASTM E681, the statement ``This refrigerant is FLAMMABLE. Take
appropriate precautions.''
--This label must be large enough to be easily read and must be
permanent.
--The background color must be unique to the refrigerant.
--The label must be affixed to the system over information related to
the previous refrigerant, in a location not normally replaced during
vehicle repair.
--Information on the previous refrigerant that cannot be covered by the
new label must be permanently rendered unreadable.
No substitute refrigerant may be used to ``top-off'' a
system that uses another refrigerant. The original refrigerant must be
recovered in accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of
the CAA prior to charging with a substitute.
Since these use conditions necessitate unique fittings and labels,
it will be necessary for developers of automotive refrigerants to
consult with EPA about the existence of other alternatives. Such
[[Page 25588]]
discussions will lower the risk of duplicating fittings already in use.
No determination guarantees satisfactory performance from a
refrigerant. Consult the original equipment manufacturer or service
personnel for further information on using a refrigerant in a
particular system.
(a) HCFC Blend Delta
HCFC Blend Delta is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in
retrofitted and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use
conditions applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described
above. The composition of this blend has been claimed confidential by
the manufacturer. This blend contains at least one HCFC, and therefore
contributes to ozone depletion, but to a much lesser degree than CFC-
12. Regulations regarding recycling and reclamation issued under
section 609 of the Clean Air Act apply to this blend. Its production
will be phased out according to the accelerated schedule (published 12/
10/93, 58 FR 65018). The GWPs of the components are moderate to low.
This blend is nonflammable, and leak testing has demonstrated that the
blend never becomes flammable.
(b) Blend Zeta
Blend Zeta is acceptable as a substitute for CFC-12 in retrofitted
and new motor vehicle air conditioners, subject to the use conditions
applicable to motor vehicle air conditioning described above. The
composition of this blend has been claimed confidential by the
manufacturer. This blend does not contribute to ozone depletion. The
GWPS of the components are moderate to low. This blend is nonflammable,
and leak testing has demonstrated that the blend never becomes
flammable.
B. Solvents
1. Response to Comment
In response to EPA's proposal, the Agency received public comment
stating that the scope of SNAP did not extend to setting workplace
standards for chemicals. The Agency disagrees with this comment, and it
discussed in the original SNAP rule-making (59 FR 13044, March 18,
1994) how it is using section 612 authority under the Clean Air Act to
set workplace standards as interim measures until OSHA has had an
opportunity to review and decide on the need for standards under OSHA
legislative authorities. The commenter suggested that EPA review with
OSHA its intention of setting these standards. The EPA has already
taken this step, and EPA and OSHA are in agreement about the ability
and the need for the SNAP program to set occupational standards as an
interim regulatory measure until the chemical in question has been
reviewed by OSHA. Further discussion of this issue is included under
the Fire Extinguishing section below.
2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. Metals Cleaning
(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are acceptable subject to use
conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in metals cleaning. These
two classes of chemicals are being sold as blends for a variety of
cleaning applications. Of all the structures of commercial interest,
the only chemical with an Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) standard is orthochlorotoluene, one of the monochlorotoluenes.
This substance has an OSHA Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) of 50 ppm.
Using this standard as a proxy, the Agency is setting a workplace
standard of 50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes as a group. None of the
benzotrifluorides has a PEL. Based on a toxicological study recently
completed by the company interested in commercialization of these
chemicals, the Agency is setting a workplace standard of 25 ppm for
benzotrifluorides. Companies intending to use monochlorotoluene/
benzotrifluoride mixtures should take the inherent hazard of these
chemicals into account.
These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as
defined in P.L. 91-596.
b. Electronics Cleaning
(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are acceptable subject to use
conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in electronics cleaning.
For the reasons described in the section on metals cleaning, the Agency
is setting a workplace standard of 50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes and 25
ppm for benzotrifluorides.
These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as
defined in P.L. 91-596.
c. Precision Cleaning
(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are acceptable subject to use
conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in precision cleaning.
For the reasons described in the section on metals cleaning, the Agency
is setting a workplace standard of 50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes and 25
ppm for benzotrifluorides.
These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as
defined in P.L. 91-596.
C. Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection
1. Response to Comments
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's regulation of total
flooding agents is within the purview of OSHA, and that EPA should
defer to OSHA rather than create duplicative regulation. Further, the
commenter states that the conditions EPA has stipulated allowing
exposure to oxygen deficient atmospheres of 10% to 12% oxygen is
hazardous and inconsistent with OSHA's requirement for 19.5% oxygen in
confined spaces. The commenter further advised EPA that OSHA published
an update to its Respiratory Protection Standard (November 15, 1994, 59
FR 58906) which includes a chart indicating that oxygen concentrations
below 16% at sea level should require the extra precautions that go
with IDLH atmospheres (immediately dangerous to life and health). The
commenter also pointed out the OSHA regulations requiring predischarge
alarms. In summary, the commenter recommended (1) that EPA revise the
proposed rule to be consistent with current OSHA regulation, (2) that
EPA not establish a 12% ``no effect level'' or a 10% ``lowest effect
level,'' and (3) that EPA leave this regulatory activity to OSHA.
Response: EPA would like to direct the commenter's attention to the
original SNAP rulemaking published March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13044), as
discussed in the Solvents section above. The Agency responded to many
comments questioning its authority to promulgate workplace safety
[[Page 25589]]
regulations. To quote earlier language from the Comment Response
document:
In imposing conditions of use, EPA does not intend to preempt
other regulatory authorities, such as those exercised by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or other
government or industrial standard-setting bodies. Rather, EPA hopes
to fill existing regulatory gaps during the interim period of
substitution away from ozone-depleting compounds and provide the
needed margin of protection to human health and the environment
until other regulatory controls or standards are developed under
appropriate authorities.
EPA anticipates applying use conditions only in the rare
instances where clear regulatory gaps exist, and where an
unreasonable risk would exist in the absence of any condition. These
limitations will only remain in place until the appropriate standard
setting agency acts. Once existing gaps are filled, EPA will rescind
any conditions which have become redundant. The mechanism for
informing the public of this change will be the quarterly Federal
Register notices updating the status of the SNAP lists.
For the March 18, 1994 SNAP rulemaking, EPA had conducted an
analysis of existing regulation of low oxygen atmospheres and
determined that none relates to the use of a fixed gaseous system.
(Available from the EPA Air Docket A-91-42, IV-A-4. ``Evaluation of
Federal Regulations and Industry Guidelines Governing Minimum Oxygen
Levels in Work Areas Protected By Gaseous Total Flooding Fire
Protection Systems,'' Memo from ICF Incorporated to Karen Metchis, EPA,
1993.) OSHA had a number of inquiries concerning the definition of
``oxygen deficient atmospheres'', but the definition remained unclear
with OSHA stating that any atmosphere containing less than 19.5 per
cent oxygen falls within the definition of ``oxygen deficient
atmosphere.'' However existing regulations concerned only such things
as entering tanks (Ventilation Standard, 29 CFR 1910.94), confined
spaces not intended for occupancy, etc. In addition, the proposed OSHA
Respiratory Standard cited by the commenter does not apply to fire
protection systems, except in situations where personnel wish to
reenter an area that has experienced a system discharge.
The Agency views discharge of fire extinguishment systems as
emergency situations, whether they be accidental discharges or
discharges in response to a fire. In these cases, personnel are
expected to quickly egress from an area, presumably before discharge
occurs, but potentially very quickly after discharge. To prohibit use
of this technology for fear of emergency situations would be akin to
prohibiting the use of a particular chemical for fear of an accidental
spill. Both cases represent an emergency situation that should be
handled accordingly. Inert gas systems are not to be used while
personnel remain in an area to conduct normal duties.
Current OSHA regulations (1910.162) allow use of halon in fixed
extinguishing systems in normally occupied areas in amounts that would
result in an oxygen deficient atmosphere. The same regulation allows
use of carbon dioxide systems in normally occupied areas even though
exposure to discharge of a CO2 system results in immediate death.
Thus, it is not inconsistent with current OSHA regulations to design
fire extinguishing systems that might result in low oxygen atmospheres
provided that certain protections are present.
Comment: The manufacturer of one inert gas system commented that
EPA has erred in determining that inert gases without CO2 can be
used at the same levels and for the same exposure times as inert gases
with added CO2, and referenced a supporting document,
``Physiological Effects of Abrupt Exposure to 10% O2 with 4%
CO2,'' dated February 15, 1995. Further, the commenter explained
why EPA's concern that added CO2 might cause an increased
inspiration of combustion products is not warranted, by elaborating on
three exposure scenarios to a fire agent: no-fire, small-fire, and
large-fire. The commenter pointed out that only in the case of a large
fire will high levels of combustion products exist and in that case the
risk of the fire greatly exceeds any incremental risk from the added
CO2.
Response: While EPA generally agrees with the commenter's
elaboration of the scenarios of exposure, the question of the relative
importance of the effects of inert gases systems with and without added
CO2 in fire protection scenarios is the subject of a current peer
review on hypoxic atmospheres. Pending the outcome of that assessment,
EPA may re-propose use conditions on these agents either to increase
flexibility in the use of these agents and/or to differentiate the use
conditions applicable to systems with or without added CO2.
Comment: One manufacturer of this agent stated that the most
recently published atmospheric information on CF3I indicates that
its atmospheric lifetime is less than one day, the ozone depletion
potential is less than 0.0008 and more likely below 0.0001, and its
global warming potential is less than five.
The commenter further stated that, compared to Halon 1211, its
weight and volume equivalence are 0.94 and 0.83 respectively. Finally,
the commenter requested that CF3I not be referred to as Halon
13001, as this might confuse the public as to why ``halon'' was being
replaced by a ``halon.''
In addition, the manufacturer provided the Agency with the report
entitled ``Exposure Assessment of Firefighters to Triodide during
Streaming Scenarios,'' conducted at Tyndall Air Force Base. The results
of personal monitoring indicated that exposure to this agent during use
indoors does not exceed its cardiotoxic effect levels.
Response: The Agency agrees with the commenter and will use the
most recent information on atmospheric characteristics as well as
weight and volume equivalence, as noted by the commenter. In addition,
CF3I will not be labeled Halon 13001 in order to avoid general
confusion. Finally, the Agency is proceeding to list this agent as
acceptable for use as a streaming agent in nonresidential uses.
2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
As was discussed in the March 18, 1994 SNAP rulemaking, EPA in some
cases finds acceptable the use of an agent only under certain
conditions. In implementing its use of conditions, the Agency has
sought to avoid overlap with other existing regulatory authorities. EPA
believes that section 612 clearly authorizes imposition of use
conditions to ensure safe use of replacement agents. EPA's mandate is
to list agents that ``reduce the overall risk to human health and the
environment'' for ``specific uses.''
In light of this authorization, EPA is only intending to set
conditions for the safe use of halon substitutes in the workplace until
OSHA incorporates specific language addressing gaseous agents into OSHA
regulation. Under OSHA Public Law 91-596, section 4(b)(1), OSHA is
precluded from regulating an area currently being regulated by another
federal agency. EPA is specifically deferring to OSHA, and has no
intention to assume responsibility for regulating workplace safety
especially with respect to fire protection. EPA's workplace use
conditions will not bar OSHA from regulating under its P.L. 91-596
authority.
a. Total Flooding Agents
(1) IG-55 (Formerly [Inert Gas Blend] B)
IG-55 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute for total flooding
[[Page 25590]]
applications. IG-55, which is comprised of 50% nitrogen and 50% argon,
is designed to lower the oxygen level in a protected area to a level
that does not support combustion, and, unlike pure carbon dioxide
systems, sufficient oxygen remains to maintain life support.
The toxicological issues of concern with inert gas systems differ
from those of halocarbon agents, in that the end-point for hypoxic (low
oxygen) atmospheres is asphyxiation while the end-point for halocarbons
is cardiac sensitization leading to cardiac arrhythmias. Thus, EPA
requested the manufacturers of the inert gas systems to conduct a peer
review by a panel of medical specialists to consider specific questions
concerning exposing the typical working population to this agent. In
addition, a panel of medical specialists convened by EPA to review all
inert gas systems concluded that the use conditions imposed by EPA are
conservative and adequate.
The results of the peer reviews further convinces us that the SNAP
conditions previously listed for IG-541 are appropriate for IG-55 and
IG-01 as well. Specifically, while the terms No Observed Adverse Effect
Level (NOAEL) and Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) refer to
cardiotoxic effect levels which are not appropriate when discussing
hypoxic atmospheres, EPA is establishing a `no effect level' for inert
gas systems at 12% oxygen, and a `lowest effect level' at 10% oxygen.
Thus, consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) conditions used by EPA for all total flooding
agents, EPA is specifying that an IG-55 system could be designed to an
oxygen level of 10% if employees can egress the area within one minute,
but may be designed only to the 12% level if it takes longer than one
minute to egress the area. If the possibility exists for the oxygen to
drop below 10%, employees must be evacuated prior to such oxygen
depletion. A design concentration of less than 10% oxygen may only be
used in normally unoccupied areas, as long as any employee who could
possibly be exposed can egress within 30 seconds.
EPA stresses that, even though the medical specialists concur that
it is probably safe to expose the typical worker to 10% or 12% oxygen
for up to five minutes, EPA does not encourage any employee to
intentionally remain in the area, even in the event of accidental
discharge. In addition, the system must include alarms and warning
mechanisms as specified by OSHA.
EPA intends that all personnel be evacuated from an area prior to,
or quickly after, discharge. An inert gas system may not be designed
with the intention of personnel remaining in the area unless
appropriate protection is provided, such as self-contained breathing
apparatus.
(2) IG-01 (Formerly [Inert Gas Blend] C)
IG-01 is acceptable as a Halon 1301 substitute for total flooding
applications. IG-01 is comprised 100% of argon, and as with IG-55, is
designed to lower the oxygen level in a protected area to a level that
does not support combustion, while maintaining sufficient oxygen for
life support.
As with IG-55, an IG-01 system may be designed to an oxygen level
of 10% if employees can egress the area within one minute, but may be
designed only to the 12% level if it takes longer than one minute to
egress the area. If the possibility exists for the oxygen to drop below
10%, employees must be evacuated prior to such oxygen depletion. A
design concentration of less than 10% may only be used in normally
unoccupied areas, as long as any employee who could possibly be exposed
can egress within 30 seconds.
EPA stresses that, even though the medical specialists concur that
it is probably safe to expose the typical worker to 10% or 12% oxygen
for up to five minutes, EPA does not encourage any employee to
intentionally remain in the area, even in the event of accidental
discharge. In addition, the system must include alarms and warning
mechanisms as specified by OSHA.
Please refer to the discussion of IG-55 for a fuller description of
inert gas systems.
3. Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits
(a) Streaming Agents
(1) CF3I
CF3I is acceptable as a Halon 1211 substitute in
nonresidential applications. CF3I is a fluoroiodocarbon with an
atmospheric lifetime of less than one day due to its rapid photolysis
in the presence of light. Due to its short atmospheric lifetime of one
day and its photolytic decomposition mechanism, the resulting GWP of
this agent is less than 5, while its ODP when released at ground level
is 0.0008 and more likely below.
CF3I has a weight and volume equivalence to Halon 1211 of 0.94
and 0.83, respectively. While it is potentially a `drop-in' replacement
for Halon 1211, with some modifications in elastomers or other system
materials, there exists a question as to whether current technical
standards allow the reuse of halon 1211 canisters for other chemicals.
Both the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard and UL
listings should be examined in this context.
Cardiac sensitization data received by the Agency indicate that
CF3I has a NOAEL of 0.2 per cent and a LOAEL of 0.4 per cent.
Personal monitoring for this agent was conducted using 2\1/2\ to 13
pound extinguishers in various indoor applications. The resulting data
indicate that cardiotoxic levels are not likely to be exceeded when
used as a streaming agent. While the tests were conducted in different
scenarios both with and without ventilation, EPA recommends that this
agent be used in well ventilated areas. Because of the low cardiac
sensitization values, EPA is prohibiting use of this agent in consumer
residential applications where the possibility exists of incorrect use
by untrained users.
D. Aerosols
1. Response to Comment
As discussed in the section on solvent cleaning, EPA received a
comment stating that it did not have authority under SNAP to set
workplace standards. For the reasons described above, the Agency
disagrees with this comment.
2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. Solvents
(1) Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are acceptable subject to use
conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF as aerosol solvents.
These two classes of chemicals are being sold as blends for aerosol
applications. Of all the structures of commercial interest, the only
chemical with an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
standard is orthochlorotoluene, one of the monochlorotoluenes. This
substance has an OSHA Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) of 50 ppm. Using
this standard as a proxy, the Agency is setting a workplace standard of
50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes as a group. None of the benzotrifluorides
has a PEL. Based on a toxicological study recently completed by the
company interested in commercialization of these chemicals, the Agency
is setting a workplace standard of 25 ppm for benzotrifluorides.
Companies intending to use monochlorotoluene/benzotrifluoride mixtures
should take the inherent hazard of these chemicals into account in
implementing applications.
These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its
own
[[Page 25591]]
standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in no
way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as defined
in P.L. 91-596.
E. Adhesives, Coatings and Inks
1. Response to Comment
As discussed in the section on solvent cleaning, EPA received a
comment stating that it did not have authority under SNAP to set
workplace standards. For the reasons described above, the Agency
disagrees with this comment.
2. Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions
a. Monochlorotoluenes/Benzotrifluorides
Monochlorotoluenes/benzotrifluorides are acceptable subject to use
conditions as substitutes for CFC-113 and MCF in adhesives, coatings,
and inks. These two classes of chemicals are being sold as blends for
these applications. Of all the substances of commercial interest, the
only chemical with an Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) standard is orthochlorotoluene, one of the monochlorotoluenes.
This substance has an OSHA Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) of 50 ppm.
Using this standard as a proxy, the Agency is setting a workplace
standard of 50 ppm for monochlorotoluenes as a group. None of the
benzotrifluorides has a PEL. Based on a toxicological study recently
completed by the company interested in commercialization of these
chemicals, the Agency is setting a workplace standard of 25 ppm for
benzotrifluorides. Companies intending to use monochlorotoluene/
benzotrifluoride mixtures should take the inherent toxicity of these
chemicals into account in implementing applications.
These workplace standards are designed to protect worker safety
until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets its
own standards under P.L. 91-596. The existence of the EPA standards in
no way bars OSHA from standard-setting under OSHA authorities as
defined in P.L. 91-596.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. 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 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; 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.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB notified EPA
that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within the
meaning of the Executive Order and EPA submitted this action to OMB for
review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations
have been documented in the public record.
B. Unfunded Mandates Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
EPA to 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 requires
the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing
any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely affected by
the rule. Section 205 requires that regulatory alternatives be
considered before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact
statement is prepared. The Agency must select the least costly, most
cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
rule's objectives, unless there is an explanation why this alternative
is not selected or this alternative is inconsistent with law.
Because this final rule is estimated to result in the expenditure
by State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of less
than $100 million in any one year, the Agency has not prepared a
budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the selection of
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative.
Because small governments will not be significantly or uniquely
affected by this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a plan
with regard to small governments. However, the rule has the net effect
of reducing burden from part 82, Stratospheric Protection regulations,
on regulated entities.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 604(a), applies to any
rulemaking that is subject to public notice and comment requirements.
The Act requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be performed or
the head of the Agency certifies that a rule will not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
The Agency believes that this final rule will not have a
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities and has
therefore concluded that a formal RFA is unnecessary. Because costs of
the SNAP requirements as a whole are expected to be minor, the rule is
unlikely to adversely affect businesses, particularly as the rule
exempts small sectors and end-uses from reporting requirements and
formal agency review. In fact, to the extent that information gathering
is more expensive and time-consuming for small companies, this rule may
well provide benefits for small businesses anxious to examine potential
substitutes to any ozone-depleting class I and class II substances they
may be using, by requiring manufacturers to make information on such
substitutes available.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule will be
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document will be prepared by EPA
and a copy will be available from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory
Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2136); 401
M St., S.W.; Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740. The
information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them. The
reasons for these information requirements are explained in the section
on automobile air conditioning (III.A.2.a), and will be mandatory once
the ICR is approved under section 612 of the Clean Air Act.
EPA estimates that, over a 5 year period, approximately 30 million
cars will be retrofitted with alternative refrigerants, and that the
burden to complete and apply a label will not exceed 5 minutes per car.
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,
[[Page 25592]]
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.
V. Additional Information
For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists or additional
information on SNAP contact the Stratospheric Protection Hotline at 1-
800-296-1996, Monday-Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m. (EST).
For more information on the Agency's process for administering the
SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the
SNAP final rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18,
1994 (59 FR 13044). Federal Register notices can be ordered from the
Government Printing Office Order Desk (202) 783-3238; the citation is
the date of publication. Notices and rulemaking under the SNAP program
can also be retrieved electronically from EPA's Protection of
Stratospheric Ozone Technology Transfer Network (TTN), Clean Air Act
Amendment Bulletin Board. The access number for users with a 1200 or
2400 bps modem is (919) 541-5742. For users with a 9600 bps modem the
access number is (919) 541-1447. For assistance in accessing this
service, call (919) 541-5384 during normal business hours (EST).
Finally, all ozone depletion-related NPRMS, FRMs, and Notices may be
retrieved from EPA's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web site, at http://
www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/title6/usregs.html.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 13, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended
as follows:
PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE
1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.
2. Section 82.180 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(8)(ii) to
read as follows:
Sec. 82.180 Agency review of SNAP submissions.
(a) * * *
(8) * * *
(ii) Communication of Decision to the Public. The Agency will
publish in the Federal Register on a quarterly basis a complete list of
the acceptable and unacceptable alternatives that have been reviewed to
date. In the case of substitutes proposed as acceptable with use
restrictions, proposed as unacceptable or proposed for removal from
either list, a rulemaking process will ensue. Upon completion of such
rulemaking, EPA will publish revised lists of substitutes acceptable
subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits and unacceptable
substitutes to be incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations.
(See Appendices to this subpart.)
* * * * *
3. Subpart G is amended by adding Appendix C to read as follows:
Subpart G--Significant New Alternatives Policy Program
* * * * *
Appendix C to Subpart G--Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions
and Unacceptable Substitutes Listed in the May 22, 1996 Final Rule,
Effective June 21, 1996
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Sector-- Acceptable Subject to Use
Conditions
HCFC Blend Delta and Blend Zeta are acceptable subject to the
following conditions when used to retrofit a CFC-12 motor vehicle
air conditioning system:
1. Each refrigerant may only be used with a set of fittings that
is unique to that refrigerant. These fittings (male or female, as
appropriate) must be used with all containers of the refrigerant, on
can taps, on recovery, recycling, and charging equipment, and on all
air conditioning system service ports. These fittings must be
designed to mechanically prevent cross-charging with another
refrigerant. A refrigerant may only be used with the fittings and
can taps specifically intended for that refrigerant. Using an
adapter or deliberately modifying a fitting to use a different
refrigerant will be a violation of this use condition. In addition,
fittings shall meet the following criteria, derived from Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards and recommended practices:
a. When existing CFC-12 service ports are to be retrofitted,
conversion assemblies shall attach to the CFC-12 fitting with a
thread lock adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching mechanism
in a manner that permanently prevents the assembly from being
removed.
b. All conversion assemblies and new service ports must satisfy
the vibration testing requirements of sections 3.2.1 or 3.2.2 of SAE
J1660, as applicable, excluding references to SAE J639 and SAE
J2064, which are specific to HFC-134a.
c. In order to prevent discharge of refrigerant to the
atmosphere, systems shall have a device to limit compressor
operation before the pressure relief device will vent refrigerant.
This requirement is waived for systems that do not feature such a
pressure relief device.
d. All CFC-12 service ports not retrofitted with conversion
assemblies shall be rendered permanently incompatible for use with
CFC-12 related service equipment by fitting with a device attached
with a thread lock adhesive and/or a separate mechanical latching
mechanism in a manner that prevents the device from being removed.
2. When a retrofit is performed, a label must be used as
follows:
a. The person conducting the retrofit must apply a label to the
air conditioning system in the engine compartment that contains the
following information:
i. The name and address of the technician and the company
performing the retrofit.
ii. The date of the retrofit.
iii. The trade name, charge amount, and, when applicable, the
ASHRAE refrigerant numerical designation of the refrigerant.
iv. The type, manufacturer, and amount of lubricant used.
v. If the refrigerant is or contains an ozone-depleting
substance, the phrase ``ozone depleter.''
vi. If the refrigerant displays flammability limits as measured
according to ASTM E681, the statement ``This refrigerant is
FLAMMABLE. Take appropriate precautions.''
b. This label must be large enough to be easily read and must be
permanent.
c. The background color must be unique to the refrigerant.
d. The label must be affixed to the system over information
related to the previous refrigerant, in a location not normally
replaced during vehicle repair.
e. Information on the previous refrigerant that cannot be
covered by the new label must be permanently rendered unreadable.
3. No substitute refrigerant may be used to ``top-off'' a system
that uses another refrigerant. The original refrigerant must be
recovered in accordance with regulations issued under section 609 of
the CAA prior to charging with a substitute.
[[Page 25593]]
Solvent Cleaning Sector--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals Cleaning with CFC-113, Monochlorotoluen Acceptable....... Subject to a 50 ppm The workplace
MCF and HCFC-141b. es and workplace standard standard for
benzotrifluorid for monochlorotoluenes
es. monochlorotoluenes is based on an OSHA
and a 25 ppm PEL of 50 ppm for
standard for orthochlorotoluene.
benzotrifluorides. The workplace
standard for
benzotrifluorides is
based on a recent
toxicology study.
Electronics Cleaning w/ CFC- Monochlorotoluen Acceptable....... Subject to a 50 ppm The workplace
113, MCF and HCFC-141b. es and workplace standard standard for
benzotrifluorid for monochlorotoluenes
es. monochlorotoluenes is based on an OSHA
and a 25 ppm PEL of 50 ppm for
standard for orthochlorotoluene.
benzotrifluorides. The workplace
standard for
benzotrifluorides is
based on a recent
toxicology study.
Precision Cleaning w/ CFC- Monochlorotoluen Acceptable....... Subject to a 50 ppm The workplace
113, MCF and HCFC-141b. es and workplace standard standard for
benzotrifluorid for monochlorotoluenes
es. monochlorotoluenes is based on an OSHA
and a 25 ppm PEL of 50 ppm for
standard for orthochlorotoluene.
benzotrifluorides. The workplace
standard for
benzotrifluorides is
based on a recent
toxicology study.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire Suppression and Explosion Protection--Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions: Total Flooding Agents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1301................... IG-55 (formerly Acceptable....... Until OSHA The Agency does not
[Inert Gas establishes contemplate
Blend] B). applicable workplace personnel remaining
requirements: in the space after
system discharge
during a fire
without Self
Contained Breathing
Apparatus (SCBA) as
required by OSHA.
Total Flooding Agents........ ................ ................. IG-55 systems may be
designed to an
oxygen level of 10%
if employees can
egress the area
within one minute,
but may be designed
only to the 12%
oxygen level if it
takes longer than
one minute to egress
the area.
If the possibility EPA does not
exists for the encourage any
oxygen to drop below employee to
10%, employees must intentionally remain
be evacuated prior in the area after
to such oxygen system discharge,
depletion. even in the event of
accidental
discharge. In
addition, the system
must include alarms
and warning
mechanisms as
specified by OSHA.
A design See additional
concentration of comments 1, 2.
less than 10% may
only be used in
normally unoccupied
areas, as long as
any employee who
could possibly be
exposed can egress
within 30 seconds.
IG-01 (formerly Acceptable....... Until OSHA The Agency does not
[Inert Gas establishes contemplate
Blend] C). applicable workplace personnel remaining
requirements: in the space after
system discharge
during a fire
without Self
Contained Breathing
Apparatus (SCBA) as
required by OSHA.
IG-01 systems may be
designed to an
oxygen level of 10%
if employees can
egress the area
within one minute,
but may be designed
only to the 12%
oxygen level if it
takes longer than
one minute to egress
the area.
If the possibility EPA does not
exists for the encourage any
oxygen to drop below employee to
10%, employees must intentionally remain
be evacuated prior in the area after
to such oxygen system discharge,
depletion. even in the event of
accidental
discharge. In
addition, the system
must include alarms
and warning
mechanisms as
specified by OSHA.
[[Page 25594]]
A design See additional
concentration of comments 1, 2.
less than 10% may
only be used in
normally unoccupied
areas, as long as
any employee who
could possibly be
exposed can egress
within 30 seconds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--Must conform with OSHA 29 CFR 1910 Subpart L Section 1910.160 of the U.S. Code.
2--Per OSHA requirements, protective gear (SCBA) must be available in the event personnel must reenter the area.
Acceptable Subject to Narrowed Use Limits: Streaming Agents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Halon 1211..................... CF3I............... Acceptable in non-
residential uses only.
Streaming Agents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerosols--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-113, MCF and HCFC-141b as Monochlorotoluen Acceptable....... Subject to a 50 ppm The workplace
solvent. es and workplace standard standard for
benzotrifluo- for monochlorotoluenes
rides. monochlorotoluenes is based on an OSHA
and a 25 ppm PEL of 50 ppm for
standard for orthochlorotoluene.
benzotrifluorides. The workplace
standard for
benzotrifluorides is
based on a recent
toxicology study.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adhesives, Coatings and Inks--Proposed Acceptable Subject to Use Conditions Substitutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Substitute Decision Conditions Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-113, MCF and HCFC-141b... Monochlorotoluen Acceptable....... Subject to a 50 ppm The workplace
es and workplace standard standard for
benzotrifluo- for monochlorotoluenes
rides. monochlorotoluenes is based on an OSHA
and a 25 ppm PEL of 50 ppm for
standard for orthochlorotoluene.
benzotrifluorides. The workplace
standard for
benzotrifluorides is
based on a recent
toxicology study.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-12625 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12600 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and Model DC-9-80 Series Airplanes, Model MD-88 Airplanes, and C-9 (Military) Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25557-25558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12600]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-185-AD; Amendment 39-9629; AD 96-11-04]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and Model
DC-9-80 Series Airplanes, Model MD-88 Airplanes, and C-9 (Military)
Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and Model DC-9-80
series airplanes, Model MD-88 airplanes, and C-9 (military) series
airplanes, that requires modification of the slant panel insulation
blankets on the slant pressure panel of the main landing gear. The
amendment also requires a visual inspection to detect discrepancies of
the left and right seal assemblies of the overwing emergency exit door,
and replacement of any discrepant door seal. This amendment is prompted
by a report that the flaps and landing gear did not extend or retract
properly due to water accumulation in the slant pressure panel area.
The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent such water
accumulation, which could result in the failure of the flaps or landing
gear to properly extend or retract.
DATES: Effective June 26, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of June 26, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications
Business Administration, Department C1-L51 (2-60). This information may
be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport
Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brent Bandley, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712; telephone
(310) 627-5237; fax (310) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model
DC-9 and Model DC-9-80 series airplanes, Model MD-88 airplanes, and C-9
(military) series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on
January 31, 1996 (61 FR 3341). That action proposed to require
modification of the slant panel insulation blankets on the slant
pressure panel of the main landing gear. That action also proposed to
require a visual inspection to detect discrepancies of the left and
right seal assemblies of the overwing emergency exit door, and
replacement of the discrepant door seal.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the comments received.
Support for the Proposal
Two commenters support the proposed rule.
Requests to Extend the Compliance Time
Several commenters request that the compliance time for
accomplishment of the modification be extended from the proposed 24
months. These commenters request an extension to as much as 36 months,
which will allow the modification to be accomplished during a regularly
scheduled heavy maintenance check when the airplanes are brought to
main base for an extended hold. Two of these commenters state that they
would have to special schedule their fleet in order to accomplish the
modification within the proposed compliance time; this would entail
considerable additional expenses.
After consideration of all the available information, the FAA
cannot conclude that an extension of the proposed compliance time is
warranted. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this
action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated
with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the availability of
required parts and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required
modification within an interval of time that parallels normal scheduled
maintenance for the majority of affected operators. Further, the
proposed compliance time of 24 months was arrived at initially with the
concurrence of affected operators, the manufacturer, and the FAA. In
light of this, and in consideration of the amount of time that has
already elapsed since issuance of the original notice, the FAA has
determined that further delay of accomplishment of the requirements of
this final rule is not appropriate. However, under the provisions of
paragraph (b) of the final rule, the FAA may approve requests for
adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to
substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level
of safety.
Conclusion
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 1,500 McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and
Model DC-9-80 series airplanes, Model MD-88 airplanes, and C-9
(military) series airplanes of the affected design in
[[Page 25558]]
the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 1,000 airplanes of U.S.
registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 8
work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that
the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures,
the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$480,000, or $480 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD
action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) Is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-11-04 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-9629. Docket 95-NM-185-AD.
Applicability: Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series
airplanes; Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), -82 (MD-82), -83 (MD-83), -87 (MD-
87) series airplanes; Model MD-88 airplanes; and C-9 (military)
series airplanes; as listed in McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin
DC9-53-268, dated August 11, 1995; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent water accumulation in the slant pressure panel area,
which could result in the failure of the flaps or landing gear to
properly extend or retract, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD,
accomplish paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD, in accordance
with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-268, dated August 11,
1995.
(1) Modify the slant panel insulation blankets on the slant
pressure panel of the main landing gear.
(2) Perform a visual inspection to detect discrepancies (i.e.,
defects and constant gap) of the left and right seal assemblies of
the overwing emergency exit door. If any discrepancy is detected,
prior to further flight, replace door seal in accordance with the
service bulletin.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) The modification, inspection, and replacement shall be done
in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC9-53-268,
dated August 11, 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 McDonnell
Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California
90846, Attention: Technical Publications Business Administration,
Department C1-L51 (2-60). Copies may be inspected at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800
North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on June 26, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 14, 1996.
S.R. Miller,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-12600 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12599 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-200, -300, and -400 Series Airplanes Equipped With General Electric Model CF6-80C2 PMC and CF6-80C2 FADEC Engines, and Pratt & Whitney Model PW4000 Engines
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25558-25560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12599]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-162-AD; Amendment 39-9628; AD 96-11-03]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-200, -300, and -400
Series Airplanes Equipped With General Electric Model CF6-80C2 PMC and
CF6-80C2 FADEC Engines, and Pratt & Whitney Model PW4000 Engines
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive
(AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 747-200, -300, and -400 series
airplanes, that currently requires inspection of each fuel feed line of
the outboard engine in the engine strut to determine if interference
with an adjacent pneumatic duct clamp has caused damage, and repair or
replacement of the fuel feed tube, if necessary. That AD also currently
requires inspection and replacement of the adjacent pneumatic duct
clamp with a non-rotating type clamp, if necessary. This amendment
requires modification of the upper gap area of the strut of the number
1 and 4 engines. This amendment is prompted by a report of fuel leakage
in the strut of the number 4 engine due to a high profile clamp that
chafed the fuel line. The actions specified by this AD are intended to
prevent chafing of the fuel line in the strut of the number 1 and 4
[[Page 25559]]
engines, which could result in rupture of the fuel line and subsequent
in-flight engine fire.
DATES: Effective June 26, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of June 26, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules
Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth W. Frey, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington;
telephone (206) 227-2673; fax (206) 227-1181.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) by superseding AD 91-05-19,
amendment 39-6918 (56 FR 8705, March 1, 1991), which is applicable to
certain Boeing Model 747-200, -300, and -400 series airplanes, was
published in the Federal Register on January 29, 1996 (61 FR 2730). The
action proposed to supersede AD 91-05-19 to require modification of the
upper gap area of the strut of the number 1 and 4 engines.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the two comments received.
Both commenters support the proposed rule.
Conclusion
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 363 Boeing Model 747-200, -300, -400 series
airplanes equipped with General Electric Model CF6-80C2 PMC and CF6-
80C2 FADEC engines, and Pratt & Whitney Model PW4000 engines of the
affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 39
airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.
The actions that are required by this AD will take approximately 6
work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60
per work hour. Required parts will be supplied by the manufacturer at
no cost to the operators. Based on these figures, the cost impact on
U.S. operators of the new requirements of this AD is estimated to be
$14,040, or $360 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this
AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) Is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-6918 (56 FR
8705, March 1, 1991), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD),
amendment 39-9628, to read as follows:
96-11-03 Boeing: Amendment 39-9628. Docket 95-NM-162-AD. Supersedes
AD 91-05-19, Amendment 39-6918.
Applicability: Model 747-200, -300, and -400 series airplanes
having line positions 679 through 1041 inclusive; equipped with
General Electric Model CF6-80C2 PMC and CF6-80C2 FADEC, and Pratt &
Whitney Model PW4000 engines; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent chafing of the fuel line in the strut of the number 1
and 4 engines, which could result in rupture of the fuel line and
subsequent in-flight engine fire, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, modify
the upper gap area of the strut of the number 1 and 4 engines, in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-36A2097, Revision 3,
dated September 28, 1995.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Seattle ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) The modification shall be done in accordance with Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-36A2097, Revision 3, dated September 28, 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 Boeing Commercial Airplane Group,
[[Page 25560]]
P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Copies may be
inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on June 26, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 14, 1996.
S.R. Miller,
Acting Manager,Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-12599 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12482 Acid Rain Program: Continuous Emission Monitoring
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25580-25585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12482]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 75
[FRL-5506-6]
Acid Rain Program: Continuous Emission Monitoring
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Amendment to final rule; correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 17, 1995, EPA published direct final amendments to the
Continuous Emission Monitoring (CEM) rule in the Acid Rain Program for
the purpose of making implementation of the program simpler,
streamlined, and more efficient. The amendments to the original January
11, 1993 rule became final and effective on July 17, 1995. During the
public comment period on the direct final rule and its companion
proposed rule, EPA received significant, adverse comments on those
amended provisions that related to notifications for periodic relative
accuracy test audits. EPA is removing the provisions added in the
direct final rule related to notifications. EPA will address the
removed provisions in a future final rule. EPA is also extending the
public comment period on the removed provisions for 15 days to allow
the public to respond to the significant, adverse comments. All other
provisions of the direct final rule remain final.
In addition, EPA is publishing technical corrections of
typographical and similar inadvertent errors in the final rule, as
promulgated May 17, 1995.
DATES: Effective date: The effective date of the amended rule
provisions and corrections is May 22, 1996.
Comment date: Comments in response to the significant, adverse
comments on the direct final rule must be received on or before June 6,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Any written comments in response to the significant, adverse
comments on the direct final rule must be identified as being in
response to such comments in Docket No. A-94-16 and must be submitted
in duplicate to: EPA Air Docket (6102), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460. The docket is
available for public inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, at the above address. A reasonable fee may
be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Sheppard, Acid Rain Division
(6204J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 233-9180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA received significant, adverse comments
on certain provisions of the direct final rule amending part 75 from a
group of utilities called the Texas Subgroup. These comments were
apparently submitted on time, but EPA became aware of this only after
the provision became final. After the close of the comment period, the
Texas Subgroup submitted a letter, dated November 2, 1995, clarifying
its comments. The comments and the November 28, 1995 letter are found
in Docket No. A-94-16, items V-D-23 and V-D-24. The Texas Subgroup made
significant, adverse comments on the provisions of Secs. 75.21(d)and
75.61(a)(5). Therefore, those provisions in the direct final rule are
being removed and are considered proposed provisions until EPA takes
further comment and addresses the comments in a future final rule.
The Texas Subgroup commented adversely upon the requirements in
Secs. 75.21(d) and 75.51(a)(5) for notifications of the date on which
periodic Relative Accuracy Test Audits (RATAs) will be performed. The
direct final provisions require submission of written notification to
the Administrator, the appropriate EPA Regional Office, and the
applicable State or local air pollution control agency at least 21 days
before the scheduled date of a RATA. The date may be rescheduled if
written or oral notice is provided to EPA and to the appropriate State
or local air quality agency at least seven days before the earlier of
the original scheduled date or the new test date. The Texas Subgroup
felt that this provision created additional paperwork. In addition,
they felt the provisions could force utilities to delay rescheduled
RATAs unnecessarily for seven days simply to meet the notification
requirement.
In discussions with EPA, the Texas Subgroup suggested that perhaps
the provisions are not needed or the provisions could be revised to
provide more flexibility in the case where a RATA is rescheduled. Some
possibilities that the Texas Subgroup discussed with EPA included:
allowing utilities to receive permission from EPA, State and local
agency Acid Rain Program contacts to proceed with testing in less than
seven days from the date of notification; creating an ``emergency''
notification two days after the new testing date is known, similar
[[Page 25581]]
to that for recertification (Sec. 75.61(a)(1)(ii)); and allowing
notification electronically to reduce the paperwork burden, where the
EPA Regional office or State or local agency will accept such a
notification.
EPA also notes that the purpose of the notification for periodic
RATAs is to enable EPA or State or local agency staff to observe the
testing. Notifications of periodic RATAs will allow EPA, State and
local agencies to observe a larger percentage of units than if
utilities only were to submit notice for certification and
recertification testing. The ability of agency staff to attend
certification and recertification testing is limited since EPA has
significantly shortened the notification period for most
recertification tests and allows utilities to proceed with
recertification testing before notifying the Agency in emergency
situations and since there were a large number of sources testing in a
short time period during initial certification. Even so, agency staff
attended many RATAs for initial certification testing. However, initial
certification generally occurs before the period when an affected unit
is required to comply with emission reductions. Therefore, to enhance
the quality of quality assurance testing and the quality of emission
data during compliance, EPA and State and local agencies need the
opportunity to observe periodic RATAs. EPA notes that, during
certification testing, EPA personnel have observed and corrected
deviations from acceptable stack testing procedures. Based on these
observations during initial certification, EPA believes it is critical
for EPA, State, and local agency personnel to be able to observe
periodic RATAs in order to ensure the quality of monitored data for the
Acid Rain Program. Moreover, advance notification of the date of
periodic RATA testing allows the cost-effective use of agency resources
by coordinating auditing of monitor performance with regularly
scheduled quality assurance testing and by coordinating field
observations at multiple locations. If agency personnel were not to
observe periodic RATA testing, agencies would need to perform or
require performance of additional RATAs under the audit provisions of
section 2.4 of Appendix B of part 75. This would be more intrusive for
utilities, and more time-consuming and costly for both utilities and
agencies, than coordinating with periodic RATA testing.
The Agency notes that it is relatively easy for a utility that
schedules testing to notify agencies of a known testing date. In fact,
it will take a utility roughly the same amount of time to respond to
EPA and State or local agency enquiries about testing dates as it takes
the utility to generate the short notice and mail it or to make a
telephone call. In contrast, it is relatively difficult, time-consuming
and intrusive for State or local air pollution control agencies or EPA
Regional Offices to contact each utility with Phase I and II affected
units to determine when testing will occur at each unit. EPA and State
or local agency personnel must call each utility, contact the
appropriate utility staff person, and discuss the scheduling
information.
In addition, EPA is considering changes to the periodic RATA
notification provisions that would reduce the burden of reporting a
notification. Part of the paperwork burden could be eliminated by
removing the requirement that notifications be provided to the
Administrator (received by EPA's Acid Rain Division). In addition, a
State or local air pollution control agency or EPA regional office
could be allowed to waive the notification requirement. For example, a
State or local air pollution control agency or an EPA regional office
could decide that it would not observe a class of units (e.g., low-
emitting gas-fired units). EPA is therefore considering allowing State
or local air pollution control agencies or EPA Regional Offices to
issue a utility a waiver from periodic RATA notification requirements
for some or all utility units within their respective States, air
quality districts or EPA regions until notifications are specifically
requested again. This would relieve utilities of some reporting burden,
while still ensuring that State or local agencies or EPA regional
offices would be able to observe RATA testing when they wished to do
so. Moreover, where a test needs to be rescheduled in less than seven
days, another option that would create greater flexibility for
utilities would be a shorter period of advance notification, such as
telephone, facsimile, or electronic mail notification on the day the
utility knows the rescheduled date of testing, which would be required
to be at least two days (48 hours) before the new date of testing. EPA
requests comment on these possible solutions.
No other significant, adverse comments were received by EPA on the
direct final rule. Thus, all other provisions of the direct final rule
became final on July 17, 1995 and remain in effect.
In addition, the EPA is correcting various errors found in the
direct final rule, as promulgated on May 17, 1995. These corrections
are technical. Most correct typographical errors; some reinstate
provisions that were inadvertently removed from the final regulations
originally promulgated on January 11, 1993 (58 FR 3590, 1993) when the
May 17, 1995 document was published.
The rule provisions in this document either remove requirements
already incorporated in the May 17, 1995 notice or reinstate regulatory
requirements that were previously approved when the regulations were
originally issued on January 11, 1993. The requirements of Executive
Orders 12866 and 12875, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Unfunded
Mandates Act, and the Paperwork Reduction Act are therefore not
applicable to this action. All applicable administrative requirements
will be met when the proposed amendments are addressed in a future
final rule.
For additional information, see the direct final rule. 60 FR 26510
(May 17, 1995).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 75
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon dioxide,
Continuous emission monitors, Electric utilities, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur dioxide.
Dated: April 30, 1996.
Brian J. McLean,
Director, Acid Rain Division.
PART 75--[AMENDED]
Part 75 of title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 75 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7601 and 7651K.
2. Section 75.14 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.14 Specific provisions for monitoring opacity.
* * * * *
(c) Gas-fired units. The owner or operator of an affected unit that
qualifies as gas-fired, as defined in Sec. 72.2 of this chapter, based
on information submitted by the designated representative in the
monitoring plan is exempt from the opacity monitoring requirements of
this part. Whenever a unit previously categorized as a gas-fired unit
is recategorized as another type of unit by changing its fuel mix, the
owner or operator shall install, operate, and certify a continuous
opacity monitoring system as required by paragraph (a) of this section
by
[[Page 25582]]
December 31 of the following calendar year.
* * * * *
3. Section 75.15(b)(1) is amended by revising Equation 7 to read as
follows:
Sec. 75.15 Specific provisions for monitoring SO2 emissions
removal by qualifying Phase I technology.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
Where, * * *
* * * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22MY96.002
Sec. 75.16 [Amended]
4. Section 75.16(a)(2)(ii)(A) is amended by adding the word ``in''
between the phrases ``compensating units'' and ``accordance with part
72''.
Sec. 75.21 [Amended]
5. Section 75.21 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(d).
Sec. 75.33 [Amended]
6. Section 75.33(c)(5) is amended by revising the word ``proper''
to read ``prior''.
7. Section 75.50(a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 75.50 General recordkeeping provisions.
(a) Recordkeeping requirements for affected sources. The provisions
of this section shall remain in effect prior to January 1, 1996. The
owner or operator shall meet the requirements of either Secs. 75.50 or
75.54 prior to January 1, 1996. On or after January 1, 1996, the owner
or operator shall meet the requirements of Sec. 75.54 only. The owner
or operator of any affected source subject to the requirements of this
part shall maintain for each affected unit (or for each group of
affected or nonaffected units utilizing a common stack and common
monitoring systems pursuant to Sec. 75.16 through Sec. 75.18 of this
part (referred to hereafter as ``each affected unit'')) a file of all
measurements, data, reports, and other information required by this
part at the source in a form suitable for inspection for at least three
(3) years from the date of each record. This file shall contain the
following information:
(1) The data and information required in paragraphs (b) through (f)
of this section;
(2) The component data and information used to calculate values
required in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section;
(3) The current monitoring plan as specified in Sec. 75.53 of this
part; and
(4) The quality control plan as described in Appendix B of this
part.
* * * * *
Sec. 75.61 [Amended]
8.-9. Section 75.61 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(a)(5).
10. Appendix A, Section 2.1.1.1 is amended by adding the variables
for Equations A-1a and A-1b and note at the end of the section to read
as follows:
Appendix A of Part 75--Specifications and Test Procedures [Amended]
* * * * *
2.1.1.1 Maximum Potential Concentration
* * * * *
Where,
MPC=Maximum potential concentration (ppm, wet basis). (To convert to
dry basis, divide the MPC by 0.9.)
%S=Maximum sulfur content of fuel to be fired, wet basis, weight
percent, as determined by ASTM D3177-89, ASTM D4239-85, ASTM D4294-90,
ASTM D1552-90, ASTM D129-91, or ASTM D2622-92 for solid or liquid fuels
(incorporated by reference under Sec. 75.6).
GCV=Minimum gross calorific value of the fuel lot consistent with the
sulfur analysis (Btu/lb), as determined using ASTM D3176-89, ASTM D240-
87 (Reapproved 1991), or ASTM D2015-91 (incorporated by reference under
Sec. 75.6).
%O2w=Minimum oxygen concentration, percent wet basis, under normal
operating conditions.
%CO2w=Maximum carbon dioxide concentration, percent wet basis,
under normal operating conditions.
11.32 x 10\6\=Oxygen-based conversion factor in (Btu/lb)(ppm)/%.
6.93 x 10\6\=Carbon dioxide-based conversion factor in (Btu/lb)(ppm)/%
Note: All percent values to be inserted in the equations of this
section are to be expressed as a percentage, not a fractional value,
e.g., 3, not .03.
11. Appendix A, Section 2.1.4 is amended by replacing the variable
``Fd'' with the variable ``Fc'' in Equation A-3b to read as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22MY96.003
Where:
* * * * *
Appendix A--[Amended]
12. Appendix A, Section 7.6.5 is amended by revising the first two
variable definitions for Equation A-11 to read as follows:
7.6.5 Bias Adjustment
* * * * *
Where:
CEMiMonitor=Data (measurement) provided by the monitor at
time i.
CEMiAdjusted=Data value, adjusted for bias, at time i.
* * * * *
13. Appendix A of part 75 is amended by adding Figures 1 through 4
at the end of Appendix A, to read as follows:
Figures for Appendix A of Part 75
Figure 1.--Linearity Error Determination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Date and time Reference value Monitor value Difference Percent of reference value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-level:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 25583]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================================================================================================
Mid-level:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================================================================================================
High-level:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2.--Relative Accuracy Determination (Pollutant Concentration Monitors)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 (ppmc) CO2 (Pollutant) (ppmc)
Run No. Date and --------------------------------------- Date and --------------------------------------
time RMa Mb Diff time RMa Mb Diff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2..............................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3..............................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4..............................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5..............................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6..............................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7..............................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8..............................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9..............................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10..............................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11..............................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12..............................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arithmetic Mean Difference (Eq. A-7). Confidence Coefficient (Eq. A-9). Relative Accuracy (Eq. A-
10).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a RM means ``reference method data.''
[[Page 25584]]
b M means ``monitor data.''
c Make sure the RM and M data are on a consistent basis, either wet or dry.
Figure 3.--Relative Accuracy Determination (Flow Monitors)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow rate (Low) (scf/hr)* Flow rate (Normal) (scf/hr)* Flow rate (High) (scf/hr)*
Run No. Date and ------------------------------ Date and ------------------------------ Date and -----------------------------
time RM M Diff time RM M Diff time RM M Diff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2..............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3..............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4..............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5..............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6..............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7..............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8..............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9..............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10..............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11..............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12..............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arithmetic Mean Difference (Eq. A-7). Confidence Coefficient (Eq. A-9). Relative
Accuracy (Eq. A-10).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Make sure the RM and M data are on a consistent basis, either wet or dry.
Figure 4.--Relative Accuracy Determination (NOX/Diluent Combined System)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference method data NOX system (lb/mmBtu)
Run No. Date and time -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX( )a O2/CO2% RM M Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arithmetic Mean Difference (Eq. A-7). Confidence Coefficient
(Eq. A-9). Relative Accuracy (Eq. A-10).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Specify units: ppm, lb/dscf, mg/dscm.
[[Page 25585]]
Appendix D To Part 75--Optional SO2 Emissions Data Protocol for
Gas-Fired and Oil-Fired Units [Amended]
14. Appendix D, section 2.1.5.2 is amended by revising the phrase
``bypass fuel'' to read ``backup fuel''.
15. Appendix D, section 2.1.6.1 is amended by revising the phrase
``bypass fuel'' to read ``backup fuel''.
Appendix F of Part 75--Conversion Procedures [Amended]
16. Appendix F, section 3.4, Equation F-10 is amended by changing
the superscript in the sum from ``n'' to ``m'', to read as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22MY96.004
Where,
* * * * *
17. Appendix F, section 4.4.1 is amended by adding Equation F-14b
after the variables for Equation F-14a and before the variables for
Equation F-14b, to read as follows:
4.4.1
* * * * *
or
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22MY96.005
* * * * *
Appendix F, Section 5.5.1--[Amended]
18. Appendix F, Section 5.5.1 is amended by revising the last
variable for Equation F-19 from ``106'' to read ``106'' in the
definition for the variable.
Appendix G of Part 75--Determination of CO2 Emissions [Amended]
Appendix G, Section 4--[Amended]
19. Appendix G, section 4 is amended by redesignating Equation G-7
as Equation G-8.
[FR Doc. 96-12482 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12453 Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standard, Model Year 1998
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12453]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 533
[Docket No. 94-20; Notice 5]
RIN 2127-AF16
Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standard, Model Year 1998
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
ACTION: Delay of effective date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice delays the effective date of the final rule on
light truck fuel economy, in accordance with legislation concerning
Congressional review of regulations.
DATES: Effective May 3, 1996, the effectiveness of the rule published
on April 3, 1996 at 61 FR 14680 is suspended from May 3, 1996 through
June 21, 1996. The effective date of the rule is June 22, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Otto Matheke, III, Office of Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street SW., Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-5263).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 3, 1996, NHTSA published a final
rule (61 FR 14680) establishing the corporate average fuel economy
standard for light trucks for model year 1998. Consistent with agency
practice, the effective date was May 3, 1996, 30 days after publication
in the Federal Register. However, new provisions concerning
Congressional review of regulations were enacted on March 29, 1996, as
Chapter 8 of Title 5 of the United States Code (P.L. 104-121).
Section 801(a) of Title 5 provides that a major rule, such as the
light truck CAFE rule, is to be effective 60 days after publication in
the Federal Register or 60 days after submission of the rule to
Congress for review, whichever is later, unless the Congress passes a
resolution disapproving the rule. The light truck CAFE rule was
submitted to Congress on April 22, 1996. The agency accordingly is
delaying the effectiveness of the rule until June 22, 1996, 60 days
after it was submitted to Congress.
Issued on: May 13, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-12453 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.