issue-1996-07-11•Federal Register final rules — 1996-07-11
Federal Register final rules — 1996-07-11
issue-1996-07-11Federal Register final rules — 1996-07-11Regulation
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. 96-17668 National Flood Insurance Program; Allocated Loss Adjustment Expense
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 134 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36513-36514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17668]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 62
RIN 3067-AC47
National Flood Insurance Program; Allocated Loss Adjustment
Expense
AGENCY: Federal Insurance Administration (FEMA).
ACTION: Technical amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends the interim final rule published on
Wednesday, May 15, 1996, 61 FR 24462-24464, FR Doc. 96-12019, which
revised the allocated loss adjustment expense fee schedule of the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Write Your Own (WYO) Program
under the Financial Assistance/Subsidy Arrangement (the Arrangement).
This technical amendment revises the fee schedule of the interim final
rule, restoring the previous basis for determining the amount of the
flood loss and the resulting fees.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles M. Plaxico, Jr., Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, 500 C
Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3422.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 15, 1996, the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA)
published an interim final rule (FR Doc. 96-12019) that modified the
allocated loss adjustment fee schedule of the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) Write Your Own Program under the Financial Assistance/
Subsidy Arrangement (the Arrangement). That interim final rule added
new loss ranges and revised the fees for adjusting claims in the higher
ranges under the NFIP. The revised fee schedule also contained
footnotes establishing a new basis (replacement cost, not to exceed
policy limits, in all cases) for determining the amount of loss.
Before the May 15, 1996 changes, the amount of loss reported and
used for determining the allocated loss adjustment fee was either on an
actual cash value or a replacement cost basis, depending on how the
loss was adjusted. Standard deductibles were applied in all cases. The
May 15, 1996 changes required WYO companies to report losses,
regardless of how they were adjusted, on a replacement cost basis. This
requirement, however, is inconsistent with current systems reporting
and recording capabilities.
Need To Correct Publication
A number of WYO companies reported that they could not meet the
reporting requirement of the May 15, 1996 interim final rule in a
timely manner. In order to meet the reporting requirement, WYO
companies need additional time to reprogram their data processing
systems. FEMA agrees, and by this amendment reverts to the methods for
calculating the amount of loss in effect before the May 15, 1996
interim final rule. The new loss ranges and revised fees for the higher
ranges remain the same as in the May 15, 1996 rule.
The basis for determining fees contained in the May 15, 1996
interim final rule will be honored from May 15, 1996 until today, the
effective date of this revised interim final rule. FIA will provide
separate guidance to WYO companies on how to handle financial reporting
from May 15, 1996 until today.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, Exhibit A, Fee Schedule, of the publication of May 15,
1996, at 61 FR 24463-24464, (FR Doc. 96-12019) is corrected to read as
follows:
Exhibit A.--Fee Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range (by covered loss) Fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erroneous Assignment...................... $40.00
Closed Without Payment.................... 125.00
Minimum for Upton-Jones Claims............ 800.00
$0.01 to $600.00.......................... 150.00
$600.01 to $1,000.00...................... 175.00
$1,000.01 to $2,000.00.................... 225.00
$2,000.01 to $3,500.00.................... 275.00
$3,500.01 to $5,000.00.................... 350.00
$5,000.01 to $7,000.00.................... 425.00
$7,000.01 to $10,000.00................... 500.00
$10,000.01 to $15,000.00.................. 550.00
$15,000.01 to $25,000.00.................. 600.00
$25,000.01 to $35,000.00.................. 675.00
$35,000.01 to $50,000.00.................. 750.00
$50,000.01 to $100,000.00................. 3.0%
$100,000.01 to $250,000.00................ 2.3% but not less than
$3,000.
$250,000.01 and up........................ 2.1%
but not less than
$5,750.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36514]]
Note: Allocated fee schedule entry value is the covered loss
under the policy based on the standard deductibles ($500 and $500)
and limited to the amount of insurance purchased.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, ``Flood
Insurance'')
Dated: June 2, 1996.
Harvey G. Ryland,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 96-17668 Filed 7-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-03-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17667 Suspension of Community Eligibility
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 134 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36514-36515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17667]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 64
[Docket No. FEMA-7644]
Suspension of Community Eligibility
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), that are suspended on the effective dates listed within
this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management
requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the
required floodplain management measures prior to the effective
suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will be withdrawn by
publication in the Federal Register.
EFFECTIVE DATES: The effective date of each community's suspension is
the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of the following
tables.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to determine whether a particular community was
suspended on the suspension date, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional
Office or the NFIP servicing contractor.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Shea Jr., Division Director,
Program Implementation Division, Mitigation Directorate, 500 C Street,
SW., Room 417, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3619.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management
aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding.
Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under
the National Flood Insurance Program, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., unless an
appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures
with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this
document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with
program regulations, 44 CFR part 59 et seq. Accordingly, the
communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third
column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in
the community. However, some of these communities may adopt and submit
the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management
measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual
suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will
continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice
withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the
Federal Register.
In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has identified
the special flood hazard areas in these communities by publishing a
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the FIRM if one has been
published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct
Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in
connection with a flood) may legally be provided for construction or
acquisition of buildings in the identified special flood hazard area of
communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than
a year, on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's initial flood
insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section
202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a),
as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal
assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date
shown in the last column.
The Acting Associate Director finds that notice and public comment
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because
communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives a 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
addressed to the Chief Executive Officer that the community will be
suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met
prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications have
been made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR
part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact
assessment has been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Acting Associate Director has determined that this rule is
exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022,
prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body
adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective
enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the
statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the communities unless they take
remedial action.
Regulatory Classification
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the
criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not involve any collection of information for
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications
under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, October 26, 1987, 3 CFR, 1987
Comp., p. 252.
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12778, October 25, 1991, 56 FR 55195, 3 CFR, 1991
Comp., p. 309.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
PART 64--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.
Sec. 64.6 [Amended]
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec. 64.6 are
amended as follows:
[[Page 36515]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date certain federal assistance
State/location Community Effective date of eligibility Current effective map date no longer available in special
No. flood hazard areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region II
New Jersey: Flemington, borough of, 340520 September 25, 1975, Emerg.; July 16, 1996..................... July 16, 1996.
Hunterdon County. May 15, 1980, Reg.; July 16,
1996, Susp.
Region III
Pennsylvania: Smithfield, township 420494 March 9, 1973, Emerg.; March ......do.......................... Do.
of, Huntingdon County. 15, 1977, Reg.; July 16,
1996, Susp.
Virginia: Norfolk, independent city.. 510104 August 15, 1973, Emerg.; ......do.......................... Do.
August 1, 1979, Reg.; July
16, 1996, Susp.
Region V
Michigan: Cadillac, city of, Wexford 260247 June 2, 1975, Emerg.; March March 18, 1996.................... Do.
County. 18, 1996, Reg.; July 16,
1996, Susp.
Region VI
Arkansas: Pulaski County, 050179 March 6, 1979, Emerg.; July July 16, 1996..................... Do.
unincorporated areas. 16, 1981, Reg.; July 16,
1996, Susp.
New Mexico:
Bernalillo, town of, Sandoval 350056 January 17, 1975, Emerg.; ......do.......................... Do.
County. Janaury 6, 1983, Reg.; July
16, 1996, Susp.
Corrales, village of, Sandoval 350094 October 14, 1975, Emerg.; ......do.......................... Do.
County. January 6, 1983, Reg.; July
16, 1996, Susp.
Jemez Springs, village of, 350096 April 21, 1976, Emerg.; ......do.......................... Do.
Sandoval County. January 3, 1986, Reg.; July
16, 1996, Susp.
Rio Rancho, city of, Sandoval 350146 November 14, 1990, Emerg.; ......do.......................... Do.
County. April 15, 1992, Reg.; July
16, 1996, Susp.
Sandoval County, unincorporated 350055 July 16, 1996, Reg.; July 16, ......do.......................... Do.
areas. 1996, Susp.
Truth or Consequences, city of, 350073 August 27, 1974, Emerg.; ......do.......................... Do.
Sierra County. January 3, 1986, Reg.; July
16, 1996, Susp.
Sierra County, unincorporated 350071 March 17, 1976, Emerg.; June ......do.......................... Do.
areas. 3, 1986, Reg.; July 16,
1996, Susp.
Oklahoma:
Chandler, city of, Lincoln County 400237 March 18, 1975, Emerg.; ......do.......................... Do.
November 4, 1987, Reg.; July
16, 1996, Susp.
Lincoln County, unincorporated 400457 September 28, 1990, Emerg.; ......do.......................... Do.
areas. February 3, 1993, Reg.; July
16, 1996, Susp.
Region VII
Iowa:
Clayton County, unincorporated 190858 May 3, 1976, Emerg.; May 1, ......do.......................... Do.
areas. 1990, Reg.; July 16, 1996,
Susp.
Elkader, city of, Clayton County. 190073 October 3, 1974, Emerg.; ......do.......................... Do.
September 29, 1978, Reg.;
July 16, 1996, Susp.
Region VIII
Utah: Wendover, town of, Tooele 490222 July 25, 1975, Emerg.; August ......do.......................... Do.
County. 19, 1980, Reg.; July 16,
1996, Susp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code for reading third column: Emerg.- Emergency; Reg.- Regular; Rein.- Reinstatement; Susp.-Suspension.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, ``Flood
Insurance'')
Issued: July 2, 1996.
Richard W. Krimm,
Acting Associate Director, Mitigation Directorate.
[FR Doc. 96-17667 Filed 7-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-05-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17662 Technical Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 134 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36497-36498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17662]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION
35 CFR Parts 61 and 123
RIN 3207-AA34 and RIN 3207-AA35
Technical Amendments
AGENCY: Panama Canal Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Panama Canal Commission hereby amends its regulations in
title 35, Code of Federal Regulations, part 61, to add a new paragraph
to section 61.155 which eliminates the requirement for disinfecting
vessels under certain conditions as set out by the World Health
Organization (WHO). The Commission is also amending 35 CFR, part 123,
paragraph (a) of section 123.4, by substituting the words ``in meters''
for ``in feet and inches'', thereby conforming to the policy of
utilizing the metric measurement scales wherever possible.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Captain George T. Hull, Director,
Marine Bureau, Panama Canal Commission, telephone in Balboa, Republic
of Panama, 011/507-272-4500, or Barbara Fuller, Assistant to the
Secretary for Commission Affairs, Office of the Secretary, Panama Canal
Commission, 1825 I Street NW, Suite 1050, Washington, DC 20006-5402;
Telephone: (202) 634-6441; Facsimile: (202) 634-6439.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Panama Canal Commission hereby amends 35
CFR Part 61 in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO)
guidelines. These guidelines require the owner of a vessel transiting
the Panama Canal to assist in eliminating the spread of yellow fever
throughout the world by disinfecting (disinsecting) his vessel whenever
the level of Aedes aegypti mosquitos in the Republic of Panama is below
the WHO critical infestation level of less than one percent (expressed
as WHO index level 1.0). The change eliminates the requirement for such
disinsecting when the index of Aedes aegypti mosquitos in Panama is
higher than 1.0.
The Commission is also amending its regulations in part 123, to
substitute ``in meters'' for ``in feet and inches'' in order to replace
existing information required of vessel customers, which conforms to
the policy of using metric measurement scales.
The Commission is proceeding with the issuance of a final rule
instead of a proposed rule with a request for comments because the
change to part 61 eliminates a requirement for transiting the Canal and
the change to part 123 is a technical amendment.
The Commission has been exempted from Executive Order 12866 and,
accordingly, the provisions of that directive do not apply to this
final rule. Even if the Order were applicable, its implementation would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities as defined under that Act.
Further, the agency has determined that implementation of the rule
will have no adverse effect on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the ability of the United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or
export markets.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for public
comment are not required to be given for this final rule by the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or by any other law, under
sections 603(a) and 604(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601), no initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis has to be or
will be prepared.
Finally, the Administrator of the Panama Canal Commission certifies
these changes in regulations meet the applicable standards provided in
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No 12988.
List of Subjects
35 CFR Part 61
Communicable Diseases, Public health.
35 CFR Part 123
Radio, Vessels.
Accordingly, 35 CFR Parts 61 and 123 are amended as follows:
PART 61-HEALTH, SANITATION AND COMMUNICABLE DISEASE SURVEILLANCE
1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Issued under authority vested in the President by
section 1701, Pub. L. 96-70, 93 Stat. 492; EO 12173, 44 FR 69271.
2. Section 61.155 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e) as
follows:
Sec. 61.155 Vessels; yellow fever.
* * * * *
(e) The disinfecting required under paragraph (a) of this section
shall be required when the index of Aedes aegypti in Panama exceeds the
1.0 index level established by the World Health Organization (WHO).
[[Page 36498]]
PART 123--RADIO COMMUNICATION
3. The authority for part 123 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Issued under authority of the President by 22 U.S.C.
3811; EO 12215, 45 FR 36043.
4. The ``CHARLIE'' paragraph following Paragraph (a) of Sec. 123.4
is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 123.4 Advance notification required by radio from vessels
approaching the Canal.
(a) * * * CHARLIE--Estimated draft upon arrival, and estimated
transit draft if scheduled to work cargo or take bunker prior to
transiting, in meters, fore and aft, in Tropical Fresh Water.
* * * * *
Dated: June 27, 1996.
Gilberto Guardia F.,
Administrator, Panama Canal Commission.
[FR Doc. 96-17662 Filed 7-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3640-04-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17644 Control Strategy: Ozone (OINF3); Tennessee
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 134 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36502-36506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17644]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TN-167-9627a; FRL-5529-3]
Control Strategy: Ozone (O3); Tennessee
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving an exemption request from the oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) reasonably available control technology (RACT) and
conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA)
for the five county Middle Tennessee (Nashville) moderate ozone
(O3) nonattainment area. The request for a NOX RACT and
conformity exemption was submitted on March 21, 1995, by the State of
Tennessee through the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC). The exemption request is based upon the
[[Page 36503]]
most recent three years of monitoring data, which demonstrate that
additional reductions of NOX would not contribute to attainment of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
DATES: This final rule is effective September 9, 1996 unless adverse or
critical comments are received by August 12, 1996. If the effective
date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: William Denman;
Stationary Source Planning Unit; Regulatory Planning and Development
Section; Air Programs Branch; Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4; 345 Courtland
Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
A copy of the exemption request is available for inspection at the
following locations (it is recommended that you contact William Denman
at (404) 347-3555 extension 4208 before visiting the Region 4 office).
United States Environmental Protection Agency; Air, Pesticides, and
Toxics Management Division; Air Programs Branch; Regulatory Planning
and Development Section; Stationary Source Planning Unit; 345 Courtland
Street NE; Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Air
Pollution Control, L & C Annex, 9th Floor, 401 Church Street,
Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1531, 615/532-0554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Denman; Stationary Source
Planning Unit; Regulatory Planning and Development Section; Air
Programs Branch; Air Pesticides and Toxics Management Division; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; 345 Courtland Street NE, Atlanta,
Georgia 30365. Reference file TN-167-9627a.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The air quality planning requirements for
the reduction of NOX emissions are set out in section 182(f) of
the CAA, which requires states with nonattainment areas of moderate and
above to require the same provisions for major stationary sources of
NOX as apply to major stationary sources of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). One of the requirements of major sources of VOCs is
RACT. Therefore, per section 182 of the CAA, RACT is also a requirement
for major sources of NOX. However, under section 182(f)(1)(A) of
the CAA, an exemption from the NOX requirement may be granted for
nonattainment areas outside an ozone transport region if additional
reductions of NOX would not contribute to attainment. The NOX
RACT exemption request is based upon the most recent three years of
monitoring data, which demonstrate that additional reductions of
NOX would not contribute to attainment of the NAAQS.
The criteria established for the evaluation of a NOX RACT
exemption request from the section 182(f) requirements are set forth in
an EPA memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, dated May 27, 1994, entitled, ``Section 182(f)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Exemptions--Revised Process and Criteria;''
an EPA memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, dated December 16, 1993, entitled, ``Guideline
for Determining the Applicability of Nitrogen Oxide Requirements Under
Section 182(f),'' dated December 16, 1993; and an EPA memorandum from
John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
dated February 8, 1995, entitled, ``Section 182(f) Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) Exemptions--Revised Process and Criteria.'' The February 8,
1995, memorandum referenced above decouples the section 182(f)
exemptions from NOX transport issues. In an area that did not
implement the section 182(f) NOX requirements, but did attain the
O3 standard as demonstrated by ambient air monitoring data
(consistent with 40 CFR Part 58 and recorded in the EPA's Aerometric
Information Retrieval system (AIRS)), it is clear that the additional
NOX reductions required by section 182(f) would not contribute to
attainment of the NAAQS in that area.
On November 14, 1994, the State of Tennessee submitted to EPA
Region 4 a request to redesignate the Middle Tennessee (Nashville)
moderate O3 nonattainment area to attainment. The redesignation
request is currently under review and will be addressed in a separate
rulemaking. On March 21, 1995, the State of Tennessee requested an
exemption from the NOX RACT and NOX conformity requirements
in section 182(f) of the CAA for the Middle Tennessee ozone
nonattainment area. The exemption request is based upon ambient air
monitoring data from 1992, 1993, and 1994. The five county Middle
Tennessee nonattainment area was determined to have attained the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone in the Federal
Register on August 8, 1995, (60 FR 40291) in accordance with EPA
guidance issued on May 10, 1995, and has continued to monitor
attainment to date. This guidance relieved certain nonattainment areas
with ``clean air data'' from some CAA requirements. Therefore, this
area is meeting the O3 NAAQS standard in the entire five county
Middle Tennessee area for the relevant three year period. Because the
Middle Tennessee area is meeting the O3 NAAQS, this exemption
request for the area meets the applicable requirements contained in the
EPA policy and guidance documents referenced above.
However, some NOX reductions were either obtained prior to the
area attaining the ozone standard or have been determined to be
necessary for maintenance. Specifically, those reductions obtained
prior to attaining the standard were from major source tangentially-
fired coal burning boilers subject to Tennessee's rule for the
regulation of nitrogen oxides (1200-3-27-.03(1)(b)). The NOX
reductions necessary for maintenance are from two natural gas pumping
stations located in the nonattainment area.
Tennessee submitted its chapter for regulating nitrogen oxides
(1200-3-27) in submittals to EPA dated June 14, 1993, and May 26, 1994,
and revised the submittals on July 29, 1994, and February 23, 1996.
Tennessee held a public hearing for the operating permits issued for
the two natural gas pumping stations on April 29, 1996. These two
sources must be controlled to demonstrate maintenance. The Tennessee
Air Pollution Control Board (TAPCB) met to take action on these permits
on May 9-10, 1996. After approval by the TAPCB, the permits will be
officially submitted to EPA. EPA will act on the NOX controls
which obtained emission reductions prior to the area attaining the
standard and those necessary for maintaining the ozone standard either
prior to or concurrently with the ozone redesignation request. The
approval of this exemption does not exempt sources from any State
Implementation Plan (SIP) approved NOX control requirements.
Until this area is designated attainment, the continuation of the
section 182(f) exemption granted herein is contingent upon continued
monitoring and continued maintenance of the O3 NAAQS in the entire
Middle Tennessee nonattainment area. If there is a violation of the
O3 NAAQS in any portion of the Middle Tennessee nonattainment
area, the exemption will no longer be applicable as of the date of any
such determination. Should this occur, EPA will provide notice in the
Federal Register. A determination that the NOX exemption no longer
applies would mean that the NOX RACT requirement is immediately
applicable to the affected area and the exemption
[[Page 36504]]
from NOX conformity is no longer valid. EPA believes some
reasonable period of notice is necessary to provide major stationary
sources subject to the RACT requirement time to purchase, install, and
operate any required controls. Accordingly, the State may provide
sources a reasonable time period to meet the RACT emission limits after
the EPA determination that NOX RACT requirement is necessary. EPA
expects the time period to be as expeditious as practicable, but in no
case longer than 24 months. The approval of this exemption from federal
NOX requirements in no way exempts sources from any NOX
controls required by the State.
This approval of the State of Tennessee's request for an exemption
from the NOX RACT requirement of the CAA as amended in 1990 is
being acted on as a direct final rule making without a prior proposal
for approval because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial
amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. The National Resources
Defense Council (NRDC), Sierra Defense Club, and Environmental Defense
Fund (EDF) submitted adverse comments to Mary Nichols on August 24,
1994, regarding all Federal Register notices proposing to approve
section 182(f) NOX exemption requests. The EPA responded to the
adverse comments as set forth below.
NRDC Comment 1: Certain commenters argued that NOX exemptions
are provided for in two separate parts of the CAA, section 182(b)(1)
and section 182(f). Because the NOX exemption tests in subsections
182(b)(1) and 182(f)(1) include language indicating that action on such
requests should take place ``when [EPA] approves a plan or plan
revision,'' these commenters conclude that all NOX exemption
determinations by the EPA, including exemption actions taken under the
petition process established by subsection 182(f)(3), must occur during
consideration of an approvable attainment or maintenance plan, unless
the area has been redesignated as attainment. These commenters also
argue that even if the petition procedures of subsection 182(f)(3) may
be used to relieve areas of certain NOX requirements, exemptions
from the NOX conformity requirements must follow the process
provided in subsection 182(b)(1), since this is the only provision
explicitly referenced by section 176(c), the CAA's conformity
provisions.
EPA Response: Section 182(f) contains very few details regarding
the administrative procedure for acting on NOX exemption requests.
The absence of specific guidelines by Congress leaves EPA with
discretion to establish reasonable procedures, consistent with the
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The EPA disagrees with the commenters regarding the process for
considering exemption requests under section 182(f), and instead
believes that subsections 182(f)(1) and 182(f)(3) provide independent
procedures by which the EPA may act on NOX exemption requests. The
language in subsection 182(f)(1), which indicates that the EPA should
act on NOX exemptions in conjunction with action on a plan or plan
revision, does not appear in subsection 182(f)(3). And, while
subsection 182(f)(3) references subsection 182(f)(1), the EPA believes
that this reference encompasses only the substantive tests in paragraph
(1) [and, by extension, paragraph (2)], not the procedural requirement
that the EPA act on exemptions only when acting on SIPs. Additionally,
paragraph (3) provides that ``person[s]'' (which section 302(e) of the
CAA defines to include States) may petition for NOX exemptions
``at any time,'' and requires the EPA to make its determination within
six months of the petition's submission. These key differences lead EPA
to believe that Congress intended the exemption petition process of
paragraph (3) to be distinct and more expeditious than the longer plan
revision process intended under paragraph (1).
Section 182(f)(1) appears to contemplate that exemption requests
submitted under these paragraphs are limited to States, since States
are the entities authorized under the Act to submit plans or plan
revisions. By contrast, section 182(f)(3) provides that ``person[s]''
may petition for a NOX determination ``at any time'' after the
ozone precursor study required under section 185B of the Act is
finalized, and gives EPA a limit of 6 months after filing to grant or
deny such petitions. Since individuals may submit petitions under
paragraph (3) ``at any time'' this must include times when there is no
plan revision from the State pending at EPA. The specific time frame
for EPA action established in paragraph (3) is substantially shorter
than the time frame usually required for States to develop and for EPA
to take action on revisions to a SIP. These differences strongly
suggest that Congress intended the process for acting on personal
petitions to be distinct--and more expeditious--from the plan-revision
process intended under paragraph (1). Thus, EPA believes that paragraph
(3)'s reference to paragraph (1) encompasses only the substantive tests
in paragraph (1) [and, by extension, paragraph (2)], not the
requirement in paragraph (1) for EPA to grant exemptions only when
acting on plan revisions.
With respect to major stationary sources, section 182(f) requires
States to adopt NOX NSR and RACT rules, unless exempted. These
rules were generally due to be submitted to EPA by November 15, 1992.
Thus, in order to avoid the CAA sanctions, areas seeking a NOX
exemption would need to submit their exemption request for EPA review
and rulemaking action several months before November 15, 1992. In
contrast, the CAA specifies that the attainment demonstrations are not
due until November 1993 or 1994 (and EPA may take 12-18 months to
approve or disapprove the demonstration). For marginal ozone
nonattainment areas (subject to NOX NSR), no attainment
demonstration is called for in the CAA. For maintenance plans, the CAA
does not specify a deadline for submittal of maintenance
demonstrations. Clearly, the CAA envisions the submittal of and EPA
action on exemption requests, in some cases, prior to submittal of
attainment or maintenance demonstrations.
The CAA requires conformity with regard to federally-supported
NOX generating activities in relevant nonattainment and
maintenance areas. However, EPA's conformity rules explicitly provide
that these NOX requirements would not apply if EPA grants an
exemption under section 182(f). In response to the comment that section
182(b)(1) should be the appropriate vehicle for dealing with exemptions
from the NOX requirements of the conformity rule, EPA notes that
this issue has previously been raised in a formal petition for
reconsideration of EPA's final transportation conformity rule and in
litigation pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit on the substance of both the transportation and
general conformity rules. The issue, thus, is under consideration
within EPA, but at this time remains unresolved. Additionally,
subsection 182(f)(3) requires that NOX exemption petition
determinations be made by the EPA within six months. The EPA has stated
in previous guidance that it intends to meet this statutory deadline as
long as doing so is consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act.
The EPA, therefore, believes that until a resolution of this issue is
achieved, the applicable rules governing this issue are those that
appear in EPA's final conformity regulations, and EPA remains bound by
their existing terms.
[[Page 36505]]
NRDC Comment 2: Three years of ``clean'' data fail to demonstrate
that NOX reductions would not contribute to attainment. EPA's
policy erroneously equates the absence of a violation for one three-
year period with ``attainment.''
EPA Response: The EPA has separate criteria for determining if an
area should be redesignated to attainment under section 107 of the CAA.
The section 107 criteria are more comprehensive than the CAA requires
with respect to NOX exemptions under section 182(f).
Under section 182(f)(1)(A), an exemption from the NOX
requirements may be granted for nonattainment areas outside an ozone
transport region if EPA determines that ``additional reductions of
[NOX] would not contribute to attainment'' of the ozone NAAQS in
those areas. In some cases, an ozone nonattainment area might attain
the ozone standard, as demonstrated by 3 years of adequate monitoring
data, without having implemented the section 182(f) NOX provisions
over that 3-year period. The EPA believes that, in cases where a
nonattainment area is demonstrating attainment with 3 consecutive years
of air quality monitoring data without having implemented the section
182(f) NOX provisions, it is clear that the section 182(f) test is
met since ``additional reductions of [NOX] would not contribute to
attainment'' of the NAAQS in that area. The EPA's approval of the
exemption, if warranted, would be granted on a contingent basis (i.e.,
the exemption would last for only as long as the area's monitoring data
continue to demonstrate attainment).
NRDC Comment 3: The CAA does not authorize any waiver of the
NOX reduction requirements until conclusive evidence exists that
such reductions are counter-productive.
EPA Response: EPA does not agree with this comment since it ignores
Congressional intent as evidenced by the plain language of section
182(f), the structure of the Title I ozone subpart as a whole, and
relevant legislative history. By contrast, in developing and
implementing its NOX exemption policies, EPA has sought an
approach that reasonably accords with that intent. Section 182(f), in
addition to imposing control requirements on major stationary sources
of NOX similar to those that apply for such sources of VOC, also
provides for an exemption (or limitation) from application of these
requirements if, under one of several tests, EPA determines that in
certain areas NOX reductions would generally not be beneficial. In
subsection 182(f)(1), Congress explicitly conditioned action on
NOX exemptions on the results of an ozone precursor study required
under section 185B. Because of the possibility that reducing NOX
in a particular area may either not contribute to ozone attainment or
may cause the ozone problem to worsen, Congress included attenuating
language, not just in section 182(f) but throughout the Title I ozone
subpart, to avoid requiring NOX reductions where it would be
nonbeneficial or counterproductive. In describing these various ozone
provisions (including section 182(f), the House Conference Committee
Report states in pertinent part: ``[T]he Committee included a separate
NOX/VOC study provision in section [185B] to serve as the basis
for the various findings contemplated in the NOX provisions. The
Committee does not intend NOX reduction for reduction's sake, but
rather as a measure scaled to the value of NOX reductions for
achieving attainment in the particular ozone nonattainment area.'' H.R.
Rep. No. 490, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 257-258 (1990). As noted in
response to an earlier comment by these same commenters, the command in
subsection 182(f)(1) that EPA ``shall consider'' the 185B report taken
together with the time frame the Act provides both for completion of
the report and for acting on NOX exemption petitions clearly
demonstrate that Congress believed the information in the completed
section 185B report would provide a sufficient basis for EPA to act on
NOX exemption requests, even absent the additional information
that would be included in affected areas' attainment or maintenance
demonstrations. However, while there is no specific requirement in the
Act that EPA actions granting NOX exemption requests must await
``conclusive evidence,'' as the commenters argue, there is also nothing
in the Act to prevent EPA from revisiting an approved NOX
exemption if warranted due to better ambient information.
In addition, the EPA believes (as described in EPA's December 1993
guidance) that section 182(f)(1) of the CAA provides that the new
NOX requirements shall not apply (or may be limited to the extent
necessary to avoid excess reductions) if the Administrator determines
that any one of the following tests is met:
(1) in any area, the net air quality benefits are greater in the
absence of NOX reductions from the sources concerned;
(2) in nonattainment areas not within an ozone transport region,
additional NOX reductions would not contribute to ozone attainment
in the area; or
(3) in nonattainment areas within an ozone transport region,
additional NOX reductions would not produce net ozone air quality
benefits in the transport region.
Based on the plain language of section 182(f), EPA believes that
each test provides an independent basis for receiving a full or limited
NOX exemption. Only the first test listed above is based on a
showing that NOX reductions are ``counter-productive.'' If one of
the tests is met (even if another test is failed), the section 182(f)
NOX requirements would not apply or, under the excess reductions
provision, a portion of these requirements would not apply.
Pollution Probe (Ontario 9-27-94)
Air Quality Comment: Several commenters stated that the air quality
monitoring data alone does not support this exemption proposal. The air
quality levels are below EPA's definition of an exceedance of the ozone
NAAQS at 0.125 ppm, but are greater than the ozone NAAQS of 0.120 ppm.
EPA Response: For the reasons provided below, EPA does not agree
with the commenter's conclusion. As stated in 40 CFR 50.9, the ozone
``standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar
year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 parts per
million (235 ug/m3) is equal to or less than 1, as determined by
Appendix H.'' Appendix H references EPA's ``Guideline for
Interpretation of Ozone Air Quality Standards'' (EPA-450/4-79-003,
January 1979), which notes that the stated level of the standard is
taken as defining the number of significant figures to be used in
comparison with the standard. For example, a standard level of 0.12 ppm
means that measurements are to be rounded to two decimal places (0.005
rounds up to 0.01). Thus, 0.125 ppm is the smallest concentration value
in excess of the level of the ozone standard.
The transportation conformity rule states that its NOX
provisions do not apply when the Administrator has determined under
section 182(f) of the Clean Air Act that ``additional reductions of
NOX would not contribute to attainment.'' On June 17, 1994, EPA
published in the Federal Register the general preamble for exemption
from nitrogen oxide provisions (59 FR 31238). It was clarified in this
notice that guidance for transportation conformity is intended to also
apply with respect to general conformity. In accordance with this
guidance, once EPA grants the NOX transportation conformity
exemption, the area is
[[Page 36506]]
relieved of the transportation conformity rule's requirements for
regional analysis of NOX emissions. However, once the maintenance
plan for the middle Tennessee ozone nonattainment area is approved, any
previously approved NOX conformity exemption no longer applies.
The area must then demonstrate as part of its conformity determinations
that the transportation plan and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)
are consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget for NOX
where such a budget is established by the maintenance plan.
Final Action
The EPA is approving Tennessee's request to exempt the Middle
Tennessee moderate O3 nonattainment area from the section 182(f)
NOX RACT and NOX conformity requirements without a prior
proposal for approval because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. This
approval is based upon the evidence provided by Tennessee showing
compliance with the requirements outlined in the CAA and in applicable
EPA guidance. If a violation of the O3 NAAQS occurs in any portion
of the Middle Tennessee area while the area is designated
nonattainment, the exemption from the NOX RACT and NOX
conformity requirements of section 182(f) of the CAA in the applicable
area shall no longer apply.
This action is not a SIP revision and is not subject to the
requirements of section 110 of the CAA. The authority to approve or
disapprove exemptions from NOX requirements under section 182 of
the CAA was delegated to the Regional Administrator from the
Administrator in a memo dated July 6, 1994, from Jonathan Cannon,
Assistant Administrator, to the Administrator, titled, ``Proposed
Delegation of Authority: `Exemptions from Nitrogen Oxide Requirements
Under Clean Air Act section 182(f) and Related Provisions of the
Transportation and General Conformity Rules' Decision Memorandum.'' In
a separate document in this Federal Register publication, the EPA is
proposing to approve the request should adverse or critical comments be
filed. This action will be effective September 9, 1996 unless, by
August 12, 1996, adverse or critical comments are received.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the separate proposed
rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is
advised that this action will be effective September 9, 1996.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C.
7607(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed
in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by
September 9, 1996. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this
rule for purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within
which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2).)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. sections 603 and
604. Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000. This rule approves an exemption from a CAA requirement.
Therefore, I certify that it does not have a significant impact on any
small entities affected.
Unfunded Mandates
Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22,
1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed
or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of this state implementation plan or plan
revision, the State and any affected local or tribal governments have
elected to adopt the program provided for under Section 182 of the CAA.
These rules may bind State, local and tribal governments to perform
certain actions and also require the private sector to perform certain
duties. EPA has examined whether the rules being approved by this
action will impose any new requirements. Since such sources are already
subject to these regulations under State law, no new requirements are
imposed by this approval. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action, and therefore there will be no significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 18, 1996.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart RR--Tennessee
2. Section 52.2237 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2237 NOX RACT and NOX conformity exemption.
Approval--EPA is approving the section 182(f) oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) reasonably available control technology (RACT) and NOX
conformity exemption request submitted by the Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation on March 21, 1995, for the five county
middle Tennessee (Nashville) ozone moderate nonattainment area. This
approval exempts the area from implementing federal NOX RACT on
major sources of NOX and exempts Tennessee from NOX
conformity. This approval does not exempt sources from any State
required or State Implementation Plan (SIP) approved NOX controls.
If a violation of the ozone NAAQS occurs in the area, the exemption
from the requirement of section 182(f) of the CAA in the applicable
area shall not apply.
[FR Doc. 96-17644 Filed 7-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17643 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan for Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 134 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36501-36502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17643]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 157-0010; AD-FRL-5524-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan for Monterey Bay
Unified Air Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating approval of the new source review
(NSR) program submitted by the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution
Control District (MBUAPCD) for the purpose of meeting the nonattainment
and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) NSR requirements of
the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). The intended
effect of this rulemaking is to regulate air pollution in accordance
with the Act. Thus, EPA is finalizing the approval of these revisions
into the California state implementation plan (SIP) under provisions of
the CAA regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for national
primary and secondary ambient air quality standards and plan
requirements for nonattainment areas.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of MBUAPCD's submittals and other supporting
information used in developing this final approval are available for
inspection during normal business hours at the following location: U.S.
EPA, Region IX, Air & Toxics Division (A-5-1), 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Ringer at (415) 744-1260.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Purpose
The air quality planning requirements for nonattainment NSR are set
out in Part D of Title I of the Act, with implementing regulations at
40 CFR 51.160 through 51.165. The air quality planning requirements for
PSD are set out in Part C of Title I of the Act, with implementing
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166. On August 10, 1995, MBUAPCD submitted its
NSR rules to EPA as a proposed revision to the SIP. On April 22, 1996,
EPA proposed to approve with contingencies, and to disapprove in the
alternative, the submitted SIP revisions. See 61 FR 17675. Full
approval as a final action was contingent upon MBUAPCD making required
changes to the submitted rules. EPA requested public comments on the
proposed approval and received none. MBUAPCD has since submitted to
EPA, revised NSR rules which contain the required changes. EPA is
therefore promulgating final approval of the revised rules. The
specific changes that MBUAPCD made to its rules are detailed below.
The MBUAPCD Governing Board held a public hearing on March 20, 1996
to entertain public comment on its revised NSR rules. The Board adopted
the rules on the same date and the rules were submitted by the State to
EPA on May 10, 1996 as a revision to the SIP. The SIP revision was
reviewed by EPA and determined to be complete on May 22, 1996.
In its April 22, 1996 proposed approval, EPA identified two
deficiencies in MBUAPCD's August 10, 1995 submittal which had to be
corrected as a condition of full approval. At that time, MBUAPCD had
proposed draft rules which corrected the deficiencies. EPA's technical
support document (TSD) for the April 22, 1996 proposed approval
contains a discussion of how MBUAPCD's proposed draft rules would
correct the deficiencies, as well as how they would meet the general
NSR requirements of the Act. MBUAPCD's May 10, 1996 submittal is
substantially similar to the draft rules upon which EPA based its
proposed approval. Below is a discussion of the portions of MBUAPCD's
May 10, 1996 submittal which correct the deficiencies identified by
EPA.
Corrected Deficiencies
Rule 207, Section 4.2.9: In its April 22, 1996 proposed approval,
EPA specified that this section must be revised to require ``that any
emission reduction required as a precondition of the issuance of a
permit shall be made
[[Page 36502]]
federally enforceable prior to permit issuance''. Accordingly, MBUAPCD
modified this section of its rules such that the May 10, 1996 submittal
contains the following language: ``All emission reductions must be
identified and enforceable prior to issuance of the Authority to
Construct.'' This language satisfies EPA's requirement.
Rule 207, Section 4.3.3.2: EPA specified that this section must be
revised to require ``that emission reductions obtained from another
nonattainment area may be used only if (A) the other area has an equal
or higher nonattainment classification than the area in which the
source is located, and (B) emissions from such other area contribute to
a violation of the national ambient air quality standard in the
nonattainment area in which the source is located.'' Accordingly,
MBUAPCD's May 10, 1996 submittal contains a new section 4.3.3.2.2 with
the following language: ``The offsets may only be obtained from an
upwind area that has been designated by EPA to have a nonattainment
status equal to or more serious than the North Central Coast air
basin.'' and a new section 4.3.3.2.3 with the following language: ``The
offsets may only be obtained from an upwind area that could contribute
to violations of the national ambient air quality standards in the
North Central air basin.'' This language satisfies EPA's requirement.
Final Action and Implications
EPA is promulgating final approval of MBUAPCD's NSR program as
submitted on May 10, 1996. This submittal consists of MBUAPCD's Rules
207 (Review of New and Modified Sources) and 215 (Banking of Emission
Reductions)
EPA did not receive any comments on the changes detailed above that
were necessary to make MBUAPCD's program fully approvable. The scope of
this approval applies to all new or modified sources (as defined in the
program) within the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control
District.
Administrative Review
Copies of MBUAPCD's submittal and other information relied upon for
this final approval are contained in docket number NSRR 2-96 MBUAPCD,
at the EPA Regional Office. The docket is an organized and complete
file of all the information submitted to, or otherwise considered by,
EPA in development of this final approval. The docket is available for
public inspection at the location listed under the ADDRESSES section of
this document.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing,
or establishing a precedent for any future request for a revision to
any SIP. Each request for revision to a SIP shall be considered
separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental
factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory
requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, parts C and D of
the Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify
that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities
affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship
under the Act, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State
action. The Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct
1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 12866.
Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. EPA has determined that
the approval proposed in this notice does not include such a federal
mandate, as this proposed federal action would approve pre-existing
requirements under state or local law, and would impose no new federal
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this
action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, New source review, Nitrogen dioxide,
Prevention of significant deterioration, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: May 31, 1996.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
Subpart F of part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart F--California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(231) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(231) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were
submitted on May 10, 1996, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Monterey Bay Unified APCD.
(1) Rules 207 and 215, adopted on March 20, 1996.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-17643 Filed 7-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17602 Toll Free Service Access Codes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 134 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36515-36516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17602]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 61
[CC Docket No. 95-155]
Toll Free Service Access Codes
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule clarifies the Report and Order adopted by the
Common Carrier Bureau in January 1996, regarding the reservation of 888
numbers corresponding to 800 numbers in which subscribers have asserted
a commercial interest. In this decision the Commission provides
procedures to allow the release, into the general pool of toll free
numbers, any 888 number currently in the ``unavailable'' pool for which
the 800 subscriber originally requesting special treatment no longer
wishes to assert an interest. Database Service Management, Inc.
(``DSMI'') will make such release of 888 numbers only after collecting
the appropriate authorizations from the Responsible Organization
(``RespOrg'') and the 800 number customer releasing its 888 number
reservation. The release of these numbers will allow the new 888
service orders to be more efficiently filled and equitably allotted.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 25, 1996.
[[Page 36516]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary DeLuca, (202) 418-2334 Network
Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. This document is a synopsis of the
Commission's letter order (CC Docket 95-155, adopted June 24, 1996, and
released June 25, 1996). The letter clarifies provisions in the
Bureau's Report and Order In the Matter of Toll Free Service Access
Codes (CC Docket 95-155, adopted January 24, 1996, and released January
25, 1996, DA 96-69, 61 FR 7738, February 29, 1996). The file is
available for inspection and copying during the weekday hours of 9:00
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the Commission's Reference Center, room 239, 1919
M Street, NW., Washington, DC, or copies may be purchased from the
Commission's duplicating contractor, ITS, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW.,
Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037, phone (202) 857-3800.
2. Paperwork Reduction.
The Federal Communications Commission has submitted the foregoing
information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Section 3507.
Persons wishing to comment on this information collection should
contact Timothy Fain, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10236,
NEOB, Washington, D.C. 20503, (202) 395-0651. For further information,
contact Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications Commission, (202) 418-
0217.
3. Please note: The Commission has requested emergency review of
this collection information request by July 18, 1996, under the
provisions of 5 CFR Section 1320.13.
Title: Toll Free Service Access Codes--800/888 Number Release
Procedures
OMB Control No.: None.
Action: New Collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.
Estimated Annual Burden: 2,010 respondents; 1 hour per response;
2,010 hours total annual burden.
Needs and Uses: The Federal Communications Commission regulates the
provision of interstate telecommunications services by common carriers,
including common carrier paging systems, pursuant to Sections 1, 4, and
201-229 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
154, 201-229. One of the common carrier-offered services is toll free
service. This is a telephone service that allows charges for incoming
calls to be paid by the called party (i.e., the 800 subscriber), not
the caller. Toll free service is used widely today for both business
purposes and personal needs because it provides callers with a free and
convenient means of contacting parties holding toll free numbers. In a
January 1996, Report and Order, the Commission instructed DSMI to mark
as ``unavailable,'' in the toll free database, those 888 numbers which
corresponding 800 number customers sought to reserve. However, the
Commission did not intend to reserve any 888 number in which an 800
number customer later decided that it no longer wanted to assert an
interest. Therefore, the Commission authorized DMSI to release such 888
numbers after collecting the appropriate information from the
Responsible Organization or Toll Fee Service Provider and the 800
number customer releasing its 888 number reservation.
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, gathering the information and maintaining the
data. There are approximately 2,010 respondents consisting of the 160
telephone service Responsible Organizations and the estimated 1,850
toll free subscribers that may seek to release their interest in 888
numbers. Therefore the estimated annual burden of this information
collection requirement is 2,010 hours. Send comments regarding this
burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Federal
Communications Commission, Records Management Branch, Room 234,
Paperwork Reduction Project, Washington, DC 20554 and to the Office of
Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Washington, DC
20503.
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered That, pursuant to authority contained in
Sections 1, 4, 5, and 201-205 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 155, and 201-205 and Sec. 0.201(d) of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 2.201(d) DSMI shall follow the directive in
this order.
It is further ordered That, DSMI shall immediately distribute this
letter to all RespOrgs.
It is further ordered That this letter shall be effective upon
release.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 61
Communication common carriers.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-17602 Filed 7-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17600 Implementation of International Package Consignment Service
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 134 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36500-36501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17600]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 20
Implementation of International Package Consignment Service
AGENCY: Postal Service.
ACTION: Amendment to interim rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: International Package Consignment Service (IPCS) is an
international mail service designed for companies sending merchandise
to addresses in other countries. The service is currently available to
Japan, Canada, and the United Kingdom (U.K.). To use IPCS, a customer
is required to mail at least 25,000 packages a year to Japan, at least
25,000 packages a year to Canada, or at least 10,000 packages a year to
the U.K. This amendment provides an option for IPCS customers who meet
the minimum mailing requirements to any one IPCS country of destination
to enter additional packages for delivery in any other IPCS country of
destination at reduced volume thresholds, specifically, 5,000 packages
per year.
Therefore, an existing IPCS customer who satisfies the minimum
volume criteria for one destination country, has linked its information
systems with the Postal Service's, and who has established
transportation with the Postal Service may send additional packages to
other IPCS destination countries by signing a service agreement for
that destination country that commits the customer to mail at least
5,000 packages a year to other IPCS destinations of the customer's
choosing. Under this option, the customer has greater flexibility to
respond more easily to the market conditions in which he is competing
for overseas business while allowing the Postal Service to develop a
traffic base that contributes to greater economies of scale. The
interim implementing regulations have been amended and are set forth
below for comment and suggested revision prior to adoption in final
form.
DATES: The amended regulations take effect July 11, 1996. Comments must
be received on or before July 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed or delivered to
International Package Consignment Service, U.S. Postal Service, 475
L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room EB4400, Washington, DC 20260-6500. Copies of
all written comments will be available for public inspection and
photocopying at the above address between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, after July 25, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Gribben at the above address.
Telephone: (202) 268-3035.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: International Package Consignment Service
(IPCS) is designed to more closely meet the needs of customers who send
merchandise packages from the United States to multiple international
addresses by simplifying the process companies use to prepare their
packages for mailing and by reducing the costs those companies incur in
mailing merchandise to other countries.
IPCS benefits all users of the Postal Service because revenues
collected contribute to fixed costs, thereby decreasing the total
revenue that the Postal Service needs to recover from other services.
At the same time, IPCS makes it easier and more economical for
customers in the United States to export their products to
international markets.
Once a customer qualifies for IPCS into Japan, Canada, or the U.K.
and has started mailing into one of these destination countries, then
the minimum volume requirement for entry into any other country is
reduced to 5,000 packages a year. To be considered qualified, customers
must meet the following criteria: satisfy the minimum volume
requirement for an IPCS destination country, have its information
systems linked with the Postal Service's, and have transportation in
place between the customer and the Postal Service. The customer must
still enter into a separate service agreement for each IPCS destination
country to which it wants to use IPCS, and designate the Postal Service
as their carrier of choice to that IPCS destination country.
Accordingly, the Postal Service hereby amends IPCS to allow
qualified customers to satisfy lower minimum volumes when entering into
IPCS service agreements to additional destination countries. Although
39 U.S.C. 407 does not require advance notice and opportunity for
submission of comments, and the Postal Service is exempted by 39 U.S.C.
410(a) from the
[[Page 36501]]
advance notice requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act
regarding proposed rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 553), the Postal Service
invites interested persons to submit written data, views, or arguments
concerning this interim rule.
The Postal Service adopts the following amendments to the
International Mail Manual, which is incorporated by reference in the
Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 20.1.
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 20
Foreign relations, Postal service.
PART 20--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 20 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 401, 404, 407, 408.
Subchapter 620--Amended
2. Subchapter 620 of the International Mail Manual, Issue 16, is
amended as follows:
6 Special Programs
* * * * *
620 International Package Consignment Service
* * * * *
622 Qualifying Customers
To qualify, a customer must enter into a service agreement
containing the commitments stipulated in 625.2 and must be able to meet
the general and destination country-specific preparation requirements
stipulated in 620 and the Individual Country Listings.
Once a customer qualifies for IPCS and has started mailing into a
destination country, then the minimum volume requirement for entry into
any other country is reduced to 5,000 packages a year. To be considered
qualified, customers must meet the following criteria: satisfy the
minimum volume requirement for their destination country, have its
information systems linked with the Postal Service's; and have
transportation in place between the customer and the Postal Service.
The customer must still enter into a separate service agreement for
each destination country to which it wants to use IPCS and designate
the Postal Service as its carrier of choice to that destination
country.
* * * * *
625 IPCS Service Agreements
* * * * *
625.2 Required Provisions
Each service agreement must contain the following:
a. The customer's commitment to send at least 25,000 packages to
Japan or Canada (or 10,000 to the United Kingdom) by IPCS during the
next 12 months. However, once a customer enters into an IPCS agreement
to one destination country and begins mailing, then that customer may
enter other destination countries by committing to mail at least 5,000
packages to the other destination countries. A customer's failure to
meet the original volume requirements may result in termination, by the
Postal Service, of the right to mail to other destination countries.
* * * * *
Stanley F. Mires,
Chief Counsel, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 96-17600 Filed 7-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17581 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Air Brake Systems; Long- Stroke Brake Chambers
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 134 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36516-36519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17581]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 57l
[Docket No. 93-54, Notice 3]
RIN 2127-AG25
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Air Brake Systems; Long-
Stroke Brake Chambers
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule, response to petitions for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to petitions for reconsideration, this document
amends the reservoir requirements in Standard No. 121, Air Brake
Systems, for trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brakes. The
agency believes that the amendments will improve the braking efficiency
of such vehicles and reduce the number of brakes found to be out of
adjustment during inspections. It will do this by removing a design
restriction that tends to discourage the use of long-stroke brake
chambers, a technology with potentially significant safety benefits.
DATES: Effective Date: The amendments become effective on September 9,
1996.
Petitions for Reconsideration: Any petitions for reconsideration of
this rule must be received by NHTSA no later than August 26, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this rule should refer to
Docket 93-54; Notice 3 and should be submitted to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For non-legal issues: Mr. Richard Carter, Office of Vehicle Safety
Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-366-5274).
For legal issues: Mr. Marvin L. Shaw, NCC-20, Rulemaking Division,
Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202)
366-2992.
[[Page 36517]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, specifies performance
requirements applicable to vehicles equipped with air brakes. The
Standard also requires air-braked vehicles to be equipped with various
types of equipment, including an air compressor and reservoirs. (See
section S5.1) The reservoirs store energy, in the form of air at high
pressure, that is used to apply a vehicle's brakes. Without such
reservoirs, the vehicle's air compressor could not maintain adequate
pressure during successive rapid brake applications.
On January 12, 1995, NHTSA issued a final rule amending the
reservoir requirements in Standard No. 121 for trucks, buses, and
trailers equipped with air brake systems. (60 FR 2892) Prior to that
final rule, Standard No. 121 specified a minimum ratio between the
volume of the service reservoirs and the volume of the brake chambers.
Under the ratio for trucks, the combined volume of all the service and
supply reservoirs had to be at least 12 times the combined volume of
all the service brake chambers at the maximum travel of the piston. The
1995 final rule amended Standard No. 121 to allow the minimum required
air capacity in the service reservoirs to be determined either by the
above mentioned ratio (i.e., 12 times the combined volume) or by its
``rated volume.'' The ``rated volume'' of each brake chamber is
determined pursuant to a table of specified values according to the
area of the brake diaphragm and the length of the stroke.
In issuing the 1995 final rule, NHTSA sought to encourage the use
of brake chambers with longer strokes. Such brake chambers are commonly
known as ``long-stroke'' chambers, in reference to the longer piston or
pushrod travel that they incorporate. Reports 1 by NHTSA and the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) indicated that long stroke
chambers help improve brake adjustment on heavy vehicles. However, the
reports also noted that the previous reservoir ratio requirements would
have necessitated much larger reservoirs when long-stroke chambers are
used. Thus, while the previous requirements did not prohibit long-
stroke chambers, the related requirements for reservoir size
significantly discouraged their use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Automatic Slack Adjusters for Heavy Vehicle Brake Systems,
February 1991, DOT HS 807 724, and the National Transportation
Safety Board Heavy Vehicle Airbrake Performance, 1992, PB92-917003/
NTSB/SS-92/01
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1995 final rule, NHTSA specified rated volumes of certain
brake chambers in Table V ``Brake Chamber Rated Volumes'' that were
larger than the rated volumes proposed in the NPRM. This was done to
reflect the largest volumes of standard stroke air brake chambers that
are currently available. The agency also modified Table V by specifying
upper limits to the stroke lengths for the rated volumes that were
listed. The agency believed that it was necessary to specify such
limits to preclude manufacturers from extending stroke lengths beyond
the point at which adequate air pressure reserves were available to
bring a vehicle to a complete stop. The agency also modified Table V by
limiting the situations in which a vehicle manufacturer may use the
``rated volume'' rather than the actual brake chamber volume when
determining minimum reservoir volume. Specifically, the final rule
specified that rated volume may only be used when the maximum strokes
for long stroke chambers are no more than 20 percent longer than the
nominal stroke for standard stroke chambers.
In the 1995 final rule, NHTSA stated that long-stroke chambers
provide several benefits, including improved braking efficiency, a
reduction in the number of brakes found to be out of adjustment during
inspections, and a reduction in the incidence of dragging brakes. The
agency further stated that these amendments removed a design
restriction that tended to discourage the use of long stroke brake
chambers, a technology that it believed could provide significant
safety benefits.
II. Petitions for Reconsideration
NHTSA received several petitions for reconsideration that
criticized the 1995 final rule, claiming that the rated volumes adopted
by the agency would still impede the introduction of long stroke
chambers. The petitioners included vehicle manufacturers (Mack Truck,
Ford Motor Company, White/GMC-Volvo, Navistar International, and
Paccar), brake manufacturers (Midland-Grau and MGM Brakes), the Heavy
Duty Brake Manufacturers Council (HDBMC), and the American Trucking
Associations (ATA). Midland-Grau, ATA, and Ford stated that the rated
volumes for various types of brake chambers were smaller in the final
rule than the proposal. As a result, these petitioners stated that long
stroke chambers could only be used if vehicles were redesigned to be
equipped with much larger reservoirs. As the following table indicates,
the petitioners recommended new rated volumes that were less than those
in the final rule. All the rated volumes are in terms of cubic inches.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Midland-
Chamber type NPRM Final rule Grau MGM ATA HDBMC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type 9............................ 17 25 ........... 25
Type 12........................... 23 30 ........... 30
Type 14........................... 35 40 ........... 40
Type 16........................... 40 50 46 46 40 46
Type 18........................... 45 55 50 50 ........... 50
Type 20........................... 50 60 54 54 50 54
Type 24........................... 61 70 70 70 67
Type 30........................... 84 95 89 89 84 90
Type 36........................... 121 135 ........... 135
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. NHTSA's Determination
A. General Considerations
After reviewing the available information, NHTSA has decided to
revise certain rated volumes in Table V, thereby removing design
restrictions that had continued to discourage the use of long stroke
brake chambers. Specifically, the agency has decided to reduce the
rated volumes for Type 16 chambers from 50 cubic inches to 46 cubic
inches, for Type 18 chambers from 55 cubic inches to 50 cubic inches,
for Type 20 chambers from 60 cubic inches to 54 cubic inches, Type 24
chambers from 70 cubic inches to 67 cubic inches, and Type 30 chambers
from 95 cubic inches to 89 cubic inches.
[[Page 36518]]
These reductions are consistent with the rated volumes requested by the
brake chamber manufacturers. The agency believes that the rated volumes
being specified will ensure that there is an adequate amount of air
reserves to accommodate the widespread use of antilock brake systems
(ABS), a technology that requires greater air supplies. The agency also
has increased the stroke length for Type 24 chambers from 2.25/2.70
inches to 2.50/3.20 inches, given that manufacturers now only
manufacture long stroke chambers of the larger size. The agency did not
amend the rated volumes and stroke lengths for Type 9 chambers, Type 12
chambers, Type 14 chambers, and Type 36 chambers, because no petitioner
requested that the requirements for these brake types be modified.
NHTSA has concluded that these modifications will encourage the use
of long stroke chambers without adversely affecting safety. This
determination is based on the following considerations. First, NHTSA
has recently increased the minimum compressor cut-in requirement from
85 psi to 100 psi. (61 FR 6173, February 16, 1996) This change will
result in the amount of reserved air increasing between 10 percent and
15 percent. In addition, the safety of long stroke chambers is
confirmed by a study 2 by the agency's Vehicle Research Test
Center (VRTC) that compared the effects of standard and long stroke
brake chambers on brake application and release timing and on the
amount of air used under normal braking situations. Measurements were
made of the volumes of typical standard and long stroke chambers, the
effects of brake actuation and release timing for combination vehicles,
and the pressure drops for simulated on-road situations and for a test
procedure to measure reservoir capacity. Vehicle tests involved driving
situations that would be the most severe in terms of air consumption
(i.e., a mountain descent, and stops with ABS cycling on a slippery
surface with the brakes at their maximum adjustment level). In
addition, VRTC simulated a compressor failure to portray ``worst case''
situations. Based on these tests, the agency concluded that ``there was
essentially no difference in the timing and air consumption for
standard and long stroke chambers with the brakes fully adjusted.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Flick, Mark, ``Tests to Evaluate Reservoir Volume
Requirements for Standard and Long Stroke Chambers,'' VRTC-82-0255
(January 1996)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The safety of long stroke brake chambers was further confirmed by
data submitted by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Truck and
Bus Brake System Subcommittee that is developing the performance
requirements for a test procedure that will evaluate air reservoir
capacities, SAE J2205. These data, obtained from several vehicle
manufacturers and brake manufacturers, indicated no safety problem.
Specifically, air consumption was tested on four different makes of ABS
by stopping fully loaded five-axle tractor-trailer combinations on wet
slippery surfaces with a peak friction coefficient (PFC) of 0.50. The
development work which established the test parameters of SAE J2205
indicated that the highest air consumption occurs during stops on low
coefficient of friction surfaces which typically have long stopping
time durations. The antilock systems cycled from 10 to 13 seconds
before the vehicles were stopped in these tests. This is substantially
longer than would be experienced in the vast majority of braking
events. At the end of the tests, sufficient air pressure remained in
the systems to continue cycling of the ABS for at least another 7
seconds, which amounts to reserves ranging from 54 to 70 percent. In
addition, vehicle manufacturers submitted data about how they specify
total reservoir volume in relation to the size of their front and rear
brake chambers used on at least 80 percent of the vehicles they
manufacture.
Based on the manufacturers' data, NHTSA believes that the revisions
to the rated volumes in Table V will allow approximately 95 percent of
currently manufactured air-braked vehicles to use long stroke brake
chambers, without having to increase the size of brake chamber
reservoirs. As NHTSA stated in the final rule, long-stroke chambers
provide important safety benefits including, improved braking
efficiency, a reduction in the number of brakes found to be out of
adjustment during inspections, and a reduction in the incidence of
dragging brakes. The agency believes that specifying these slightly
lower rated volumes will remove a design restriction that tended to
discourage the use of long stroke brake chambers, a technology that can
provide significant safety benefits. Given these safety benefits and no
corresponding detriment to safety, NHTSA concludes that today's
modifications to the rated volumes in Table V are appropriate.
B. Miscellaneous Considerations
ATA requested that the agency eliminate type 9, 12, 14, 18, and 36
brake chambers from Table V since they do not currently come in long
stroke versions.
NHTSA has decided to retain the rated volumes for type 9, 12, 14,
18, and 36 brake chambers in Table V, even though brake manufacturers
currently do not manufacture brake chambers of such sizes. The agency
believes that retaining the option for having a rated volume for
chambers of such sizes is appropriate since it allows manufacturers to
decide to develop additional long stroke chambers without the necessity
of seeking an amendment to Table V.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulation) and DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking
document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866. This action has been
determined to be not ``significant'' under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rule does not
affect the cost estimates made by the agency regarding the January 1995
final rule since it will not impose any new requirements on
manufacturers. Instead, the rule will facilitate the introduction of a
new brake design by removing a design restriction. Therefore, the
agency believes that this rulemaking will not result in additional
costs or cost savings. Accordingly, a full regulatory evaluation is not
required for this rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NHTSA has
evaluated the effects of this action on small entities. Based upon this
evaluation, I certify that the amendments will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Vehicle and
brake manufacturers typically do not qualify as small entities. For the
reasons noted above, the agency believes that this amendment will not
have any cost impact on the industry. Small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental units which purchase motor
vehicles will not be affected by the requirements. Accordingly, no
regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.
D. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that
[[Page 36519]]
the rule will not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment. No State laws will be affected.
E. National Environmental Policy Act
Finally, the agency has considered the environmental implications
of this final rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 and determined that the rule will not significantly affect
the human environment.
F. Civil Justice Reform
This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the State requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 is amended as
follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.121 is amended by revising Table V which appears
immediately after Figure 3.
Sec. 571.121 Standard No. 121, Air brake systems.
* * * * *
Table V.--Brake Chamber Rated Volumes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column 2
Column 1 rated
Brake chamber type (nominal area of piston or full stroke volume
diaphragm in square inches) (inches) (cubic
inches)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type 9.......................................... 1.75/2.10 25
Type 12......................................... 1.75/2.10 30
Type 14......................................... 2.25/2.70 40
Type 16......................................... 2.25/2.70 46
Type 18......................................... 2.25/2.70 50
Type 20......................................... 2.25/2.70 54
Type 24......................................... 2.50/3.20 67
Type 30......................................... 2.50/3.20 89
Type 36......................................... 3.00/3.60 135
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued on: July 3, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-17581 Filed 7-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17549 Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Minor Changes to the Testing Requirements for Registration
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 134 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36506-36513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17549]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 79
[FRL-5532-4]
Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Minor Changes to the
Testing Requirements for Registration
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36507]]
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or the
``Agency'') is issuing, as a direct final rule, minor changes to the
health-effects testing requirements at 40 CFR Part 79, Subpart F. These
requirements deal with the exposure of animals to evaporate and exhaust
emissions from motor vehicles. The changes allow for increased
flexibility in engine selection, correct an inconsistency with respect
to mixing chamber quality assurance, establish clearer exposure timing
requirements, provide a necessary option for the units in which
emissions data are reported for heavy-duty vehicle engines, clarify
oxygen purity requirements, make some minor syntax changes, clarify the
handling of the measurements of background chemical species in the
ambient air used by the engine generating emissions, clarify the
driving schedules, clarify the exposure concentration requirements in
the inhalation chamber, clarify dilution system requirements, and
clarify the requirements for the collection of particulates and semi-
volatiles. These changes will reduce the testing costs without
affecting the environmental objectives. This action is being taken
without prior notice because EPA believes that the minor changes in the
testing requirements will be noncontroversial.
The rule implementing the testing requirements was finalized on May
27, 1994 (59 FR 33042, June 27, 1994). The test data will be used by
the Agency to determine if the emissions of certain gasolines and/or
diesel fuels present an unacceptable risk to public health. For
additional background information see the procedure in this issue of
the Federal Register proposing changes to the registration regulations.
The changes in this direct final rule have also been incorporated into
that notice of proposed rulemaking. If an adverse comment or a request
for a public hearing is received on this direct final rule, EPA will
withdraw the direct final rule and address the comment(s) in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.
DATES: This action will be effective on August 26, 1996 unless EPA
receives an adverse comment or a request for a public hearing by August
12, 1996. If EPA receives an adverse comment or hearing request by that
date, EPA will withdraw this action via a document in the Federal
Register. All correspondence should be directed to the addresses below.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking have been placed in
Docket A-90-07. The docket is located at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Docket Section (LE-131), 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, DC 20460 in Room M-1500 of Waterside Mall. Documents may be
inspected between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. Those wishing to
notify EPA of their intent to submit an adverse comment or request a
public hearing should contact Joseph Fernandes (202) 233-9756 or Jim
Caldwell (202) 233-9303 at the EPA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Fernandes (202) 233-9756 or Jim
Caldwell (202) 233-9303, USEPA, Office of Mobile Sources, Fuels and
Energy Division, Mail Code 6406J, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC
20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Regulated Entities
Regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this
action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................. Manufacturers of gasoline
and diesel fuel.
Manufacturers of additives
for gasoline and diesel
fuel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could be potentially regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your entity would be regulated by this action, you should carefully
examine this preamble and the proposed changes to the regulatory text.
You should also carefully examine the existing provisions of the
registration program at 40 CFR part 79.
II. Background
For program background, see the notice in this issue of the Federal
Register proposing non-minor changes to the registration regulations
for fuels and fuel additives (F/FA). The changes to the testing
requirements in this direct final rule are minor and noncontroversial.
III. Requirements for New Vehicles/Engines
To ensure that the tests conducted on the emissions of one F/FA are
not affected by ``carryover'' emissions from other F/FAs previously
used in the test vehicle, Sec. 79.57 of the registration regulations
requires that a new vehicle or engine be used in the testing of each F/
FA. The regulations also recommend that one or more identical new
vehicles or engines be acquired as backup emission generators for each
F/FA.
The regulated industry has commented to EPA that this requirement
is burdensome, expensive, and unnecessary. They argue that suitable
conditioning procedures can satisfactorily ``flush out'' the remnants
of one F/FA and its emissions, so that the same vehicle or engine can
be used in testing another F/FA without fear of carryover effects. If
this were permitted, a substantially smaller fleet of initial test
vehicles/engines might suffice for a given series of F/FAs. Also, a
relatively small number of additional vehicles could be acquired to
serve as shared backups for the testing of more than one F/FA.
A previous technical communication 1 discussed in detail the
possibility of short-term and long-term carryover effects due to test
vehicles/engines being used for multiple F/FAs. It also described the
restrictions and procedural safeguards which could be adopted to
minimize potential carryover problems. Based on that earlier
discussion, EPA believes it is now appropriate to ease some of the
restrictions on test vehicle use in some circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1. Memo to Docket A-90-07 from James D. Greaves, ``A
Preconditioning Cycle for Potential Use in the Fuels and Fuel
Additives Registration Program,'' 1992 (Docket Item II-B-8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under this revision, the requirement that only new vehicles be used
in the test program (specified in Sec. 79.57(a)(1)) has been retained,
since it would not be possible to know how, and with what range of F/FA
products, a vehicle had been operated in general use. However, it is
now acceptable for a single test vehicle or engine to be used
sequentially by different F/FA manufacturers for tests on different F/
FAs, assuming that adequate documentation is furnished to demonstrate
that the test vehicle/engine had not been used for purposes other than
testing under this program and that such previous testing was
restricted to F/FA types (see below) for which such test vehicle
sharing was allowed. The responsibility for assuring the adequacy of
such documentation falls to the fuel manufacturer who secondarily
acquires the test vehicle.
As discussed in the previously-cited technical memorandum, concerns
about possible long-term carryover effects arise primarily in regard to
``atypical''
[[Page 36508]]
elements. Consistent with that discussion, EPA believes that the
current prohibition against using test vehicles/engines for more than
one F/FA should be retained in the case of atypical F/FAs. However, in
the case of F/FAs which belong to the same fuel family (as defined in
Sec. 79.56(e)(1)) and which contain no elements other than carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur, EPA believes that long-term
carryover effects are of minimal concern, and thus believes that it is
acceptable to permit test vehicles to be used for more than one such F/
FA. Thus, for example, a given test vehicle/engine could be used in
testing base gasoline and one or more nonbaseline gasoline
formulations. A vehicle that had been used for baseline and/or
nonbaseline gasoline testing may be used in testing one a typical F/FA
formulation, but may not subsequently be used for additional baseline/
nonbaseline F/FA testing nor for testing of other atypical F/FAs.
To prevent short-term carryover effects, a preconditioning
procedure is required to ``flush out'' the remnants of a previously
tested F/FA and its emissions from a vehicle's fuel system, engine,
exhaust system, and emission control system, before that vehicle is
used in the testing of another F/FA. A suitable ``intermediate
preconditioning cycle'' was described in the technical memorandum cited
previously, and EPA has adopted this cycle, to prevent short-term
carryover effects between tested F/FAs. Section 79.52(b)(2) is revised
accordingly.
IV. Mixing Chamber Quality Assurance
The method specified in the F/FA program regulations for generating
combustion emissions to be used in biological testing
(Sec. 79.57(e)(2)) requires a mixing chamber or other apparatus to
smooth out the variability in emission concentrations related to
transient-cycle operations. As a quality assurance mechanism,
Sec. 79.57(e)(2)(iii)(C) states that this apparatus ``must function
such that the average concentration of total hydrocarbons leaving the
apparatus shall be within 10 percent of the average concentration of
hydrocarbons entering the chamber.'' EPA has noted that this language
is inconsistent with Sec. 79.57(e)(2)(iv)(C), which allows intentional
dilution of the exhaust stream to occur ``in the mixing chamber (and/or
after leaving the chamber) to achieve the desired biological exposure
concentrations.''
To correct this inconsistency, the language in
Sec. 79.57(e)(2)(iii)(C) is changed to account for intentional exhaust
dilution. Specifically, the following phrase has been added to the end
of the provision cited above: ``* * *, taking into account any further
intentional dilution occurring in the apparatus pursuant to paragraph
(e)(2)(iv)(C) of this section.''
V. Exposure Interruptions
Section 79.57(e)(2)(vii) of the regulations specifies how long
biological exposures may be interrupted without voiding a test-in-
progress. EPA has received feedback from the regulated industry that
the language in this section is confusing and that, furthermore, it is
inconsistent with customary laboratory practices. EPA agrees with this
criticism and has revised the cited section, substituting new exposure
time requirements.
Specifically, EPA has incorporated into the regulations the
following minimum requirements: (1) A daily exposure must be at least 6
hours plus the time necessary to build the chamber atmosphere to 90
percent of the target exposure atmosphere; (2) A day in which the
minimum exposure time has not been achieved does not count as an
exposure day; (3) Exposures must be conducted at least 4 days per week;
(4) No more than two non-exposure days may occur consecutively during
the exposure period, including weekends and days on which the minimum
exposure time has not been met.
These exposure rules purposely do not make allowance for Federal
holidays. EPA believes that additional ``down'' days for holidays could
impact the results of the 90-day test periods required under Tier 2,
and could interfere with EPA's ability to compare the results with
other F/FAs tested during cycles in which holidays did not occur.
Furthermore, if a particular health effects test guideline contains
exposure requirements that differ from these general rules, then the
specific requirements would take precedence. An example is the
Fertility and Teratology assessment at Sec. 79.63(c)(1), which requires
exposures to pregnant animal subjects each day during the first 15 days
of gestation.
Under this change, biological tests which did not achieve exposures
consistent with the above rules would be considered void. The same
rules would be applied to both evaporative emission and exhaust
emission tests. See the revised language at Secs. 79.57(f)(3),
79.57(e)(2)(vii) and 79.61(d)(5). A new Sec. 79.63(e)(4)(iii) has been
added to emphasize the special exposure requirements of
Sec. 79.63(c)(1).
VI. Units for Reporting Emissions Data
Section 79.52(b)(1)(iv) specifies that manufacturers report
emissions data in units of grams per mile and weight percent total
hydrocarbons. These units are typically used to report emissions data
from light-duty vehicles operating on chassis dynamometers, but may be
inappropriate for reporting emissions data from other engine/vehicle
classes operating on engine dynamometers. As such, the wording of
paragraph 79.52(b)(1)(iv) has been changed to specify that F/FA
manufacturers should use brake-specific emission values in units of
grams per brake-horsepower/hour (gm/BHP-HR) where these units are
appropriate to the emissions test configuration and the vehicle/engine
being tested.
If brake-specific emissions data are reported, then corresponding
changes are needed at several other points in the regulations. Section
79.52(b)(2)(iii)(D) specified that the concentration of individual
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and nitrated-polyaromatic hydrocarbons
(NPAHs) identified in Tier 1 emissions analyses shall be reported only
in units of microgram (g) per mile, with 0.001 g per
mile as the minimum threshold for identifying and reporting on a
particular PAH or NPAH compound. Similarly, Sec. 79.52(b)(2)(iii)(E)
specified that the concentration of each polychlorinated dibenzodioxin/
polychlorinated dibenzofuran (PCDD/PCDF) identified in the Tier 1
emissions stream shall be reported in units of picograms (pg) per mile,
with 0.5 pg per mile or more as the minimum threshold for identifying
and reporting on a particular PCDD/PCDF compound.
These sections have been revised to allow reporting of PAH, NPAH,
and PCDD/PCDF emissions data in units of grams per BHP-HR, where
appropriate. The counterpart to the g/mile reporting threshold for PAH
and NPAH compounds, expressed in terms of brake-specific emissions,
would be 0.5 nanograms per BHP-HR or more. Likewise, the counterpart to
the g/mile reporting threshold for PCDD/PCDF compounds would be 0.3 pg
per BHP-HR or more. These counterpart values were derived by applying
fleet average conversion factors for converting grams per mile to grams
per BHP-HR, specified in EPA Technical Report EPA-AA-SDSB-89-1.
For similar reasons, Secs. 79.68 (f)(1) and (f)(5)(vi) of the
Salmonella typhimurium reverse mutation assay guidelines have been
modified to permit data from this assay to be presented in units of
either revertants per kilometer (mile) or
[[Page 36509]]
revertants per BHP-HR, whichever is appropriate to the case at hand.
VII. Oxygenate Purity
Section 79.51(i) specifies that a fuel manufacturer who reports the
potential use of more than one oxygenating additive in his non-baseline
fuel is responsible for testing (or participating in group testing) of
a separate fuel formulation for each such oxygenating additive. This
provision has caused some concern that the occurrence in an oxygenate
additive of unintended oxygenate byproducts of the manufacturing
process could multiply the testing responsibilities of a fuel
manufacturer. For example, concern has been expressed that the
occurrence of a small amount of tertiary-amyl-ethyl ether (TAEE) as an
unintended byproduct of ethyl-tertiary-butyl ether (ETBE) production
will affect the grouping of an ETBE additive and will cause a fuel
manufacturer who blends ETBE into his fuel to be responsible for
testing TAEE as well as ETBE (see docket item VI-D-10). This was not
EPA's intention in promulgating this provision. Section 79.51(i)(4) has
been revised to state that small amounts of unintended oxygenate
compounds occurring as byproducts of the manufacturing process of an
oxygenating additive do not affect the grouping of the affected F/FAs
nor the testing responsibilities of their manufacturers.
E. Minor Syntax Changes and Clarifications
Minor changes to the regulations are also needed to correct some
specific syntax errors. The phrase ``Within May 27, 1997,'' occurring
at the beginning of both Secs. 79.51(c)(1)(ii) (A) and (B), has been
changed to ``No later than May 27, 1997''. Similarly, the phrase
``within May 26, 2000,'' occurring within Sec. 79.51(c)(1)(ii)(B), has
been changed to ``by May 26, 2000.'' The language at the beginning of
Sec. 79.51(e)(1), which read, ``A testing facility, emissions analysis
or health and/or welfare effects, shall permit * * * '' has been
changed to: ``A testing facility, whether engaged in emissions analysis
or health and/or welfare effects testing under these regulations, shall
permit * * * '' Some of the wording in Secs. 79.57(e) (2)(i), (2)(ii)
(2)(ii)(B), (3)(i), and (3)(i)(A) has been changed to clarify the
driving schedules to be used when operating the vehicle or engine to
generate combustion emissions for biological testing. The wording in
Secs. 79.51(h), (h)(1)(ii), and (h)(1)(ii) (A) and (B) dealing with
additives belonging to more than one fuel family, has been revised to
make this provision easier to understand, without changing the
substance of the requirements.
VIII. Background Concentrations
Section 79.52(b)(l)(iii) requires that the ambient/dilution air to
the engine generating emissions for characterization be analyzed for
levels of background chemical species present at the time of emission
sampling (for both combustion and evaporative emissions). These
background chemical species concentrations are to be reported with
emissions speciation data. This information is necessary so that it can
be subtracted from the measured combustion and evaporative
concentrations in order to determine the contribution for the F/FA.
Section 79.52(b)(l)(iii) is revised to clarify this and require that
only the corrected values be reported.
IX. Repetitive Driving Schedules
Section 79.57(e)(l)(I) requires the Light-Duty Urban Dynamometer
Driving Schedule (UDDS) or the Heavy Duty Engine Dynamometer Schedule
(EDS) as per 40 CFR part 86. Both of these driving schedules require
cold starts at the beginning of the cycle, and they include extended
engine-off times (10 minutes between bags 2 and 3 for light duty and 20
minutes between cold and hot cycles for heavy duty). While the
inclusion of cold starts and extended engine-off times are appropriate
for the certification of new vehicles and engines, these two
requirements pose significant impracticalities from the standpoint of
generating combustion emissions for animal exposures.
First, if the UDDS were repeated as per the new vehicle
certification procedure, an eight hour animal exposure would require 24
engines sequenced for a cold start every 20 minutes. Second, the
engine-off time requirements from the certification procedure typically
involve extended periods of zero emissions. If these were incorporated
into the Tier 2 biological testing, the later requirements for a
``settling chamber'' which will dampen out transients to the point that
exposure concentrations are held constant within 10%, would
result in the need for a huge settling chamber.
Thus it is appropriate to allow the engine used for animal
exposures to be operated over repeated ``hot'' driving cycles. This
would entail repeated Bags 2 and 3 of the UDDS for light-duty vehicles
and back-to-back repeats of the heavy-duty transient cycle for heavy-
duty engines. Both of these should be run without extended idles or
engine-off periods.
Repeated operation of the engine over the hot portions (bags 2 and
3) of the FTP will avoid the extended engine-off periods which do not
contribute anything to animal exposure. This would minimize the
transients in the species concentrations, and reduce the need for a
large settling chamber, without changing the nature of the species
present for the animal exposure. A new Sec. 79.57(e)(1)(i)(C) has been
added to reflect this.
X. Exposure Concentration
Section 79.57(e)(2)(vi)(B) requires that the mean exposure
concentration in the inhalation chamber be within 10 percent of the
target concentration on 90 percent or more of the days. This implies
that target concentrations must be established for CO, CO2,
NOX, SOX, and total HC, and none can vary by more than 10% of
the targets on 90% or more of the exposure days. Given the fundamentals
of engine combustion and the transient nature of the driving cycles, it
is impossible to maintain all combustion emission products at a
constant level all of the time. The focus should be on the pollutants
which are limiting for the animals in terms of exposure, which is CO
for gasoline and NOX for diesel. The engine operator will only be
able to vary the exhaust dilution ratio, and thus control is assured
for only one pollutant (CO or NOX) at a time. Section
79.57(e)(2)(vi)(B) has been revised accordingly.
XI. Dilution System
Section 79.57(e)(2)(I) states that the biological tests are to be
performed ``* * * using emissions generated from the test vehicle or
engine operated in general accordance with the FTP procedures cited in
this section.'' Later in this section (at Sec. 79.57(e)(2)(iii)), the
regulations state that ``An apparatues to integrate the large
concentration swings typical of transient-cycle exhaust is to be used
between the FTP-Constant Volume Sampler (CVS) source of emissions and
the exposure chamber containing the animal test cages.'' These
statements imply that a CVS is required to be used as a first stage of
dilution in the delivery of combustion emissions for animal exposure.
However, we have received a comment that the dilution needed for
gasoline blends and for diesel fuels will be more than can be
accomplished with a CVS. Therefore, the test laboratory should not be
required to use a CVS as a first stage of dilution. In fact, it may be
most practical to use a constant dilution (rather than volume) sampler
to minimize transient concentrations for the animal exposures. Section
[[Page 36510]]
Sec. 79.57(e)(2)(iii) has been revised to allow the use of any dilution
system design that achieves the necessary concentration of CO or
NOX (whichever is limiting) and reduces transient concentration
exposure.
XII. Collection of Particulates and Semi-volatiles
Section 79.57(e)(1)(ii) states that emissions of particulates and
semi-volatiles are to be collected over triplicate FTP tests for light-
duty vehicles and analyzed as part of the requirements for the
characterization of combustion emissions. However, the regulatory
language in Sec. 79.57(e)(1)(iii)(A) further states that ``If the mass
of particulate emissions or semi-volatile emissions obtained during one
driving cycle is not sufficient for characterization, then the driving
cycle may be performed again and the extracted fractions combined prior
to chemical analysis.'' The number of driving cycles that ``may be
performed'' is left unclear and potentially conflicts with the
triplicate FTP requirements. We have received a comment that the
available literature on gasoline blends suggests that the amount of
particulate and semi-volatile emissions collected from one FTP test on
a light-duty vehicle is extremely minute, if not less than the
detection limits afforded by measurement and analytical procedures
currently in use. Thus Sec. 79.57(e)(1)(iii)(A) has been revised to
clarify that no more than the three FTP tests are required to be
performed for the collection of particulate and semi-volatile
emissions. And, the test laboratory should focus on the
characterization of the limit detection for particulates and semi-
volatile emissions.
XIII. Environmental and Economic Impacts
The environmental impacts of today's action are minimal, as
discussed above. Additionally, economic impacts are beneficial to
affected manufacturers due to the additional flexibility afforded in
today's notice. Minimal anti-competitive effects are expected. A
regulatory support document which presents EPA's analysis of the cost
impacts of the May 1994 rule is available in Public Docket A-90-07
located at Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St. S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460.
XIV. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. This rule will
reduce regulatory burdens on small businesses by reducing or
eliminating the reporting and testing requirements for many small
businesses. EPA has determined that this rule will not have a
significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small
businesses.
XV. Administrative Designation
Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 [October 4, 1993]),
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 actions as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this direct final rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action''. The regulatory revisions in this notice will
reduce testing the requirements and costs.
XVI. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and
implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, do not apply to this action
as it does not involve the collection of information as defined
therein.
XVII. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, EPA submitted report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting
Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register.
The rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by section 804(2) of the
APA as amended.
XVIII. Unfunded Mandates Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate;
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205,
EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent
with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a
plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
The Agency has determined that the action promulgated today does
not include a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This proposed action does not
establish regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. In fact, this proposed action has the net
effect of reducing the burden of the fuel and fuel additive
registration program on regulated entities. Therefore, the requirements
of the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this action.
XIX. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this direct final rule is provided by
sections 205 (b) and (c), 211, and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7524 (b) and (c), 7545, and 7601(a), Public Law 95-
95).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 79
Environmental protection, Fuel, Fuel additive, Gasoline, Motor
vehicle pollution, Penalties.
Dated: June 27, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 79 of title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 79--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 79 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7524, 7545 and 7601.
2. Section 79.51 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii)(A),
(c)(1)(ii)(B), the first sentence of paragraphs (e)(1), (h)
introductory text,
[[Page 36511]]
(h)(1)(ii); and by adding a new paragraph (i)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 79.51 General requirements and provisions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) No later than May 27, 1997, all applicable Tier 1 and Tier 2
requirements must be submitted to EPA, pursuant to Secs. 79.52, 79.53,
and 79.59; or
(B) No later than May 27, 1997, all applicable Tier 1 requirements
(pursuant to Secs. 79.52 and 79.59), plus evidence of a contract with a
qualified laboratory (or other suitable arrangement) for completion of
all applicable Tier 2 requirements, must be submitted to EPA. For this
purpose, a qualified laboratory is one which can demonstrate the
capabilities and credentials specified in Sec. 79.53(c)(1). In
addition, by May 26, 2000, all applicable Tier 2 requirements (pursuant
to Secs. 79.53 and 79.59) must be submitted to EPA.
* * * * *
(e) Inspection of a testing facility. (1) A testing facility,
whether engaged in emissions analysis or health and/or welfare effects
testing under the regulations in this subpart, shall permit an
authorized employee or duly designated representative of EPA, at
reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, to inspect the facility
and to inspect (and in the case of records also to copy) all records
and specimens required to be maintained regarding studies to which this
subpart applies. * * *
* * * * *
(h) Special Requirements for Additives. When an additive is the
test subject, the following rules apply:
* * * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Additives belonging to more than one fuel family.
(A) If an additive product is registered in two or more fuel
families as of May 27, 1994, then the manufacturer of that additive is
responsible for testing (or participating in group testing of) the
respective additive/base fuel mixtures in compliance with the
requirements of this subpart for each fuel family in which the
manufacturer wishes to maintain a registration for its additive.
(B) If a manufacturer is seeking to register such additive in two
or more fuel families then, for testing and registration purposes, the
additive shall be considered to be a member of each fuel family in
which the manufacturer is seeking registration. The manufacturer is
responsible for testing (or participating in group testing of) the
respective additive/base fuel mixture in compliance with the
requirements of this subpart for each fuel family in which the
manufacturer wishes to obtain a product registration for its additive.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(4) The presence in a particular oxygenating additive of small
amounts of other unintended oxygenate compounds as byproducts of the
manufacturing process of the given oxygenating additive does not affect
the grouping of that additive and does not create multiple testing
responsibilities for manufacturers who blend that additive into fuel.
* * * * *
3. Section 79.52 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and
(b)(1)(iv), (b)(2)(iii)(D) introductory text, and (b)(2)(iii)(E)
introductory text, to read as follows:
Sec. 79.52 Tier 1.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Measurement of background emissions: It is required that
ambient/dilution air be analyzed for levels of background chemical
species present at the time of emissions sampling (for both combustion
and evaporative emissions) and that sample values be corrected by
substracting the concentrations contributed by the ambient/dilution
air. Background chemical species measurement/analysis during the FTP is
specified in Secs. 86.109-94(c)(5) and 86.135-94 of this chapter.
(iv) Concentrations of emission products shall be reported either
in units of grams per mile (g/mi) or grams per brake-horsepower/hour
(g/bhp-hr) (for chassis dynamometer and engine dynamometer test
configurations, respectively), as well as in units of weight percent of
measured total hydrocarbons.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) * * *
(D) The analytical method used to measure species of PAHs and NPAHs
should be capable of detecting at least 1 ppm (equivalent to 0.001
microgram (g) of compound per milligram of organic extract) of
these compounds in the extractable organic matter. The concentration of
each individual PAH or NPAH compound identified shall be reported in
units of microgram per mile or nanograms per brake-horsepower/hour (for
chassis dynamometer and engine dynamometer test configurations,
respectively). Each compound which is present at 0.001 g per
mile (0.5 nanograms per brake-horsepower/hour) or more must be
identified, measured, and reported. The following individual species
shall be measured:
* * * * *
(E) The analytical method used to measure species and classes of
PCDD/PCDFs should be capable of detecting at least 1 part per trillion
(ppt) (equivalent to 0.001 picogram (pg) of compound per milligram of
organic extract) of these compounds in the extractable organic matter.
The concentration of each individual PCDD/PCDF compound identified
shall be reported in units of picograms (pg) per mile or picograms per
brake-horsepower/hour (for chassis dynamometer and engine dynamometer
test configurations, respectively). Each compound which is present at
0.5 pg/mile (0.3 pg/bhp-hr) or more must be identified, measured, and
reported.
* * * * *
4. Section 79.57 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(2)(i),
(b)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(iii) and (e)(1)(i)(C); and by revising paragraphs
(e)(1)(iii)(A), (e)(2)(i), (e)(2)(ii) introductory text, (e)(2)(ii)(B),
(e)(2)(iii) introductory text, (e)(2)(iii)(C), (e)(2)(vi)(B),
(e)(2)(vii), (e)(3)(i)(A), and (f)(3); and by revising the word
``cycle'' to read ``schedule'' in paragraph (e)(3)(i) introductory
text; to read as follows:
Sec. 79.57 Emission generation.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) A vehicle or engine may be used to generate emissions for the
testing of more than one fuel or additive, provided that all such fuels
and additives belong to the same fuel family pursuant to
Sec. 79.56(e)(i), and that, once a vehicle or engine has been used to
generate emissions for an atypical fuel or additive (pursuant to
Sec. 79.56(e)(2)(iii)), it shall not be used in the testing of any
other fuel or additive. Paragraphs (a) (2) and (3) of this section
shall apply only to the first fuel or additive tested.
(ii) Prior to being used to generate emissions for testing an
additional fuel or additive, a vehicle or engine which has previously
been used for testing a different fuel or additive shall undergo an
effective intermediate preconditioning cycle to remove the previously
used fuel and its emissions from the vehicle's fuel and exhaust systems
and from the combustion emission and evaporative emission control
systems, if any.
[[Page 36512]]
(iii) Such preconditioning shall include, at a minimum, the
following steps:
(A) The canister (if any) shall be removed from the vehicle and
purged with 300 deg.F nitrogen at 20 liters per minute until the
incremental weight loss of the canister is less than 1 gram in 30
minutes. This typically takes 3-4 hours and removes 100 to 120 grams of
adsorbed gasoline vapors.
(B) The fuel tank shall be drained and filled to capacity with the
new test fuel or additive/fuel mixture.
(C) The vehicle or engine shall be operated until at least 95% of
the fuel tank capacity is consumed.
(D) The purged canister shall be returned to the vehicle.
(E) The fuel tank shall be drained and filled to 40% capacity with
test fuel.
(F) Two-hour fuel tank heat builds from 72-120 deg.F shall be
performed repeatedly as necessary to achieve canister breakthrough. The
fuel tank must be drained and filled prior to each heat build.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) For Tier 2 testing, the engines shall operate on repeated bags
2 and 3 of the UDDS or back to back repeats of the heavy-duty transient
cycle of the EDS.
* * * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) In the case of combustion emissions generated from light-duty
vehicles/engines, the samples consist of three bags of vapor emissions
(one from each segment of the light-duty exhaust emission cycle) plus
one sample of particulate-phase emissions and one sample of semi-
volatile-phase emissions (collected over all segments of the exhaust
emission cycle). If the mass of particulate emissions or semi-volatile
emissions obtained during one driving cycle is not sufficient for
characterization, up to three driving cycles may be performed and the
extracted fractions combined prior to chemical analysis. Particulate-
phase emissions shall not be combined with semi-volatile-phase
emissions. The test laboratory should focus on the characterization of
the limit of detection for particulates and semi-volatile emissions.
* * * * *
(2) * * * Generating whole combustion emissions for biological
testing. (i) Biological tests requiring whole combustion emissions
shall be conducted using emissions generated from the test vehicle or
engine operated in accordance with general FTP requirements.
(ii) Light-duty test vehicles/engines shall be repeatedly operated
over the Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule (UDDS) (or equivalent
engine dynamometer trace, per paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) of this section)
and heavy-duty test engines shall be repeatedly operated over the
Engine Dynamometer Schedule (EDS) (see 40 CFR part 86, appendix I).
* * * * *
(B) The UDDS or EDS shall be repeated as many times as required for
the biological test session.
* * * * *
(iii) An apparatus to integrate the large concentration swings
typical of transient-cycle exhaust is to be used between the source of
emissions and the exposure chamber containing the animal test cages(s).
The purpose of such apparatus is to decrease the variability of the
biological exposure atmosphere and achieve the necessary concentration
of CO or NOX, whichever is limiting.
* * * * *
(C) The mixing chamber (or any alternative emission moderation
apparatus) must function such that the average concentration of total
hydrocarbons leaving the apparatus shall be within 10 percent of the
average concentration of hydrocarbons entering the chamber, taking into
account any further intentional dilution occurring in the apparatus
pursuant to paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(C) of this section.
* * * * *
(vi) * * *
(B) These procedures include requirements that the mean exposure
concentration in the inhalation test chamber shall be within 10 percent
of the target concentration for the single species being controlled
(establish in the development phase of testing) on 90 percent or more
of exposure days and that daily monitoring of CO, CO2, NOX,
SOX, and total hydrocarbons in the exposure chamber shall be
required. Analysis of the particle size distribution shall also be
performed to established the stability and consistency of particle size
distribution in the test exposure.
* * * * *
(vii) To allow for customary laboratory scheduling and unforeseen
problems affecting the combustion emission generation or dilution
equipment, biological exposures may be interrupted on limited
occasions, as specified in Sec. 79.61(d)(5). Interruptions exceeding
these limitations shall cause the affected test(s) to be void. Testers
shall be aware of concerns for backup vehicles/engines cited in
paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
* * * * *
(A) Particulate emissions shall be collected on particulate filters
and extracted from the collection equipment for use in biological
tests. The number of repetitions of the applicable driving schedule
required to collect sufficient quantities of the particulate emissions
will vary, depending on the characteristics of the engine, the test
fuel, and the requirements of the biological test protocol. The
particulate sample may be collected on one or more filters, as
necessary.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) For biological testing, vapor shall be withdrawn from the EEG
at a constant rate, diluted with air as required for the particular
study, and conducted immediately to the biological testing chamber(s)
in a manner similar to the method used in Sec. 79.57(e), excluding the
mixing chamber therein. The rate of emission generation shall be high
enough to supply the biological exposure chamber with sufficient
emissions to allow for a minimum of fifteen air changes per exposure
chamber per hour. To allow for customary laboratory scheduling and for
unforeseen problems with the evaporative emission generation or
dilution equipment, biological exposures may be interrupted on limited
occasions, as specified in Sec. 79.61(d)(5). Interruptions exceeding
these limitations shall cause the affected test(s) to be void.
* * * * *
5. Section 79.61 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(5) to read as
follows:
Sec. 79.61 Vehicle emissions inhalation exposure guideline.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
* * * * *
(5) Exposure Conditions. The preferred exposure regimen consists of
exposing the study animals to the test atmosphere on a repeated basis
for at least 6 hours per day on a 7-day per week basis for the exposure
period. However, unless precluded by the requirements of a particular
test protocol, exposures based on a nominal 5-day-per-week regimen will
be considered acceptable, subject to the following rules:
(i) Each daily exposure during the exposure period must be at least
6 hours
[[Page 36513]]
plus the time necessary to build the chamber atmosphere to 90 percent
of the target exposure atmosphere. A day in which this minimum exposure
time has not been achieved does not count as an exposure day.
(ii) Nominally, animal exposures should be conducted for six hours
per day for five days per week. In no case should the exposures occur
less than four days per week for a total of 652 exposure
days.
(iii) No more than two non-exposure days may occur consecutively
during the exposure period, including days on which the minimum
exposure time has not been met.
* * * * *
6. Section 79.63 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e)(4)(iii)
to read as follows:
Sec. 79.63 Fertility assessment/teratology.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) Pregnant females shall be exposed to the test atmosphere on
each and every day between (and including) the first and fifteenth day
of gestation.
* * * * *
7. Section 79.68 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(1) and
(f)(5)(vi) to read as follows:
Sec. 79.68 Salmonella typhimurium reverse mutation assay.
* * * * *
(f) Data and report--(1) Treatment of results. Data shall be
presented as number of revertant colonies per plate, revertants per
kilogram (or liter) of fuel, and as revertants per kilometer (or mile,
or brake-horsepower/hour, as appropriate) for each replicate and dose.
These same measures shall be recorded on both the negative and positive
control plates. The mean number of revertant colonies per plate,
revertants per kilogram (or liter) of fuel, and revertants per
kilometer (or mile, or brake-horsepower/hour), as well as individual
plate counts and standard deviations shall be presented for the test
substance, positive control, and negative control plates.
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(vi) Individual plate counts, mean number of revertant colonies per
plate, number of revertants per kilometer (or mile, or brake-
horsepower/hour), and standard deviation; and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-17549 Filed 7-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17499 Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972; Amendment
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 134 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17499]
========================================================================
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. 134 / Thursday, July 11, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 36497]]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
32 CFR Part 706
Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations
for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972; Amendment
AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.
ACTION: Final rule; Correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Referring to page 50101 of September 28, 1995, paragraph 3 of
the Department of the Navy's submission is amended by striking the
following language: ``Table Five of 706.2 is amended by adding the
following vessel;'' and substituting therefor: ``Table Five of 706.2 is
amended by substituting the following information for that contained in
the entry for USS MITSCHER.''
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 13, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander K.P. McMahon, (703) 325-
9744.
Dated: June 21, 1996.
M.W. Kerns,
LT, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Acting Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General
(Admiralty).
[FR Doc. 96-17499 Filed 7-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17114 Board of Governors Bylaws
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 134 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36498-36500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17114]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Parts 5, 7, 10
Board of Governors Bylaws
AGENCY: Postal Service.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service has
approved amendments to its bylaws. First, the bylaw provisions
concerning procedures of committees of the Board has been amended to
conform the conditions under which the Government in the Sunshine Act
is invoked to the definition of covered ``meeting'' under that Act.
Second, the Board has revised its rules of conduct to delete provisions
superseded by the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the
Executive Branch issued by the Office of Government Ethics and by the
Postal Service regulations supplemental to the Standards. Conforming
changes are made to the remaining ethics provisions.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 11, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Koerber, (202) 268-4800.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Committee Procedures
In practice, the Board of Governors has used its committees for a
means of in-depth, informal exchange with management on matters of
ongoing concern to the Board. It has not considered that sessions of
this type are covered by the provisions of the Government in the
Sunshine Act, regarding notice and open meetings. The provisions of
that Act apply to ``the deliberations of at least the number of
individual agency members required to take action on behalf of the
agency where such deliberations determine or result in the joint
conduct or disposition of official agency business'' (5 U.S.C.
552b(a)(2)). The Board's bylaw concerning Public Observation (part 7)
generally incorporates this language from the Sunshine Act in full (39
CFR 7.1(b)).
Bylaw provisions on committee procedures, in 39 CFR 5.2, currently
refer to formal actions by committees--such as recommendations,
preliminary decisions, and hearings--in a manner which reaches outside
the terms of the Sunshine Act regarding when a committee session will
be subject to the Board's Public Observation rules under part 7. Since
the Board has intended that the Public Observation rules will apply
strictly as provided in the Sunshine Act, some of this bylaw language
may be subject to misinterpretation. Accordingly, this language is
deleted from 39 CFR 5.2, and conforming changes are made in 39 CFR
7.1(a).
The Board's committees continue to be subject to the Public
Observation procedures under part 7, only to the extent that a
particular session should constitute a ``meeting'' within the meaning
of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(a)(2), and section
7(b) of the bylaws.
B. Rules of Conduct
Background
On August 7, 1992, the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) published
new Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch
(Standards), now codified at 5 CFR part 2635. See 57 FR 35006-35067
(August 7, 1992) as corrected at 57 FR 48557 (October 27, 1992) and 57
FR 52583 (November 4, 1992), with additional grace-period extensions at
59 FR 4779-4780 (February 2, 1994) and 60 FR 6390-6391 (February 2,
1995). The Standards, which became effective February 3, 1993, set
uniform ethical conduct standards applicable to all executive branch
personnel. The Standards superseded most federal agency regulations
promulgated under subparts A, B, and C of former 5 CFR part 735.
On September 11, 1995, the Postal Service, with the concurrence of
OGE and pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.105, published regulations applicable to
Postal Service employees to supplement the Standards. See 60 FR 47240-
47241, September 11, 1995. The supplemental regulations, to be codified
at 5 CFR part 7001, prohibit certain outside employment or activities,
and require prior approval for employees to engage in other specified
outside employment or activities.
Discussion
I. General
The principal purpose of the revisions to part 10 is to repeal
outdated provisions of the Code of Ethical Conduct for Postal Service
Governors (Code), which have been superseded by the new Standards of
Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635)
and Postal Service regulations supplemental thereto (5 CFR part 7001).
The Governors of the Postal Service are special Government employees
within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 202(a). Special Government employees
are subject to the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the
Executive Branch, and agency regulations supplemental thereto (5 CFR
2635.102(h)). Therefore, the Governors are subject to the regulations
in 5 CFR parts 2635 and 7001.
Some provisions of 39 CFR part 10 are retained in amended form to
conform to the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. The retained provisions
concern advisory service, restrictions on post-employment activities,
and the filing of financial disclosure reports.
II. Revision of the Heading of 39 CFR Part 10
The heading of 39 CFR part 10, ``Code of Ethical Conduct for Postal
Employees [Appendix],'' is being revised to ``Rules of Conduct for
Postal Service Governors [Appendix].'' This revision is intended to
make clear that the rules of conduct in 39 CFR part 10, as amended, are
not part of the ethical standards contained in 5 CFR part 2635 and
regulations supplemental thereto.
III. Repeal of Financial Interest Prohibitions
The provisions of the Code that prohibited the holding of specified
financial interests, 39 CFR 10.22(a) through (e), and those provisions
of 39 CFR 10.23 that involved compensated outside employment
relationships, remained temporarily in effect pursuant to the note
following 5 CFR 2635.403(a), as extended at 59 FR 4779-4780, February
2, 1994, and 60 FR 6390-6391, February 2, 1995. The note following 5
CFR 2635.403(a) provides that such prohibitions shall cease to be
effective upon the issuance of agency
[[Page 36499]]
supplemental regulations. On September 11, 1995, the Postal Service
issued supplemental regulations. See 60 FR 47240-47241, September 11,
1995. Therefore, the provisions of 39 CFR part 10 concerning prohibited
financial interests or compensated outside employment relationships are
superseded and repealed. The supplemental regulations prohibit certain
outside employment, and they require prior approval for certain outside
employment. The supplemental regulations do not, however, specify
financial interests the holding of which is prohibited.
IV. Analysis of Subparts
This amendment will repeal large portions of 39 CFR part 10, and
the amended part will contain only four sections. Accordingly, part 10
no longer will be divided into subparts. This amendment will affect the
regulations in subparts A through D of 39 CFR part 10 as follows.
Subpart A--Basic Purpose and Applicability
Subpart A included explanations of the applicability of 39 CFR part
10 and general standards of ethical conduct applicable to Postal
Service Governors. All sections of subpart A have been superseded by 5
CFR part 2635. Section 10.11 has been renumbered as section 10.1 and
revised to explain that, in addition to the rules retained in 39 CFR
part 10, Governors are subject to the rules contained in 5 CFR parts
2635 and 7001.
Subpart B--Standards of Conduct
Subpart B contained general standards of conduct, rules concerning
prohibited financial interests, rules concerning outside employment,
rules concerning the acceptance of gifts, and other rules of conduct
applicable to Postal Service Governors. All sections of subpart B are
repealed because they have been superseded by 5 CFR parts 2635 and
7001.
Subpart C--Ethical Conduct Advisory Services and Remedial Action
Subpart C included procedures by which Postal Service Governors may
obtain advice concerning standards of ethical conduct, and a regulation
concerning post-employment restrictions imposed under 18 U.S.C. 207.
Regulations concerning advisory services are retained in amended form
in revised section 10.2. Under 5 CFR 2635.107, agencies are responsible
for providing counseling to their employees with regard to the
application of 5 CFR part 2635 and regulations supplemental thereto.
Revised section 10.2 pertains solely to the Postal Service's internal
implementation of requirements imposed by OGE regulations, and it is
revised to conform to the OGE regulations.
Regulations concerning post-employment restrictions are retained in
amended form in a new section 10.3. New section 10.3 notifies Governors
that they are subject to the restrictions imposed under 18 U.S.C. 207.
Subpart D--Reports of Employment and Financial Interests
Subpart D included regulations concerning the filing and review of
financial disclosure reports. These regulations are retained in amended
form in new section 10.4.
As a result of this amendment, 39 CFR Part 10 will be reorganized
as follows:
PART 10--RULES OF CONDUCT FOR POSTAL SERVICE GOVERNORS (APPENDIX)
Sec.
10.1 Applicability.
10.2 Advisory service.
10.3 Post-employment activities.
10.4 Financial disclosure reports.
List of Subjects
39 CFR Part 5
Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees,
Organization and functions (Government agencies), Sunshine Act.
39 CFR Part 7
Sunshine Act.
39 CFR Part 10
Conflict of interests.
For the reasons set forth above, 39 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter A, is
amended as follows:
PART 5--COMMITTEES (ARTICLE V)
1. The authority citation for part 5 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 39 U.S.C. 202, 203, 204, 205, 401(2), (10), 1003,
3013.
2. Section 5.2 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 5.2 Committee procedure.
Each committee establishes its own rules of procedure, consistent
with these bylaws, and meets as provided in its rules. A majority of
the members of a committee constitute a quorum.
PART 7--PUBLIC OBSERVATION (ARTICLE VII)
3. The authority citation for part 7 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 39 U.S.C. 401(a), as enacted by Pub. L. 91-375, and 5
U.S.C. 552b (a)-(m) as enacted by Pub. L. 94-409.
4. Section 7.1 is amended by republishing the introductory text and
by revising paragraph(a) to read as follows:
Sec. 7.1 Definitions.
For purposes of Secs. 7.2 through 7.8 of these bylaws:
(a) The term Board means the Board of Governors, and any
subdivision or committee of the Board authorized to take action on
behalf of the Board.
* * * * *
PART 10--RULES OF CONDUCT FOR POSTAL SERVICE GOVERNORS (APPENDIX)
5. The authority citation for part 10 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 39 U.S.C. 401.
6. The heading of part 10 is revised as set forth above.
6a. The table of contents for part 10 is revised to read as
follows:
Sec.
10.1 Applicability.
10.2 Advisory service.
10.3 Post-employment activities.
10.4 Financial disclosure reports.
7. Subparts A through D headings are removed.
Sec. 10.11 [Redesignated as Sec. 10.1]
8. Section 10.11 is redesignated as Sec. 10.1 and revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 10.1 Applicability.
This part contains rules of conduct for the members of the Board of
Governors of the United States Postal Service. As special employees
within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 202(a), the members of the Board are
also subject to the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the
Executive Branch, 5 CFR part 2635, and Postal Service regulations
supplemental thereto, 5 CFR part 7001.
Sec. 10.31 [Redesignated as Sec. 10.2]
9. Section 10.31 is redesignated as Sec. 10.2 and revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 10.2 Advisory service.
(a) The General Counsel is the Ethical Conduct Officer of the
Postal Service and the Designated Agency Ethics Official for purposes
of the Ethics in Government Act, as amended, and the implementing
regulations of the Office of Government Ethics, including 5 CFR part
2638.
(b) A Governor may obtain advice and guidance on questions of
conflicts of interest, and may request any ruling provided for by
either the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive
Branch, or the Postal Service regulations supplemental thereto, from
[[Page 36500]]
the General Counsel or a designated assistant.
(c) If the General Counsel determines that a Governor is engaged in
activity which involves a violation of federal statute or regulation,
including the ethical conduct regulations contained in 5 CFR parts 2635
and 7001, or conduct which creates the appearance of such a violation,
he or she shall bring this to the attention of the Governor or shall
notify the Chairman of the Board of Governors, or the Vice Chairman, as
appropriate.
10. A new section 10.3 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 10.3 Post-employment activities.
Governors are subject to the restrictions on the post-employment
activities of special Government employees imposed by 18 U.S.C. 207.
Guidance concerning post-employment restrictions applicable to
Governors may be obtained in accordance with Sec. 10.2(b).
Sec. 10.12 [Removed]
10a. Section 10.12 is removed.
Sec. 10.21 [Removed]
11. Section 10.21 is removed.
Sec. 10.22 [Removed]
12. Section 10.22 is removed.
Sec. 10.23 [Removed]
13. Section 10.23 is removed.
Sec. 10.24 [Removed]
14. Section 10.24 is removed.
Sec. 10.32 [Removed]
15-16. Section 10.32 is removed.
Sec. 10.41 [Redesignated as Sec. 10.4]
17. Section 10.41 is redesignated as Sec. 10.4, and is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (e)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 10.4 Financial disclosure reports.
(a) Requirement of submission of reports. At the time of their
nomination, Governors complete a financial disclosure report which,
under the practice of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, is
kept confidential. Because the Director of the Office of Government
Ethics has ruled that Governors who do not perform the duties of their
office for more than 60 days in any calendar year are not required to
file financial disclosure reports that are open to the public,
Governors file non-public reports annually, in accordance with this
section. A Governor who performs the duties of his or her office for
more than 60 days in a particular calendar year is required to file a
public report in accordance with 5 CFR 2634.204(c).
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Confidentiality of reports. Unless a public report is required
by this section, the financial disclosure reports filed by Governors
shall not be made public.
Stanley F. Mires,
Chief Counsel, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 96-17114 Filed 7-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.