issue-1996-06-03•Federal Register final rules — 1996-06-03
Federal Register final rules — 1996-06-03
issue-1996-06-03Federal Register final rules — 1996-06-03Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-13829 Revocation of Certain Regulations Affecting Food
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27771-27780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13829]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Parts 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 109, 137, 161, 163, 172, 182,
186, 197, and 700
[Docket No. 95N-310F]
Revocation of Certain Regulations Affecting Food
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is revoking certain
regulations that it has determined are obsolete, no longer in use, or
in conflict with applicable law. These regulations have been identified
for revocation as the result of a page-by-page review of the agency's
regulations that cover food and cosmetics. This regulatory review is in
response to the administration's ``Reinventing Government'' initiative
that seeks to streamline Government to ease the burden on regulated
industry and consumers. This document also is amending the food
additive listing for folic acid (folicin) to reflect the fact that
grits are now a nonstandardized food.
DATES: Effective July 3, 1996, except for the amendment to Sec. 172.345
which is
[[Page 27772]]
effective June 3, 1996. Written objections and requests for a hearing
for part 105 and Sec. 172.345(d) by July 3, 1996. Any labels or
labeling that require revision as a result of these revocations shall
comply no later than January 1, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23,
Rockville, MD 20857.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle A. Smith, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-158), Food and Drug Administration,
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-205-5099.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On March 4, 1995, President Clinton announced plans for the reform
of the Federal regulatory system as part of his ``Reinventing
Government'' initiative. Part of this reform effort is aimed at
deleting prescriptive regulations which can sometimes undermine their
stated purpose. In his March 4, 1995, directive, entitled ``Regulatory
Reinvention Initiative,'' the President ordered all Federal agencies to
conduct a page-by-page review of all of their regulations and to
``eliminate or revise those that are outdated or otherwise in need of
reform.''
In response to this directive, FDA issued proposals to revoke a
number of regulations (60 FR 53480, October 13, 1995 (hereinafter
referred to as the October 1995 proposal); 60 FR 56513 and 56541,
November 9, 1995) and an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)
to review standards of identity, quality, and fill of container (60 FR
67492, December 29, 1995) (hereinafter referred to as the December 1995
ANPRM). This document is a final rule that responds to that portion of
the agency's October 1995 proposal that described the agency's intent
to revoke certain regulations that pertain to food and cosmetics.
II. The Proposal
In the October 1995 proposal, FDA proposed to eliminate a number of
regulations on various grounds, including that they were either
obsolete, redundant, of no public interest, or statements of policy
that did not need to be in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The
agency stated that any revocation would become effective 30 days after
date of publication of a final rule in the Federal Register. Interested
persons were given until January 11, 1996, to comment on the proposal.
III. Summary of and Response to Comments to Proposal
FDA received 12 letters from industry and affected trade
associations containing one or more comments on the October 1995
proposal. The majority of comments supported the administration's
reinventing Government initiative. Several comments agreed that certain
regulations are obsolete, unnecessary, or duplicative and should be
revoked. Some comments agreed with the proposal in general terms but
did not specifically refer to individual sections of the CFR, or did
not elaborate on why certain sections should be revoked beyond the
reasons given by the agency in its October 1995 proposal. A few
comments contained concerns about, or requested clarification on, the
agency's proposal to revoke certain sections. A summary of the comments
and the agency's responses follows:
A. General Agreement with Proposal to Revoke
All comments supported, either generally or specifically,
revocation of the following sections:
1. Section 100.120 Artificially red-dyed yellow varieties of sweet
potatoes (21 CFR 100.120).
2. Section 100.130 Combinations of nutritive and nonnutritive
sweeteners in ``diet beverages'' (21 CFR 100.130).
3. Section 100.135 Disposition of incubator reject eggs (21 CFR
100.135).
4. Section 100.140 Label declaration of salt in frozen vegetables
(21 CFR 100.140).
5. Section 100.145 Notice to packers of comminuted tomato products
(21 CFR 100.145).
6. Section 100.150 Notice to packers and shippers of shelled
peanuts (21 CFR 100.150).
7. Section 101.33 Label declaration of D-erythroascorbic acid when
it is an ingredient of a fabricated food (21 CFR 101.33).
8. Section 101.103 Petitions requesting exemptions from or special
requirements for label declaration of ingredients (21 CFR 101.103).
9. Part 103--Quality Standards for Foods With No Identity Standards
(21 CFR part 103).
10. Section 104.19 Petitions (21 CFR 104.19).
11. Section 105.69 Foods used to regulate sodium intake.
12. Section 109.5 Petitions (21 CFR 109.5).
13. Section 161.131 Extra large oysters (21 CFR 161.131).
14. Section 161.132 Large oysters (21 CFR 161.132).
15. Section 161.133 Medium oysters (21 CFR 161.133).
16. Section 161.134 Small oysters (21 CFR 161.134).
17. Section 161.135 Very small oysters (21 CFR 161.135).
18. Section 161.137 Large Pacific oysters (21 CFR 161.137).
19. Section 161.138 Medium Pacific oysters (21 CFR 161.138).
20. Section 161.139 Small Pacific oysters (21 CFR 161.139).
21. Section 161.140 Extra small Pacific oysters (21 CFR 161.140).
22. Subpart F--Dietary Supplements of part 182 (21 CFR part 182).
23. Section 186.1025 Caprylic acid (21 CFR 186.1025).
24. Part 197--Seafood Inspection Program (21 CFR part 197).
25. Section 700.10 Shampoo preparations containing eggs as one of
the ingredients (21 CFR 700.10).
Thus, in view of the support expressed by comments on the October
1995 proposal, and given the Government's resolve to eliminate
obsolete, redundant, or conflicting regulations, FDA is revoking these
sections. The agency concludes that this action will benefit consumers
and industry by eliminating regulations that are unnecessary and that,
therefore, have the potential to be confusing and, as a result,
burdensome.
FDA advises that where the agency has determined a section is
obsolete, unnecessary, or duplicative (e.g., Secs. 100.130 and
100.140), once the section is revoked, generally, no further action is
required. Where the section being revoked is a statement of policy
(e.g., Sec. 100.135), the agency may decide that it is in the public
interest to develop a Compliance Policy Guide (CPG), or other
appropriate means, to make the public aware of this policy. FDA will
publish a notice in the Federal Register of the availability of any
policy statements that it develops.
B. Sections About Which Comments Expressed Concern or Requested
Clarification About the Impact of Revocation
One or more comments objected to, expressed concern about, or
requested clarification on, FDA's proposal to revoke the following
sections:
Section 100.160 Tolerances for moldy and insect-infested cocoa beans
(21 CFR 100.160)
1. FDA received one letter from a trade association commenting that
the tolerances set out in Sec. 100.160 are useful because they have
been universally adopted. This comment expressed concern that any
change in the
[[Page 27773]]
tolerances for defective cocoa beans could have a serious impact on the
market value of warehoused cocoa beans and on the value of cocoa
futures contracts. The comment maintained that, because of the value of
this market, any change in the tolerances should be subject to public
scrutiny at open hearings. Finally, the comment stressed the need for
the tolerances to be widely known.
In response to this comment, FDA advises that it did not propose to
change the action levels for defective cocoa beans set out in
Sec. 100.160. Rather, the agency tentatively concluded that, because
this section is a statement of policy, it need not appear in the CFR.
Further, the agency cannot envision any situation where it would be
compelled to change these levels without seeking input from interested
parties. FDA concludes, therefore, that, because it is not altering the
defect action levels in the policy statement, the comment's concern in
this regard is without merit.
In addition, as mentioned in section III.A. of this document, where
the agency concludes that the policy statements covered by this review
need not appear in the CFR, but where it remains necessary to
communicate the policy to interested parties, FDA intends to set out
the policy in a CPG or by other appropriate means. FDA advises that the
CPG system for assembling and maintaining statements of policy has been
in place since 1969. The agency notes that CPG's have a history of
including statements that contain regulatory action guidance
information of the type set out in Sec. 100.160 (e.g., CPG number
7101.06 ``Green Coffee Beans--Adulteration with Insects; Mold''). In
fact, CPG 7105.12 ``Cacao Beans--Adulteration by Mold, Insect
Infestation, and Mammalian Excreta'' sets out, among other things, the
same defect action levels for moldy or insect damaged cacao beans as
Sec. 100.160.
On June 20, 1995 (60 FR 32159), the agency published a notice of
availability for a new, reorganized, and bound edition of the FDA
Compliance Policy Guides (CPG manual). The purpose of the CPG manual is
to provide to FDA personnel and to other interested parties a more
convenient and user friendly system for statements of FDA compliance
policy. In addition, the agency provides notice in the Federal Register
of the availability of new or revised CPG's. Such notices are also
widely reported in trade association newsletters, other newsletters,
and professional journals.
Accordingly, FDA concludes that removing Sec. 100.160 from the CFR
will change the location of the information that it contained, but not
the effective communication of that information. The agency further
concludes that reducing the number of nonregulatory sections that
appear in the CFR, which, by definition, is a compendium of Federal
regulations, is consistent with the administration's goal of
streamlining the regulatory process. Therefore, FDA is revoking
Sec. 100.160, as proposed.
Section 105.67 Label statement relating to food for use in the diet of
diabetics
In the October 1995 proposal, FDA noted that this section is not in
accordance with current dietary advice for persons with diabetes. The
agency tentatively concluded that the regulations that it had adopted
in response to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (the
1990 amendments) (Pub. L. 101-535), including the new ingredient
labeling regulations, should ensure that food labels contain sufficient
information to assist diabetics in making educated food choices.
2. FDA received five letters, from trade associations, a
manufacturer, health professionals, and a health professional
association, commenting on its proposal to delete this section. Some of
the comments agreed with the agency's tentative conclusion that
Sec. 105.67 is not consistent with current dietary advice for persons
with diabetes and should, therefore, be revoked. One comment noted that
healthy eating is the cornerstone of diabetes self management, and that
it is essential that persons with diabetes have access to accurate
nutrition information regarding the foods they eat. Other comments
supported the agency's conclusion that nutrition labeling and
ingredient declaration requirements ensure that consumers have access
to the information necessary to plan a healthy diet. These comments
also maintained that, because current dietary advice is based on the
premise that no specific food is either good or bad for persons with
diabetes, label statements identifying specific foods as being useful
to diabetics would be misleading. One comment argued that Sec. 105.67
continues the myth that persons with diabetes should have a restricted
diet insofar as the variety of foods they eat. The comment noted that
this view is contrary to current evidence and practice. The comment
stated that, for example, there is no scientific basis for
unnecessarily restricting sucrose and other sugars in the diet of
persons with diabetes. However, according to the comment, the
predominant use of Sec. 105.67 is to make certain foods more appealing
to diabetics relative to sucrose and sucrose replacements.
Conversely, one comment maintained that label statements
identifying foods for diabetic use may be useful. The comment argued
that there is no clear consensus that some foods and beverages are not
better for people with diabetes, and that, therefore, labeling to
identify foods for diabetic use should be allowed. The comment
maintained that the conclusion of a health professional association
that polyols (i.e., sugar alcohols) have no significant advantage over
other nutritive sweeteners is in error because, according to the
comment, that association's conclusion is based on the assumption that
polyols have the same energy value as other nutritive sweeteners (i.e.,
4 calories per gram). The comment cited the article entitled ``Helpful
Hints: Using the 1995 Exchange Lists for Meal Planning'' in Diabetes
Spectrum that acknowledges the reduced caloric values for polyols and
instructs people with diabetes on how to factor this reduction into
meal planning. The comment also maintained that products sweetened with
polyols and other low calorie sweeteners cause a lower glycemic
response, and, consequently, that identifying these products as,
``useful to diabetics on the advice of a physician,'' would assist
persons with diabetes in formulating meal plans. The comment concluded,
therefore, that such labeling would not be false or misleading.
The fact that there is not universal agreement that a statement
that a specific food would be particularly useful in the diets of
diabetics is false does not mean that it is appropriate for such a
statement to appear in food labeling. The weight of evidence and
current recommendations by recognized authorities is that no specific
food is, or is not, more useful than others in the diets of diabetics.
Rather, current recommendations promote a varied diet (Ref. 1).
In addition, Sec. 101.9(c)(1)(i)(D) on nutrition labeling allows
manufacturers to use specific FDA approved food factors to calculate
the energy value of ingredients such as polyols. Therefore, the calorie
declaration within nutrition labeling reflects the reduced energy value
of polyols. Accordingly, nutrition labeling and ingredient declarations
provide persons with diabetes with the information that they need to
determine how a food fits into their meal plan.
Therefore, consistent with current dietary advice, FDA concludes
that the provisions for diabetic labeling in Sec. 105.67 are outdated
and misleading. Consequently, the agency is deleting section
Sec. 105.67 as proposed.
[[Page 27774]]
Because Sec. 105.67 was adopted under authority of section 403(j)
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343(j)) (the
act), this revocation must be made in accordance with the formal
rulemaking procedures in section 701(e) of the act (21 U.S.C. 371(e)).
Under these procedures, there is an opportunity to object to a final
rule and to request a public hearing based upon such objection.
3. One comment, while supporting revocation of Sec. 105.67,
expressed concern that deleting Sec. 105.67(c) (which contains
requirements for how the term ``diabetic'' is to appear in labeling)
may be seen by some manufacturers as license to label products as
``diabetic'' without restriction. The comment urged FDA to make clear
in any final rule revoking Sec. 105.67 that label statements such as
``diabetic'' or ``for diabetics'' are no longer allowed.
FDA points out that Sec. 105.67(c) pertained only to the prominence
of terms such as ``diabetic.'' Based on FDA's conclusion that
Sec. 105.67 is contrary to current dietary recommendations, and that
use of label statements identifying specific foods as particularly
useful for diabetics is misleading, the prominence of such terms is a
moot issue. FDA has no evidence that removal of the specific
restrictions in Sec. 105.67(c), or in any other paragraph of that
section, would be misinterpreted by manufacturers to mean that the
terms covered therein could be used without limitation. The nutrient
content and health claim provisions in section 403(r) of the act along
with section 403(a) should provide an adequate regulatory framework to
prevent any use of the term ``diabetic'' that is not scientifically
valid or that is misleading.
C. Standards of Identity Issues
FDA proposed to revoke several standards of identity because it
tentatively concluded that they were obsolete, unnecessary, or no
longer in the public interest. After it published the October 1995
proposal, but before the close of the comment period in this
rulemaking, FDA published the December 1995 ANPRM (60 FR 67492 at
67493) that announced the agency's intent to begin a broader review of
its regulations that set out standards of identity, quality, and fill
of container (hereinafter referred to as the ``reinventing standards
initiative''). In that document, FDA asked for comments on the benefit
of such regulations in facilitating domestic and international commerce
and their value to consumers. The agency also solicited comment on
alternative means of accomplishing the statutory objectives of food
standards, i.e., to promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of
consumers.
Sections 137.230 Corn grits (21 CFR 137.230), 137.235 Enriched corn
grits (21 CFR 137.235), 137.240 Quick grits (21 CFR 137.240), and
137.245 Yellow grits (21 CFR 137.245)
The standards for grits describe the foods as corn (white corn or
yellow corn) that is ground to a particular fineness. They provide
maximum content requirements for moisture, fat, and crude fiber. In
addition, the standard for enriched corn grits specifies minimum and
maximum content requirements for thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, and iron
and optional levels of vitamin D and calcium. In a final rule published
in the Federal Register of March 5, 1996 (61 FR 8781) (hereinafter
referred to as the March 1996 final rule), FDA added folate to the list
of nutrients that must be added to enriched corn grits. The standard
for quick grits specifies that the food is grits that have been lightly
steamed and compressed to reduce cooking time for the consumer.
4. FDA received two letters specifically commenting on its proposal
to revoke the standards of identity for corn grits, enriched corn
grits, quick grits, and yellow grits (hereinafter referred to as ``the
standards for grits''). One comment supported the administration's
efforts to streamline Government to ease the burden on consumers and
regulated industries. The comment argued that the standards for grits
are unneeded and unnecessary, serve no public health benefit, and
should be revoked. The comment stated that revoking obsolete and
unnecessary food standards that serve no public interest, including the
standards for grits, is a positive step towards achieving the
administration's goals. According to the comment, the standards for
grits inhibit the development of new products that may have benefits
for consumers.
Conversely, the second comment maintained that the need for the
standards for grits is current and ongoing. The comment expressed
concern about the potential characteristics of products manufactured
and labeled as ``grits'' in the absence of a standard of identity. The
comment noted, for example, that particle size or other parameters may
change, slowly migrating from the original, the migration dictated by
economic or other commercial forces. In addition, the comment stated
that the standard of identity for yellow grits should be maintained
since consumers have preferences between cereal products made from
white or yellow corn. The comment argued that consumers should not be
forced to wait until they get home and open the package to find out
whether the grits they purchased are white or yellow grits.
The comment also hypothesized that, in the absence of a standard of
identity, in a short yellow corn crop, products labeled as ``yellow
grits'' might be made from a blend of white and yellow corn. The
comment further suggested that products labeled as ``yellow grits''
could even be white grits made to appear yellow. According to the
comment, yellow colorant could be added to products made from white
corn but identified as ``yellow grits'' so long as the colorant's use
is listed in the ingredient declaration.
The comment argued that it is in the best interest of consumers
that products they have come to trust as a specific product not be
allowed to change according to economic or market pressures. In support
of maintaining the standards for enriched corn grits and for quick
grits, the comment cited consumer reliance on enriched cereal products
and consumer benefit from quick preparation.
FDA acknowledges the comment's concerns that products that have
long enjoyed the protection of standards of identity may change in the
absence of those standards. They are similar to concerns raised by some
of the early comments the agency has received in response to its
reinventing standards initiative.
However, the agency disagrees with the comment's contention that
the absence of standards will allow the proliferation of adulterated or
misbranded products. The names ``grits'' and ``yellow grits'' were
widely accepted as the common or usual names of the corn products to
which these names apply before FDA adopted standards of identity. In
the preamble to its proposed rule on these standards (12 FR 69 at 70;
January 4, 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the 1947 standards
proposal), FDA noted that the common or usual name of grits milled from
white corn was, as it remains, the unqualified term ``grits,'' and that
the names ``hominy grits'' and ``corn grits'' were synonyms for
``grits.'' The agency further noted that the common name of the
corresponding food made from yellow corn is ``yellow grits,'' ``yellow
hominy grits,'' or ``yellow corn grits.'' Thus, there is a longstanding
common understanding of what foods can appropriately be called
``grits.'' Because
[[Page 27775]]
of this understanding, if the term ``grits'' is inappropriately applied
to a food, that food will be misbranded under both section 403(i)(1) of
the act (a food shall be deemed to be misbranded ``Unless its label
bears * * * the common or usual name of the food, if any there be * *
*'') and section 403(b) (a food is deemed to be misbranded ``If it is
offered for sale under the name of another food.'') Thus, the comment's
suggestion that consumers will be left unprotected if the standard is
revoked is without merit.
FDA also disagrees with the comment's suggestion that, in the
absence of a standard of identity, consumers will be unable to tell
from labeling what type of grits they have purchased. The general
principles for common or usual names in Sec. 102.5 (21 CFR 102.5)
require that the common or usual name of a food accurately describe the
basic nature of a food or its characterizing properties or ingredients.
Thus, if the food is from yellow corn, the name must reflect that fact.
If the food is colored to appear yellow, the name must reflect that
fact. If the food is a mixture of yellow and white corn but also
contains a sufficient amount of white corn grits to be characterizing,
it must be labeled using an appropriately descriptive phrase, e.g.,
``Mixed grits, a blend of white and yellow corn grits.''
In response to the comment's concern about changes in particle
size, FDA points out that grits, as evidenced by the record in the 1947
standard setting proceeding, are generally understood to be the
coarsest of the products prepared by grinding corn, which also include
corn meal and corn flour. FDA finds that migration in particle size
will be limited by two factors. First, corn meal and corn flour will
continue, at least pending the outcome of FDA's broader rulemaking on
food standards, to be subject to standards of identity. Thus, any
attempt to call a too finely ground product ``grits'' would misbrand
the food under sections 403(b) and (g) of the act. Second, grits is a
unique food in that its name directly reflects its characterizing
property, i.e., that it consists of coarsely ground yet small particles
of corn. As noted in the 1947 standards proposal and recognized by the
comment itself, particle size affects the eating and cooking properties
of the food. Thus, a product with particles that are too large will
simply not have the gritty mouth feel that characterizes this food.
Given the well established character of grits, drift towards a larger
particle size will create a significant possibility of consumer
rejection of the product. This strong possibility should serve as a
disincentive to migration towards larger particle size.
Finally, even though FDA is revoking these standards, manufacturers
remain free to make, and, to the extent they do, consumers remain free
to purchase, products such as ``quick grits'' and ``enriched grits.''
For all these reasons, FDA has not been convinced by the comment to
retain the standards of identity for grits. Accordingly, FDA is
revoking the standards for corn grits (Sec. 137.230), enriched corn
grits (Sec. 137.235), quick grits (Sec. 137.240), and yellow grits
(Sec. 137.245).
5. One comment expressed concern about the impact of deleting the
standard for enriched grits on other enriched products. While the
comment did not specifically agree or disagree with the proposed
revocation of the standards for grits, it urged the agency to consider
the contribution from all cereal flour enrichment to the health and
well-being of consumers.
FDA advises that a copy of this comment has been placed in the
docket for the reinventing standards initiative (Docket No. 95N-0294)
and will be considered in that rulemaking. FDA also advises that its
decision to revoke the standard of identity for enriched grits should
have no effect on the health and well-being of consumers. In the March
1996 final rule on folic acid, the agency foresaw the possibility that
it would revoke the standard for enriched grits. In that document, FDA
recognized the dietary significance of enriched cereal grain products,
including grits. FDA stated that should the enriched grits standard be
revoked, it would amend the food additive regulation on folic acid
(Sec. 172.345) to include grits in the list of nonstandardized foods to
which folic acid may be added. FDA is making that conforming change in
this document. Therefore, the total amount of folate available from the
diet should not be affected by the decision to revoke the standard of
identity for enriched grits.
Removing the standard of identity for enriched grits does not
affect the agency's finding that the use of folic acid in this food is
safe. Consequently, FDA is amending the food additive regulation in
Sec. 172.345(d) to continue authorization of this use at the level
permitted by the former standard for enriched grits. Specifically, the
agency is amending Sec. 172.345(d) by adding at the end of that
paragraph ``, and to corn grits at a level such that each pound of the
corn grits contains not more than 1.0 milligram of folic acid.'' The
agency advises that, because this amendment does not change the
currently approved uses of folic acid, it has no effect on the safe use
of folic acid. For this reason, and because this change was
foreshadowed in the final rule establishing a folic acid fortification
level for standardized, enriched grain products, FDA is issuing this
amendment as a final rule.
Section 163.150 Sweet cocoa and vegetable fat coating, Section 163.153
Sweet chocolate and vegetable fat coating, and Section 163.155 Milk
chocolate and vegetable fat coating.
The standards for sweet cocoa and vegetable fat coating, sweet
chocolate and vegetable fat coating, and milk chocolate and vegetable
fat coating (hereinafter referred to as ``coatings made with vegetable
fat'') describe foods that resemble traditional milk chocolate and
sweet chocolate products except for specified deviations to achieve
certain performance characteristics. The primary deviation from
traditional chocolate products is that a vegetable fat, having a higher
or lower melting point than cacao fat, replaces part of the cacao fat
in the food. In addition, the standards for coatings made with
vegetable fat are somewhat more flexible in permitting the use of
optional ingredients compared to the standards of identity for
traditional chocolate products. For example, any safe and suitable
dairy-derived ingredient may be used in sweet chocolate and vegetable
fat coating (Sec. 163.153(b)(2)), while the standard for sweet
chocolate (Sec. 163.123(b)(4)) provides a list of specific dairy
ingredients (e.g., milk, cream, or skim milk) that may be used in the
food. Conversely, the standards of identity for both the traditional
chocolate products and for coatings made with vegetable fat require
that the foods meet minimum and maximum milk solids content
requirements based on those dairy ingredients referred to in
Sec. 163.123(b)(4). Sweet cocoa and vegetable fat coating resembles
sweet chocolate and vegetable fat coating except that cocoa may replace
all, or part, of the chocolate liquor in the sweet chocolate and
vegetable fat coating. The standards of identity for coatings made with
vegetable fat also contain labeling requirements for the name of the
food and for ingredient declaration.
6. FDA received five letters specifically commenting on the
agency's proposal to revoke the standards for sweet cocoa and vegetable
fat coating, sweet chocolate and vegetable fat coating, and milk
chocolate and vegetable fat coating. Three comments supported the
proposal, maintaining that the standards for coatings made with
vegetable fat are unnecessary and serve no useful function or public
interest. One comment argued that the standards are not necessary
because the
[[Page 27776]]
ingredient declaration would sufficiently inform consumers about the
nature of these products. Another comment noted that the current
nomenclature for the products covered by these standards is so unwieldy
and confusing that inherent marketplace value normally associated with
a standard of identity is severely undermined. In fact, most of the
comments on this issue, regardless of whether or not they supported
revocation, acknowledged that industry typically uses the term
``chocolate flavor coating'' to identify these products rather than the
names provided for in the standards.
One comment acknowledged that, technically, this terminology
constitutes misbranding under section 403 of the act. Another comment
maintained that because of the long history of use of the term
``chocolate flavor coating'' to describe these products, they would be
adequately covered by the common or usual name regulations in
Sec. 101.3 if the standards were revoked. Finally, these comments
argued that deleting the standards for coatings made with vegetable fat
would increase flexibility and innovation, thereby encouraging the
introduction of new products in the market place. One comment
maintained that, despite the increased flexibility afforded by 21 CFR
130.10 Requirements for foods named by use of a nutrient content claim
and a standardized term, eliminating the standards for coatings made
with vegetable fat would allow greater flexibility in the use of new
technologies that could result in new product introductions (e.g.,
lower fat or lower calorie products) than is possible under the
constraints of the standards.
On the other hand, two comments maintained that the standards of
identity for coatings made with vegetable fat are not obsolete,
unnecessary, or no longer serving the public interest. One comment
argued that limiting the deviations in these products has guaranteed
that the products have the same general sensory and quality
characteristics (e.g., meet the same minimum dairy or cacao solids
content requirements) as traditional chocolate products. One comment
maintained that the standards for coatings made with vegetable fat are
every bit as necessary as the standards for the traditional chocolate
products to prevent the historical economic adulteration of products
labeled ``chocolate.'' These comments supported maintaining the
standards for coatings made with vegetable fat but suggested certain
amendments, e.g., revising nomenclature, simplifying provisions, and
combining the standards for sweet cocoa and vegetable fat coating with
sweet chocolate and vegetable fat coating. One comment noted the
complexity of the nomenclature issue and stated that FDA and the
industry should work together to resolve this issue rather than
revoking the standards for coatings made with vegetable fat.
FDA notes that its proposal to revoke the standards for coatings
made with vegetable fat was probably the most contentious issue in this
rulemaking. The agency admits that it was somewhat surprised by the
relatively large number of comments on this issue and by the diversity
of viewpoints expressed therein. The proposal to remove these standards
was based, in part, on findings during the recent rulemaking to update
the standards for cacao products in part 163 (58 FR 29523 at 29529, May
21, 1993) that the standardized nomenclature was not being used for
these products. In that rulemaking, FDA shortened the names from, e.g.,
``Sweet chocolate and vegetable fat other than cacao fat coating'' to
``Sweet chocolate and vegetable fat coating.'' However, it was not able
to change the names of these foods to ``chocolate flavor coating,'' as
requested, because codifying the term would place manufacturers of
nonstandardized confectionery products at a serious disadvantage.
Since that rulemaking, informal communications with manufacturers
have revealed that at least some manufacturers would rather see the
standards of identity for coatings made with vegetable fat eliminated
than be required to label products with the nomenclature provided for
in the standards (Ref. 2). Thus, in the course of its page-by-page
review of regulations, the agency questioned whether there was a need
to retain these standards. The validity of raising the question was
borne out by the comments that agreed with the agency's proposal to
revoke the standards.
As noted at the beginning of this section, a number of comments
stated that revoking these standards would increase flexibility and
foster innovation. Several comments expressed frustration about issues
that the agency had not been able to resolve to the commenters'
satisfaction in the 1993 final rule updating the cacao standards and
suggested that, absent a resolution of those issues, the standards were
of little benefit and should be revoked.
Conversely, as noted previously, a number of comments, particularly
a comment from a trade association representing chocolate
manufacturers, raised substantive objections to the agency's proposal
to revoke the standards for coatings made with vegetable fat. According
to these comments, the standards for coatings made with vegetable fat
are necessary for the continued accurate and truthful labeling of
chocolate and chocolate-coated products. As such, the standards are
useful to the industry and to consumers.
FDA notes that it is not dismissing the comments that supported
revocation. The agency is committed to increasing flexibility while
continuing to promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of
consumers. Although the standards for coatings made with vegetable fat
were recently updated to keep pace with advances in technology, to
increase flexibility for manufacturers, and to improve consumers'
product choices, some limitations remain. At the same time, because of
the nature of these foods (i.e., chocolate coatings made with vegetable
fat and cocoa coatings made with vegetable fat are highly formulated
products, the composition of which consumers are not likely to be
aware), the standards of identity are a way, above and beyond other
label information, to ensure that consumers receive a product with the
expected characteristics.
Because of the complexity of the issues and because of indications
that a significant proportion of the confectionery industry favors
retaining these standards in some form, FDA concludes that it would be
premature to revoke the standards for coatings made with vegetable fat.
To do so at this time would not be in the best interest of consumers or
of the regulated industry. Rather, the comment suggesting that the
agency defer any action on these standards to the broader reinventing
standards initiative has merit.
FDA notes that it proposed to revoke the standards for coatings
made with vegetable fat before it published the ANPRM announcing its
reinventing standards initiative. The standards for the other cacao
products in part 163, including the sweet chocolate and milk chocolate
products that the coatings made with vegetable fat resemble, are being
reviewed as part of the reinventing standards initiative. It makes
sense from a resource standpoint to review all these standards at that
time. Further, it may be possible, under a revised system of standards,
to resolve some of the issues that the agency was not able to resolve
at the time of the 1993 cacao final rule. If that is the case, the
agency may be able to eliminate or modify those aspects of the
standards
[[Page 27777]]
that comments perceive to be burdensome. Alternatively, it may be that
under a new standards system, some or all of these standards will no
longer be necessary, and they could therefore be revoked.
Consequently, contrary to its proposal, FDA is not revoking the
standards for coatings made with vegetable fat.
IV. Filing of Objections and Request for a Hearing
Any person who will be adversely affected by the amendments to part
105 or to Sec. 172.345(d) may at any time on or before July 3, 1996,
file with the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written
objections thereto. Each objection shall be separately numbered, and
each numbered objection shall specify with particularity the provisions
of the regulation to which objection is made and the grounds for the
objection. Each numbered objection on which a hearing is requested
shall specifically so state. Failure to request a hearing for any
particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a
hearing on that objection. Each numbered objection for which a hearing
is requested shall include a detailed description and analysis of the
specific factual information intended to be presented in support of the
objection in the event that a hearing is held. Failure to include such
a description and analysis for any particular objection shall
constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing on the objection. Three
copies of all documents shall be submitted and shall be identified with
the docket number found in brackets at the heading of this document.
Any objections received in response to the revocation may be seen in
the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday. If the removal or amendment of any provisions stayed by, or as
a result of, the filing of proper objections, FDA will publish timely
notice in the Federal Register.
V. Economic Impact
FDA has examined the impact of this final rule under Executive
Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Executive Order 12866
directs Federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select
regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety effects; distributive
impacts; and equity). According to Executive Order 12866, a regulatory
action is ``economically significant'' if it meets any one of a number
of specified conditions, including having an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or adversely affecting in a material way a
sector of the economy, competition, or jobs. A regulation is considered
``significant'' under Executive Order 12866 if it raises novel legal or
policy issues. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
Federal agencies to minimize the economic impact of their regulations
on small businesses. FDA finds that this final rule is neither an
economically significant nor significant regulatory action as defined
by Executive Order 12866. In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility
Act and the Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996, FDA certifies that this
final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small businesses.
Comments raised a number of issues relevant to the analysis of the
costs and benefits of this action that were not addressed in the
economic analysis that accompanied the notice of proposed rulemaking.
One comment objected to the revocation of Sec. 100.160, which sets
tolerances for defective cocoa beans at the time of import. This
comment claimed that this defect action level is featured in standard
contracts for cocoa beans, and that the value of these contracts will
change if this section is revoked.
As previously pointed out, FDA is not revoking the defect action
level that is reflected in Sec. 100.160. However, even if the agency
were to take such an action, any change in the value of contracts
linked to this provision could not properly be considered a cost of
revocation because the value of a contract linked to anything subject
to change during the life of the contract, such as a Federal
regulation, already reflects the fact that such change may occur.
One comment objected to the revocation of the standards of identity
for corn grits, enriched corn grits, quick grits, and yellow grits.
This comment suggested that the combination of these product names and
the associated standards of identity convey information about product
characteristics to consumers, that consumers are interested in the
information conveyed, and that consumers might experience difficulty
obtaining this information in the absence of these standards.
The issues discussed in this comment involve legitimate potential
costs of eliminating this standard of identity which were not discussed
in the economic analysis of the proposed rule. However, these costs are
attenuated to some degree by the fact that the labeling of
nonstandardized products cannot be false or misleading, and that the
name of the product itself, which can still be used even if the product
is not standardized, defines its characteristics.
In addition, the elimination of these standards of identity is
associated with countervailing benefits that were also not discussed in
the economic analysis of the proposed rule. Eliminating these standards
eliminates the costs that would be associated with revising these
standards in response to industry petitions and the costs associated
with preparing and submitting those petitions. In addition, eliminating
these standards may increase the variety of grits products offered to
consumers and reduce the costs associated with adopting new methods of
producing these products. Although the comment suggested that costs are
associated with the elimination of these standards, the comment
provided no way of determining the magnitude of these costs or to
compare these costs with the potential benefits of eliminating these
standards. A more thorough discussion of the societal benefits and
costs is contained in the December 1995 ANPRM (60 FR 67492 at 67499).
Finally, one comment objected to the revocation of Sec. 105.67
(label statement relating to food for use in the diet of diabetics).
This comment did not dispute the contention that there is no scientific
consensus that the relevant claims are true but suggested, instead,
that there is also no scientific consensus that the relevant claims are
false. The point of this comment was probably that the current
scientific consensus is that these claims are neither clearly true nor
clearly false, but in some third category, such as possibly but not
proven true, or possibly but not proven false.
If this comment were correct about the state of the scientific
consensus on these claims, then the phenomena discussed in this comment
would represent potentially legitimate costs of this action that were
not discussed in the economic analysis of the proposed rule. In that
case, the deletion of Sec. 105.67 would prevent a claim from appearing
on food labels that scientific consensus did not hold to have been
proven false, and that some consumers might have wished to use to make
food consumption choices. However, these costs would be attenuated by
the fact that this type of label claim is not the only means by which
consumers may identify foods with desired characteristics. As
previously pointed out, the regulations adopted in response to the 1990
amendments, including the new ingredient labeling regulations,
[[Page 27778]]
provide information on a wide variety of product characteristics.
In addition, deletion of Sec. 105.67, even under the conditions
suggested in the comment, would be associated with a countervailing
benefit that was also not discussed in the economic analysis of the
notice of proposed rulemaking. This benefit is the maintenance of the
relatively high informational content of label claims made possible by
restricting such claims to those that current scientific consensus
finds to be true rather than restricting such claims to those that
current scientific consensus does not find to have been conclusively
proven false. This restriction of allowable claims reduces the need for
consumers to investigate the basis and relative credibility of label
claims on their own.
Estimating the benefits and costs of allowing label claims having
various degrees of scientific plausibility is quite difficult. However,
in general, the availability of other means of identifying food with
desired characteristics suggests that the benefit of maintaining a
relatively high standard for information presented in label claims
probably outweighs the costs of restricting these claims to those
supported by scientific consensus. These issues are discussed in more
detail in the regulatory impact analysis for the final rule to amend
the food labeling regulations in the Federal Register of January 6,
1993 (58 FR 2927).
In addition, FDA does not agree that there is no scientific
consensus that the relevant claims are false. Not only is there no
scientific consensus that such claims are true, but the current
scientific consensus is that such claims are false. The comment
provided no information on the current state of scientific consensus to
support its contention that there is no consensus that such claims are
false.
Finally, the cost of the associated label changes was not addressed
in the economic analysis of the notice of proposed rulemaking. Affected
firms will have a minimum of 1 year to make the required label changes
because any required label changes need not be made until the next
uniform effective date after publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. In general, the average cost of changing a label
under a compliance period of 1 year is estimated to be $1,000 per
label, if the claim is on the principal display panel, and $425 per
label, if the claim is located elsewhere on the label. FDA has no
information on the number of labels affected or on the location of the
relevant claims on those labels. However, the specificity of the
relevant claims suggests the number of affected labels is probably
small.
VI. Environmental Impact
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.24(a)(9) that this action
is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
VII. References
The following references has been placed on display in the Dockets
Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 12420
Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23, Rockville, MD 20857, and may be seen by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
1. American Diabetes Association, Position Statement--Food
Labeling, Diabetes Care, 19:543-544, 1996.
2. Smith, M. A., Communications regarding standards for coatings
made with vegetable fat, memorandum to file, May 29, 1996.
List of Subjects
21 CFR Part 100
Administrative practice and procedure, Food labeling, Food
packaging, Foods, Intergovernmental relations.
21 CFR Part 101
Food labeling, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 CFR Part 103
Beverages, Bottled water, Food grades and standards.
21 CFR Part 104
Food grades and standards, Frozen foods, Nutrition.
21 CFR Part 105
Dietary Foods, Food grades and standards, Food labeling, Infants
and children.
21 CFR Part 109
Food packaging, Foods, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's).
21 CFR Part 137
Cereal(s) (food), Food grades and standards.
21 CFR Part 161
Food grades and standards, Frozen foods, Seafood.
21 CFR Part 172
Food additives, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 CFR Part 182
Food ingredients, Food packaging, Spices and flavorings.
21 CFR Part 186
Food ingredients, Food packaging.
21 CFR Part 197
Food grades and standards, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Seafood.
21 CFR Part 700
Cosmetics, Packaging and containers.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 301 et seq.) and under authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR parts 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 109, 137, 161,
172, 182, 186, 197, and 700 are amended as follows:
PART 100--GENERAL
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 100 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 301, 307, 402, 403, 409, 701 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 337, 342,
343, 348, 371).
Sec. 100.120 [Removed]
2. Section 100.120 Artificially red-dyed yellow varieties of sweet
potatoes is removed.
Sec. 100.130 [Removed]
3. Section 100.130 Combinations of nutritive and nonnutritive
sweeteners in ``diet beverages'' is removed.
Sec. 100.135 [Removed]
4. Section 100.135 Disposition of incubator reject eggs is removed.
Sec. 100.140 [Removed]
5. Section 100.140 Label declaration of salt in frozen vegetables
is removed.
Sec. 100.145 [Removed]
6. Section 100.145 Notice to packers of comminuted tomato products
is removed.
Sec. 100.150 [Removed]
7. Section 100.150 Notice to packers and shippers of shelled
peanuts is removed.
Sec. 100.160 [Removed]
8. Section 100.160 Tolerances for moldy and insect-infested cocoa-
beans is removed.
PART 101--FOOD LABELING
9. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 101 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 5, 6 of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act
(15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, 1455); secs. 201, 301, 402, 403, 409,
[[Page 27779]]
701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331,
342, 343, 348, 371).
Sec. 101.33 [Removed]
10. Section 101.33 Label declaration of D-erythroascorbic acid when
it is an ingredient of a fabricated food is removed.
Sec. 101.103 [Removed]
11. Section 101.103 Petitions requesting exemptions from or special
requirements for label declaration of ingredients is removed.
PART 103--QUALITY STANDARDS FOR FOODS WITH NO IDENTITY STANDARDS
PART 103 [REMOVED]
12. Part 103 is removed.
PART 104--NUTRITIONAL QUALITY GUIDELINES FOR FOODS
13. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 104 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 403, 701(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 343, 371(a)).
Sec. 104.19 [Removed]
14. Section 104.19 Petitions is removed.
PART 105--FOODS FOR SPECIAL DIETARY USE
15. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 105 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 401, 403, 409, 411, 701, 721 of the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 343, 348,
350, 371, 379e).
Sec. 105.67 [Removed]
16. Section 105.67 Label statement relating to food for use in the
diet of diabetics is removed.
Sec. 105.69 [Removed]
17. Section 105.69 Foods used to regulate sodium intake is removed.
PART 109--UNAVOIDABLE CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
AND FOOD-PACKAGING MATERIAL
18. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 109 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 306, 402, 406, 408, 409, 701 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 336, 342, 346,
346a, 348, 371).
Sec. 109.5 [Removed]
19. Section 109.5 Petitions is removed.
PART 137--CEREAL FLOURS AND RELATED PRODUCTS
20. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 137 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 401, 403, 409, 701, 721 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 343, 348, 371,
379e).
Sec. 137.230 [Removed]
21. Section 137.230 Corn grits is removed.
Sec. 137.235 [Removed]
22. Section 137.235 Enriched corn grits is removed.
Sec. 137.240 [Removed]
23. Section 137.240 Quick grits is removed.
Sec. 137.245 [Removed]
24. Section 137.245 Yellow grits is removed.
PART 161--FISH AND SHELLFISH
25. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 161 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 401, 403, 409, 701, 721 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 343, 348, 371,
379e).
Sec. 161.131 [Removed]
26. Section 161.131 Extra large oysters is removed.
Sec. 161.132 [Removed]
27. Section 161.132 Large oysters is removed.
Sec. 161.133 [Removed]
28. Section 161.133 Medium oysters is removed.
Sec. 161.134 [Removed]
29. Section 161.134 Small oysters is removed.
Sec. 161.135 [Removed]
30. Section 161.135 Very small oysters is removed.
Sec. 161.137 [Removed]
31. Section 161.137 Large Pacific oysters is removed.
Sec. 161.138 [Removed]
32. Section 161.138 Medium Pacific oysters is removed.
Sec. 161.139 [Removed]
33. Section 161.139 Small Pacific oysters is removed.
Sec. 161.140 [Removed]
34. Section 161.140 Extra small Pacific oysters is removed.
PART 172--FOOD ADDITIVES PERMITTED FOR DIRECT ADDITION TO FOOD FOR
HUMAN CONSUMPTION
35. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 172 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 401, 402, 409, 701, 721 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 348, 371,
379e).
36. Section 172.345 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 172.345 Folic acid (folacin).
* * * * *
(d) Folic acid may be added, at levels not to exceed 400 micrograms
(g) per serving, to breakfast cereals, as defined under
Sec. 170.3(n)(4) of this chapter, and to corn grits at a level such
that each pound of the corn grits contains not more than 1.0 milligram
of folic acid.
* * * * *
PART 182--SUBSTANCES GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AS SAFE
37. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 182 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 402, 409, 701 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 371).
Subpart F [Removed]
38. Subpart F, consisting of Secs. 182.5013 through 182.5997, is
removed and reserved.
PART 186--INDIRECT FOOD SUBSTANCES AFFIRMED AS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED
AS SAFE
39. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 186 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 402, 409, 701 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 371).
Sec. 186.1025 [Removed]
40. Section 186.1025 Caprylic acid is removed.
PART 197--SEAFOOD INSPECTION PROGRAM
Part 197 [Removed]
41. Part 197 is removed.
PART 700--GENERAL
42. The authority citation for 21 CFR Part 700 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 301, 502, 505, 601, 602, 701, 704 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 352, 355,
361, 362, 371, 374).
Sec. 700.10 [Removed]
43. Section 700.10 Shampoo preparations containing eggs as one of
the ingredients is removed.
[[Page 27780]]
Dated: May 29, 1996.
William B. Schultz,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 96-13829 Filed 5-30-96; 1:06 pm]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13826 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan National Priorities List
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27788-27789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13826]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-5512-1]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of deletion of Newport Dump Superfund Site, Wilder,
Kentucky, from the National Priorities List
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the
deletion of the Newport Dump Superfund Site in Wilder, Kentucky, from
the National Priorities List (NPL), {Appendix B of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)}. EPA and the
Commonwealth of Kentucky have determined that all appropriate Fund-
financed responses under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, have been
implemented and that no further cleanup is appropriate. Moreover, EPA
and the Commonwealth of Kentucky determined that response actions
conducted at the site to date have been protective of public health,
welfare, and the environment. This deletion does not preclude future
action under Superfund.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liza Montalvo, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, North
Superfund Remedial Branch, 345 Courtland Street NE., Atlanta, GA 30365,
(404) 347-7791, extension 2030.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to be deleted from the NPL is:
Newport Dump Superfund Site, Wilder, Kentucky.
A Notice of Intent To Delete for this site was published on May 16,
1988 (SW-FRL-3380-7). A Revised Notice of Intent To Delete was
published on March 8, 1996 (FRL-5436-5). The closing date for comments
on the Revised Notice of Intent To Delete was April 17, 1996. EPA
received no comments.
EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to
public health, welfare, or the environment and it maintains the NPL as
the list of those sites. Any site deleted from the NPL remains eligible
for Fund-financed remedial actions in the unlikely event that
conditions at the site warrant such action in the future. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that Fund-financed actions may be taken
at sites deleted from the NPL. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not
affect responsible party liability or impede agency efforts to recover
costs associated with response efforts.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental Protection, Air Pollution Control, Chemicals,
Hazardous Waste, Hazardous Substances, Intergovernmental Relations,
Penalties, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, Superfund, Water
Pollution Control, and Water Supply.
Dated: May 21, 1996.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Deputy Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 4.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended
as follows:
PART 300--[AMENDED]
The authority citation for Part 300 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757; 3 CFR 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
[[Page 27789]]
Appendix B to Part 300--[Amended]
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the
site Newport Dump, Newport, Kentucky.
[FR Doc. 96-13826 Filed 5-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13825 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for: Chromium Emissions From Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; Ethylene Oxide Commercial Sterilization and Fumigation Operations; Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Facilities; and Secondary Lead Smelting
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27785-27788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13825]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-5512-6]
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for:
Chromium Emissions From Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating and
Chromium Anodizing Tanks; Ethylene Oxide Commercial Sterilization and
Fumigation Operations; Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Facilities; and
Secondary Lead Smelting
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates final action to amend certain sections
of the following promulgated standards: ``National Emission Standards
for Chromium Emissions from Hard and Decorative Chromium Electroplating
and Chromium Anodizing Tanks; Final Rule'' (subpart N); ``National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Ethylene Oxide
Commercial Sterilization and Fumigation Operations'' (subpart O);
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories: Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Facilities'' (subpart M);
and ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Secondary Lead Smelting'' (subpart X). Today's action amends the Final
Rules' requirement that nonmajor sources (emitting or having the
potential to emit less than 10 tons per year of any hazardous air
pollutant or 25 tons per year of any combination of hazardous air
pollutants) obtain title V operating permits. The action being taken
today will substantially reduce the unnecessary and undue regulatory
burden for States and local agencies, the EPA Regional Offices, and the
industry during a time when all available resources are necessary for
the initial implementation of the title V permit program for major
sources. Sources are still required to meet all applicable emission
control requirements established by the respective maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) standards. The only change from proposal to
promulgation is that the 5-year deferral option, as with the other
rules, is also being provided for nonmajor sources in the secondary
lead smelters (subpart X) source category.
DATES: Effective Date: June 3, 1996.
Judicial Review: Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial
review of national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP) is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of
today's publication of this final rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the
Act, the requirements that are the subject of today's notice may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce these requirements.
ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-88-02, containing the supporting
information for the original subpart N NESHAP and this action, Docket
No. A-88-03, containing the supporting information for the original
subpart O NESHAP, Docket No. A-88-11, containing the supporting
information for the original subpart M NESHAP, and Docket No. A-92-43,
containing the supporting information for the original subpart X
NESHAP, are available for public inspection and copying between 8:00
a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the EPA Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, Waterside Mall, room M-1500, first
floor, 401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, or by calling (202)
260-7548. These dockets also contain information considered by the EPA
in developing this final rule. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Lalit Banker, Emission Standards
Division (MD-13), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5420.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The proposal notice was published in the Federal Register on
December 13, 1995 (60 FR 64002). No public hearing was requested.
Seventeen letters commenting on the proposed rule were received during
the public comment period.
II. Summary
A. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
The proposed rule offered title V permitting authorities the option
to defer permitting of nonmajor sources in the following source
categories: chromium electroplating and chromium anodizing tanks;
ethylene oxide commercial sterilization and fumigation operations; and
perchloroethylene dry cleaning facilities. The rule proposed permitting
nonmajor secondary lead smelters on schedule. In response to public
comments received and additional analyses performed by the EPA, one
change has been made to the rule since proposal. The permitting
authorities will be allowed the option to defer the nonmajor sources in
the secondary lead smelters source category for 5 years from title V
permit requirements similar to the option for nonmajor sources in the
other source categories described in the proposal. Comments were also
received on possible additional permanent exemptions for any of the
source categories for which temporary exemptions were being considered.
Although a majority of the comments supported permanent exemptions for
these nonmajor sources, the EPA has decided not to grant permanent
exemptions to any additional source categories at this time. However,
the EPA will make a decision regarding additional permanent exemptions
by the time the temporary exemptions expire. During the permit deferral
period, the EPA will continue to evaluate the State/local agencies
implementation and enforcement of the standards for nonmajor sources
outside of a title V permit, the likely benefit of permitting such
sources, and the costs and other burdens on such sources associated
with obtaining a title V permit.
B. Significant Comments and Responses
Comments on the proposed rule were received from the industry and
State and local regulatory agencies. Except for one State agency, all
commenters concurred with the EPA option to allow states to defer title
V permit requirements for nonmajor sources. The representative for the
State of Florida disagreed with this recommendation by contending that
permitting the subject nonmajor sources through the use of title V
general permits would not constitute an undue regulatory burden for a
permitting agency, nor would such a mechanism be considered
exceptionally onerous for small
[[Page 27786]]
businesses covered by the section 112 standards. The State of Florida
maintains that a general permit is the most efficient and cost-
effective process by which States can implement emission standard
requirements.
The commenter articulated that the deferral of permitting
requirements for area sources is problematic for the following reasons.
First, the deferral will create unnecessary confusion for affected
sources that will still be subject to the NESHAP requirements. Second,
permits are needed to practically verify emission limitations and work
practices to which a source is subject. Third, the commenter questions
whether the enforcement of NESHAP requirements can be accomplished by
means other than a permit. The commenters experience has been that
small businesses support a general permit that states the applicable
NESHAP requirements. Lastly, the commenter believes that the lack of a
permit requirement will result in unequal enforcement of emission
limitations by individual States or local air pollution control
agencies.
The EPA believes that the rationale described in the proposal for
the temporary exemption option, as well as supportive public comments,
strongly support the deferral of permitting for nonmajor sources;
therefore, the EPA has not made any changes to this option.
Nevertheless, the issues which the above commenter raises will be
examined during the process of determining whether to permit or allow
the exemption of nonmajor sources at the conclusion of the 5 year
deferral. It should be noted that todays action does not preclude any
State/local permitting authority from proceeding to permit the nonmajor
sources discussed in this notice at their discretion during the
deferral period.
Two commenters specifically questioned the EPA's justification in
not allowing the deferral of nonmajor secondary lead smelters. The EPA
had proposed that requiring nonmajor secondary lead smelters to obtain
Part 70 permits without delay would not be impracticable or infeasible
for the State or local permitting authorities involved and would not
unnecessarily burden these companies since, in contrast to the hundreds
or thousands of sources in the four other source categories, there are
only a few secondary lead smelters which are nonmajor sources. The
commenters contend that requiring nonmajor secondary lead smelters to
obtain a title V permit is also unnecessary and could cause undue
burden both to the industry as well as to the State agencies and will
not enhance any environmental benefits.
Upon consideration of these comments and further evaluation, the
EPA believes that the relatively few number of sources in a category is
not an important distinction, and that States should, therefore, also
be allowed to temporarily exempt nonmajor secondary lead smelters from
permitting requirements, along with sources in the other source
categories. This change from proposal is consistent with the EPA's
decision for deferral for the other area source categories. As
explained previously, comments were received on the other nonmajor
source categories requesting an option for permanent permit exemptions.
The EPA will continue to evaluate factors related to this issue and
make a decision regarding permanent exemptions by the time the
temporary exemptions expire. This ongoing evaluation reinforced the
advisability of also providing the opportunity for the deferral of
permits to secondary lead smelters, so that the permit requirements for
all nonmajor sources can be addressed as a package. These nonmajor
sources are still required to comply with the requirements of the
promulgated standard for secondary lead smelters regardless of whether
they will be permitted in the near term. While the EPA disagrees with
the assertion that permitting under title V does not yield an
environmental benefit, the EPA does agree that to require the immediate
permitting of nonmajor secondary lead smelters is unnecessarily
burdensome during the initial years of the title V program.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements of the previously
promulgated National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) were submitted to and approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Today's changes to the NESHAP would not increase the
information collection burden estimates made previously. In fact, they
are expected to reduce the required paperwork by providing the
opportunity for delays for some sources and exemptions for others from
requirements to obtain a title V permit.
B. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, the Agency must determine whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB
review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order, the OMB has notified
the EPA that it does not consider this to be a ``significant regulatory
action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. Therefore, the EPA
did not submit this action to the OMB for review.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the
EPA to consider potential impacts of regulations on small entities. A
regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) is required if preliminary
analysis indicates ``a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities''. As explained earlier in this rule, these
amendments would reduce the impacts on small entities (specifically
small businesses) by allowing States to delay some and exempt others
from the requirement to obtain a title V permit.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)
Subtitle E of SBREFA establishes opportunity for Congress to review
and potentially disapprove nonmajor rules promulgated on or after March
29, 1996 or major rules promulgated after March 1, 1996. With limited
exceptions, it provides that no rule promulgated on or after March 29,
1996, may take effect until it is submitted to Congress and the
Comptroller General along with specified supporting documentation.
Different requirements apply to major rules. This rule, which is
nonmajor, is
[[Page 27787]]
being submitted to Congress in accordance with these requirements.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``unfunded
Mandates Act''), (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the
Agency prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed
or final rule that includes a Federal Mandate that may result in
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year.
Section 203 requires the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input
from and informing, educating, and advising any small governments that
may be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
As explained earlier in this notice, these amendments would reduce
the cost to State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector
by allowing States to delay some and exempt others from the requirement
to obtain a title V permit. Therefore, the EPA has not prepared a
budgetary impact statement for these amendments.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 22, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart N--[Amended]
2. Section 63.340 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.340 Applicability and designation of sources.
* * * * *
(e)(1) The Administrator has determined, pursuant to the criteria
under section 502(a) of the Act, that an owner or operator of the
following types of operations that are not by themselves major sources
and that are not located at major sources, as defined under 40 CFR
70.2, is permanently exempt from title V permitting requirements for
that operation:
(i) Any decorative chromium electroplating operation or chromium
anodizing operation that uses fume suppressants as an emission
reduction technology; and
(ii) Any decorative chromium electroplating operation that uses a
trivalent chromium bath that incorporates a wetting agent as a bath
ingredient.
(2) An owner or operator of any other affected source subject to
the provisions of this subpart is subject to title V permitting
requirements. These affected sources, if not major or located at major
sources as defined under 40 CFR 70.2, may be deferred by the applicable
title V permitting authority from title V permitting requirements for 5
years after the date on which the EPA first approves a part 70 program
(i.e., until December 9,1999). All sources receiving deferrals shall
submit title V permit applications within 12 months of such date (by
December 9, 2000). All sources receiving deferrals still must meet the
compliance schedule as stated in Sec. 63.343.
3. Section 63.342 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B) and introductory text of paragraph (f)(3)(i) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.342 Standards.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) By accepting a Federally-enforceable limit on the maximum
cumulative potential rectifier capacity of a hard chromium
electroplating facility and by maintaining monthly records in
accordance with Sec. 63.346(b)(12) to demonstrate that the limit has
not been exceeded. * * *
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to the work
practices of this paragraph (f) shall prepare an operation and
maintenance plan to be implemented no later than the compliance date.
The plan shall be incorporated by reference into the source's title V
permit, if and when a title V permit is required. The plan shall
include the following elements:
* * * * *
Sec. 63.344 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 63.344, paragraphs (e)(3)(v) and (e)(4)(iv) are amended
by revising the word ``less'' to read ``more''.
5. Section 63.347 is amended by revising the introductory text in
paragraph (e)(2) and paragraph (f)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.347 Reporting requirements.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) If the State in which the source is located has not been
delegated the authority to implement the rule, each time a notification
of compliance status is required under this part, the owner or operator
of an affected source shall submit to the Administrator a notification
of compliance status, signed by the responsible official (as defined in
Sec. 63.2) who shall certify its accuracy, attesting to whether the
affected source has complied with this subpart. If the State has been
delegated the authority, the notification of compliance status shall be
submitted to the appropriate authority. The notification shall list for
each affected source:
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) If the State in which the source is located has not been
delegated the authority to implement the rule, the owner or operator of
an affected source shall report to the Administrator the results of any
performance test conducted as required by Sec. 63.7 or Sec. 63.343(b).
If the State has been delegated the authority, the owner or operator of
an affected source should report performance test results to the
appropriate authority.
* * * * *
6. Table 1 to subpart N of Part 63 is amended by revising the entry
for ``63.5(a)'' to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart N of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General provisions reference Applies to subpart N Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
63.5(a)............................... Yes................................... Except replace the term
``source'' and ``stationary
source'' in Sec. 63.5(a) (1)
and (2) of subpart A with
``affected sources.''
[[Page 27788]]
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart O--[Amended]
7. Section 63.360 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.360 Applicability.
* * * * *
(f) The owner or operator of a source, subject to the provisions of
the title 40, chapter I, part 63 subpart O, using 1 ton (see
definition) is subject to title V permitting requirements. These
affected sources, if not major or located at major sources as defined
under 40 CFR 70.2, may be deferred by the applicable title V permitting
authority from title V permitting requirements for 5 years after the
date on which the EPA first approves a part 70 program (i.e., until
December 9, 1999). All sources receiving deferrals shall submit title V
permit applications within 12 months of such date (by December 9,
2000). All sources receiving deferrals still must meet compliance
schedule as stated in this Sec. 63.360.
* * * * *
Subpart M--[Amended]
8. Section 63.320 is amended by adding paragraph (k) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.320 Applicability.
* * * * *
(k) The owner or operator of any source subject to the provisions
of this subpart M is subject to title V permitting requirements. These
affected sources, if not major or located at major sources as defined
under 40 CFR 70.2, may be deferred by the applicable title V permitting
authority from title V permitting requirements for 5 years after the
date on which the EPA first approves a part 70 program (i.e., until
December 9, 1999). All sources receiving deferrals shall submit title V
permit applications within 12 months of such date (by December 9,
2000). All sources receiving deferrals still must meet compliance
schedule as stated in this Sec. 63.320.
Subpart X--[Amended]
9. Section 63.541 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.541 Applicability.
* * * * *
(c) The owner or operator of any source subject to the provisions
of this subpart X is subject to title V permitting requirements. These
affected sources, if not major or located at major sources as defined
under 40 CFR 70.2, may be deferred by the applicable title V permitting
authority from title V permitting requirements for 5 years after the
date on which the EPA first approves a part 70 program (i.e., until
December 9, 1999). All sources receiving deferrals shall submit title V
permit applications within 12 months of such date (by December 9,
2000). All sources receiving deferrals still must meet compliance
schedule as stated in Sec. 63.546.
[FR Doc. 96-13825 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13809 Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Pacific Ocean Perch in the Eastern Aleutian District
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13809]
[[Page 27796]]
50 CFR Part 675
[Docket No. 960129019-6019-01; I.D. 052896G]
Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area;
Pacific Ocean Perch in the Eastern 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
Eastern Aleutian District of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
management area (BSAI). NMFS is requiring that catches of Pacific ocean
perch in the Eastern 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 Eastern Aleutian District has been caught.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), May 29, 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 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 Eastern 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 3,025 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
Eastern Aleutian District has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is
requiring that further catches of Pacific ocean perch in the Eastern
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 28, 1996.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-13809 Filed 5-29-96; 1:02 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13776 IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27769-27771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13776]
========================================================================
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. 107 / Monday, June 3, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 27769]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 95
[Docket No. 28587; Amdt. No. 396]
IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts miscellaneous amendments to the required
IFR (instrument flight rules) altitudes and changeover points for
certain Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes for which a
minimum or maximum en route authorized IFR altitude is prescribed. This
regulatory action is needed because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System. These changes are designed to provide for the
safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace under instrument
conditions in the affected areas.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, June 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paul J. Best, Flight Procedures Standards Branch (AFS-420), Technical
Programs Division, Flight Standards Service Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone: (202) 267-8277.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This amendment to part 95 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR
altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a
specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover
points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as
prescribed in part 95.
The Rule
The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the
prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid
coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of
frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the
need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and
operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to
published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and
provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In
addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this
amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication
date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the
user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those
considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between
these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice
and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable
and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for
making the amendment effective in less than 30 days. The FAA has
determined that this regulation only involves an established body of
technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(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) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 95
Airspace, Navigation (air).
Issued in Washington, DC on May 24, 1996.
Thomas C. Accardi,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part
95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC,
1. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, and; 49 U.S.C. 106(g)
(Revised Pub. L. 97-449, January 12, 1983); and 14 CFR 11.49(b)(2).
2. Part 95 is amended to read as follows:
Revisions to Minimum Enroute IFR Altitudes and Changeover Points
[Amendment 396 Effective Date, June 20, 1996]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From To MEA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 95.1001 Direct Routes-U.S.
Puerto Rico Routes
H100
Is Deleted
Borinquen, PR VORTAC............. Limon, PR FIX........... 4000
Bahama Routes
2 Lima
Is Deleted
Nassau, BF NDB................... Netta, BF FIX........... *2000
*1500-MOCA................... ........................ MAA-45000
Netta, BR FIX.................... Marsh Harbour, BF NDB... *2000
[[Page 27770]]
*1200-MOCA................... ........................ MAA-45000
3 Lima
Is Deleted
Bimini/DCMSND, BF NDB *1300-MOCA. Exter, BF............... *2000
4 Lima
Is Deleted
Rubin, FL NDB.................... Mrlin, FL FIX........... 2000
Mrlin, FL FIX.................... Thong, BF FIX........... 2000
Thong, BF FIX.................... Bimini/DCMSND, BF NDB... 2000
Bimini/DCMSND, BF NDB............ Nassau, BF NDB.......... 2000
Nassau, BF NDB *1400-MOCA........ Resin, BF FIX........... *2000
5 Lima
Is Deleted
Nassau, BF NDB *1400-MOCA........ Cosmo, BF FIX........... *2000
6 Lima
Is Deleted
Bimini/DCMSND, BF NDB *1400-MOCA. INT ZBB NDB 088 & GBN *2000
NDB 125.
INT ZBB NDB 088 & GBN NDB 125.... Cosmo, BF FIX........... 2000
Cosmo, BF FIX.................... Rock Sound, BF NDB...... 2000
8 Lima
Is Deleted
Freeport, BF NDB *1400-MOCA...... Marsh Harbour, BF NDB... *2000
9 Lima
Is Amended To Read in Part
Great Inagua, BF NDB............. Tomas, BI FIX........... 3000
Tomas, BI FIX.................... Grand Turk, BI NDB...... 2000
12 Lima
Is Deleted
Nassau, BF NDB *1400-MOCA #3800 Rock Sound, BF NDB...... #*2000
Required Without HF
Communication Equipment.
22V
Is Amended To Delete
Nassau, BF VOR/DME *1500-MOCA.... Eleuthera, BF VOR/DME... *2000
49V
Is Amended To Read in Part
Fowee, FL FIX *8000-MRA.......... *Tinky, BF FIX.......... 1000
*Tinky, BF FIX *8000-MRA......... Nicko, BF FIX........... 5000
Nicko, BF FIX.................... Nassau, BF VOR/DME...... 5000
Is Amended To Delete
Looks, BF FIX.................... Nassau, BF VOR/DME...... 2000
55V
Is Amended by Adding
Seaan, BF FIX.................... Burgo, BF FIX........... 1000
Is Amended To Read in Part
Nassau, BF VOR/DME *1200-MOCA.... Seaan, BF FIX........... *3000
MAA-45000
56V
Is Deleted
Nassau, BF VOR/DME *6000-MRA *Bayru, BF FIX.......... **2000
**1400-MOCA.
*Bayru, BF FIX *6000-MRA **1200- Peakk, BF FIX........... **8000
MOCA.
Peakk, BF FIX *1300-MOCA......... ABACO, BF FIX........... *10000
68V
Is Amended To Delete
Freeport, BF VOR/DME *1200-MOCA.. Deers, BF FIX........... *2000
MAA-45000
Deers, BF FIX.................... Treasure Cay, BF VOR/DME *2000
*1200-MOCA................... ........................ MAA-45000
Treasure Cay, BF VOR/DME......... Marsh Harbour, BF NDB... *2000
*1200-MOCA................... ........................ MAA-45000
Marsh Harbour, BF NDB............ Netta, BF FIX........... *2000
*1200-MOCA................... ........................ MAA-45000
Netta, BF FIX.................... Nassau, BF VOR/DME...... *4000
*1500-MOCA................... ........................ MAA-45000
[[Page 27771]]
Atlantic Routes
AR 7
Is Amended To Delete
Bimini/DCMSND, BF NDB............ Vally, FL FIX........... 2000
A301
Is Amended To Read in Part
Bimini, BF VORTAC................ Bkene, BF FIX........... 4000
Bkene, BF FIX.................... Fowee, FL FIX........... 4000
Fowee, FL FIX.................... Zolla, OA FIX........... 8000
Zolla, OA FIX.................... Ursus, OA FIX........... 10000
A555
Is Amended by Adding
Bimini, BF VORTAC *11000-MRA..... *Rajay, BF FIX.......... 4000
Rajay, BF FIX.................... Nassau, BF VOR/DME...... 4000
Nassau, BF VOR/DME............... Victs, BF FIX........... 3000
Victs, BF FIX.................... Gerot, OA FIX........... 3000
Is Amended To Read in Part
Gerot, OA FIX.................... Stella Maris, BF NDB.... 3000
A636
Is Amended by Adding
Great Inagua, BF NDB............. Albee, BF FIX........... 4000
Sec. 95.6003 VOR Federal Airway 3 Is Amended To Read in Part
Palm Beach, FL VORTAC *2000-MOCA. Vero Beach, FL VORTAC... *3000
Sec. 95.6055 VOR Federal Airway 55 Is Amended To Read in Part
Siren, WI VOR/DME................ Brainerd, MN VORTAC..... 3000
MAA-1400
Sec. 95.6082 VOR Federal Airway 82 Is Amended To Read in Part
Brainerd, MN VORTAC.............. Gopher, MN VORTAC....... 3000
Sec. 95.6133 VOR Federal Airway 133 Is Amended To Read in Part
Marquette, MI VOR/DME *3000-MOCA. Bride, MI FIX........... *3600
Sec. 95.6161 VOR Federal Airway 161 Is Amended To Read in Part
Gopher, MN VORTAC................ Brainerd, MN VORTAC..... 3000
Sec. 95.6210 VOR Federal Airway 210 Is Amended To Read in Part
Mingg, OK FIX *4200-MRA **2500- *Loboe, OK FIX.......... **4000
MOCA.
Sec. 95.6218 VOR Federal Airway 218 Is Amended To Read in Part
Grand Rapids, MN VOR/DME *3000- Gopher, MN VORTAC....... *5500
MOCA.
Sec. 95.6266 VOR Federal Airway 266 Is Amended To Read in Part
Mazon, VA FIX *1500-MOCA......... Sunns, NC FIX........... *2000
Sunns, NC FIX.................... Elizabeth City, NC VOR/ *5000
DME.
Sec. 95.6492 VOR Federal Airway 492 Is Amended To Read in Part
La Belle, FL VORTAC *1500-MOCA... Palm Beach, FL VORTAC... *2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-13776 Filed 5-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13770 Regulatory Reinvention Initiative: Pipeline Safety Program Procedures; Reporting Requirements; Gas Pipeline Standards; and Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities Standards
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27789-27793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13770]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Parts 190, 191, 192 and 193
[Docket PS-125; Notice 2]
RIN 2137-AC28
Regulatory Reinvention Initiative: Pipeline Safety Program
Procedures; Reporting Requirements; Gas Pipeline Standards; and
Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities Standards
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule changes various administrative practices in
the pipeline safety program and makes minor modifications to
requirements for gas detection, protective enclosures, and pipeline
testing temperatures. These changes will eliminate unnecessary or
overly burdensome requirements, and reduce costs in the pipeline
industries without compromising safety.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of this final rule is July 3, 1996.
However, affected parties will not have to comply with the information
collection requirements in 49 CFR 193. 2819(f) and 193.2907 (a) and (b)
until the DOT publishes in the Federal Register the Control Numbers
assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to these
collection of information requirements. Publication of the Control
Numbers notifies the public that OMB has approved these requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L.E. Herrick, (202) 366-5523 or online
at [email protected] regarding the subject matter of this final
rule, or the Dockets Unit, (202) 366-5046, regarding copies of this
final rule or other information in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In a memorandum dated March 4, 1995, the President provided
direction to the heads of Departments and agencies on carrying out his
Regulatory Reform Initiative for reinventing the government. As part of
this initiative, RSPA established a program to review existing pipeline
safety regulations in order to identify those that were outdated or in
need of reform.
On April 5, 1995, RSPA published a notice in the Federal Register
soliciting comments from the pipeline industry as well as other
interested parties (60 FR 17295, April 5, 1995). RSPA also conducted
three outreach meetings in 1995 in Dallas, TX, Lakewood CO, and
Houston, TX. Many comments were received both at the outreach meetings
and in response to the Federal Register notice.
As a result of these comments, RSPA revisited this rulemaking which
began in 1992. On November 6, 1992, RSPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) (57 FR 53085, November 6, 1992) proposing changes to
parts 190, 191, 192 and 193. The comment period closed on December 7,
1992. RSPA received comments from 22 regulated pipeline companies,
three pipeline trade associations, one consultant, one technical
committee, and two state agencies (29 total comments received).
RSPA also requested a review of the proposal affecting natural gas
facilities by mail balloting from the Technical Pipeline Safety
Standards Committee (TPSSC). This 15-member committee was established
by statute to consider the feasibility, reasonableness, and
practicability of all proposed pipeline safety regulations.
After initial balloting, each TPSSC member reviewed the ballots and
comments of each of the other members, and had the option to change his
or her initial vote or comment if desired. Although some TPSSC members
did not vote on every proposed change, a majority of TPSSC members
found all the changes adopted by this rule to be technically feasible,
reasonable, and practicable.
Changes to Part 190 Requirements
Section 190.203 Inspections
Section 190.203(c) currently requires that, after an Office of
Pipeline Safety (OPS) inspection, an operator must respond to a
``Request for Specific Information within 30 days.'' RSPA proposed
amending this section to increase the time to 45 days. The increase
would enable the operator to provide RSPA with more complete
information to use in evaluating inspection results.
RSPA received 19 comments from operators, State regulatory agencies
and trade groups in response to this proposal. All commenters agreed
that the time period should be extended. In addition, one commenter
suggested that a further extension be granted to cases involving
detailed ``specific information'' that may require longer than 45 days
to gather.
RSPA Response
RSPA believes that 45 days will usually be adequate. In situations
where more time is required the Regional Director has the authority to
extend the time allowed for a response. Therefore, the revision is
adopted as proposed.
Section 190.209 Response Options
RSPA proposed deleting section 190.209(c). Section 190.209(c)
currently allows a respondent to offer a compromise to a Notice of
Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty by submitting a check or
money order for the amount offered to the Regional Director who
forwards the offer to the Associate Administrator, OPS for action. If
the Associate Administrator, OPS, accepts the offer in compromise, the
respondent is notified in writing that the acceptance is in full
settlement of the civil penalty action. If an offer in compromise is
rejected, it is returned to the respondent with written notification.
RSPA received 19 comments from operators, State regulatory agencies
and trade groups on the proposed deletion of Sec. 190.209(c). Most
commenters agreed with the proposed deletion. Two commenters disagree
with the proposed deletion, preferring to retain the option and stating
that Sec. 190.209(c) does not place an undue regulatory burden upon
industry.
All commenters observed that the deletion also affects
Sec. 190.209(a)(2) and Secs. 190.227 (a), (b), and (d) and that these
sections should also be revised for consistency.
RSPA Response
Under current Federal policy, assessment of a penalty is not
contemplated until after a finding of violation. As a result, RSPA has
not routinely resolved cases without such findings. The submission of a
check prior to establishing a finding of violation unnecessarily
restricts a company's cash flow during the pendency of the enforcement
case. Therefore, RSPA is adopting this provision as proposed. In
addition, RSPA is adopting the commenters' suggestions concerning
Secs. 190.209(a)(2); 190.227(a); 190.227(b); and 190.227(d).
Section 190.211(b)
Section 190.211(b) currently provides that in circumstances deemed
[[Page 27790]]
appropriate by the Regional Director, and only if the respondent
concurs, a telephone conference may be held in lieu of a hearing. RSPA
proposed to require a telephone hearing for all probable violations
involving penalty amounts under $10,000 in which a hearing is
requested.
Five commenters responded to this proposal stating that they
believe the respondent should have the option of dealing with any
probable violation in person. These commenters argue that the dollar
amount of the assessment for an alleged violation may not be indicative
of the complexity of the case.
RSPA Response
RSPA beleives that the current practice of conducting telephone
hearings where the amount is less than $10,000 is cost effective.
However, based upon the comments received, RSPA will allow respondents
to request in-person hearings. Therefore, the section is amended to
establish telephone hearings as the preferred rather than required
method for amounts less than $10,000.
Section 190.211(c)
Section 190.211(c) currently states that a hearing may, under
limited circumstances, be conducted by a representative of the OPS
region in which the facility is located. RSPA proposed in the NPRM that
all hearings be conducted by an attorney from the Office of the Chief
Counsel of RSPA. All commenters agree with this proposal.
RSPA Response
The section is amended as proposed.
Section 190.211(e)
Section 190.211(e) currently states that at the outset of a hearing
in response to a Notice of Probable Violation, the material in the case
file pertinent to the issues to be determined is presented by the
presiding official of the hearing. The respondent may examine and
respond to or rebut this material. RSPA proposed to revise this
regulation to provide the respondent the opportunity to review material
in the case file pertinent to the issues prior to any hearing.
RSPA received 20 comments in response to the proposed amendments to
Sec. 190.211. The comments were provided by an array of trade
organizations, state regulatory agencies and operators. All commenters
agree with the proposed language. However, two commenters recommend
that the case file be automatically provided to all respondents at
least 30 days before the hearing. They conclude that any respondent
requesting a hearing will want to review all material in the case file
and that automatically providing the material would eliminate
unnecessary correspondence between the respondent and the agency.
RSPA Response
RSPA agrees that a copy of the case file should be provided to a
respondent prior to a hearing. However, this practice should not
include automatic mailing of a case file when a request for a hearing
is submitted to the agency. The respondent may wish to address only
some of the issues in the Notice of Probable Violation in the hearing;
thus mailing the entire file may in some instances result in
unnecessary expense. Therefore, Sec. 190.211 is amended as proposed in
the NPRM. Section 190.211(f) is also amended to clarify that the
respondent will continue to have the opportunity to offer any relevant
information during the hearing.
Section 190.215 Petitions for Reconsideration
Section 190.215(d) currently states that the filing of a petition
for reconsideration does not stay the effectiveness of the final order.
The proposed revision would automatically stay payment of any civil
penalty assessed if a petition for reconsideration is filed. This will
result in cost savings to the pipeline operator by delaying civil
penalty payments until a decision is made on the petition for
reconsideration.
RSPA received 20 comments on the proposed rule from operators,
State regulatory agencies and trade groups. All commenters support the
proposed amendment. Two commenters suggested that all requirements or
actions contained in a final order be stayed because the final order
may require the respondent to make significant facility or operational
modifications that may exceed the cost of any civil penalty and these
expenses should be delayed, until final resolution of the case, unless
a clear public safety risk exists.
RSPA Response
RSPA agrees that final orders requiring significant facility or
operational modifications should sometimes be delayed until final
resolution of the case. However, because an automatic stay could delay
corrective actions related to safety without an evaluation of any
potential impact of the delay, the rule does not provide for an
automatic stay in the case of orders requiring action other than the
payment of money. Stays in cases involving corrective action will be
considered on a case-by-case basis.
Section 190.227 Payment of Penalty
Section 190.227(a) currently states that payment of a civil penalty
must be made by certified check or money order payable to the
``Department of Transportation.'' RSPA proposed to continue to allow
this method for a civil penalty of less than $10,000. Under new
Sec. 190.227(b), RSPA proposed to require that payments of $10,000 or
more be made by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve
Communications System to the account of the U.S. Treasury.
In response to the proposed amendment of Sec. 190.227, RSPA
received 20 comments from operators, State regulatory agencies, and
trade groups. Most commenters agree with the proposed amendment. One
commenter recommends that the proposed language in Sec. 190.227(b) be
modified to read ``twenty business days or thirty calendar days.''
This, he suggests, would aid smaller companies.
Four commenters disagree with the proposed changes to the
regulation. They question RSPA's need to require wire transfers of
civil penalties of $10,000 or more. They argue that this restriction
serves no purpose and unnecessarily limits the options of payees.
RSPA Response
RSPA is required by Departmental regulations (49 CFR 89.21(b)(3))
to collect amounts over $10,000 through wire transfer. Therefore, the
proposed amendment to Sec. 190.227 will be adopted.
Changes to Part 191 Requirements
The following discussion explains the changes in part 191:
Section 191.1 Scope
Currently Sec. 191.1(b)(1) contains the phrase ``on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS)''. RSPA proposed to delete this phrase because
the regulation does not clearly specify where the applicability of part
191 begins on offshore gathering lines in state waters. An operator
recommended a similar change in comments responding to an NPRM
proposing to clarify the definition of gathering lines (56 FR 48505;
September 25, 1991; Docket PS-122).
RSPA's revision will clarify that part 191 does not apply to field
production lines; i.e., flow lines in state offshore waters, similar to
the present exception on the OCS. No substantive comments were received
in response to this proposal.
[[Page 27791]]
RSPA Response
Therefore, RSPA is amending Sec. 191.1 as proposed.
Changes to Part 192 Requirements
The following discussion explains the change to part 192:
Section 192.513 Test Requirements for Plastic Pipelines
This regulation prescribes minimum test requirements for plastic
pipelines to ensure discovery of all potentially hazardous leaks. RSPA
proposed to amend paragraph (c) of the rule to clarify that, at
elevated temperatures, the test pressure is limited by the reduced
hydrostatic strength of the thermoplastic material. RSPA also proposed
to amend paragraph (d) of the rule which would benefit pipeline
operators who during hot summer days are unable to pressure test newly
constructed pipelines because the temperature of the thermoplastic
material exceeds 38 deg.C (100N F). The proposal would permit field
pressure testing up to the same temperature used to determine
hydrostatic design strength as defined by the design pressure formula
in Sec. 192.121.
In response to the proposal, RSPA received 21 comments from
operators, State regulatory agencies, and trade groups. Most commenters
supported the intent of the proposed rule. However, a few commenters
said that the wording of the proposed rule would undermine the intent.
They were concerned that although the proposed rule would raise the
temperature limit for testing of some pipelines (those with a long-term
hydrostatic strength based on a temperature above 38 deg.C (100
deg.F)), it would lower the currently allowable temperature limit for
other pipelines (those whose long-term hydrostatic strength is based on
a design temperature of less than 38 deg.C (100 deg.F).
One commenter stated that many operators base their pressure
ratings for plastic pipe on a standard temperature of 23NC (73N F). For
many parts of the United States, this design standard is adequate
because it exceeds the operating temperature of buried plastic piping
in those geographical regions. However, temperatures above ground often
exceed 23NC (73N F). The proposed rule would prohibit operators for
whom this applies from conducting pressure tests on hotter days until
temperatures fall below 23NC (73N F). The commenters suggested a better
approach would be to limit test temperatures to the temperature at
which the long-term hydrostatic design basis was determined only if the
temperatures of the plastic piping material exceed 38 deg.C (100N F).
RSPA Response
RSPA recognizes the difficulties associated with the language of
the proposed rule. To better express the intent of this rule, the
maximum temperature limit for testing of plastic pipelines will be set
at either 38 deg.C (100N F) or the temperature at which the long-term
hydrostatic test was determined, whichever is greater.
In the discussion of the NPRM, it was stated that the Gas Piping
Technology Committee (GPTC) proposed modified language in Secs. 192.513
(c) and (d). The GPTC has notified RSPA that although the GPTC Plastic
Task Group is considering a similar proposal, the GPTC has not proposed
any modified language.
Changes to Part 193 Requirements
The following discussion explains the changes to part 193:
Sec. 193.2819 Gas detection. Operators at LNG plants must continuously
monitor all enclosed buildings for hazardous concentrations of
flammable gases and vapors, using permanent detection systems that
provide visible or audible alarms (Sec. 193.2819(f)). All enclosed
buildings must be monitored, even if the building is not connected to a
source of flammable fluid. For example, a tool shed that does not house
a flammable fluid and is not connected to a source of flammable fluid
must have a fixed gas detection and alarm system. Because RSPA's review
concluded that the risk of flammable gas or vapor accumulating inside
such buildings is negligible, we proposed to apply Sec. 193.2819(f)
only to buildings ``that house a flammable fluid or are connected by
piping or conduit to a source of flammable fluid.''
Twelve TPSSC members supported the proposal completely, one member
supported it but recommended deletion of ``or conduit,'' and two
members abstained. The reason given for deleting ``or conduit'' was
that the National Electrical Code (NEC), referenced in part 193,
requires conduits between hazardous and non-hazardous areas to be
sealed to prevent accidental migration of flammable gas or vapor.
RSPA received comments on the proposed rule from 15 operators, two
pipeline-related associations, and one consultant. None of these
commenters objected to the proposal. However, two commenters suggested
we delete ``or conduit'' because of the NEC safeguard mentioned above,
while two others suggested that ``conduit'' be modified by
``uninterrupted.''
Two commenters recommended that RSPA expand the proposed exception
to include buildings whose only source of flammable fluid is fuel for
heating or cooking. When these sources were low pressure and odorized,
it was concluded that they posed minimal risk.
RSPA Response
Deleting the words ``or conduit'' would not be appropriate because
all existing conduits may not have been installed under current NEC
standards and thus may not be sealed against possible intrusion of gas.
However, in the final rule, RSPA has added the word ``uninterrupted''
between ``or'' and ``conduit''. This will relieve an operator from the
need to protect a building which is sealed pursuant to the NEC against
accidental migration of gas or vapor. We did not adopt the comment to
expand the proposed exception to buildings whose only source of
flammable fluid is fuel. The risk is not minimal in the context of an
LNG plant.
When LNG is piped into a building for heating or cooking, there is an
opportunity for gas to escape undetected inside the building and
ignite. However slight this opportunity, the potential consequences of
any building fire or explosion are magnified by the LNG plant setting.
Thus, we do not believe the existing rule should be relaxed further to
exclude buildings whose only source of flammable fluid is gas for
heating or cooking.
Section 193.2907 Protective Enclosure Construction
Paragraphs (b) (1) through (3) and (c) of this rule dictate
specific material and design features of protective enclosures (i.e.,
fences and walls) that surround certain LNG facilities. For example,
fences must be chainlink of at least No. 11 American wire gauge. RSPA's
review concluded that such prescriptive requirements are unnecessary
and overly burdensome in view of the performance standard under
Sec. 193.2907(a) governing the design and construction of protective
enclosures. That standard provides that each protective enclosure must
have sufficient strength and configuration to obstruct unauthorized
access to the facilities enclosed. RSPA, therefore, proposed to repeal
the prescriptive requirements and rely solely on the performance
standard.
Twelve TPSSC members fully supported the proposal, one member
supported it but recommended an editorial change, and two members
abstained. The editorial change was not explained and has not been
adopted.
[[Page 27792]]
RSPA received comments on the proposed rule from 12 operators and
one pipeline-related association. Each of these commenters supported
the proposal.
RSPA Response
Therefore, Sec. 193.2907 is amended as proposed.
Rulemaking Analyses:
Paperwork Reduction Act
Documentation for the information collection requirements for parts
191 and 193 was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
during the original rulemaking processes. Currently, regulations in
part 191 are covered by OMB Control Numbers 2137-0522 and 2137-0578.
The Control Numbers for regulations in part 193 have expired and are
currently in the process of renewal through review by OMB. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, no persons are required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control
number. Therefore the information collection requirements of part 193
will not be effective until the renewal process is complete and is
announced in a subsequent Federal Register notice. The applicable
Control Number will remain 2137-0048. Part 190 imposes no paperwork
requirements on the pipeline industry. Regulations in part 192 are
covered by OMB Control Numbers 2137-0049 and 2137-0583. The notice
proposed no additional information collection requirements.
Accordingly, there is no need to repeat those submissions in this final
rule.
E. O. 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and therefore was not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. The rule is
not significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the DOT
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). A Regulatory Evaluation has been
prepared and is available in the Docket. RSPA estimates the changes to
existing rules will result in an estimated savings of $1,200,000 for
the pipeline industry, without associated costs and with no adverse
affect on safety. As discussed above, these savings will come largely
from the elimination of unnecessary requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Few of the companies subject to this rulemaking meet the criteria
for small companies. However, RSPA sought such impact information in
response to this rulemaking. Accordingly, based on the facts available
concerning the impact of the proposal and the response received, I
certify under Section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that this
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
E. O. 12612
RSPA has analyzed the rule changes under the criteria of Executive
Order 12612 (52 FR 41685; October 30,1987). We find it does not warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 190
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, and Pipeline
safety.
49 CFR Part 191
Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 192
Natural gas, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
49 CFR Part 193
Fire prevention, Pipeline safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and Security measures.
In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA is amending 49 CFR parts
190, 191, 192, and 193 as follows:
PART 190--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 190 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5123, 60108, 60112, 60117, 60118, 60120,
60122, and 60123; and 49 CFR 1.53.
2. Section 190.203 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 190.203 Inspections.
* * * * *
(c) If, after an inspection, the Associate Administrator, OPS
believes that further information is needed to determine appropriate
action, the Associate Administrator, OPS may send the owner or operator
a ``Request for Specific Information'' to be answered within 45 days
after receipt of the letter.
* * * * *
3. Section 190.209 is amended by removing paragraph (a)(2); by
redesignating paragraph (a)(3) as paragraph(a)(2); by redesignating
paragraph (a)(4) as (a)(3); and by removing paragraph (c) and
redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (c).
4. Section 190.211 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (e),
and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 190.211 Hearing.
* * * * *
(b) A telephone hearing will be held if the amount of the proposed
civil penalty or the cost of the proposed corrective action is less
than $10,000,unless the respondent submits a written request for an in-
person hearing. Hearings are held in a location agreed upon by the
presiding official, OPS and the respondent.
(c) An attorney from the Office of the Chief Counsel, Research and
Special Programs Administration, serves as the presiding official at
the hearing.
* * * * *
(e) Upon request by respondent, and whenever practicable, the
material in the case file pertinent to the issues to be determined is
provided to the respondent 30 days before the hearing. The respondent
may respond to or rebut this material at the hearing.
(f) During the hearing, the respondent may offer any facts,
statements, explanations, documents, testimony or other items which are
relevant to the issues under consideration.
* * * * *
5. Section 190.215 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 190.215 Petitions for reconsideration.
* * * * *
(d) The filing of a petition under this section stays the payment
of any civil penalty assessed. However, unless the Associate
Administrator, OPS otherwise provides, the order, including any
required corrective action, is not stayed.
* * * * *
6. Section 190.227 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 190.227 Payment of penalty.
(a) Except for payments exceeding $10,000, payment of a civil
penalty proposed or assessed under this subpart may be made by
certified check or money order (containing the CPF Number for this
case) payable to ``U.S. Department of Transportation'' to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Financial
Operations Division (AMZ-320), P.O. Box 25770, Oklahoma City, OK 73125,
or by wire transfer through the Federal Reserve Communications System
(Fedwire) to the account of the U.S. Treasury. Payments exceeding
$10,000 must be made by wire transfer. Payments, or in the case of wire
transfers, notices of payment, must be sent to the Chief, General
Accounting
[[Page 27793]]
Branch (M-86.2), Accounting Operations Division, Office of the
Secretary, room 2228, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,
SW, Washington, DC 20590.
(b) Payment of a civil penalty assessed in a final order issued
under Sec. 190.213 or affirmed in a decision on a petition for
reconsideration must be made within 20 days after receipt of the final
order or decision. Failure to do so will result in the initiation of
collection action, including the accrual of interest and penalties, in
accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3717 and 49 CFR part 89.
PART 191--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 191 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5121, 60102, 60103, 60104, 60108, 60117,
60118, and 60124; and 49 CFR 1.53.
2. Section 191.1 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 191.1 Scope.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Offshore gathering of gas upstream from the outlet flange of
each facility where hydrocarbons are produced or where produced
hydrocarbons are first separated, dehydrated, or otherwise processed,
whichever facility is farther downstream; or
* * * * *
PART 192--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 192 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110,
60113, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.
2. Section 192.513 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 192.513 Test requirements for plastic pipelines.
* * * * *
(c) The test pressure must be at least 150 percent of the maximum
operating pressure or 50 psig, whichever is greater. However, the
maximum test pressure may not be more than three times the pressure
determined under Sec. 192.121, at a temperature not less than the pipe
temperature during the test.
(d) During the test, the temperature of thermoplastic material may
not be more than 38 deg.C (100N F), or the temperature at which the
material's long-term hydrostatic strength has been determined under the
listed specification, whichever is greater.
PART 193--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 193 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60103, 60104, 60108, 60109,
60110, and 60113; 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.
2. Section 193.2819 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 193.2819 Gas detection.
* * * * *
(f) All enclosed buildings that house a flammable fluid or are
connected by piping or uninterrupted conduit to a source of flammable
fluid must be continuously monitored for the presence of flammable
gases and vapors with a fixed flammable gas detection system that
provides a visible or audible alarm outside the enclosed building. The
systems must be provided and maintained according to the applicable
requirements of ANSI/NFPA 59A.
3. Section 193.2907 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b)
to read as follows:
Sec. 193.2907 Protective enclosure construction.
(a) Each protective enclosure must have sufficient strength and
configuration to obstruct unauthorized access to the facilities
enclosed.
(b) Openings in or under protective enclosures must be secured by
grates, doors or covers of construction and fastening of sufficient
strength such that the integrity of the protective enclosure is not
reduced by any opening.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington DC, on May 23, 1996.
Kelley S. Coyner,
Acting Deputy Administrator, Research and Special Programs
Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-13770 Filed 5-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13743 Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals; Dolphin Safe Tuna Labeling; Regulation Consolidation
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27793-27795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13743]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 216 and 247
[Docket No. 960516135-6135-01; I.D. 051096A]
RIN 0648-AF08
Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals; Dolphin Safe Tuna
Labeling; Regulation Consolidation
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule consolidates existing regulations regarding dolphin
safe tuna labeling and corrects an address in the regulations. This
action is part of the President's regulatory reform initiative.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wanda L. Cain, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, 301-713-2055.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On September 19, 1991 (56 FR 47424), NMFS published an interim
final rule implementing dolphin safe tuna labeling requirements of the
Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act, 16 U.S.C. 1385. To
consolidate regulations under the President's regulatory reform
initiative, NMFS is recodifying regulations governing the requirements
for the dolphin safe labeling of tuna as subpart H of part 216. In
addition, a new paragraph is added to Sec. 216.24 to reference subpart
H in order to make importers aware of dolphin safe tuna labeling
requirements.
In this rule, NMFS also removes the address of the Director,
Southwest Region, from the footnote to Sec. 261.24 (e)(3)(iii).
Classification
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of
E.O. 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B) and (d)(3), for good cause finds that because this rule makes
only nonsubstantive changes to existing regulations that were issued
pursuant to notice-and-comment procedures, it is not necessary to
provide advance notice and opportunity for public comment or to delay
its effectiveness for 30 days.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 216
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Imports, Indians,
Marine mammals, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
50 CFR Part 247
Exports, Fish, Labeling, Marine mammals, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Seafood.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 216 and,
under authority of 16 U.S.C. 1385 et seq., 247 are amended as follows:
[[Page 27794]]
PART 216--REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKING AND IMPORTING OF MARINE
MAMMALS
1. The authority citation for part 216 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless otherwise noted.
2. In Sec. 216.3, the definition for ``Assistant Administrator'' is
revised, the definition of ``Regional Director'' is removed, and
definitions for ``Fisheries Certificate of Origin'', ``Label'',
``Director, Southwest Region'', and ``Tuna product'' are added
alphabetically to read as follows:
Sec. 216.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Assistant Administrator means the Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or his/her
designee.
* * * * *
Director, Southwest Region means the Director, Southwest Region,
NMFS, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90802, or his/her designee.
* * * * *
Fisheries Certificate of Origin means NOAA Form 370, as described
in 50 CFR 216.24(e)(3)(iii).
* * * * *
Label means a display of written, printed, or graphic matter on or
affixed to the immediate container of any article.
* * * * *
Tuna product means any food product processed for retail sale and
intended for human or animal consumption that contains an item listed
in Sec. 216.24(e)(2)(i) or (ii), but does not include perishable items
with a shelf life of less than 3 days.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 216.24, the terms ``NMFS Southwest Regional Director'',
``Regional Director'', ``Regional Director of the Southwest Region'',
``Regional Director, National Marine Fisheries Service'', ``Regional
Director, Southwest Region'', ``Regional Director, Southwest Region,
NMFS'', and ``Southwest Regional Director'' are removed and the words
``Director, Southwest Region'' are added in its place, each place it
occurs.
4. In Sec. 216.24(e)(3)(i), paragraph (E) is added to read as
follows:
Sec. 216.24 Taking and related acts incidental to commercial fishing
operations.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) Tuna or tuna products sold in or exported from the United
States that suggest the tuna was harvested in a manner not injurious to
dolphins are subject to the requirements of subpart H.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 216.24(e)(3)(iii), the footnote is revised to read as
follows:
1 Copies of the form are available from the Director,
Southwest Region (see Sec. 216.3).
6. Subpart H is added to read as follows:
SUBPART H--DOLPHIN SAFE TUNA LABELING
Sec.
216.90 Purpose.
216.91 Labeling requirements.
216.92 Purse seine vessels greater than 400 short tons (362.8
metric tons).
216.93 Submission of documentation.
216.94 Requests to review documents.
216.95 False statements or endorsements.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1385.
Sec. 216.90 Purpose.
This subpart governs the requirements for labeling of tuna or tuna
products sold in or exported from the United States that suggest the
tuna was harvested in a manner not injurious to dolphins.
Sec. 216.91 Labeling requirements.
It is a violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act
(15 U.S.C. 45) for any person subject to U.S. jurisdiction, including
any producer, exporter, importer, distributor, or seller of any tuna
product exported from the United States or offered for sale in the
United States to include on the label of that product the term
``dolphin safe'' or any other term, phrase, or symbol that claims or
suggests that the tuna contained in the product was harvested using a
fishing method that is not harmful to dolphins, if the product:
(a) Contains tuna harvested with a large-scale driftnet; or
(b) Contains tuna harvested in the ETP by a purse seine vessel 400
short tons (362.8 metric tons) carrying capacity or greater and is
labeled in a manner that violates the standards set forth in
Sec. 216.92 or Sec. 216.93.
Sec. 216.92 Purse seine vessels greater than 400 short tons (362.8
metric tons).
For purposes of Sec. 216.91(b), any tuna product containing tuna
that were harvested in the ETP by a purse seine vessel 400 short tons
(362.8 metric tons) carrying capacity or greater, must be accompanied
by:
(a) A completed Fisheries Certificate of Origin;
(b) A written statement by the captain of each vessel that
harvested the tuna, certifying that the vessel did not intentionally
deploy a purse seine net on or to encircle dolphins at any time during
the trip;
(c) A written statement certifying that an observer, employed by or
working under contract with the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
or the Secretary, was on board the vessel during the entire trip and
that the vessel did not intentionally deploy a purse seine net on or to
encircle dolphin at any time during the trip. The statement must be
signed by either:
(1) The Secretary; or
(2) A representative of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission; and
(d) An endorsement on the Fisheries Certificate of Origin by each
exporter, importer, and processor certifying that, to the best of his
or her knowledge and belief, the Fisheries Certificate of Origin and
attached documentation, accurately describe the tuna products.
Sec. 216.93 Submission of documentation.
The documents required by Sec. 216.92 must accompany the tuna
product whenever it is offered for sale or export, except that these
documents need not accompany the product when offered for sale if:
(a) The documents do not require further endorsement by any
importer or processor, and are submitted to officials of the U.S.
Customs Service at the time of import; or
(b) The documents are endorsed as required by Sec. 216.92(d) and
delivered to the Director, Southwest Region, or to the U.S. Customs
Service at the time of exportation.
Sec. 216.94 Requests to review documents.
At any time, the Assistant Administrator may request, in writing,
any exporter, importer, processor, distributor, or seller of any tuna
or tuna product labeled in a manner subject to the requirements of
Sec. 216.91, to produce, within a specified time period, all
documentary evidence concerning the origin of any product that is
offered for sale as ``dolphin safe,'' including the original invoice.
Sec. 216.95 False statements or endorsements.
Any person who knowingly and willfully makes a false statement or
false endorsement required by Sec. 216.92 is liable for a civil penalty
not to exceed $100,000, that may be assessed in an action brought in
any appropriate District Court of the United States on behalf of the
Secretary.
[[Page 27795]]
PART 247--DOLPHIN SAFE TUNA LABELING
7. Under the authority of 16 U.S.C. 1385, part 247 is removed.
[FR Doc. 96-13743 Filed 5-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13730 Enrollment of Indians; Removal of Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13730]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
25 CFR Parts 65, 66, and 76
RIN 1076 AD31
Enrollment of Indians; Removal of Regulations
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is eliminating 25 CFR Parts
65, 66, and 76 as mandated by Executive Order 12866 to streamline the
regulatory process and enhance the planning and coordination of new and
existing regulations. The necessity for these rules no longer exists.
Effective Date: July 3, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bettie Rushing, (202) 208-3463.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The purpose for which these rules were promulgated has been
fulfilled and the rules are no longer required. Members of the San
Pasqual Band have been enrolled as required in satisfaction of
judgments of the United States Claims Court docket 80-A. Members of the
Delaware Tribe of Indiana and the Absentee Delaware Tribe of Western
Oklahoma have been enrolled as the basis for distribution of judgment
funds awarded in Indian Claims Commission dockets 27-A, and 241, 289,
27-B and 338, and 27 E and 202, 27.
The authority to issue rules and regulations is vested in the
Secretary of the Interior by 5 U.S.C. 301 and sections 463 and 465 of
the Revised Statutes, 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9.
Executive Order 12778: The Department has certified to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) that this rule meets the applicable
standards provided in sections 2(a) and 2(b)(2) of Executive Order
12778.
Executive Order 12866: This rule is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866 and does not require review by the
Office of Management and Budget.
Regulatory Flexibility Act: This rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Executive Order 12630: The Department has determined that this rule
does not have ``significant'' takings implications. This rule does not
pertain to ``taking'' of private property interests, nor does it impact
private property.
Executive Order 12612: The Department has determined that this rule
does not have significant federalism effects because it pertains solely
to Federal-tribal relations and will not interfere with the roles,
rights and responsibilities of states.
NEPA Statement: The Department has determined that this rule does
not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is
required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995: This rule imposes no unfunded
mandates on any governmental or private entity and is in compliance
with the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: This rule contains no information
collection requirement the elimination of which would require
notification to the Office of Management and Budget.
Drafting Information: The primary author of this document is Bettie
Rushing, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
List of Subjects in 25 CFR Parts 65, 66 CFR 76.
Indians--enrollment, Indians--claims.
PARTS 65, 66, 76--[REMOVED]
Under the authority of Executive Order 12866, and for the reasons
stated above, 25 CFR Parts 65, 66, and 76 are removed.
Dated: May 22, 1996.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-13730 Filed 5-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13726 Special Local Regulations; Miami Super Boat Race; Miami Beach, FL
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27782-27783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13726]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD07-96-018]
RIN 2115-AE46
Special Local Regulations; Miami Super Boat Race; Miami Beach, FL
AGENCY: Goast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing permanent special local
regulations for the Miami Super Boat Race. This event will be held
annually on the second Sunday of June, between 12:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m.
Eastern Daylight Time. Historically, there have been approximately 35
participant and 200 spectator craft. The resulting congestion of
navigable channels creates an extra or unusual hazard in the navigable
waters. These regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of
life on navigable waters during the event.
DATES: June 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
QMC T.E. Kjerulff, project officer, Coast Guard Group Miami, FL at
(305) 535-4448.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, the final
rule will be made effective in less than 30 days from the date of
publication in the Federal Register. Following normal rulemaking
procedures will be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the
public interest. A notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule was
published in the Federal Register (61 FR 13122) with a 50 day comment
period. Due to the extended comment period, which expired on May 15,
1996, the final rule will be made effective in less than 30 days from
the date of publication in the Federal Register in order to hold the
event. During the extended comment period, no comments were received
regarding this rulemaking, and this final rule does not change the
provisions of the NPRM.
Regulatory History
On March 26, 1996, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking entitled ``Miami Super Boat Race; Miami Beach, FL'' (CGD07-
96-018) in the Federal Register (61 FR 13122). The comment period ended
May 15, 1996. The Coast Guard received no comments during the proposed
rulemaking comment period. A public hearing was not requested and one
was not held.
Discussion of Regulations
These regulations are needed to provide for the safety of life
during the Miami Super Boat Race. This event will be held annually on
the second Sunday of June, between 12:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. EDT. These
regulations are intended to promote safe navigation on the waters off
Miami Beach during the race by restricting vessels from entering the
race area described below and permit anchoring only in the designated
spectator area. Historically, there have been approximately 35
participant and 200 spectator craft during the race. The anticipated
concentration of spectator and participant vessels associated with the
Miami Super Boat Race poses a safety concern, which is addressed in
these special local regulations. The resulting congestion of navigable
channels creates an extra or unusual hazard in the navigable waters.
The race area will be formed by a line joining the following
points:
25 deg.46.3'N, 080 deg.07.85'W; thence to,
25 deg.46.3'N, 080 deg.06.82'W; thence to,
25 deg.51.3'N, 080 deg.06.2'W; thence to,
25 deg.51.3'N, 080 deg.07.18'W; thence along the shoreline to the
starting point. All coordinates referenced use datum: NAD 1983. A
spectator area will be established in the regulated area for spectator
traffic and will be defined by a line joining the following points,
beginning from:
25 deg.51.3'N, 080 deg.06.15'W; thence to,
25 deg.51.3'N, 080 deg.05.85'W; thence to,
25 deg.46.3'N, 080 deg.06.55'W; thence to,
25 deg.46.3'N, 080 deg.06.77'W; and back to the starting point. All
coordinates referenced use datum: NAD 1983. These regulations will also
include a buffer zone of 300 feet between the race course and the
spectator area defined above.
Entry into the regulated area by other than event participants will
be prohibited unless otherwise authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol
Commander. However, the Coast Guard Patrol Commander may at his
discretion permit traffic to resume normal operations between scheduled
racing events.
The regulations will also established safety measures of 5 short
whistle or horn blasts from a patrol vessel to signal any and all
vessels to take immediate steps to avoid collision. The display of an
orange distress smoke signal from a patrol vessel will be the signal
for any and all vessels to stop immediately. All spectators not in the
designated spectator areas above will be required to remain clear of
the race at all times.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under Section 3(f)
of the Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of the
potential costs and benefits under Section 6 (a)(3) of that order. It
has been exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget
under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies
and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;
February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this
rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph
10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
These regulations will last for only 4 hours each day of the event. No
public comments were received during the notice of proposed rulemaking
comment period.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this action will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small
entities'' include independently owned and operated small businesses
that are not dominant in their field and that otherwise qualify as
``small
[[Page 27783]]
business concerns'' under Section 3 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 632).
For reasons set forth in the above Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast
Guard certifies that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Collection of Information
These regulations contain no collection of information requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Federalism
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the rulemaking does not have sufficient Federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environmental Assessment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this
action and has concluded that preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement is not necessary. An Environmental Assessment and Finding of
No Significant Impact are available in the docket for inspection or
copying. The Coast Guard has concluded that this action will not
significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
Final Regulations
In consideration of the foregoing, the Coast Guard amends Part 100
of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as
follows:
PART 100--[AMENDED]
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; 49 CFR 1.46 and 33 CFR 100.35.
2. A new section 100.714 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 100.714 Annual Miami Super Boat Race; Miami Beach, FL.
(a) Definitions. (1) Regulated Areas. The regulated area includes
the race course area, the spectator area, and a buffer zone.
(i) The race course area is formed by a line joining the following
points:
25 deg.46.3' N, 080 deg.07.85' W; thence to,
25 deg.46.3' N, 080 deg.06.82' W; thence to,
25 deg.51.3' N, 080 deg.06.2' W; thence to,
25 deg.51.3' N, 080 deg.07.18' W; thence along the shoreline to the
starting point. All coordinates referenced use datum: NAD 1983.
(ii) A spectator area is established in the regulated area for
spectator traffic and is defined by a line joining the following
points, beginning from:
25 deg.51.3' N, 080 deg.06.15' W; thence to,
25 deg.51.3' N, 080 deg.05.85' W; thence to,
25 deg.46.3' N, 080 deg.06.55' W; thence to,
25 deg.46.3' N, 080 deg.06.77' W; and back to the starting point.
All coordinates referenced use datum: NAD 1983.
(iii) A buffer zone of 300 feet is established between the race
course and the spectator area.
(2) Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander
is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has
been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Group Miami, Miami Beach,
Florida.
(b) Special local regulations. (1) Entry into the race course area
by other than event participants is prohibited unless otherwise
authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander. At the completion of
scheduled races and departure of participants from the regulated area,
traffic may resume normal operations. At the discretion of the Coast
Guard Patrol Commander, between scheduled racing events, traffic may be
permitted to resume normal operations.
(2) A succession of not fewer than 5 short whistle or horn blasts
from a patrol vessel will be the signal for any and all vessels to take
immediate steps to avoid collision. The display of an orange distress
smoke signal from a patrol vessel will be the signal for any and all
vessels to stop immediately.
(3) Spectators not in the designated spectator areas, as defined
above, are required to keep clear of the race course area at all times.
(c) Effective Dates. This section is effective at 12 p.m. and
terminates at 4 p.m. EDT annually during the second Sunday of June.
Dated: May 16, 1996.
Roger T. Rufe, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 96-13726 Filed 5-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13725 Conformance of the Western Rivers Marking System With the United States Aids to Navigation System
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27780-27782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13725]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 62
[CGD-94-091]
RIN 2115-AF14
Conformance of the Western Rivers Marking System With the United
States Aids to Navigation System
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As part of the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative,
the Coast Guard will replace the solid-color crossing dayboards in the
Western Rivers Marking System (WRMS) with checkered non-lateral
dayboards used in the United States Aids to Navigation System
(USATONS); the latter dayboards would have the same meaning and be the
same size and shape as the former, but would be easier to see. These
changes would help mariners to better see the crossing dayboards,
making the Western Rivers safer.
DATES: This rule is effective June 3, 1996. The first checkered non-
lateral dayboards will appear on the Western Rivers no sooner than
September 3. The last solid-color crossing dayboards will disappear
from the Western Rivers not later than June 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated, documents referred to in this
preamble are available for inspection or copying at the office of the
Executive Secretary, Marine Safety Council (G-LRA/3406) (CGD 94-091),
U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC
20593-0001, room 3406 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
(202) 267-1477.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LTJG Chad Asplund, Short Range Aids to Navigation Division, Telephone:
(202) 267-1386.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Drafting Information
The principle persons involved in drafting this document are LTJG
Chad Asplund, Project Manager, Short Range Aids to Navigation Division,
and Patrick J. Murray, Project Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel.
Regulatory History
On March 27, 1996, the Coast Guard published an NPRM entitled
Conformance of the Uniform State Waterway Marking System and the
Western Rivers Marking System with
[[Page 27781]]
the United States Aids to Navigation System in the Federal Register (61
FR 13472). The Coast Guard received twenty letters commenting on the
proposal. No public hearing was requested, and none was held.
The comments received regarding elimination of the Uniform State
Waterway Marking System (USWMS) showed that this portion of the
regulations was more complex and more controversial than previously
thought. Therefore the Coast Guard will withdraw this portion of the
rulemaking and may address it in a future rulemaking.
Background and Purpose
The WRMS was created to adequately mark the dynamic waterways of
the Mississippi River and its Western counterparts. Some deviations
from the USATONS were necessary for this. One of these is the use of
crossing dayboards. These dayboards indicate where the river channel
(``sailing line'') crosses from one bank to the other. The dayboards
currently used in the WRMS are either solid green or solid red. They
are important aids, but can be difficult to see, especially the green
dayboards against the overgrowth of trees that line the Western Rivers.
The Coast Guard will replace the (red or green) solid-color crossing
dayboards used in the WRMS with the checkered (green-and-white or red-
and-white) non-lateral dayboards used in the USATONS. The checkered
non-lateral dayboards will retain the same meaning as the solid-color
crossing dayboards, yet will be easier to see.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
The Coast Guard received twenty letters commenting on our March 27,
1996 NPRM (61 FR 13472). Eighteen of the letters concerned elimination
of the USWMS. The three remaining letters concerned the change to the
WRMS.
The letters which came from State Boating Law Administrators
expressed concern about losing the regulatory markers from the USWMS.
The Coast Guard never planned to eliminate these markers from state
waters. Regulatory markers are a vital part of the USATONS; and by
eliminating the USWMS and mandating the USATONS the regulatory markers
will still be available.
One State was also concerned with the replacement of the red-and-
white striped danger mark of the USWMS. There is a fundamental
difference with the red-and-white striped buoy. In the USATONS it
represents a safe-water mark, and in the USWMS it identifies a hazard.
This is contradictory and very confusing to the mariner who navigates
between both systems.
One State also brought up many issues regarding total conformance
of the USWMS and the USATONS after the merger. It was brought to the
attention of the Coast Guard that many sections of 33 CFR Part 62 will
have to be revised to ensure total conformance. Many administrators
stated that this was a significant and complex issue that required
further study. Therefore, the Coast Guard is postponing the portion of
the rulemaking concerning the USWMS for a future project so that the
Coast Guard may work with the States on this rule.
A national trade organization representing the inland and coastal
barge and towing industry concurred with the Coast Guard's proposal to
replace the solid-color crossing dayboards with the non-lateral
checkered green-and-white or red-and-white dayboards of the USATONS.
They believe that the checkered design will significantly improve
visibility, particularly on the right descending bank.
An independent consultant was concerned about replacing the
crossing dayboards with checkered non-lateral marks. The consultant
noted that the checkered dayboards would be harder to see because they
would be smaller in size. Although the colored portion of the dayboards
will be smaller, the total dayboard will be the same size and shape as
the solid-color marks that they are replacing. The fact that the
dayboards will be in part white will increase the contrast against the
typical riverine foliage background, thus providing equal or greater
detection distance. Therefore the Coast Guard does not see this as a
significant issue.
The consultant was also concerned that the Coast Guard is replacing
lateral marks with non-lateral marks. Crossing dayboards in their
proper use are non-lateral. They do not mark a specific side of the
river or channel, but simply inform the mariner which side of the river
to move to when approaching a bend or change in the geography of the
river. Therefore the Coast Guard believes this is an appropriate
change.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. It
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that
Order. It is not significant under regulatory policies and procedures
of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11010; February 26,
1979).
The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this regulation to
be minimal enough that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e
of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
Replacing the solid-color crossing dayboards of the WRMS will cost the
Federal government little additional money, since new ones would cost
essentially the same as the current ones. The Coast Guard will replace
the current ones with the new ones when it would otherwise replace them
in kind, so the cost will be similar to that of regular maintenance.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal, if adopted, would have
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small
entities'' may include (1) small businesses and not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions with
populations less than 50,000.
This proposal would have minimal impact on small entities.
Replacing the crossing dayboards on the WRMS would only affect the
Federal government. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Collection of Information
This proposal contains no increase in collection-of-information
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that
this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule
and concluded that, under paragraph 2.B.2.e(34)(a) of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1B, this rule is categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation. Replacing the solid-color crossing
dayboards in the WRMS will have no environmental implications. A
Categorical Exclusion Determination is
[[Page 27782]]
available in the rulemaking docket for inspection or copying where
indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 62
Navigation (water).
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR Part 62 as follows:
PART 62--UNITED STATES AIDS TO NAVIGATION SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 14 U.S.C. 85; 33 U.S.C. 1233; 43 U.S.C. 1333; 49 CFR
1.46.
Sec. 62.51 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 62.51, paragraph (b)(3) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 62.51 Western rivers marking system.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Diamond-shaped non-lateral dayboards, checkered red-and-white
or green-and-white, similar to those used in the USATONS, as
appropriate, are used as crossing dayboards where the river channel
crosses from one bank to the other.
* * * * *
Dated: May 23, 1996.
J.A. Creech,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Navigation Safety
and Waterway Services.
[FR Doc. 96-13725 Filed 5-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13702 General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Amendment to Closure for American Lobster in Block Island Sound
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13702]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 620
[Docket No. 960126016-6149-05; I.D. 052196G]
General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Amendment to Closure
for American Lobster in Block Island Sound
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Emergency interim rule; amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request from the State of Rhode Island, NMFS
is amending the emergency interim rule that closed a portion of Federal
waters off the coast of the State of Rhode Island in Block Island Sound
to fishing and possession of lobsters subsequent to an oil spill. This
amendment reduces further the area in which fishing for or possessing
lobsters is prohibited.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 29, 1996 through July 23, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Morris at (508) 281-9388.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 19, 1996, an oil barge grounded
and spilled more than 800,000 gallons (3.0 million liters) of heating
oil into the waters of Block Island Sound, RI. On January 26, 1996,
NMFS, at the request of and in conjunction with the State of Rhode
Island, prohibited the harvest of seafood from an area of approximately
250 square miles (647 square km) in Block Island Sound. The original
area of closure was announced and defined in an emergency interim rule
published in the Federal Register on February 1, 1996 (61 FR 3602).
On March 13, 1996, NMFS opened the entire area to fishing for and
landing finfish and squid by gear types other than bottom trawl gear.
This same action, published in the Federal Register on March 19, 1996
(61 FR 11164), expanded by approximately 28 square miles (72 square km)
the area in which fishing for and landing lobsters, clams, and crabs
were prohibited. Throughout the expanded closed area the use of lobster
traps, bottom trawl or dredge gear was prohibited.
On April 9, 1996, the closure was amended further to allow all
fishing to resume, with the exception of lobstering in an area of
approximately 42 square miles (109 square km) to the east and north of
Block Island, RI. This action was published in the Federal Register on
April 15, 1996 (61 FR 16401).
On April 24, 1996, testing of lobsters from the closed Federal area
determined that evidence of oil adulteration persists in some of the
samples. Therefore, the State requested that the Federal closure, which
was due to expire on May 1, 1996, be extended. NMFS complied with the
State's request and extended the closure's effective date from May 1,
1996, through July 23, 1996 (61 FR 20175, May 6, 1996).
Following the oil spill, State officials, in consultation with
Federal agencies and the responsible party, developed a protocol for
reopening fisheries in the affected area. The protocol sets sampling,
inspection, and analysis standards, which, if met, would ensure that
seafood is wholesome and would provide a basis for reopening fisheries.
In accordance with the protocol, State and Federal agencies have
been testing the water and marine life in and around the closed area
since the closure began. Seafood species have been subjected to
inspection by sensory experts and chemical analysis. Though all seafood
from the area has been determined to be safe for consumption, certain
lobsters from one particular sector still show some evidence of oil
adulteration. Therefore, NMFS, at the request of the State, is opening
all areas to all fishing with the exception of the one sector
(described below) where oil adulteration has been detected in lobsters.
No person may fish for, possess, or land American lobsters from the
closed area.
In order to avoid conflict with other amendments to Sec. 620.7, the
text of former paragraph (i) of that section is now placed in paragraph
(m) of that section.
Classification
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), has
determined that this rule is necessary to respond to an emergency
situation and is consistent with the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act and other applicable law.
Testing has determined that consumption of seafood from a portion
of the area closed prior to this action does not pose a threat to human
health. Fishermen who operate in the area would suffer severe economic
hardship unnecessarily if the current prohibition were to remain in
effect. Hence, the AA finds that the foregoing constitutes good cause
to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and the opportunity
for public comment, pursuant to authority set forth at 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), as such procedures would be contrary to the public interest.
Further, as this provision relieves a restriction, it is made effective
immediately pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
This emergency rule has been determined to be not significant for
the purposes of E.O. 12866.
This emergency rule is exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act because this rule is not required to be issued with
prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 620
Fisheries, Fishing.
Dated: May 28, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 620 is amended
as follows:
PART 620--GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR DOMESTIC FISHERIES
1. The authority citation for part 620 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 620.7, paragraph (i) revised at 61 FR 16401, April 15,
1996, effective from April 19, 1996 through May 1, 1996, and extended
at 61 FR 20175, May 6, 1996 from May 1, 1996 through July 23, 1996 is
removed and paragraph (m) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 620.7 General prohibitions.
* * * * *
(m) Fish for American lobsters in, or possess or land American
lobsters from, the Federal waters of Block Island Sound bounded as
follows: From the point where LORAN line 14470 intersects with the 3-
nautical mile (6-km) line south of Point Judith, RI, proceeding south-
southeasterly to its intersection with the 43920 line, thence
southwesterly along the 43920 line to its intersection with the 3-
nautical mile (6-km) line northeast of Block Island, RI, thence
northerly along said 3-nautical mile (6-km) line to the northern
intersection of the 3-nautical mile (6-km) line and the 14530 line,
thence northwesterly along the 14530 line to the intersection of the 3-
nautical mile (6-km) line, thence northeasterly along the 3-nautical
mile (6-km) line to the starting point.
[FR Doc. 96-13702 Filed 5-29-96; 11:32 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13476 Delegations of Authority; Tort Claims and Debt Collection
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27783-27785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13476]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Parts 2 and 14
RIN 2900-AI13
Delegations of Authority; Tort Claims and Debt Collection
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
regulations captioned ``DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY'' and ``LEGAL
SERVICES, GENERAL COUNSEL.'' The delegation of authority to Regional
Counsels to settle certain claims (Federal Medical Care Recovery Act
claims, debt collection claims, and other claims) without approval from
the Office of General Counsel is raised to a limit of $100,000.
Further, this document updates statutory references and organizational
titles, eliminates references to repealed statutes, eliminates
redundant delegations of authority, corrects titles of VA forms,
eliminates references to obsolete VA forms, reflects that the Baltimore
Regional Counsel will have certain jurisdiction over incidents
occurring in the Department of Veterans Affairs Central Office,
eliminates restatements of Department of Justice regulations,
eliminates references to internal VA matters not required to be
published in the Federal Register, and makes changes for purposes of
clarification.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective June 3, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: E. Douglas Bradshaw, Jr., Assistant
General Counsel (021), Office of General Counsel, Department of
Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20420,
(202) 273-6481.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule consists of delegations of
authority, VA policies, and nonsubstantive changes, and, therefore, is
not subject to the notice-and-comment and effective-date provisions of
5 U.S.C. 553.
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C.,
601-602. This final rule would not cause a significant effect on any
entities since it consists of delegations of authority, VA policies,
and nonsubstantive changes. Therefore, pursuant to U.S.C. 605(b), this
amendment is exempt from the initial
[[Page 27784]]
and final regulatory-flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603
and 604.
There are no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers
associated with these amendments.
List of Subjects
38 CFR Part 2
Authority delegations (Government agencies).
38 CFR Part 14
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Government
employees, Lawyers, Legal services, Organization and functions
(Government agencies).
Approved: May 22, 1996.
Jesse Brown,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 38 CFR parts 2 and 14 are
amended as set forth below:
PART 2--DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 302; 38 U.S.C. 501, 512; 44 U.S.C. 3702.
Sec. 2.6 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 2.6, paragraph (e)(3) is amended by adding
``(Professional Staff Group I)'' immediately following ``Assistant
General Counsel''; by adding ``of said staff group'' immediately
following ``Deputy Assistant General Counsel''; by removing ``Director
of Debt Management,''; by removing ``$40,000'' and adding, in its
place, ``$100,000''; and by removing ``of the Office of the General
Counsel, and further provided that claims in excess of $100,000 may be
compromised, settled, or waived only with the prior approval''.
3. In Sec. 2.6, paragraph (e)(4)(iii) is amended by removing ``a
third party'' and adding, in its place, ``an individual''.
4. In Sec. 2.6, paragraph (e)(7) is amended by removing ``4116''
and adding, in its place, ``7316''; by removing ``Veterans Health
Services and Research Administration'' and adding, in its place,
``Veterans Health Administration''.
5. In Sec. 2.6, paragraphs (e)(10), (e)(11), and (e)(12) are
redesignated as paragraphs (e)(12), (e)(10), and (e)(11), respectively;
and the newly redesignated paragraph (e)(10) is further amended by
removing ``$40,000'' and adding, in its place, ``$100,000''.
Secs. 2.9 through 2.57, 2.66, 2.66a, 2.67 through 2.71, 2.75 through
2.87, 2.90, 2.92, 2.95 through 2.101 [Removed]
6. Sections 2.9 through 2.57, 2.66, 2.66a, 2.67 through 2.71, 2.75
through 2.87, 2.90, 2.92, 2.95 through 2.101 are removed.
PART 14--LEGAL SERVICES, GENERAL COUNSEL
7. The authority citation for part 14 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 2671-2680; 38 U.S.C. 501(a),
5502, 5902-5905, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 14.600 [Amended]
8. In Sec. 14.600, paragraph (b) is removed, the paragraph
designation (a) is removed, and the section is amended by removing
``1504,'' and ``2110,''.
Secs. 14.601, 14.602, 14.603 [Removed]
9. The undesignated center heading preceding Sec. 14.601, and
Secs. 14.601, 14.602, and 14.603 are removed.
Sec. 14.604 [Amended]
10. Section 14.604 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing
``Sec. 14.607'' and adding, in its place, ``28 CFR 14.4''.
Sec. 14.605 [Redesignated as Sec. 14.601]
Sec. 14.601 [Amended]
11. Section 14.605 is redesignated as Sec. 14.601 immediately
following the undesignated center heading ``ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMS'',
paragraph (a)(1) of the newly redesignated Sec. 14.601 is amended by
removing ``Injury, Occupational Illness, or Fire, and of VA Form 2162b,
Report of Accident, Injury Occupational Illness, or Fire
(Continued),''; paragraph (a)(2)(i) is amended by removing ``on SF 92-
A, Report of Accident Other Than Motor Vehicle''; paragraph (a)(3) is
amended by removing ``Manager, Administrative Services'' and adding, in
its place, ``Director of Support Service, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Human Resources and Administration''; and paragraph
(a)(4) is amended by removing ``The Regional Counsel, Department of
Veterans Affairs Regional Office, Washington, DC'' and adding, in its
place, ``The Baltimore Regional Counsel''.
12. In the newly redesignated Sec. 14.601, paragraph (b) is revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 14.601 Investigation and development.
* * * * *
(b) In medical malpractice cases, the Regional Counsel may refer a
claim to the Under Secretary for Health via the Director, Medical-Legal
Affairs for review and for professional opinion or guidance. In the
consideration of claims involving a medical question, the responsible
Regional Counsel involved and the General Counsel will be guided by the
views of the Under Secretary for Health as to the standard of medical
care and treatment, the nature and extent of the injuries, the degree
of temporary or permanent disability, the prognosis, the necessity for
future treatment or physical rehabilitation, and any other pertinent
medical aspects of a claim.
Sec. 14.606 [Redesignated as Sec. 14.602]
13. Section 14.606 is redesignated as Sec. 14.602.
Sec. 14.607 [Removed]
14. Section 14.607 is removed.
Sec. 14.608 [Redesignated as Sec. 14.603]
Sec. 14.603 [Amended]
15. Section 14.608 is redesignated as Sec. 14.603; paragraphs (a)
through (d), and the paragraph designation (e) are removed.
Sec. 14.609 [Removed]
16. Section 14.609 is removed.
Sec. 14.610 [Redesignated as Sec. 14.605]
17. Section 14.610 is redesignated as Sec. 14.605 immediately
following the undesignated center heading ``LITIGATED CLAIMS''; the
newly redesignated Sec. 14.605, paragraph (a)(1) is amended by removing
``7316'' and adding, in its place, ``2679''; and by removing
``operation of a motor vehicle'' and adding, in its place, ``wrongful
act or omission''; paragraph (a)(2) is amended by removing ``Health
Services and Research Administration'' and adding, in its place,
``Health Administration''; paragraph (b) is amended by removing ``the
employee's operation of a motor vehicle incident to'' and adding, in
its place, ``a wrongful act or omission arising out of'' and in the
second sentence by removing the designations (1) and (2); and the
section heading for the newly redesignated Sec. 14.605 is revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 14.605 Suits against Department of Veterans Affairs employees
arising out of a wrongful act or omission or based upon medical care
and treatment furnished in or for the Veterans Health Administration.
* * * * *
Sec. 14.618 [Amended]
18. In Sec. 14.618, paragraphs (b) and (c) are amended by removing
``$20,000'' each time it appears and adding, in its place,
``$100,000''; and paragraph (b) is further amended by removing
``14.605(a)(2)(i)'' and adding, in its place, ``14.601(a)(2)(i)''.
[[Page 27785]]
Sec. 14.619 [Amended]
19. In Sec. 14.619, paragraphs (b) and (c) are amended by removing
``$40,000'' each time it appears and adding, in its place,
``$100,000''; and paragraph (b) is further amended by removing ``the
General Counsel and claims in excess of $100,000 may be compromised,
settled, or waived only with the prior approval of''.
[FR Doc. 96-13476 Filed 5-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.