issue-1996-07-15•Federal Register final rules — 1996-07-15
Federal Register final rules — 1996-07-15
issue-1996-07-15Federal Register final rules — 1996-07-15Regulation
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. 96-17994 Karnal Bunt; Public Forum
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 136 (Monday, July 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36811-36812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 301
[Docket 96-016-9]
Karnal Bunt; Public Forum
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of public forum.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service is hosting a public forum in Washington, DC, on the
Agency's program to control and eradicate Karnal bunt. The forum will
provide an additional opportunity for the public to comment on the
regulations established and amended by a series of interim rules
published in the Federal Register since March, 1996. The regulations
quarantine portions of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas
because of infestations of Karnal bunt, restrict the movement of
regulated articles from the quarantined areas, and provide compensation
for certain individuals in order to mitigate losses and expenses
incurred because of Karnal bunt. Comments will also be accepted
addressing any aspect of the Karnal bunt program not included in the
regulations, including control and survey activities conducted in the
quarantined areas, the national Karnal bunt survey program, and the
certification of wheat for export. Information gathered at the public
forum will be considered by the Department in developing guidelines and
procedures for conducting the Karnal bunt program for the 1996-97 wheat
growing season. USDA intends to schedule additional public forums on
the Karnal bunt program, to be held in Arizona, California, and Kansas
over the next 2 months. We will give notice of these additional forums
in the Federal Register.
DATES: The public forum will be held in Washington, DC, on Wednesday,
July 17, 1996, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m.
Consideration will be given only to comments received on or before
September 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The public forum will be held in room 107A, Jamie L. Whitten
Federal Building, United States Department of Agriculture, 14th Street
and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Persons attending the
forum should use the entrance to the building facing the Mall, and will
be required to show picture identification at the Guard Desk. Any
persons who are unable to attend the forum, but who wish to comment on
any aspect of the Karnal bunt program, may send written comments.
Please send an original and three copies of written comments to
Docket No. 96-016-9, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please
state that your comments refer to Docket No. 96-106-9. Comments
received, including a transcript from the public forum, may be
inspected at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect
comments are requested to call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to facilitate
entry into the comment reading room.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen Poe, Operations Officer,
Domestic and Emergency Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit
134, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236, (301) 734-8247.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This public forum is being held concerning
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS) program to
control and eradicate Karnal bunt. Comments will be accepted on the
regulations established and amended by a series of interim rules
published by APHIS in the Federal Register since March, 1996. These
interim rules were published on March 28, 1996 (61 FR 13649-13655,
Docket No. 96-016-3), April 25, 1996 (61 FR 18233-18235, Docket No. 96-
016-5), and July 5, 1996 (61 FR 35107-35109, Docket No. 96-016-6 and 61
FR 35102-35107, Docket No. 96-016-7). The public forum in Washington,
DC, will be held on Wednesday, July 17, 1996, in room 107A, Jamie L.
Whitten Federal Building, United States Department of Agriculture, 14th
Street
[[Page 36812]]
and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC.
Comments were required to be received on Docket No. 96-016-3 on or
before May 28, 1996, and on Docket No. 96-016-5 on or before June 24,
1996. We are reopening and extending the comment periods for both of
these interim rules until September 3, 1996, in order to receive
additional public comments at this forum, and at forums in Arizona,
California, and Kansas to be scheduled over the next 2 months. We will
give notice of these additional forums in the Federal Register. The
comment periods for Docket No. 96-016-6 and Docket No. 96-016-7 are
already scheduled to close on September 3, 1996.
A representative of the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) will preside at the public forum. Any interested person may
appear and be heard in person, or through an attorney or other
representative. Persons who wish to speak at the public forum will be
asked to provide their names and affiliations. Parties wishing to make
oral presentations may register in advance by calling the Legislative
and Public Affairs staff of APHIS, USDA, at (202) 720-2511 before close
of business on July 15, 1996. Registration will also be held at the
hearing site on July 17, 1996, from 8 a.m. until 8:45 a.m. Speakers
will be scheduled in the order their registration is received.
The public forum will begin at 9 a.m. and is scheduled to end at 5
p.m. local time. However, the forum may be terminated at any time after
it begins if all persons desiring to speak have been heard. The
presiding officer may limit the time for each presentation so that all
interested persons have an opportunity to participate. Attendees who
wish to speak but who did not register will be provided time to speak
only after all registered speakers have been heard.
The purpose of the forum is to give interested persons an
opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, and information to
the Department concerning APHIS' program to control and eradicate
Karnal bunt. Questions about the content of the interim rules
concerning Karnal bunt may be part of the commenters' oral
presentations. However, neither the presiding officer nor any other
representative of the Department will respond to the comments on the
interim rules at the forum, except to clarify or explain provisions of
the interim rules.
We ask that anyone who reads a statement provide two copies to the
presiding officer at the forum. A transcript will be made of the public
forum and the transcript will be placed in the rulemaking record and
will be available for public inspection.
Done in Washington, DC, this 10th day of July 1996.
Terry L. Medley,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-17994 Filed 7-11-96; 10:25 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17919 Karnal Bunt; Removal of Quarantined Areas; Technical Amendment
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 136 (Monday, July 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36812-36813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17919]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 301
[Docket No. 96-016-8]
Karnal Bunt; Removal of Quarantined Areas; Technical Amendment
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Interim rule; technical amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In an interim rule effective June 27, 1996, and published in
the Federal Register on July 5, 1996, we amended the Karnal bunt
regulations by removing certain areas in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas
from the list of areas quarantined because of infestations of Karnal
bunt. We removed a portion of Mohave County, AZ, from the list of
quarantined areas that should not have been removed. Therefore, we are
amending the boundaries of the quarantined area in Mohave County, AZ,
to add that portion of the county to the list of quarantined areas.
DATES: This amendment is effective July 9, 1996. We will consider
written comments on the interim rule (Docket No. 96-016-6) published at
61 FR 35107, as corrected by this document, received on or before
September 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Please send an original and three copies of your comments to
Docket No. 96-016-6, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
suite 3C03, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale MD 20737-1238. Please
state that your comments refer to Docket No. 96-016-6. Comments
received may be inspected at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th
Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to
inspect comments are requested to call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to
facilitate entry into the comment reading room.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael B. Stefan, Operations
Officer, Domestic and Emergency Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River
Road, Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236, (301) 734-8247; or e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In an interim rule effective June 27, 1996,
and published in the Federal Register on July 5, 1996 (Docket No. 96-
016-6) (61 FR 35107), we amended the Karnal bunt regulations in 7 CFR
301.89-3(e) by removing areas in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas from
the list of areas quarantined because of infestations of Karnal bunt.
We removed a portion of Mohave County, AZ, from the list of quarantined
areas that should not have been removed. Therefore, we are amending the
boundaries of the quarantined area in Mohave County, AZ, to add that
portion of the county to the list of quarantined areas.
Before the effective date of this document, the portion of Mohave
County, AZ, that remained under quarantine for Karnal bunt was located
in the western central region of the county and, therefore, was
isolated from the larger, continuous area quarantined for infestations
of Karnal bunt that includes counties, and portions of counties, in
Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. We are expanding the
quarantined area in Mohave County, AZ, to include the portion of the
county that connects the previously isolated quarantined area to the
larger quarantined area. The portion of Mohave County, AZ, that we are
adding to the list of quarantined areas does not produce wheat and has
no association with Karnal bunt contaminated seed, but regulated
articles from areas that are quarantined because of infestations of
Karnal bunt are transported through this area. As amended by this
document, the quarantined area of Mohave County, AZ, is that portion of
the county bounded as follows: Beginning at the intersection of
Arizona/Nevada State line and State Route 68; then east along State
Route 68 to U.S. Highway 93; then southeast along U.S. Highway 93 to
Interstate 40; then east along Interstate 40 to U.S. Highway 93; then
south along U.S. Highway 93 to the Mohave/Yavapai County line; then
south along the Mohave County line to the Mohave/La Paz County line;
then west along the Mohave County line to the Arizona/California State
line; then north along the State line to the point of beginning.
This action prevents the artificial spread of Karnal bunt into
noninfested areas of the United States while allowing the movement of
regulated articles within the area quarantined for Karnal bunt,
including counties, and portions of counties, in Arizona, California,
New Mexico, and Texas.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine,
[[Page 36813]]
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 301 is amended as follows:
PART 301--DOMESTIC QUARANTINE NOTICES
1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150bb, 150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 161, 162, and
164-167; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).
2. In Sec. 301.89-3, paragraph (e) is amended by revising the entry
for Mohave, County, AZ, to read as follows:
Sec. 301.89-3 Quarantined areas.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
Arizona
* * * * *
Mohave County. Beginning at the intersection of Arizona/Nevada
State line and State Route 68; then east along State Route 68 to U.S.
Highway 93; then southeast along U.S. Highway 93 to Interstate 40; then
east along Interstate 40 to U.S. Highway 93; then south along U.S.
Highway 93 to the Mohave/Yavapai County line; then south along the
Mohave County line to the Mohave/La Paz County line; then west along
the Mohave County line to the Arizona/California State line; then north
along the State line to the point of beginning.
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 9th day of July 1996.
Terry L. Medley,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-17919 Filed 7-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17917 Goats Imported From Mexico for Immediate Slaughter; Horse Quarantine Facilities
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 136 (Monday, July 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36816-36817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17917]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 92
[Docket No. 91-101-2]
Goats Imported From Mexico for Immediate Slaughter; Horse
Quarantine Facilities
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the animal importation regulations to clarify
the quarantine requirements for horses imported into the United States.
We are not taking final action in this document to remove the
requirements for a health certificate for goats imported into the
United States from Mexico for immediate slaughter.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 14, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. David Vogt, Senior Staff
Veterinarian, Import/Export Animals, National Center for Import and
Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737-1228,
(301) 734-8170, or e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 9 CFR part 92 govern the importation into the
United
[[Page 36817]]
States of certain animals and poultry and certain animal and poultry
products. Section 92.308 establishes requirements for the quarantine of
certain horses imported into the United States. Section
92.308(c)(2)(ii)(B), which contains the physical requirements for a
quarantine facility, provides that ``Doors, windows, and other openings
of the facility shall be provided with double screens which will
prevent insects from entering the facility.'' However, the preceding
paragraph, Sec. 92.308(c)(2)(ii)(A) states that ``All walls, floors and
ceilings shall be constructed of solid impervious material or be
screened as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) of this section.'' The
last phrase of this sentence has led some readers to believe that
walls, floors, and ceilings, of quarantine facilities could somehow be
constructed of screening. However, our intention is that if a
facility's solid and impervious walls, floor or ceiling have openings,
they must be screened in accordance with Sec. 92.308(c)(2)(ii)(B).
On March 1, 1994, we published in the Federal Register (59 FR 9679-
9681, Docket No. 91-101-1) a proposal to amend the regulations by
removing the last phrase of the misleading sentence in
Sec. 92.308(c)(2)(ii)(A) to make it read ``All walls, floors and
ceilings shall be constructed of solid impervious material.''
We also proposed, in the same Federal Register document, to amend
the regulations in Secs. 92.428 and 92.429, concerning importation of
goats by allowing goats from Mexico to be imported into the United
States without a health certificate if the goats were imported for
immediate slaughter.
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending
May 2, 1994. We received one comment addressing this proposed change to
Sec. 92.308(c)(2)(ii)(A), and the comment was supportive.
Therefore, based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule,
we are adopting the portion of the proposal that pertained to horse
quarantine facilities as a final rule without change.
We received three comments on this proposed change to Secs. 92.428
and 92.429 by the close of the comment period. They were from a
research organization, a State agricultural department, and a goat
industry representative. One was supportive; the other two expressed
concern that the goats could present a disease risk.
The proposed provisions concerning goats are not adopted by this
document. At this time, we are considering major revisions to the
regulations for importing ruminants, including goats, and to the
regulations for importing swine and products of ruminants and swine.
Interested persons should see Docket No. 94-106-1 (61 FR 16978-17105),
a proposed rule published for comment on April 18, 1996. The three
comments received on the proposed change to Secs. 92.428 and 92.429
will be considered in conjunction with that rulemaking.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule
has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive
Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
This rule is making a minor change for clarity in our regulations
concerning horses subject to quarantine after importation into the
United States. Since this rule change is only a clarification, there
will be no economic impact on any large or small entities.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Executive Order 12778
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and
regulations that are in conflict with this rule; (2) has no retroactive
effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
Accordingly, 9 CFR part 92 is amended as follows:
PART 92--IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMALS AND POULTRY AND CERTAIN
ANIMAL AND POULTRY PRODUCTS; INSPECTION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR
CERTAIN MEANS OF CONVEYANCE AND SHIPPING CONTAINERS THEREON
1. The authority citation for part 92 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 102-105,
111, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134d, 134f, 135, 136, and 136a; 31
U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
Sec. 92.308 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 92.308, paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) is amended by removing
the phrase ``or be screened as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) of
this section''.
Done in Washington, DC, this 9th day of July 1996.
Terry L. Medley,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-17917 Filed 7-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17886 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Procedures for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 136 (Monday, July 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36974-36987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17886]
[[Page 36973]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Energy
_______________________________________________________________________
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
_______________________________________________________________________
10 CFR Part 430
Procedures for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation
Standards for Consumer Products; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 136 / Monday, July 15, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 36974]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 430
RIN [1904-AA83]
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Procedures for
Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for
Consumer Products
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy (DOE).
ACTION: Notice of final rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) today promulgates
a rule to elaborate on the procedures, interpretations and policies
that will guide the Department in establishing new or revised energy
efficiency standards for consumer products. The process described in
this rule provides for greatly enhanced opportunities for public input,
improved analytical approaches, and encouragement of consensus-based
standards. This enhanced approach was developed by the Department on
the basis of extensive consultations with many stakeholders.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The procedures, interpretations and policies
established in this rule take effect on August 14, 1996.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the report entitled ``Results of the Appliance
Rulemaking Process Improvement Effort,'' from which much of the
enhanced process described in this rule is derived, may be obtained
from: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, EE-43, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-7574. This report may be read at
the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room, U.S. DOE, Forrestal
Building, Room 1E-190, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC
20585, (202) 586-6020, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael J. McCabe, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
U.S. Department of Energy, Mail Station EE-43, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-0371
Douglas W. Smith, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Department of Energy,
Mail Station GC-70, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585-
0103, (202) 586-3410
Deborah E. Miller, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
U.S. Department of Energy, Mail Station EE-1, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-8888.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on Appliance Standards Program
II. Process Leading to Development of this Rule
III. Description of Rule
1. Objectives
2. Scope
3. Setting Priorities for Rulemaking Activity
4. Process for Developing Efficiency Standards and Factors to be
Considered
5. Policies on Selection of Standards
6. Effective Date of a Standard
7. Test Procedures
8. Joint Stakeholder Recommendations
9. Principles for the Conduct of Engineering Analysis
10. Principles for the Analysis of Impacts on Manufacturers
11. Principles for the Analysis of Impacts on Consumers
12. Consideration of Non-Regulatory Approaches
13. Crosscutting Analytical Assumptions
14. Deviations, Revisions, and Judicial Review
IV. Related DOE Actions to Implement Process Improvements
1. Finalized process improvement report
2. Process to develop rulemaking priorities
3. Review of manufacturer impact analysis
4. Review of non-regulatory approaches
5. Creation of an advisory committee
V. Status of Ongoing Rulemakings
VI. Administrative Procedure
VII. Administrative Reviews
I. Background on Appliance Standards Program
The Department of Energy's appliance standards program is conducted
pursuant to Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA). 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309. In 1987, EPCA was amended to establish by
law national efficiency standards for certain appliances and a schedule
for DOE to conduct rulemakings to periodically review and update these
standards. National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, Pub. L. 100-12
(1987). The products covered by these standards included refrigerators
and freezers, room air conditioners, central air conditioners and heat
pumps, water heaters, furnaces, dishwashers, clothes washers and
dryers, direct heating equipment, ranges and ovens, pool heaters, and
fluorescent lamp ballasts. In conducting the rulemakings to update the
standards, the Secretary of Energy is to set standards at levels that
achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) further amended EPCA to
expand the coverage of the standards program to include certain
commercial and industrial equipment, including commercial heating and
air-conditioning equipment, water heaters, certain incandescent and
fluorescent lamps, distribution transformers, and electric motors.
Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-486 (1992). EPACT also
established maximum water flow-rate requirements for certain plumbing
products and provided for voluntary testing and consumer information
programs for office equipment, luminaires, and windows.
EPCA also provides for DOE to establish test procedures to be used
in evaluating compliance with efficiency standards. These test
procedures are revised periodically to reflect new product designs or
technologies.
As prescribed by EPCA, energy efficiency standards are established
by a three-phase public process: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANOPR); Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR); and Final Rule. The
process to develop test procedures is similar, except that an Advance
Notice is not required.
In updating standards as required by EPCA, DOE revised standards
for refrigerators and freezers in November 1989, with those standards
becoming effective in January 1993. 54 FR 47916 (Nov. 17, 1989). These
standards resulted in an approximately 25 percent reduction in
refrigerator energy use. In May 1991, DOE issued revised energy
conservation standards for clothes washers, clothes dryers, and
dishwashers which became effective on May 14, 1994. 56 FR 22250 (May
14, 1991).
DOE has published notices of proposed rulemaking on revised
standards for a number of covered products. A NOPR for energy
conservation standards for eight products (water heaters, room air-
conditioners, mobile-home furnaces, direct-heating equipment, pool
heaters, kitchen ranges and ovens, fluorescent lamp ballasts, and
televisions) was published in March 1994. 59 FR 10464 (March 4, 1994).
DOE has since withdrawn the proposal to establish standards for
television sets. 60 FR 32627 (June 23, 1995). With regard to ballasts
and electric water heaters, DOE is gathering further inputs and
conducting further analysis. 60 FR 5880 (Jan. 31, 1995). In July 1995,
the Department issued a NOPR for energy conservation standards for
refrigerator
[[Page 36975]]
products which was based largely on a proposal made by a coalition of
refrigerator manufacturers, electric utilities, states and energy
conservation advocates. 60 FR 37388 (July 20, 1995).
The Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 1996 included a moratorium on proposing or issuing
energy conservation appliance standards for the remainder of Fiscal
Year 1996. See Pub. L. 104-134. The Department is continuing to work on
the analyses underlying proposed standards and on test procedure
revisions during this fiscal year.
The appliance standards program supports key objectives of the
Administration's Sustainable Energy Strategy, which include: Increasing
the efficiency of energy use in order to strengthen our economy and
improve living standards; reducing the adverse environmental impacts
associated with energy production, delivery and use; and keeping
America secure by reducing our vulnerability to global energy market
shocks. Although the Department recognizes that policies that rely on
market forces or market-based incentives are preferable in many
circumstances, appropriate regulatory intervention can achieve
efficiency gains that will benefit consumers, businesses, and the
Nation. Existing appliance standards are projected to save 23
quadrillion BTUs of energy from 1993 to 2015, resulting in estimated
consumer savings of $1.7 billion per year in 2000 and estimated annual
emission reductions of 107 million tons of carbon dioxide and 280
thousand tons on nitrogen oxides by 2000. An aggressive program for
promoting the efficient use of energy resources, including appliance
efficiency standards that are technically feasible and economically
justified, is a critical element of the Sustainable Energy Strategy.
II. Process Leading to Development of This Rule
Since the National Performance Review's recommendations on
Regulatory Reform were issued over two years ago, the U.S. DOE has
forged new ways of carrying out its appliance standards rulemaking
responsibilities. To supplement the traditional rulemaking process
established by law, the Department has encouraged consensus-based
alternatives and invited interest group participation in the early
stages of standards development with mechanisms such as technical
sessions and workshops.
In September 1995, the Department announced a formal effort to
consider further improvements to the process used to develop appliance
efficiency standards, calling on energy efficiency groups,
manufacturers, trade associations, state agencies, utilities, and other
interested parties to provide input to guide the Department's work. To
date, the Department's process improvement effort has consisted of
several elements:
--A series of preliminary meetings were held with interested parties to
identify opportunities for improvement in the rulemaking process,
standards priority setting, analysis methods and Department decision-
making;
--Interviews were conducted with thirty organizations that have
participated in past appliance rulemakings to solicit information
regarding the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the process;
--A preliminary draft ``Process Improvement Plan'' was developed from
these initial meetings and interviews;
--A public workshop was held to obtain broad-based input on the
Department's draft ``Process Improvement Plan'' and other elements of
the Department's proposed new approach;
--A draft report entitled ``Results of the Appliance Rulemaking Process
Improvement Effort'' was prepared and distributed for comment to the
workshop participants;
--Follow-up meetings were held with interested parties on the issues
raised in the draft report; and
--Several drafts of today's rule were shared with stakeholders, and the
Department addressed numerous comments made by interested parties in
written submissions and during two well-attended stakeholder workshops.
The publication of this rule is an important step in
institutionalizing the procedural improvements identified in this
process. It is not, however, the only step. Other actions in the
Department's process improvement effort include: A review of the
manufacturing impact analysis model and methodologies; a review of non-
regulatory approaches; the prioritization of future rules; and the
creation of an advisory committee consisting of a representative group
of interested parties, to oversee the implementation of these
commitments. (See section IV of the Supplementary Information.) The
objective is to act quickly to implement this enhanced standards
development process, and to continue to invite extensive stakeholder
consultation in the implementation phase.
The Department's many stakeholders have contributed tremendously to
this effort to review the Department's procedures. The Department
appreciates that sustained contribution, and is committed to implement
a process that is more responsive to stakeholder concerns.
III. Description of Rule
1. Objectives
Section 1 of the rule articulates the Department's major objectives
for the enhanced process to be employed for considering new or revised
appliance efficiency standards. The Department's objectives are to:
(a) Provide for early input from stakeholders
(b) Increase predictability of the rulemaking timetable
(c) Increase use of outside technical expertise
(d) Eliminate problematic design options early in the process
(e) Fully consider non-regulatory approaches
(f) Conduct thorough analysis of impacts
(g) Use transparent and robust analytical methods
(h) Articulate policies to guide selection of standards
(i) Support efforts to build consensus on standards
(j) Reduce time and cost of developing standards
2. Scope
Section 2 describes the applicability of the enhanced process
contained in the rule. The Department has adopted a common sense
approach to the transition to this enhanced process.
DOE will use the new approach for all new rulemakings. With regard
to rulemakings that are already underway, DOE and interested parties
have invested substantial effort and resources. In balancing whether
the benefits of using this enhanced process justify the delay of
starting these rulemakings anew, DOE has concluded that the new process
will be used, from the start, with respect to rulemakings in which a
NOPR has not yet been published. To the extent analytical work has
already been done or public comment on an ANOPR has already been
provided, such analysis and comment will be considered, as appropriate,
in proceeding under the new process. A case-by-case review is needed to
determine how to proceed (i.e., whether some or all of the analytical
or procedural steps should be repeated) with respect to products for
which a NOPR has been issued and the
[[Page 36976]]
analysis is nearly complete. DOE's intentions concerning how to proceed
with those rulemakings that are beyond the NOPR stage are discussed in
some detail in section V below. Note that the rulemakings beyond the
NOPR stage include one rule based on a consensus stakeholder
recommendation and others for which there has been shared analysis and
public workshops consistent with the direction of this rule.
3. Setting Priorities for Rulemaking Activity
Section 3 describes the process that will be used in developing
rulemaking priorities, including factors to be considered. The annual
process invites public input on the program's rulemaking agenda for the
coming year, establishes factors to be considered in establishing
priorities, and provides, in conjunction with the Department's
Regulatory Agenda, a clear set of expectations about the scheduled
rulemaking activities.
4. Process for Developing Efficiency Standards and Factors To Be
Considered
Section 4 establishes the process for developing efficiency
standards. This process is designed to provide for greater, and more
productive, interaction between the Department and interested parties
throughout the process. It is also designed so that key analyses are
performed earlier in the process, with early opportunities for public
input to and comment on the analyses. The process is consistent with
the procedural requirements of law, but adds some important steps to
enhance the process.
Building upon the National Performance Review's regulatory reform
initiative, an effort has been underway at the Department to increase
consultation with interested parties at every stage of the rulemaking
process. In addition to holding the formal public hearings and
soliciting written comments, the Department has increased its use of
public workshops and other less formal tools to develop more effective
standards. The Department has received broad support for its recent
efforts to open the standards development process and its commitment to
obtain input from interested parties early--well in advance of the
ANOPR--and often in the rulemaking process.
Section 4 also articulates factors that DOE will take into account
in screening design options, selecting candidate standard levels, and
selecting proposed and final standard levels.
(a) Pre-ANOPR Screening and Analysis of Design Options
As described in section 4(a), the first step in a rulemaking will
be a screening analysis that will identify the product categories and
technologically feasible design options and then narrow the range of
design options being considered for the development of candidate
standard levels. This screening analysis, along with the engineering
analysis and the selection of candidate standard levels, will occur
before DOE publishes an ANOPR.
Some manufacturers have expressed concern that the Department may
devote too much attention to consideration of design options that: Are
not practical to mass manufacture, install or service; have substantial
impacts on consumer utility; or raise significant safety concerns. The
screening step is designed to address these concerns. The Department
will develop, with input from interested parties, a list of design
options for further consideration. The Department will eliminate from
further consideration a design option that: Is not technologically
feasible; is not practicable to manufacture, install and service; has
significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to consumers;
or adversely affects health or safety. Consistent with Natural
Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355 (D.C. Cir.
1985), the Department will evaluate design options for technological
feasibility on the basis of whether the options are in use by industry
or research has progressed to the development of a prototype. However,
consideration of practicability to manufacture, impacts on consumer
utility and health and safety effects at this stage is designed to
ensure that commercially impractical designs, even if technologically
feasible, are screened out on the basis of other statutory criteria
early in the process. This early screening approach should reduce
uncertainty as to the direction of standards development.
The Department will seek expert input to conduct the necessary
analyses. The Department, with input from interested parties, will
identify issues that will be examined in the engineering analysis and
the types of specialized expertise that may be required. With these
specifications, DOE will select appropriate contractors,
subcontractors, and as necessary, expert consultants to perform the
engineering analysis and the impact analysis. DOE, in consultation with
interested parties, also will identify technology/industry experts who
can provide independent, expert review of the results of the
engineering analysis and the subsequent impact analysis. The Department
will consider in the analyses, wherever feasible, data, information and
analyses received from stakeholders.
After the screening of design options, the DOE contractor will
perform engineering and initial economic analysis of the design
options. The results of this analysis will be distributed for review by
experts and interested parties. If appropriate, a public workshop will
be conducted to review these results.
The process does not contemplate that the early screening process
will be the final opportunity to gather and consider input on whether a
design option is technologically feasible; is practicable to
manufacture, install and service; has significant adverse impact on
utility of the product to consumers; or adversely affects health or
safety. Any new information on these issues that is provided in later
stages of the rulemaking will be considered, as provided in sections
4(b)(4) and 4(d)(7)(ix), and a preliminary determination to include or
exclude consideration of a design option based on the screening
analysis may be revised if supported by a reexamination of these
factors based on new information.
This emphasis on the early stages of the process is designed to
enable interested parties and DOE to engage in a more productive,
informative interaction on standards issues prior to the publication of
the ANOPR, so that the standards development process starts with the
best possible foundation of common understanding.
(b) Factors in Selection of Proposed Standard
Section 4(c) provides that following review of comments on the
ANOPR, DOE's contractor will conduct specified impact analyses to be
used by DOE in selecting proposed standards. The factors to be
considered by DOE in selection of proposed standard levels include:
(i) Consensus stakeholder recommendations
(ii) Impacts on manufacturers
(iii) Impacts on consumers
(iv) Impacts on competition
(v) Impacts on utilities
(vi) National energy, economic and employment impacts
(vii) Impacts on the environment and energy security
(viii) Impacts of non-regulatory approaches
(ix) New information relating to factors use for screening design
options.
[[Page 36977]]
The Department's approach to analysis and consideration of several
of these key factors is discussed in sections 10, 11, and 12 of the
rule.
(c) Enhanced Opportunities for the Public to Receive Information and
Provide Input
Throughout the process, the Department will provide interested
parties with opportunities to provide data, recommendations and other
comments. DOE will share with the public both analyses and preliminary
decisions to inform interested parties as to the progress of standards
development. This information from the Department will enable the
public to provide informed input to DOE at each step of the process.
With the goal of better informing stakeholders about DOE rulemaking
activities, the Department will use various methods, in addition to
Federal Register notices, to notify interested parties of upcoming
meeting and rulemaking notices, such as industry publications, Inside
Energy, Air Conditioning News, Appliance Magazine, Product Safety
Letter, and the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network (EREN)
located on the Internet at http://www.eren.doe.gov.
(d) Timely Completion of Rulemakings
The Department's intent is to use a process that will produce
standards that have sound analytical grounding and have been subject to
thorough review and comment without making the process unduly time-
consuming. The entire process provided for in section 4, from the date
of issuance of the listing of priorities indicating that work is about
to begin on the development of a new standard, to issuance of the final
rule, should take no more than three years. The time required from
issuance of an ANOPR to issuance of a final rule should be no more than
18 months.
Timely completion of rulemakings is essential. If experience
demonstrates rulemakings are not being completed within a 3-year
timeframe using this new process, DOE will reconsider this process to
explore how changes can be made to expedite the process.
5. Policies on Selection of Standards
Section 5 describes Department policies concerning the selection of
new or revised standards, and decisions preliminary thereto. These
policies are intended to provide guidance for making the determinations
required by section 325 of the EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295.
Section 5(b) states policy guidance for screening design options.
In particular, it states that a design option will not be considered
further if it is determined that the technology: is not incorporated in
a commercial product or a working prototype; will not be capable of
being mass produced and installed and serviced by persons serving the
relevant market at the time a standard would take effect; will have
significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to consumers,
or result in the unavailability of any product type generally available
in the U.S. market; or will have significant adverse impacts on health
or safety.
Section 5(c) and (d) describe the policies pertaining to the
selection of candidate standard levels.
Sections 5(e) and (f) describe Department policies guiding
selection of proposed and final standard levels. Section 325(o)(2)(A)
of EPCA provides that any new or revised standard must be designed to
achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is determined
to be technologically feasible and economically justified. A candidate
standard level will not be proposed or promulgated if the Department
determines that it is not technologically feasible and economically
justified. See EPCA section 325(o)(3)(B). A standard level is
economically justified if the benefits exceed the burdens. See EPCA
section 325(o)(2)(B)(i).
The Department encourages efforts to develop consensus among
interested parties on proposals for new or revised standards as an
effective mechanism for balancing the economic, energy, and
environmental interests affected by standards. Thus, notwithstanding
any other policy on selection of proposed standards, a consensus
recommendation on an updated efficiency level submitted by a group that
represents all interested parties will be proposed by the Department if
it is determined to meet the statutory criteria.
Section 5(e) articulates a number of policies to guide the
application of EPCA's economic justification criterion in selecting a
proposed standard. Although many factors are pertinent to the ultimate
judgment about whether the benefits of a standard level exceed the
burdens, these policies reflect special concern about particular types
of significant adverse impacts on consumers and manufacturers in
reaching that judgment.
The policies articulated in section 5(e)(3)(i) are stated as
rebuttable presumptions. Although these presumptions reflect the great
significance DOE attaches to these factors, DOE will consider evidence
that rebuts an applicable presumption that a standard level is not
economically justified. Any applicable presumption will be rebutted if
the Department determines that specifically identified expected
benefits of the standard would outweigh the expected adverse effects.
6. Effective Date of a Standard
Section 6 provides that the lead time between the publication of a
final rule in the Federal Register and the effective date of the new or
revised standard will be at least the period contemplated by the
rulemaking schedules contained in EPCA. The Department will consider,
on a case-by-case basis, further extending this lead time if the
circumstances warrant. For instance, the lead time might be extended to
mitigate the cumulative burden of implementing multiple product
regulations or to permit time for market acceptance of new products.
This section also provides that the period between the effective date
of one standard and the effective date of any revision to that standard
will be at least the period contemplated by the rulemaking schedules
contained in EPCA. These policies will ensure that the time available
for manufacturers to prepare for implementation of a new or revised
standard and the time available for the amortization of any fixed costs
associated with compliance will be no less than anticipated in the
statute.
7. Test Procedures
Section 7 states the Department's commitment to ensure that
revisions to test procedure rules necessary to evaluate revisions to
standards are developed and finalized in a timely fashion.
Any necessary modifications in test procedures will be proposed
before issuance of an ANOPR on revised standards and will be finalized
prior to the issuance of a NOPR on revised standards. Where significant
test procedure changes are needed, DOE will attempt to finalize test
procedure revisions before the issuance of an ANOPR on revised
standards.
8. Joint Stakeholder Recommendations
Section 8 states that the Department supports efforts by groups of
interested parties to develop and present consensus recommendations on
standards to DOE. Throughout the standards development process, and
especially following the issuance of the ANOPR, interested parties are
welcome to develop common recommendations to the Department on product
categories and standard levels as well as on more specific analytical
issues. The
[[Page 36978]]
Department will seek to support these efforts in whatever way possible.
9. Principles for the Conduct of Engineering Analysis
Section 9 states the Department's commitment to solicit input from
interested parties and experts in conducting the engineering analysis.
The Department will use this input to develop the design options to be
considered in the subsequent analyses, identify any engineering models
necessary, and estimate the likely cost and performance improvement
potential of design options. The Department will use analytical methods
that explicitly account for uncertainty.
10. Principles for the Analysis of Impacts on Manufacturers
Section 10 describes the approach DOE will use in the analysis and
consideration of impacts on manufacturers. The process addresses a
number of concerns raised in the process improvement effort. First, the
process provides opportunities for comments in the pre-ANOPR screening
process and at the beginning of the impact assessment process. This
will focus attention on items of specific concern to each individual
regulatory proceeding. Discussions on what data are critical as well as
the specific approaches for generating those data will be conducted in
open proceedings. Second, the Department will utilize an annual cash
flow approach to determine quantitative impacts on manufacturers
including a short term assessment based on the cost and capital
requirements during the period between the announcement of a regulation
and the time when the regulation comes into effect. Third, with input
from manufacturers and other interested parties, the Department will
develop estimates of the critical variables affecting manufacturers
(such as expected changes in product prices, sales, and possible fuel
switching) drawing on multiple sources of data both quantitative and
qualitative. Fourth, the Department will analyze the impacts of a
standard on different types of manufacturers, with particular attention
to impacts on small manufacturers. This will be done with scenario
analysis or other appropriate methods. Fifth, the Department will use
models that: are clear and understandable; feature accessible
calculations; and recognize and report the range of uncertainty.
Finally, the Department will assess and describe the effects on
manufacturers of other significant product-specific regulations that
will take effect within three years of the effective date of the
standard under consideration and will affect significantly the same
manufacturers. This assessment is intended to capture the impacts of
different DOE standards affecting multiple products made by the same
manufacturing division.
With respect to overlapping efficiency standards on a product and
components of the product, the Department will pay special attention to
the cumulative regulatory burden being borne by the manufacturer of
finished products containing that component. In such cases, the
Department will specifically address the cost of potential component
standards plus the overlapping costs of existing parallel standards on
both the component and the system in which the component is installed.
11. Principles for the Analysis of Impacts on Consumers
Section 11 describes the Department's approach to consideration of
consumer impacts. First, in the very early stages of standard
development, DOE will consider adverse impacts of design options on
consumer utility and will identify other possible impacts on consumers
of updated efficiency standards which may warrant closer examination
during the standards development process. Second, DOE will determine,
on the basis of any information submitted during the standard
development process, whether a proposed standard is likely to result in
the unavailability of any covered product type with performance
characteristics, features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are
substantially the same as products generally available in the U.S. at
the time. Consistent with EPCA, DOE will not promulgate a standard at a
level where it concludes that it would result in such unavailability.
Third, the Department will consider the views of the Department of
Justice on any impacts of a proposed standard on competition, and will
not issue a standard determined to have significant anticompetitive
impacts. Fourth, the Department will use regional analysis and
sensitivity analysis tools, as appropriate, to evaluate the potential
distribution of impacts of candidate standards levels on consumers. The
Department will consider impacts on significant segments of society in
determining standards levels. Where significant subgroups would be
expected to bear significant adverse impacts, DOE will place increased
emphasis on voluntary programs to bring about additional potential
energy savings.
The Department will be sensitive to first cost increases and make
greater use of sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis in reporting
consumer Life-Cycle Cost, Payback Period and Cost of Conserved Energy.
The Department expects that the use of these methods will result in
more economically efficient standards than reliance on pay-back period
alone, while achieving the similar result of avoiding negative impacts
to identifiable population groups.
Substantial increases in product prices may adversely affect low-
income households or cause shifts in product purchasing patterns. Thus,
if a candidate standard level would cause a substantial increase in the
product first costs to consumers or would not pay back such additional
first costs through energy cost savings in less than three years,
Department will specifically assess the likely impacts of such a
standard on low-income households, product sales and fuel switching.
The results of this assessment will be considered in the evaluation of
consumer and manufacturer impacts.
As noted during the process improvement effort, consumers have
rarely participated directly in standards development. In order to
address concerns about the lack of such direct participation, DOE will
seek to strengthen its efforts to inform and involve consumers and
consumer representatives in the process of developing standards. This
will include expanded notification of consumer representatives during
the process of developing updated efficiency standards and, where
appropriate, DOE may seek the direct input of consumers.
The Department is committed to improving the analysis of
engineering issues and consumer and manufacturer impacts. The
Department also is cognizant that using ever more elaborate
quantitative approaches carries the risk of unacceptable delays and
incomprehensible analysis and results. For these reasons, the
Department will seek to balance appropriately the use of quantitative
and qualitative approaches, with the goal of providing the most useful
information upon which to make the required judgments.
12. Consideration of Non-Regulatory Approaches
Section 12 states the Department's commitment to consider fully the
likely effects of market forces and any non-regulatory initiatives in
assessing the incremental benefits of efficiency standards. DOE
considers voluntary ``market pull'' programs to be an
[[Page 36979]]
important complement to its standards program.
13. Crosscutting Analytical Assumptions
Section 13 describes the principles the Department intends to
follow in selecting the key assumptions which are critical to the
quantitative analysis of the impacts of candidate standard levels,
including rates of economic growth, energy price and demand trends,
product specific energy efficiency trends, real discount rates and
emission rates. These cross-cutting analytical assumptions will
continue to be specifically identified in all notices of proposed
rulemaking and will continue to be subject to public comment and review
as part of each such rulemaking.
Certain crosscutting analytical assumptions will change regularly
as forecasts of economic growth, energy price, demand, efficiency and
other trends are modified. In other cases, such as the real discount
rates used to assess the present value of future costs or savings for
consumers, commercial businesses, manufacturers or the Nation, the
Department hopes that the crosscutting analytical assumptions will
remain relatively stable. For residential consumers, the Department
currently uses real discount rates of 2, 6 and 15% in the analysis of
likely impacts of appliance standards. For commercial users, the
Department currently uses 4, 8 and 12%. For manufacturers, the
Department currently uses 12%, but is likely to develop a range of
values for future use. For National benefits, the Department currently
uses 7%.
With respect to the consideration of the impacts of candidate
standards on the environment and energy security, the Department can
find no sound analytical method for accurately estimating the monetary
value of such environmental or energy security benefits (or costs).
Therefore, the Department will not attempt to incorporate the estimated
monetary value of such externalities into its estimates of the national
net present values of candidate standard levels. However, as required
by the National Environmental Policy Act, the Department will continue
to consider the likely effects of candidate standard levels on the
environment and energy security in reaching a decision as to whether
the benefits of the such standard levels exceed their burdens.
EPCA provides that energy conservation standards prescribed under
EPCA are to be based on energy consumption at the point of use (i.e.,
site energy). See EPCA sections 321 (4), (5) and (6). For purposes of
estimating energy savings in evaluating the benefits of a proposed
standard, DOE considers the energy savings associated with the
production of the fuel used by the appliance covered by the standard
(i.e., source energy).
14. Deviations, Revisions and Judicial Review
The Department has crafted this rule to include procedures,
interpretations and policies that it believes will be appropriate for
general use in the future conduct of the appliance standards program.
However, given the possibility of unanticipated circumstances affecting
either particular rulemakings or the program generally, the rule
includes provision for case-specific deviations and modifications of
the generally applicable rule. If the Department concludes that
elements of this rule are not appropriate in a particular standards
rulemaking, DOE will provide interested parties with notice of the
deviation and an explanation of why such a deviation was deemed
appropriate. If the Department concludes, based on experience with this
approach, that changes in this Appendix are appropriate, DOE will
provide notice of such modifications to the rule with an accompanying
explanation. DOE will consult with interested parties, probably through
the advisory committee (described in section IV.5 of this Supplementary
Information), prior to any such modification to the rule. The
procedures, interpretations, and policies stated in this Appendix are
not intended to establish any new cause of action or right to judicial
review. Judicial review of final rules is provided for in section 336
of EPCA.
IV. Related DOE Actions To Implement Process Improvements
In addition to promulgation of this rule, DOE employed other
activities to address some of the concerns raised by stakeholders
during the process improvement. These activities are described below.
1. Finalized Process Improvement Report
The Department will issue the final report on ``Results of the
Appliance Rulemaking Process Improvement Effort'' in August 1996.
2. Process To Develop Rulemaking Priorities
On June 14, 1996, the Department held a public workshop on
priority-setting and DOE will make available a draft priority listing
based on the results of our priority-setting analysis in late July. The
draft rulemaking priority listing and the accompanying analysis will:
Indicate for which covered products DOE is proposing to initiate or
continue, during the next two years, the development of updated
standards; document the priority-setting analysis which DOE used to
develop the draft priority listing; indicate the next steps for all
currently active rulemakings; describe any variations from the enhanced
process that will be followed for specific products; and provide a
schedule for completion of each rulemaking identified.
The final list of rulemaking priorities will be available at the
time that the Regulatory Agenda is published in the Federal Register in
the fall of 1996. During the summer, the Department will obtain public
comments on the draft listing of rulemaking priorities.
3. Review of Manufacturer Impact Analysis
In order to initiate the process of developing new and
substantially improved methods for assessing the impacts of standards
on manufacturers, DOE will review in detail the existing analyses
methodologies, develop a draft work plan for the development of new
methods for assessing manufacturer impact, and invite comments and
suggestions from interested parties.
4. Review of Non-Regulatory Approaches
DOE has initiated a process for developing methods for comparing
the likely benefits and costs of updated efficiency standards to
various non-regulatory alternatives. For instance, DOE held a public
workshop on June 20, 1996 which examined, among other issues,
alternatives and complements to standards for fluorescent lamp
ballasts. DOE expects to hold one or more similar workshops to examine
these issues with regard to other products.
5. Creation of an Advisory Committee
DOE is establishing an Advisory Committee on Appliance Energy
Efficiency Standards. The Committee will provide an official, organized
forum for interested parties to provide the Department with advice,
information, and recommendations on the Appliance Efficiency Standards
rulemaking process. Committee members will be chosen to ensure an
appropriately balanced representation of various points of view and
functions of interested parties and experts, such as manufacturer trade
associations, manufacturers, energy efficiency groups, consumers,
utilities, retailers, and state energy offices. The Assistant Secretary
[[Page 36980]]
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy will chair the Committee.
It is anticipated that this advisory committee will be a useful
forum for obtaining advice on the desirability of making changes to the
procedures, interpretations and policies set out in this rule, and on
cross cutting analytical issues affecting all product standards. The
Advisory Committee may recommend that DOE undertake generic proceedings
relating to crosscutting analytical issues.
V. Status of Ongoing Rulemakings
As stated in section 2 of the rule, the Department will apply the
new process described in section 4 of the rule to all rulemakings for
which a NOPR has not yet been published. To the extent analytical work
has already been done, and public comment on an ANOPR already has been
provided, such analysis and comment will be considered, as appropriate,
in proceeding with the new process.
The Department is precluded through September 1996 from using funds
appropriated under the Fiscal Year 1996 Interior Appropriations Act to
propose or promulgate new or revised efficiency standards. With respect
to rulemakings for which a NOPR has already been published, DOE
currently intends to proceed as follows:
Refrigerators. The analysis of comments on the NOPR is complete. At
this time, DOE believes that no major changes to the underlying
analysis of the proposed refrigerator standards is necessary. However,
the Department expects to consult further with interested parties to
determine whether it is appropriate to make alterations to the proposed
standards to take into account the interaction between the revised
efficiency standards and Clean Air Act and Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer regulations relating to
manufacture of HCFCs, which take effect in 2003, as suggested by some
stakeholders. The Department expects that any further consideration of
this issue would be consistent with the approach taken in today's rule
on pertinent topics such as cumulative regulatory burden.
Ballasts. The analysis underlying the previously proposed standards
has been substantially revised and has been circulated for technical
review by manufacturers and other interested parties. A public workshop
to review this revised analysis was held on June 20, 1996.
Cooking Products and Room Air Conditioners. The analyses underlying
the proposed standards for these two product categories have been
substantially revised and are now being circulated for technical review
by manufacturers and other interested parties. On the basis of these
analyses and any comments received on these analyses, the Department
expects to proceed to issue a final rule after the current fiscal year
1996 moratorium expires.
Water Heaters. The analyses for gas, oil and electric water heaters
are being revised and will be completed and made available for review
depending on the priority given this product. A revised NOPR would be
issued following the new procedure.
Mobile Home Furnaces, Direct Heating Equipment and Pool Heaters.
The analyses for these products have been revised and will be made
available for review depending on the priority given them. Revised
NOPRs would be issued following the new procedure.
In the near term, DOE will consider these rulemakings among others
in the upcoming priority setting effort, and will solicit and consider
public comment on how to proceed with these rules in that process.
VI. Administrative Procedure
The rule published today describes procedures, interpretations, and
policies DOE will follow in conducting rulemakings on appliance
standards. DOE is not required to provide for prior notice and
opportunity for comment on today's final regulations because they fall
within the Administrative Procedure Act's exception for
``interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of
agency organization, procedure, or practice.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).
Moreover, these procedures, interpretations and policies were developed
with extensive consultation with representatives of all of the
interests that typically participate in standards rulemakings. The
consultations to date are described in detail in section II of this
Supplementary Information.
VII. Administrative Reviews
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' October 4,
1993. Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the
Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
B. Review Under Executive Order 12612
Executive Order 12612 requires that regulations, rules,
legislation, and any other policy actions be reviewed for any
substantial direct effect on states, on the relationship between the
National Government and states, or in the distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of government. If there are
substantial effects, then the Executive Order requires preparation of a
federalism assessment to be used in all decisions involved in
promulgating and implementing a policy action.
The final rules published today do not regulate the states. They
primarily will affect the manner in which DOE develops proposed rules
to revise consumer product energy efficiency standards. Section 327 of
the EPCA provides for preemption of state regulation in this area. The
final rules published today do not alter the distribution of authority
and responsibility to regulate in this area. Accordingly, DOE has
determined that preparation of a federalism assessment is unnecessary.
C. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on
Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and
promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review
required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of the Executive Order
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of the Executive Order requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it
is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE reviewed today's final
regulations under the standards of section 3 of the Executive Order and
determined that, to the extent permitted
[[Page 36981]]
by law, they meet the requirements of those standards.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
If an agency is required by law to issue a general NOPR, and if a
rule has, or is likely to have, a significant negative economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, then the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires preparation of an
initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis to accompany proposed
and final rulemakings, respectively. Because the rule published today
is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under the Administrative
Procedure Act, there is no requirement to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis.
E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
The Department has concluded that this rule falls into a class of
actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321, 4331-35, 4341-
47, because they would not individually or cumulatively have a
significant impact on the human environment as determined by DOE's
regulations. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D. Therefore this rule does not
require preparation of an environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment pursuant to NEPA.
F. Review Under Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. 104-4,
requires each Federal agency to assess the possible effects of Federal
regulatory action on state, local, and tribal governments, and the
private sector of Federal mandates. If a Federal mandate is expected to
have an impact of $100 million or more in any year, then the mandate is
significant and the issuing agency is obliged to undertake a detailed
assessment of costs and benefits. If the Federal mandate is a
significant intergovernmental mandate, then the issuing agency is
obliged to provide a meaningful and timely opportunity for affected
governments to participate in the development of the rule. The final
regulations in this notice apply only to the conduct of DOE officials
and do not place regulatory obligations on anyone outside of DOE.
Accordingly, there are no legal requirements under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 that apply to this rulemaking.
G. Review Under Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996
Consistent with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, DOE will submit to Congress a report regarding the
issuance of today's final rule prior to the effective date set forth at
the outset of this notice. The report will note the Office of
Management and Budget's determination that this rule does not
constitute a ``major rule'' under that Act. 5 U.S.C. 801, 804.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation,
Household appliances.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 9, 1996.
Christine A. Ervin,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Part 430 of Chapter II
of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as set forth
below:
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
1. The authority cite continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309.
2. Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 430--Procedures, Interpretations
and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation
Standards for Consumer Products--is added as set forth below:
Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 430--Procedures, Interpretations and
Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation
Standards for Consumer Products
1. Objectives
2. Scope
3. Setting Priorities for Rulemaking Activity
4. Process for Developing Efficiency Standards and Factors to be
Considered
5. Policies on Selection of Standards
6. Effective Date of a Standard
7. Test Procedures
8. Joint Stakeholder Recommendations
9. Principles for the Conduct of Engineering Analysis
10. Principles for the Analysis of Impacts on Manufacturers
11. Principles for the Analysis of Impacts on Consumers
12. Consideration of Non-Regulatory Approaches
13. Crosscutting Analytical Assumptions
14. Deviations, Revisions, and Judicial Review
1. Objectives
This Appendix establishes procedures, interpretations and
policies to guide the DOE in the consideration and promulgation of
new or revised appliance efficiency standards under the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). The Department's objectives in
establishing these guidelines include:
(a) Provide for early input from stakeholders. The Department
seeks to provide opportunities for public input early in the
rulemaking process so that the initiation and direction of
rulemakings is informed by comment from interested parties. Under
the guidelines established by this Appendix, DOE will seek early
input from interested parties in setting rulemaking priorities and
structuring the analyses for particular products. Interested parties
will be invited to provide input for the selection of design options
and will help DOE identify analysis, data, and modeling needs. DOE
will gather input from interested parties through a variety of
mechanisms, including public workshops.
(b) Increase predictability of the rulemaking timetable. The
Department seeks to make informed, strategic decisions about how to
deploy its resources on the range of possible standards development
activities, and to announce these prioritization decisions so that
all interested parties have a common expectation about the timing of
different rulemaking activities. The guidelines in this Appendix
provide for setting priorities and timetables for standards
development and test procedure modification and reflect these
priorities in the Regulatory Agenda.
(c) Increase use of outside technical expertise. The Department
seeks to expand its use of outside technical experts in evaluating
product-specific engineering issues to ensure that decisions on
technical issues are fully informed. The guidelines in this Appendix
provide for increased use of outside technical experts in
developing, performing and reviewing the analyses. Draft analytical
results will be distributed for peer and stakeholder review.
(d) Eliminate problematic design options early in the process.
The Department seeks to eliminate from consideration, early in the
process, any design options that present unacceptable problems with
respect to manufacturability, consumer utility, or safety, so that
the detailed analysis can focus only on viable design options. Under
the guidelines in this Appendix, DOE will eliminate from
consideration design options if it concludes that manufacture,
installation or service of the design will be impractical, or that
the design option will adversely affect the utility of the product,
or if the design has adverse safety or health impacts. This
screening will be done at the outset of a rulemaking.
(e) Fully consider non-regulatory approaches. The Department
seeks to understand the effects of market forces and voluntary
programs on encouraging the purchase of energy efficient products so
that the incremental impacts of a new or revised standard can be
accurately assessed and the Department can make informed decisions
about where standards and voluntary ``market pull'' programs can be
used most effectively. Under the guidelines in this
[[Page 36982]]
Appendix, DOE will solicit information on the effectiveness of
market forces and non-regulatory approaches for encouraging the
purchase of energy efficient products, and will carefully consider
this information in assessing the benefits of standards. In
addition, DOE will continue to support voluntary efforts by
manufacturers, retailers, utilities and others to increase product
efficiency.
(f) Conduct thorough analysis of impacts. In addition to
understanding the aggregate costs and benefits of standards, the
Department seeks to understand the distribution of those costs and
benefits among consumers, manufacturers and others, and the
uncertainty associated with these analyses of costs and benefits, so
that any adverse impacts on significant subgroups and uncertainty
concerning any adverse impacts can be fully considered in selecting
a standard. Under the guidelines in this Appendix, the analyses will
consider the variability of impacts on significant groups of
manufacturers and consumers in addition to aggregate costs and
benefits, report the range of uncertainty associated with these
impacts, and take into account cumulative impacts of regulation on
manufacturers.
(g) Use transparent and robust analytical methods. The
Department seeks to use qualitative and quantitative analytical
methods that are fully documented for the public and that produce
results that can be explained and reproduced, so that the analytical
underpinnings for policy decisions on standards are as sound and
well-accepted as possible. Under the guidelines in this Appendix,
DOE will solicit input from interested parties in identifying
analysis, data, and modeling needs with respect to measurement of
impacts on manufacturers and consumers.
(h) Articulate policies to guide selection of standards. The
Department seeks to adopt policies elaborating on the statutory
criteria for selecting standards, so that interested parties are
aware of the policies that will guide these decisions. Under the
guidelines in this Appendix, policies for screening design options,
selecting candidate standard levels, selecting a proposed standard
level, and establishing the final standard are established.
(i) Support efforts to build consensus on standards. The
Department seeks to encourage development of consensus proposals for
new or revised standards because standards with such broad-based
support are likely to balance effectively the economic, energy, and
environmental interests affected by standards. Under the guidelines
in this Appendix, DOE will support the development and submission of
consensus recommendations for standards by representative groups of
interested parties to the fullest extent possible.
(j) Reduce time and cost of developing standards. The Department
seeks to establish a clear protocol for initiating and conducting
standards rulemakings in order to eliminate time-consuming and
costly missteps. Under the guidelines in this Appendix, increased
and earlier involvement by interested parties and increased use of
technical experts should minimize the need for re-analysis. This
process should reduce the period between the publication of an
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) and the publication of
a final rule to not more than 18 months, and should decrease the
government and private sector resources required to complete the
standard development process.
2. Scope
(a) The procedures, interpretations and policies described in
this Appendix will be fully applicable to:
(1) Rulemakings concerning new or revised Federal energy
conservation standards for consumer products initiated after August
14, 1996, and
(2) Rulemakings concerning new or revised Federal energy
conservation standards for consumer products that have been
initiated but for which a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) has
not been published as of August 14, 1996.
(b) For rulemakings described in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, to the extent analytical work has already been done or
public comment on an ANOPR has already been provided, such analyses
and comment will be considered, as appropriate, in proceeding under
the new process.
(c) With respect to incomplete rulemakings concerning new or
revised Federal energy conservation standards for consumer products
for which a NOPR was published prior to August 14, 1996, the
Department will conduct a case-by-case review to decide whether any
of the analytical or procedural steps already completed should be
repeated. In any case, the approach described in this Appendix will
be used to the extent possible to conduct any analytical or
procedural steps that have not been completed.
3. Setting Priorities for Rulemaking Activity
(a) Priority-setting analysis and development of list of
priorities. At least once a year, the Department will prepare an
analysis of each of the factors identified in paragraph (d) of this
section based on existing literature, direct communications with
interested parties and other experts, and other available
information. The results of this analysis will be used to develop
rulemaking priorities and proposed schedules for the development and
issuance of all rulemakings. The DOE analysis, priorities and
proposed rulemaking schedules will be documented and distributed for
review and comment.
(b) Public review and comment. Each year, DOE will invite public
input to review and comment on the priority analysis.
(c) Issuance of final listing of rulemaking priorities. Each
fall, the Department will issue, simultaneously with the issuance of
the Administration's Regulatory Agenda, a final set of rulemaking
priorities, the accompanying analysis, and the schedules for all
priority rulemakings that it anticipates within the next two years.
(d) Factors for priority-setting. The factors to be considered
by DOE in developing priorities and establishing schedules for
conducting rulemakings will include:
(1) Potential energy savings.
(2) Potential economic benefits.
(3) Potential environmental or energy security benefits.
(4) Applicable deadlines for rulemakings.
(5) Incremental DOE resources required to complete rulemaking
process.
(6) Other relevant regulatory actions affecting products.
(7) Stakeholder recommendations.
(8) Evidence of energy efficiency gains in the market absent new
or revised standards.
(9) Status of required changes to test procedures.
(10) Other relevant factors.
4. Process for Developing Efficiency Standards and Factors to be
Considered
This section describes the process to be used in developing
efficiency standards and the factors to be considered in the
process. The policies of the Department to guide the selection of
standards and the decisions preliminary thereto are described in
section 5.
(a) Identifying and screening design options. Once the
Department has initiated a rulemaking for a specific product but
before publishing an ANOPR, DOE will identify the product categories
and design options to be analyzed in detail, and identify those
design options eliminated from further consideration. Interested
parties will be consulted to identify key issues, develop a list of
design options, and to help the Department identify the expertise
necessary to conduct the analysis.
(1) Identification of issues for analysis. The Department, in
consultation with interested parties, will identify issues that will
be examined in the standards development process.
(2) Identification of experts and other interested parties for
peer review. DOE, in consultation with interested parties, will
identify a group of independent experts and other interested parties
who can provide expert review of the results of the engineering
analysis and the subsequent impact analysis.
(3) Identification and screening of design options. In
consultation with interested parties, the Department will develop a
list of design options for consideration. Initially, the candidate
design options will encompass all those technologies considered to
be technologically feasible. Following the development of this
initial list of design options, DOE will review each design option
based on the factors described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section
and the policies stated in section 5(b). The reasons for eliminating
any design option at this stage of the process will be fully
documented and published as part of the ANOPR. The technologically
feasible design options that are not eliminated in this screening
will be considered further in the Engineering Analysis described in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(4) Factors for screening of design options. The factors for
screening design options include:
(i) Technological feasibility. Technologies incorporated in
commercial products or in working prototypes will be considered
technologically feasible.
(ii) Practicability to manufacture, install and service. If mass
production of a
[[Page 36983]]
technology in commercial products and reliable installation and
servicing of the technology could be achieved on the scale necessary
to serve the relevant market at the time of the effective date of
the standard, then that technology will be considered practicable to
manufacture, install and service.
(iii) Adverse Impacts on Product Utility or Product
Availability.
(iv) Adverse Impacts on Health or Safety.
(5) Selection of contractors. Using the specifications of
necessary contractor expertise developed in consultation with
interested parties, DOE will select appropriate contractors,
subcontractors, and as necessary, expert consultants to perform the
engineering analysis and the impact analysis.
(b) Engineering analysis of design options and selection of
candidate standard levels. After design options are identified and
screened, DOE will perform the engineering analysis and the benefit/
cost analysis and select the candidate standard levels based on
these analyses. The results of the analyses will be published in a
Technical Support Document (TSD) to accompany the ANOPR.
(1) Identification of engineering analytical methods and tools.
DOE, in consultation with outside experts, will select the specific
engineering analysis tools (or multiple tools, if necessary to
address uncertainty) to be used in the analysis of the design
options identified as a result of the screening analysis.
(2) Engineering and life-cycle cost analysis of design options.
The DOE and its contractor will perform engineering and life-cycle
cost analyses of the design options.
(3) Review by expert group and stakeholders. The results of the
engineering and life-cycle cost analyses will be distributed for
review by experts and interested parties. If appropriate, a public
workshop will be conducted to review these results. The analyses
will be revised as appropriate on the basis of this input.
(4) New information relating to the factors used for screening
design options. If further information or analysis leads to a
determination that a design option, or a combination of design
options, has unacceptable impacts based on the policies stated in
section 5(b), that design option or combination of design options
will not be included in a candidate standard level.
(5) Selection of candidate standard levels. Based on the results
of the engineering and life-cycle cost analysis of design options
and the policies stated in section 5(c), DOE will select the
candidate standard levels for further analysis.
(c) Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
(1) Documentation of decisions on candidate standard selection.
(i) If the screening analysis indicates that continued development
of a standard is appropriate, the Department will publish an ANOPR
in the Federal Register and will distribute a draft TSD containing
the analyses performed to this point. The ANOPR will specify
candidate standard levels but will not propose a particular
standard. The ANOPR will also include the preliminary analysis of
consumer life-cycle costs, national net present value, and energy
impacts for the candidate standard levels based on the engineering
analysis.
(ii) If the preliminary analysis indicates that no candidate
standard level is likely to meet the criteria specified in law, that
conclusion will be announced. In such cases, the Department may
decide to proceed with a rulemaking that proposes not to adopt new
or amended standards, or it may suspend the rulemaking and conclude
that further action on such standards should be assigned a low
priority under section 3.
(2) Public comment and hearing. There will be 75 days for public
comment on the ANOPR with at least one public hearing or workshop.
(3) Revisions based on comments. Based on consideration of the
comments received, any necessary changes to the engineering analysis
or the candidate standard levels will be made.
If major changes are required at this stage, interested parties
and experts will be given an opportunity to review the revised
analysis.
(d) Analysis of impacts and selection of proposed standard
level. After the ANOPR, economic analyses of the impacts of the
candidate standard levels will be conducted. The Department will
propose updated standards based on the results of the impact
analysis.
(1) Identification of issues for analysis. The Department, in
consultation with interested parties, will identify issues that will
be examined in the impacts analysis.
(2) Identification of analytical methods and tools. DOE, in
consultation with outside experts, will select the specific economic
analysis tools (or multiple tools if necessary to address
uncertainty) to be used in the analysis of the candidate standard
levels.
(3) Analysis of impacts. DOE will conduct the analysis of the
impacts of candidate standard levels including analysis of the
factors described in paragraphs (d)(7)(ii)-(viii) of this section.
(4) Review by expert group and stakeholders. The results of the
analysis of impacts will be distributed for review by experts and
interested parties. If appropriate, a public workshop will be
conducted to review these results. The analysis will be revised as
appropriate on the basis of this input.
(5) Efforts to develop consensus among stakeholders. If a
representative group of interested parties undertakes to develop
joint recommendations to the Department on standards, DOE will
consider deferring its impact analysis until these discussions are
completed or until participants in the efforts indicate that they
are unable to reach a timely agreement.
(6) Selection of proposed standard level based on analysis of
impacts. On the basis of the analysis of the factors described in
paragraph (d)(7) of this section and the policies stated in section
5(e), DOE will select a proposed standard level.
(7) Factors to be considered in selecting a proposed standard.
The factors to be considered in selection of a proposed standard
include:
(i) Consensus stakeholder recommendations.
(ii) Impacts on manufacturers. The analysis of manufacturer
impacts will include: Estimated impacts on cash flow; assessment of
impacts on manufacturers of specific categories of products and
small manufacturers; assessment of impacts on manufacturers of
multiple product-specific Federal regulatory requirements, including
efficiency standards for other products and regulations of other
agencies; and impact on manufacturing capacity, plant closures, and
loss of capital investment.
(iii) Impacts on consumers. The analysis of consumer impacts
will include: Estimated impacts on consumers based on national
average energy prices and energy usage; assessments of impacts on
subgroups of consumers based on major regional differences in usage
or energy prices and significant variations in installation costs or
performance; sensitivity analyses using high and low discount rates
and high and low energy price forecasts; consideration of changes to
product utility and other impacts of likely concern to all or some
consumers, based to the extent practicable on direct input from
consumers; estimated life-cycle cost with sensitivity analysis; and
consideration of the increased first cost to consumers and the time
required for energy cost savings to pay back these first costs.
(iv) I
FR Doc. 96-17886 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Procedures for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products
mpacts on competition.
(v) Impacts on utilities. The analysis of utility impacts will
include estimated marginal impacts on electric and gas utility costs
and revenues.
(vi) National energy, economic and employment impacts. The
analysis of national energy, economic and employment impacts will
include: Estimated energy savings by fuel type; estimated net
present value of benefits to all consumers; and estimates of the
direct and indirect impacts on employment by appliance
manufacturers, relevant service industries, energy suppliers and the
economy in general.
(vii) Impacts on the environment and energy security. The
analysis of environmental and energy security impacts will include
estimated impacts on emissions of carbon and relevant criteria
pollutants, impacts on pollution control costs, and impacts on oil
use.
(viii) Impacts of non-regulatory approaches. The analysis of
energy savings and consumer impacts will incorporate an assessment
of the impacts of market forces and existing voluntary programs in
promoting product efficiency, usage and related characteristics in
the absence of updated efficiency standards.
(ix) New information relating to the factors used for screening
design options.
(e) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
(1) Documentation of decisions on proposed standard selection.
The Department will publish a NOPR in the Federal Register that
proposes standard levels and explains the basis for the selection of
those proposed levels, and will distribute a draft TSD documenting
the analysis of impacts. As required by Sec. 325(p)(2) of EPCA, the
NOPR also will describe the maximum improvement in energy efficiency
or
[[Page 36984]]
maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible
and, if the proposed standards would not achieve these levels, the
reasons for proposing different standards.
(2) Public comment and hearing. There will be 75 days for public
comment on the NOPR, with at least one public hearing or workshop.
(3) Revisions to impact analyses and selection of final
standard. Based on the public comments received and the policies
stated in section 5(f), DOE will review the proposed standard and
impact analyses, and make modifications as necessary. If major
changes to the analyses are required at this stage, interested
parties and experts will be given an opportunity to review the
revised analyses.
(f) Notice of Final Rulemaking. The Department will publish a
Notice of Final Rulemaking in the Federal Register that promulgates
standard levels and explains the basis for the selection of those
standards, accompanied by a final TSD.
5. Policies on Selection of Standards.
(a) Purpose. (1) Section 4 describes the process that will be
used to consider new or revised energy efficiency standards and
lists a number of factors and analyses that will be considered at
specified points in the process. Department policies concerning the
selection of new or revised standards, and decisions preliminary
thereto, are described in this section.
These policies are intended to elaborate on the statutory
criteria provided in section 325 of the EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295.
(2) The policies described below are intended to provide
guidance for making the determinations required by EPCA. This
statement of policy is not intended to preclude consideration of any
information pertinent to the statutory criteria. The Department will
consider all pertinent information in determining whether a new or
revised standard is consistent with the statutory criteria.
Moreover, the Department will not be guided by a policy in this
section if, in the particular circumstances presented, such a policy
would lead to a result inconsistent with the criteria in section 325
of EPCA.
(b) Screening design options. Section 4(a)(4) lists factors to
be considered in screening design options. These factors will be
considered as follows in determining whether a design option will
receive any further consideration:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will
not be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial
products and reliable installation and servicing of the technology
could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant
market at the time of the effective date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility to consumers. If a technology is
determined to have significant adverse impact on the utility of the
product to significant subgroups of consumers, or result in the
unavailability of any covered product type with performance
characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products
generally available in the U.S. at the time, it will not be
considered further.
(4) Safety of technologies. If it is determined that a
technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or
safety, it will not be considered further.
(c) Identification of candidate standard levels. Based on the
results of the engineering and cost and benefit analyses of design
options, DOE will identify the candidate standard levels for further
analysis. Candidate standard levels will be selected as follows:
(1) Costs and savings of design options. Design options which
have payback periods that exceed the average life of the product or
which cause life-cycle cost increases relative to the base case,
using typical fuel costs, usage and discount rates, will not be used
as the basis for candidate standard levels.
(2) Further information on factors used for screening design
options. If further information or analysis leads to a determination
that a design option, or a combination of design options, has
unacceptable impacts under the policies stated in paragraph (b) of
this section, that design option or combination of design options
will not be included in a candidate standard level.
(3) Selection of candidate standard levels. Candidate standard
levels, which will be identified in the ANOPR and on which impact
analyses will be conducted, will be based on the remaining design
options.
(i) The range of candidate standard levels will typically
include:
(A) The most energy efficient combination of design options;
(B) The combination of design options with the lowest life-cycle
cost; and
(C) A combination of design options with a payback period of not
more than three years.
(ii) Candidate standard levels that incorporate noteworthy
technologies or fill in large gaps between efficiency levels of
other candidate standard levels also may be selected.
(d) Advance notice of proposed rulemaking. New information
provided in public comments on the ANOPR will be considered to
determine whether any changes to the candidate standard levels are
needed before proceeding to the analysis of impacts. This review,
and any appropriate adjustments, will be based on the policies in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(e) Selection of proposed standard. Based on the results of the
analysis of impacts, DOE will select a standard level to be proposed
for public comment in the NOPR. Section 4(d)(7) lists the factors to
be considered in selecting a proposed standard level. Section
325(o)(2)(A) of EPCA provides that any new or revised standard must
be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency
that is determined to be technologically feasible and economically
justified.
(1) Statutory policies. The fundamental policies concerning
selection of standards are established in the EPCA, including the
following:
(i) A candidate standard level will not be proposed or
promulgated if the Department determines that it is not
technologically feasible and economically justified. See EPCA
section 325(o)(3)(B). A standard level is economically justified if
the benefits exceed the burdens. See EPCA section 325(o)(2)(B)(i). A
standard level is rebuttably presumed to be economically justified
if the payback period is three years or less. See EPCA section
325(o)(2)(B)(iii).
(ii) If the Department determines that a standard level is
likely to result in the unavailability of any covered product type
with performance characteristics (including reliability), features,
sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as
products generally available in the U.S. at the time, that standard
level will not be proposed. See EPCA section 325(o)(4).
(iii) If the Department determines that a standard level would
not result in significant conservation of energy, that standard
level will not be proposed. See EPCA section 325(o)(3)(B).
(2) Selection of proposed standard on the basis of consensus
stakeholder recommendations. Development of consensus proposals for
new or revised standards is an effective mechanism for balancing the
economic, energy, and environmental interests affected by standards.
Thus, notwithstanding any other policy on selection of proposed
standards, a consensus recommendation on an updated efficiency level
submitted by a group that represents all interested parties will be
proposed by the Department if it is determined to meet the statutory
criteria.
(3) Considerations in assessing economic justification.
(i) The following policies will guide the application of the
economic justification criterion in selecting a proposed standard:
(A) If the Department determines that a candidate standard level
would result in a negative return on investment for the industry,
would significantly reduce the value of the industry, or would cause
significant adverse impacts to a significant subgroup of
manufacturers (including small manufacturing businesses), that
standard level will be presumed not to be economically justified
unless the Department determines that specifically identified
expected benefits of the standard would outweigh this and any other
expected adverse effects.
(B) If the Department determines that a candidate standard level
would be the direct cause of plant closures, significant losses in
domestic manufacturer employment, or significant losses of capital
investment by domestic manufacturers, that standard level will be
presumed not to be economically justified unless the Department
determines that specifically identified expected benefits of the
standard would outweigh this and any other expected adverse effects.
(C) If the Department determines that a candidate standard level
would have a significant adverse impact on the environment or energy
security, that standard level will be presumed not to be
[[Page 36985]]
economically justified unless the Department determines that
specifically identified expected benefits of the standard would
outweigh this and any other expected adverse effects.
(D) If the Department determines that a candidate standard level
would not result in significant energy conservation relative to non-
regulatory approaches, that standard level will be presumed not to
be economically justified unless the Department determines that
other specifically identified expected benefits of the standard
would outweigh the expected adverse effects.
(E) If the Department determines that a candidate standard level
is not consistent with the policies relating to practicability to
manufacture, consumer utility, or safety in paragraphs (b) (2), (3)
and (4) of this section, that standard level will be presumed not to
be economically justified unless the Department determines that
specifically identified expected benefits of the standard would
outweigh this and any other expected adverse effects.
(F) If the Department determines that a candidate standard level
is not consistent with the policies relating to consumer costs in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, that standard level will be
presumed not to be economically justified unless the Department
determines that specifically identified expected benefits of the
standard would outweigh this and any other expected adverse effects.
(G) If the Department determines that a candidate standard level
will have significant adverse impacts on a significant subgroup of
consumers (including low-income consumers), that standard level will
be presumed not to be economically justified unless the Department
determines that specifically identified expected benefits of the
standard would outweigh this and any other expected adverse effects.
(H) If the Department or the Department of Justice determines
that a candidate standard level would have significant
anticompetitive effects, that standard level will be presumed not to
be economically justified unless the Department determines that
specifically identified expected benefits of the standard would
outweigh this and any other expected adverse effects.
(ii) The basis for a determination that triggers any presumption
in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section and the basis for a
determination that an applicable presumption has been rebutted will
be supported by substantial evidence in the record and the evidence
and rationale for making these determinations will be explained in
the NOPR.
(iii) If none of the policies in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this
section is found to be dispositive, the Department will determine
whether the benefits of a candidate standard level exceed the
burdens considering all the pertinent information in the record.
(f) Selection of a final standard. New information provided in
the public comments on the NOPR and any analysis by the Department
of Justice concerning impacts on competition of the proposed
standard will be considered to determine whether any change to the
proposed standard level is needed before proceeding to the final
rule. The same policies used to select the proposed standard level,
as described in section 5(e) above, will be used to guide the
selection of the final standard level.
6. Effective Date of a Standard
The effective date for new or revised standards will be
established so that the period between the publication of the final
rule and the effective date is not less than any period between the
dates for publication and effective date provided for in EPCA. The
effective date of any revised standard will be established so that
the period between the effective date of the prior standard and the
effective date of such revised standard is not less than period
between the two effective dates provided for in EPCA.
7. Test Procedures
(a) Identifying the need to modify test procedures. DOE, in
consultation with interested parties, experts, and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, will attempt to identify any
necessary modifications to established test procedures when
initiating the standards development process.
(b) Developing and proposing revised test procedures. Needed
modifications to test procedures will be identified in consultation
with experts and interested parties early in the screening stage of
the standards development process. Any necessary modifications will
be proposed before issuance of an ANOPR in the standards development
process.
(c) Issuing final test procedure modification. Final, modified
test procedures will be issued prior to the NOPR on proposed
standards.
(d) Effective date of modified test procedures. If required only
for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards,
modified test procedures typically will not go into effect until the
effective date of updated standards.
8. Joint Stakeholder Recommendations
(a) Joint recommendations. Consensus recommendations, and
supporting analyses, submitted by a representative group of
interested parties will be given substantial weight by DOE in the
development of a proposed rule. See section 5(e)(2). If the
supporting analyses provided by the group addresses all of the
statutory criteria and uses valid economic assumptions and
analytical methods, DOE expects to use this supporting analyses as
the basis of a proposed rule. The proposed rule will explain any
deviations from the consensus recommendations from interested
parties.
(b) Breadth of participation. Joint recommendations will be of
most value to the Department if the participants are reasonably
representative of those interested in the outcome of the standards
development process, including manufacturers, consumers, utilities,
states and representatives of environmental or energy efficiency
interest groups.
(c) DOE support of consensus development, including impact
analyses. In order to facilitate such consensus development, DOE
will make available, upon request, appropriate technical and legal
support to the group and will provide copies of all relevant public
documents and analyses. The Department also will consider any
requests for its active participation in such discussions,
recognizing that the procedural requirements of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act may apply to such participation.
9. Principles for the Conduct of Engineering Analysis
(a) The purpose of the engineering analysis is to develop the
relationship between efficiency and cost of the subject product. The
Department will use the most appropriate means available to
determine the efficiency/cost relationship, including an overall
system approach or engineering modeling to predict the improvement
in efficiency that can be expected from individual design options as
discussed in the paragraphs below. From this efficiency/cost
relationship, measures such as payback, life cycle cost, and energy
savings can be developed. The Department, in consultation with
interested parties, will identify issues that will be examined in
the engineering analysis and the types of specialized expertise that
may be required. With these specifications, DOE will select
appropriate contractors, subcontractors, and expert consultants, as
necessary, to perform the engineering analysis and the impact
analysis. Also, the Department will consider data, information and
analyses received from interested parties for use in the analysis
wherever feasible.
(b) The engineering analysis begins with the list of design
options developed in consultation with the interested parties as a
result of the screening process. In consultation with the
technology/industry expert peer review group, the Department will
establish the likely cost and performance improvement of each design
option. Ranges and uncertainties of cost and performance will be
established, although efforts will be made to minimize uncertainties
by using measures such as test data or component or material
supplier information where available. Estimated uncertainties will
be carried forward in subsequent analyses. The use of quantitative
models will be supplemented by qualitative assessments as
appropriate.
(c) The next step includes identifying, modifying or developing
any engineering models necessary to predict the efficiency impact of
any one or combination of design options on the product. A base case
configuration or starting point will be established as well as the
order and combination/blending of the design options to be
evaluated. The DOE, utilizing expert consultants, will then perform
the engineering analysis and develop the cost efficiency curve for
the product. The cost efficiency curve and any necessary models will
be subject to peer review before being issued with the ANOPR.
10. Principles for the Analysis of Impacts on Manufacturers
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the manufacturer analysis is to
identify the likely
[[Page 36986]]
impacts of efficiency standards on manufacturers. The Department
will analyze the impact of standards on manufacturers with
substantial input from manufacturers and other interested parties.
The use of quantitative models will be supplemented by qualitative
assessments by industry experts. This section describes the
principles that will be used in conducting future manufacturing
impact analysis.
(b) Issue identification. In the impact analysis stage (section
4(d)), the Department, in consultation with interested parties, will
identify issues that will require greater consideration in the
detailed manufacturer impact analysis. Possible issues may include
identification of specific types or groups of manufacturers and
concerns over access to technology. Specialized contractor
expertise, empirical data requirements, and analytical tools
required to perform the manufacturer impact analysis also would be
identified at this stage.
(c) Industry characterization. Prior to initiating detailed
impact studies, the Department will seek input on the present and
past industry structure and market characteristics. Input on the
following issues will be sought:
(1) Manufacturers and their relative market shares;
(2) Manufacturer characteristics, such as whether manufacturers
make a full line of models or serve a niche market;
(3) Trends in the number of manufacturers;
(4) Financial situation of manufacturers;
(5) Trends in product characteristics and retail markets; and
(6) Identification of other relevant regulatory actions and a
description of the nature and timing of any likely impacts.
(d) Cost impacts on manufacturers. The costs of labor, material,
engineering, tooling, and capital are difficult to estimate,
manufacturer-specific, and usually proprietary. The Department will
seek input from interested parties on the treatment of cost issues.
Manufacturers will be encouraged to offer suggestions as to possible
sources of data and appropriate data collection methodologies.
Costing issues to be addressed include:
(1) Estimates of total cost impacts, including product-specific
costs (based on cost impacts estimated for the engineering analysis)
and front-end investment/conversion costs for the full range of
product models.
(2) Range of uncertainties in estimates of average cost,
considering alternative designs and technologies which may vary cost
impacts and changes in costs of material, labor and other inputs
which may vary costs.
(3) Variable cost impacts on particular types of manufacturers,
considering factors such as atypical sunk costs or characteristics
of specific models which may increase or decrease costs.
(e) Impacts on product sales, features, prices and cost
recovery. In order to make manufacturer cash flow calculations, it
is necessary to predict the number of products sold and their sale
price. This requires an assessment of the likely impacts of price
changes on the number of products sold and on typical features of
models sold. Past analyses have relied on price and shipment data
generated by economic models. The Department will develop additional
estimates of prices and shipments by drawing on multiple sources of
data and experience including: actual shipment and pricing
experience, data from manufacturers, retailers and other market
experts, financial models, and sensitivity analyses. The possible
impacts of candidate standard levels on consumer choices among
competing fuels will be explicitly considered where relevant.
(f) Measures of impact. The manufacturer impact analysis will
estimate the impacts of candidate standard levels on the net cash
flow of manufacturers. Computations will be performed for the
industry as a whole and for typical and atypical manufacturers. The
exact nature and the process by which the analysis will be conducted
will be determined by DOE, in conjunction with interested parties.
Impacts to be analyzed include:
(1) Industry net present value, with sensitivity analyses based
on uncertainty of costs, sales prices and sales volumes;
(2) Cash flows, by year;
(3) Other measures of impact, such as revenue, net income and
return on equity, as appropriate;
The characteristics of atypical manufacturers worthy of special
consideration will be determined in consultation with manufacturers
and other interested parties and may include: manufacturers
incurring higher or lower than average costs; and manufacturers
experiencing greater or fewer adverse impacts on sales. Alternative
scenarios based on other methods of estimating cost or sales impacts
also will be performed, as needed.
(g) Cumulative impacts of other Federal regulatory actions. (1)
The Department will recognize and seek to mitigate the overlapping
effects on manufacturers of new or revised DOE standards and other
regulatory actions affecting the same products. DOE will analyze and
consider the impact on manufacturers of multiple product-specific
regulatory actions. These factors will be considered in setting
rulemaking priorities, assessing manufacturer impacts of a
particular standard, and establishing the effective date for a new
or revised standard. In particular, DOE will seek to propose
effective dates for new or revised standards that are appropriately
coordinated with other regulatory actions to mitigate any cumulative
burden.
(2) If the Department determines that a proposed standard would
impose a significant impact on product manufacturers within three
years of the effective date of another DOE standard that imposes
significant impacts on the same manufacturers (or divisions thereof,
as appropriate), the Department will, in addition to evaluating the
impact on manufacturers of the proposed standard, assess the joint
impacts of both standards on manufacturers.
(3) If the Department is directed to establish or revise
standards for products that are components of other products subject
to standards, the Department will consider the interaction between
such standards in setting rulemaking priorities and assessing
manufacturer impacts of a particular standard. The Department will
assess, as part of the engineering and impact analyses, the cost of
components subject to efficiency standards.
(h) Summary of quantitative and qualitative assessments. The
summary of quantitative and qualitative assessments will contain a
description and discussion of uncertainties. Alternative estimates
of impacts, resulting from the different potential scenarios
developed throughout the analysis, will be explicitly presented in
the final analysis results.
(i) Key modeling and analytical tools. In its assessment of the
likely impacts of standards on manufacturers, the Department will
use models which are clear and understandable, feature accessible
calculations, and have assumptions that are clearly explained. As a
starting point, the Department will use the Government Regulatory
Impact Model (GRIM). The Department will consider any enhancements
to the GRIM that are suggested by interested parties. If changes are
made to the GRIM methodology, DOE will provide notice and seek
public input. The Department will also support the development of
economic models for price and volume forecasting. Research required
to update key economic data will be considered.
11. Principles for the Analysis of Impacts on Consumers
(a) Early consideration of impacts on consumer utility. The
Department will consider at the earliest stages of the development
of a standard whether particular design options will lessen the
utility of the covered products to the consumer. See section 4(a).
(b) Impacts on product availability. The Department will
determine, based on consideration of information submitted during
the standard development process, whether a proposed standard is
likely to result in the unavailability of any covered product type
with performance characteristics (including reliability), features,
sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as
products generally available in the U.S. at the time. DOE will not
promulgate a standard if it concludes that it would result in such
unavailability.
(c) Department of justice review. As required by law, the
Department will solicit the views of the Justice Department on any
lessening of competition that is likely to result from the
imposition of a proposed standard and will give the views provided
full consideration in assessing economic justification of a proposed
standard. In addition, DOE may consult with the Department of
Justice at earlier stages in the standards development process to
seek to obtain preliminary views on competitive impacts.
(d) Variation in consumer impacts. The Department will use
regional analysis and sensitivity analysis tools, as appropriate, to
evaluate the potential distribution of impacts of candidate
standards levels among different subgroups of consumers. The
Department will consider impacts on significant segments
[[Page 36987]]
of consumers in determining standards levels. Where there are
significant negative impacts on identifiable subgroups, DOE will
consider the efficacy of voluntary approaches as a means to achieve
potential energy savings.
(e) Payback period and first cost. (1) In the assessment of
consumer impacts of standards, the Department will consider Life-
Cycle Cost, Payback Period and Cost of Conserved Energy to evaluate
the savings in operating expenses relative to increases in purchase
price. The Department intends to increase the level of sensitivity
analysis and scenario analysis for future rulemakings. The results
of these analyses will be carried throughout the analysis and the
ensuing uncertainty described.
(2) If, in the analysis of consumer impacts, the Department
determines that a candidate standard level would result in a
substantial increase in the product first costs to consumers or
would not pay back such additional first costs through energy cost
savings in less than three years, Department will specifically
assess the likely impacts of such a standard on low-income
households, product sales and fuel switching.
12. Consideration of Non-Regulatory Approaches
(a) The Department recognizes that voluntary or other non-
regulatory efforts by manufacturers, utilities and other interested
parties can result in substantial efficiency improvements. The
Department intends to consider fully the likely effects of non-
regulatory initiatives on product energy use, consumer utility and
life cycle costs, manufacturers, competition, utilities and the
environment, as well as the distribution of these impacts among
different regions, consumers, manufacturers and utilities. DOE will
attempt to base its assessment on the actual impacts of such
initiatives to date, but also will consider information presented
regarding the impacts that any existing initiative might have in the
future. Such information is likely to include a demonstration of the
strong commitment of manufacturers, distribution channels, utilities
or others to such voluntary efficiency improvements. This
information will be used in assessing the likely incremental impacts
of establishing or revising standards, in assessing appropriate
effective dates for new or revised standards and in considering DOE
support of non-regulatory initiatives.
(b) DOE believes that non-regulatory approaches are valuable
complements to the standards program. In particular, DOE will
consider pursuing voluntary programs where it appears that highly
efficient products can obtain a significant market share but less
efficient products cannot be eliminated altogether because, for
instance, of unacceptable adverse impacts on a significant subgroup
of consumers. In making this assessment, the Department will
consider the success more efficient designs have had in the market,
their acceptance to date, and their potential market penetration.
13. Crosscutting Analytical Assumptions
In selecting values for certain crosscutting analytical
assumptions, DOE expects to continue relying upon the following
sources and general principles:
(a) Underlying economic assumptions. The appliance standards
analyses will generally use the same economic growth and development
assumptions that underlie the most current Annual Energy Outlook
(AEO) published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA).
(b) Energy price and demand trends. Analyses of the likely
impact of appliance standards on typical users will generally adopt
the mid-range energy price and demand scenario of the EIA's most
current AEO. The sensitivity of such estimated impacts to possible
variations in future energy prices are likely to be examined using
the EIA's high and low energy price scenarios.
(c) Product-specific energy-efficiency trends, without updated
standards. Product specific energy-efficiency trends will be based
on a combination of the efficiency trends forecast by the EIA's
residential and commercial demand model of the National Energy
Modeling System (NEMS) and product-specific assessments by DOE and
its contractors with input from interested parties.
(d) Discount rates. For residential and commercial consumers,
ranges of three different real discount rates will be used. For
residential consumers, the mid-range discount rate will represent
DOE's approximation of the average financing cost (or opportunity
costs of reduced savings) experienced by typical consumers.
Sensitivity analyses will be performed using discount rates
reflecting the costs more likely to be experienced by residential
consumers with little or no savings and credit card financing and
consumers with substantial savings. For commercial users, a mid-
range discount rate reflecting the DOE's approximation of the
average real rate of return on commercial investment will be used,
with sensitivity analyses being performed using values indicative of
the range of real rates of return likely to be experienced by
typical commercial businesses. For national net present value
calculations, DOE would use the Administration's approximation of
the average real rate of return on private investment in the U.S.
economy. For manufacturer impacts, DOE plans to use a range of real
discount rates which are representative of the real rates of return
experienced by typical U.S. manufacturers affected by the program.
(e) Environmental impacts. The emission rates of carbon, sulfur
oxides and nitrogen oxides used by DOE to calculate the physical
quantities of emissions likely to be avoided by candidate standard
levels will be based on the current average carbon emissions of the
U.S. electric utilities and on the projected rates of emissions of
sulfur and nitrogen oxides. Projected rates of emissions, if
available, will be used for the estimation of any other
environmental impacts. The Department will consider the effects of
the proposed standards on these emissions in reaching a decision
about whether the benefits of the proposed standards exceed their
burdens but will not determine the monetary value of these
environmental externalities.
14. Deviations, Revisions, and Judicial Review
(a) Deviations. This Appendix specifies procedures,
interpretations and policies for the development of new or revised
energy efficiency standards in considerable detail. As the approach
described in this Appendix is applied to the development of
particular standards, the Department may find it necessary or
appropriate to deviate from these procedures, interpretations or
policies. If the Department concludes that such deviations are
necessary or appropriate in a particular situation, DOE will provide
interested parties with notice of the deviation and an explanation.
(b) Revisions. If the Department concludes that changes to the
procedures, interpretations or policies in this Appendix are
necessary or appropriate, DOE will provide notice in the Federal
Register of modifications to this Appendix with an accompanying
explanation. DOE expects to consult with interested parties prior to
any such modification.
(c) Judicial review. The procedures, interpretations, and
policies stated in this Appendix are not intended to establish any
new cause of action or right to judicial review.
[FR Doc. 96-17886 Filed 7-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17873 Personnel Appeals Board; Procedural Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 136 (Monday, July 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36809-36811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17873]
========================================================================
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. 136 / Monday, July 15, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 36809]]
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
4 CFR Parts 28 and 29
Personnel Appeals Board; Procedural Regulations
AGENCY: General Accounting Office Personnel Appeals Board.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The General Accounting Office Personnel Appeals Board is
issuing a final rule to govern appeals of employees who are separated
from employment as a result of a Reduction in Force (RIF) action. The
rule is published according to the Board's authority under section
753(d) of the General Accounting Office Personnel Act of 1980 (GAOPA).
The revision provides affected employees with an optional streamlined
process for pursuing appeals of RIF-based terminations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine McNamara, Solicitor,
Personnel Appeals Board, 202-512-6137.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) authority
with respect to employment practices within the General Accounting
Office (GAO or the agency) includes authority over appeals from RIF
actions taken by the agency. The GAO recently revised Order 2351.1,
Reduction in Force, applicable to GAO employees.
The PAB has long had published regulations which define the role of
its Office of General Counsel (PAB/OGC) and the procedures to be
followed in pursuing an appeal before the Board. See 4 CFR part 28.
Previous regulations required that in all cases an individual obtain a
Right to Appeal Letter from the PAB's Office of General Counsel before
filing with the Board. See 4 CFR 28.18(a). The Board or an
administrative judge can waive a PAB regulation in an individual case
for good cause shown, consistent with the requirements of the GAOPA. 4
CFR 28.16(b).
On March 7, 1996, the Board adopted interim regulations (61 FR
9089) to provide employees who are separated from employment as a
result of a RIF action with the option of appealing directly to the PAB
without first filing a charge with the Board's Office of General
Counsel, as prescribed in Sec. 28.11 of this part, and obtaining a
Right to Appeal Letter. This change was designed to expedite the appeal
process, at the employee's option, in situations in which the RIF
action results in separation from employment. Because of the need to
have regulations in place prior to agency implementation of its RIF
order, the revisions were made effective immediately on an interim
basis. With several modifications as explained below, the regulations
are adopted as final. Because the appeal period for recent RIF action
at GAO is currently running, this final rule is made effective
immediately.
Brief Summary of the Interim Regulations
The interim regulations published by the Board on March 7, 1996,
contained a new Sec. 28.13, defining a special procedure for actions
challenging a RIF-based termination to bypass the PAB/OGC at the option
of the employee. See 61 FR 9089 (March 7, 1996). In addition, the
interim regulations amended Sec. 28.18, paragraphs (a) and (b), to
specify that a person whose employment was terminated as a result of a
RIF action may choose to file directly with the Board, and that such an
action must be filed within 30 days of the effective date of the RIF
action.
The PAB invited comments from the public through May 31, 1996, and
stated that it would carefully consider such comments before the
regulations were adopted in final form. See 61 FR 9089. In addition to
publishing the interim regulations in the Federal Register, the PAB
also provided GAO employees with notice of the revised procedures,
applicable to individuals separated from employment because of a RIF,
by means of a summary of the changes in the ``GAO Management News.''
See GAO Management News, Vol. 23, No. 25 (Week of April 8-12, 1996).
The Board received one comment concerning the interim regulations.
That comment, submitted by Patricia Shahen, Acting Director of GAO's
Affirmative Action/Civil Rights Office, addressed a perceived ambiguity
in the regulations as revised. The perceived ambiguity involved whether
an employee raising discrimination issues in challenging a RIF-based
separation may bypass the Civil Rights Office as well as the PAB/OGC.
In revised Sec. 28.13, the Board streamlined the appeal process for
employees separated by a RIF by allowing them to file directly with the
Board without first filing a charge with the PAB's Office of General
Counsel. Ms. Shahen's comment pointed out that under 4 CFR 28.98(a),
employees raising charges of prohibited discrimination are required to
file a discrimination complaint with GAO's Civil Rights Office before
filing such a complaint with the PAB General Counsel. Section 28.98(c)
provides an exception to this rule for employees affected by a removal,
suspension for more than 14 days, reduction in grade or pay, or
furlough of not more than 30 days. If an employee alleges that the
subject action was due at least in part to unlawful discrimination, he
or she may elect to file a charge directly with the PAB General
Counsel. The comment pointed out that the exception in Sec. 28.98(c)
does not specifically refer to RIF actions.
Ms. Shahen expressed concern that the revised regulations ``could
be interpreted to mean that employees who allege discrimination because
of a RIF, may go directly to the Board without going through the Civil
Rights Office process; but if they want to go through the PAB General
Counsel, they must first go through the Civil Rights Office process.
This does not seem to be the intent of the proposed regulation.''
Summary of Changes
After carefully considering the comment received, the Board has
adopted several modifications to the regulations to clarify their
effect on RIF-based termination actions raising discrimination claims.
In addition, conforming changes were made to assure that the
streamlined procedures would be available to Board employees, and
several technical changes were made to reflect a revision to the
Board's address.
Section 28.13, added in the interim regulations, is revised to
clarify that individuals raising discrimination issues in RIF-based
actions may avail
[[Page 36810]]
themselves of the streamlined procedures which allow bypassing the PAB/
OGC. The revised section also specifies that, pursuant to Sec. 28.98,
such individuals also may bypass the agency Civil Rights Office in the
interest of reaching an expeditious resolution of their complaints.
Section 28.98, which was not specifically addressed in the interim
regulations, is amended to clarify that in RIF-based actions raising
discrimination claims, an employee may elect to (1) file directly with
the PAB/OGC, (2) proceed through the agency's discrimination complaint
processing system, or (3) file directly with the PAB, thus bypassing
both the PAB/OGC and the Civil Rights Office. The Board notes that when
Sec. 28.98(c) was published for comment, the agency did not object to
the change which gave employees a choice of procedures for adverse or
performance-based actions alleged to be due to discrimination. See 58
FR 61988, 61990-91 (November 23, 1993).
In reconsidering the regulatory revisions, the Board also concluded
that a further change was necessary to clarify that PAB personnel may
avail themselves of the streamlined procedures for pursuing RIF-based
termination appeals. Section 28.17(a) was revised to specify that Board
employees, whether or not raising equal employment opportunity (EEO)
claims, may choose to file an appeal of a RIF-based termination
directly with the PAB.
Several technical changes were made in 4 CFR parts 28 and 29 to
reflect the Board's change of address. These sections specify where to
file at the PAB or the PAB/OGC: Secs. 28.11(c) (1) and (2); 28.18(c)
(1) and (2); 28.86(b) (1) and (2); 29.8(c) (1) and (2); and 29.10(c)
(1) and (2).
Accordingly, 4 CFR parts 28 and 29 are amended and the interim rule
amending title 4, part 28, Code of Federal Regulations, which was
published at 61 FR 9089 on March 7, 1996, is adopted as final, with
changes as follows.
List of Subjects
4 CFR Part 28
Administrative practice and procedure, Equal employment
opportunity, Government employees, Labor-management relations,
Reductions in force.
4 CFR Part 29
Administrative practice and procedure, Equal employment
opportunity, Government employees.
PART 28--GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PERSONNEL APPEALS BOARD;
PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO CLAIMS CONCERNING EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES AT
THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
1. The authority citation for part 28 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 753.
2. Section 28.11, paragraph (c)(1) and the first sentence of
paragraph (c)(2) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 28.11 Filing a charge with the General Counsel.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Filing in person: A charge may be filed in person at the Office
of the General Counsel, Suite 580, Union Center Plaza II, 820 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC.
(2) Filing by mail: A charge may be filed by mail addressed to the
General Counsel, Personnel Appeals Board, Suite 580, Union Center Plaza
II, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20548. * * *
* * * * *
3. Section 28.13 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 28.13 Special procedure for Reduction in Force.
In the event of a Reduction in Force resulting in an individual's
separation from employment, an aggrieved employee may choose to file an
appeal directly with the Personnel Appeals Board, without first filing
the charge with the PAB's Office of General Counsel pursuant to
Sec. 28.11. This option is available to individuals raising
discrimination issues in connection with a RIF action. Pursuant to
Sec. 28.98, such individuals need not file a complaint with GAO's Civil
Rights Office before pursuing a RIF challenge alleging discrimination,
either by filing directly with the PAB or by filing a charge with the
PAB's Office of General Counsel.
4. In Sec. 28.17, paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) are revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 28.17 Internal appeals of Board employees.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) When an employee of the Board believes that he or she has been
denied his or her right to equal employment opportunity, the employee
shall consult either with the Solicitor or with the General Counsel and
seek advice on filing an EEO complaint. If the matter cannot be
resolved within 10 days, the Solicitor or General Counsel shall notify
the employee of his or her right to file an EEO complaint. The employee
shall have 20 days from service of this notice to file an EEO complaint
with the General Counsel. Upon receipt of an EEO complaint, the General
Counsel shall arrange for processing in accordance with paragraph (b)
of this section. If the EEO allegations involve challenge to a RIF-
based separation, the employee may choose to expedite the procedures by
filing a charge directly with the Board.
(3) When an employee of the Board wishes to raise any other issue
that would be subject to the Board's jurisdiction, the employee shall
file a charge with the General Counsel and the General Counsel shall
arrange for processing in accordance with paragraph (b) of this
section. If the challenged action is a RIF-based separation from
employment, the employee may choose to expedite the procedures by
filing a charge directly with the Board.
* * * * *
5. Section 28.18, paragraph (c)(1) and the first sentence of
paragraph (c)(2) are revised as follows:
Sec. 28.18 Filing a petition for review with the Board.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Filing in person: A petition may be filed in person at the
office of the Board, Suite 560, Union Center Plaza II, 820 First Street
NE., Washington, DC.
(2) Filing by mail: A petition may be filed by mail addressed to
the Personnel Appeals Board, Suite 560, Union Center Plaza II, 441 G
Street NW., Washington, DC 20548. * * *
* * * * *
6. Section 28.86, paragraph (b)(1) and the first sentence of
paragraph (b)(2) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 28.86 Board procedures; recommended decisions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Filing by hand delivery: Exceptions may be filed by hand
delivery at the office of the Board, Suite 560, Union Center Plaza II,
820 First Street NE., Washington, DC.
(2) Filing by mail: Exceptions may be filed by mail addressed to
the Personnel Appeals Board, Suite 560, Union Center Plaza II, 441 G
Street, NW., Washington DC 20548. * * *
* * * * *
7. Section 28.98 is amended by redesignating paragraph (d) as
(e)(1), by adding new paragraphs (d) and (e)(2), by revising the
paragraph heading of
[[Page 36811]]
paragraph (c) and by revising newly redesignated paragraph(e)(1) as
follows:
Sec. 28.98 Individual charges in EEO cases.
* * * * *
(c) Special rules for adverse and performance based actions. * * *
(d) Special rules for RIF based actions. An individual alleging
discrimination issues in connection with a RIF-based separation may
follow the procedures outlined above in paragraph (c) of this section
for adverse and performance based actions, or may choose instead a
third option. In accordance with the provisions of Sec. 28.13, such an
individual may appeal that action by filing directly with the PAB, thus
bypassing both the Civil Rights Office and the PAB's Office of General
Counsel.
(e)(1) The charging party shall file the charge with the General
Counsel in accordance with Sec. 28.11. The General Counsel shall
investigate the charge in accordance with Sec. 28.12.
(2) A charging party challenging a RIF action by filing directly
with the PAB shall follow the procedures prescribed in Sec. 28.13 and
Sec. 28.18.
* * * * *
PART 29--GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PERSONNEL APPEALS BOARD;
PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO CLAIMS CONCERNING EMPLOYMENT AT THE
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
8. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 753.
9. Section 29.8, paragraph (c)(1) and the first sentence of
paragraph (c)(2) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 29.8 Filing a charge with the General Counsel.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Filing in person: A charge may be filed in person at the Office
of the General Counsel, Suite 580, Union Center Plaza II, 820 First St.
NE., Washington, DC.
(2) Filing by mail: A charge may be filed by mail addressed to the
General Counsel, Personnel Appeals Board, Suite 580, Union Center Plaza
II, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20548. * * *
* * * * *
10. Section 29.10, paragraph (c)(1) and the first sentence of
paragraph (c)(2) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 29.10 Filing a petition for review with the Board.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Filing in person: A petition may be filed in person at the
office of the Board, Suite 560, Union Center Plaza II, 820 First Street
NE., Washington, DC.
(2) Filing by mail: A petition may be filed by mail addressed to
the Personnel Appeals Board, Suite 560, Union Center Plaza II, 441 G
Street, NW., Washington DC 20548. * * *
* * * * *
Nancy A. McBride,
Chair, Personnel Appeals Board General Accounting Office.
[FR Doc. 96-17873 Filed 7-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1610-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17869 Raisins Produced From Grapes Grown in California; Final Free and Reserve Percentages for the 1995-96 Crop Year for Natural (Sun-Dried) Seedless, Zante Currant, and Other Seedless Raisins
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 136 (Monday, July 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36814-36816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17869]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 989
[FV96-989-1FIR]
Raisins Produced From Grapes Grown in California; Final Free and
Reserve Percentages for the 1995-96 Crop Year for Natural (Sun-Dried)
Seedless, Zante Currant, and Other Seedless Raisins
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture (Department) is adopting as a
final rule, without change, the provisions of an interim final rule
which established final free and reserve percentages for 1995-96 crop
Natural (sun-dried) Seedless (NS), Zante Currant (ZC), and Other
Seedless (OS) raisins. The percentages are 79 percent free and 21
percent reserve, 70 percent free and 30 percent reserve, and 51 percent
free and 49 percent reserve for NS, ZC, and OS raisins, respectively.
These percentages are intended to stabilize supplies and prices and to
help counter the destabilizing effects of the burdensome oversupply
situation facing the raisin industry. This rule was unanimously
recommended by the Raisin Administrative Committee (Committee), the
body which locally administers the marketing order.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 14, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Van Diest, Marketing
Specialist, California Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable
Division, AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street, suite 102B, Fresno,
California 93721; telephone: 209-487-5901 or Mark A. Slupek, Marketing
Specialist, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable
Division, AMS, USDA, room 2523-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-
6456; telephone: 202-205-2830.
[[Page 36815]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule is issued under marketing
agreement and Order No. 989 (7 CFR part 989), both as amended,
regulating the handling of raisins produced from grapes grown in
California, hereinafter referred to as the ``order.'' The order is
effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the ``Act.''
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this rule in
conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. Under the marketing order provisions now in effect,
final free and reserve percentages may be established for raisins
acquired by handlers during the crop year. This action finalizes final
free and reserve percentages for NS, ZC, and OS raisins for the 1995-96
crop year, beginning August 1, 1995, through July 31, 1996. This final
rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or
policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this
rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with law and requesting a modification of the order or to be exempt
therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on
the petition. After the hearing, the Secretary would rule on the
petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States
in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his/her
principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's
ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20
days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
An interim final rule was published in the Federal Register on
February 26, 1996 (61 FR 7067), with an effective date of February 26,
1996. That rule established final free and reserve percentages for NS,
ZC, and OS raisins for the 1995-96 crop year. The percentages were
established in a new section 989.249 of the rules and regulations in
effect under the marketing order. That rule provided a 30-day comment
period which ended March 27, 1996. No comments were received.
The order prescribes procedures for computing trade demands and
preliminary and final percentages that establish the amount of raisins
that can be marketed throughout the season. The regulations apply to
all handlers of California raisins. Raisins in the free percentage
category may be shipped immediately to any market, while reserve
raisins must be held by handlers in a reserve pool for the account of
the Committee. Under the order, reserve raisins may be: Sold at a later
date by the Committee to handlers for free use; used in diversion
programs; exported to authorized countries; carried over as a hedge
against a short crop the following year; or disposed of in other
outlets noncompetitive with those for free tonnage raisins.
While this rule continues in effect restrictions limiting the
amount of NS, ZC, and OS raisins that enter domestic markets, final
free and reserve percentages are intended to lessen the impact of the
oversupply situation facing the industry and promote stronger marketing
conditions, thus stabilizing prices and supplies and improving grower
returns. In addition to the quantity of raisins released under the
preliminary percentages and the final percentages, the order specifies
methods to make available additional raisins to handlers by requiring
sales of reserve pool raisins for use as free tonnage raisins under
``10 plus 10'' offers, and authorizing sales of reserve raisins under
certain conditions.
The Department's ``Guidelines for Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty
Crop Marketing Orders'' specifies that 110 percent of recent years'
sales should be made available to primary markets each season before
recommendations for volume regulation are approved. This goal is met by
the establishment of a final percentage which makes available 100
percent of the computed trade demand and the additional offering of
reserve raisins to handlers under ``10 plus 10'' offers. The ``10 plus
10'' offers are two simultaneous offers of reserve pool raisins which
are made available to handlers each season. For each such offer, a
quantity of raisins equal to 10 percent of the prior year's shipments
is made available for free use. A total of 62,578 tons of NS, 960 tons
of ZC, and 638 tons of OS were purchased by handlers for free use
pursuant to these offers.
Pursuant to section 989.54(a) of the order, the Committee met on
August 15, 1995, to review shipment and inventory data, and other
matters relating to the supplies of raisins of all varietal types. The
Committee computed a trade demand for each varietal type for which a
free tonnage percentage might be recommended. The trade demand is 90
percent of the prior year's shipments of free tonnage and reserve
tonnage raisins sold for free use for each varietal type into all
market outlets, adjusted by subtracting the carryin of each varietal
type on August 1 of the current crop year and by adding to the trade
demand the desirable carryout for each varietal type at the end of that
crop year. As specified in section 989.154, the desirable carryout for
each varietal type shall be equal to the shipments of free tonnage
raisins of the prior crop year during the months of August, September,
and one fourth of October. If the prior year's shipments are limited
because of crop conditions, the total shipments during that period of
time during one of the three years preceding the prior crop year may be
used. In accordance with these provisions, the Committee computed and
announced 1995-96 trade demands of 257,314 tons, 2,208 tons, and 1,047
tons for NS, ZC, and OS raisins, respectively.
As required under section 989.54(b) of the order, the Committee met
on October 3, 1995, and computed and announced preliminary crop
estimates and preliminary free and reserve percentages for NS and ZC
raisins which released 65 percent of the trade demand since the field
prices had not been established, and 85 percent of the trade demand for
OS raisins because the field price had been established. The
preliminary crop estimates and preliminary free and reserve percentages
were as follows: 335,118 tons, 50 percent free, and 50 percent reserve
for NS raisins; 3,696 tons, 39 percent free, and 61 percent reserve for
ZC raisins; and 2,197 tons, 40 percent free, and 60 percent reserve for
OS raisins. The Committee authorized the Committee staff to modify the
preliminary percentages to release 85 percent of the trade demand when
the field prices were established for NS and ZC raisins. The
preliminary percentages for NS and ZC raisins were adjusted soon
thereafter to 65 percent free, 35 percent reserve, and 51 percent free
and 49 percent reserve, respectively.
Also at that meeting, the Committee computed and announced
preliminary crop estimates and preliminary free and reserve percentages
for Dipped Seedless, Oleate and Related Seedless, Golden Seedless,
Sultana, Muscat, and Monukka raisins. It determined that the supplies
of these varietal types would be less than or close enough to the
computed trade demands for each variety, and that volume control
percentages would not be necessary to maintain market stability for
these varietal types.
[[Page 36816]]
On January 12, 1996, the Committee recommended final percentages of
79 percent free, 21 percent reserve for NS raisins; 70 percent free, 30
percent reserve for ZC raisins; and 51 percent free, 49 percent reserve
for OS raisins.
Pursuant to section 989.54(c), the Committee may adopt interim free
and reserve percentages. Interim percentages may release less than the
computed trade demand for each varietal type. The Committee also
computed interim free and reserve percentages at the January 12, 1996,
meeting. Interim percentages were announced as 78.75 percent free,
21.25 percent reserve for NS raisins; 69.75 percent free, 30.25 percent
reserve for ZC raisins; and 50.75 percent free, 49.25 percent reserve
for OS raisins. That action released most, but not all, of the computed
trade demand for NS, ZC, and OS raisins.
Under section 989.54(d) of the order, the Committee is required to
recommend to the Secretary, no later than February 15 of each crop
year, final free and reserve percentages which, when applied to the
final production estimate of a varietal type, will tend to release the
full trade demand for any varietal type.
The Committee's final estimate of 1995-96 production of NS raisins
is 325,808 tons. Dividing the computed trade demand of 257,314 tons by
the final estimate of production results in a final free percentage of
79 percent and a final reserve percentage of 21 percent for NS raisins.
The Committee's final estimate of 1995-96 production of ZC raisins
is 3,158 tons. Dividing the computed trade demand of 2,208 tons by the
final estimate of production results in a final free percentage of 70
percent and a final reserve percentage of 30 percent for ZC raisins.
The Committee's final estimate of 1995-96 production of OS raisins
is 2,048 tons. Dividing the computed trade demand of 1,047 tons by the
final estimate of production results in a final free percentage of 51
percent and a final reserve percentage of 49 percent for OS raisins.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the
economic impact of this action on small entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that
they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 20 handlers of California raisins who are
subject to regulation under the raisin marketing order, and
approximately 4,500 producers in the production area. Small
agricultural service firms have been defined by the Small Business
Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as those whose annual receipts (from
all sources) are less than $5,000,000, and small agricultural producers
are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $500,000. No
more than eight handlers, and a majority of producers, of California
raisins may be classified as small entities. Twelve of the 20 handlers
subject to regulation have annual sales estimated to be at least
$5,000,000, and the remaining eight handlers have sales less than
$5,000,000, excluding receipts from any other sources.
In recent years, the California raisin industry has been faced with
a burdensome oversupply. A major reason for its oversupply problem is
that wineries have not been purchasing as many raisin variety grapes.
Raisin variety grapes which wineries will not buy generally are dried
into raisins. The volume control procedures specified in the order
provide a means of lessening the impact of year-to-year variations in
raisin supplies on producer prices. The percentages contribute toward
orderly marketing and market stability.
The free and reserve percentages established by the interim final
rule, and continued in effect, without change, by this rule, apply
uniformly to all handlers in the industry, whether small or large, and
release the full trade demand. There are no known additional costs
incurred by small handlers that are not incurred by large handlers. As
the season progressed, additional quantities of the trade demand were
released. For some varieties of raisins, no volume control was
implemented.
Although raisin markets are limited, they are available to all
handlers, regardless of size. While the level of benefits of this
action are difficult to quantify, the stabilizing effects of the
percentages impact both small and large handlers positively by helping
them maintain and expand markets even though raisin supplies fluctuate
from season to season. Between the 1989-90 and 1994-95 crop years,
total California raisin shipments increased by three percent, which
benefitted both small and large handlers.
Accordingly, the Agricultural Marketing Service has determined that
the issuance of this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities in the California
raisin industry.
After consideration of all relevant information presented,
including the Committee's recommendations and other information, it is
found that finalizing the interim final rule, without change, as
published in the Federal Register on February 26, 1996 (61 FR 7067),
will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 989
Grapes, Marketing agreements, Raisins, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
PART 989--RAISINS PRODUCED FROM GRAPES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR part 989 which
was published at 61 FR 7067 on February 26, 1996, is adopted as a final
rule without change.
Dated: July 8, 1996.
Robert C. Keeney,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-17869 Filed 7-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17867 Irish Potatoes Grown in Colorado; Assessment Rate
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 136 (Monday, July 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36813-36814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17867]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 948
[Docket No. FV96-948-2IFR]
Irish Potatoes Grown in Colorado; Assessment Rate
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim final rule establishes an assessment rate for the
Colorado Potato Administrative Committee, San Luis Valley Office (Area
II) (Committee) under Marketing Order No. 948 for the 1996-97 and
subsequent fiscal periods. The Committee is responsible for local
administration of the marketing order which regulates the handling of
Irish potatoes grown in Colorado. Authorization to assess potato
handlers enables the Committee to incur expenses that are reasonable
and necessary to administer the program.
DATES: Effective on September 1, 1996. Comments received by August 14,
1996, will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this rule. Comments must be sent in triplicate to the Docket
Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room
2523-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456, FAX 202-720-5698. Comments should
reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue
of the Federal Register and will be available for public inspection in
the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Sue Clark, Program Assistant,
Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division,
AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room 2523-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456,
telephone 202-720-9918, FAX 202-720-5698, or Dennis L. West, Marketing
Specialist, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable
Division, AMS, USDA, Green-Wyatt Federal Building, room 369, 1220
Southwest Third Avenue, Portland, OR 97204, telephone 503-326-2724, FAX
503-326-7440.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing
Agreement No. 97 and Order No. 948, both as amended (7 CFR part 948),
regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Colorado,
hereinafter referred to as the ``order.'' The order is effective under
the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C.
601-674), hereinafter referred to as the ``Act.''
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this rule in
conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, Colorado
potato handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the
order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the
assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable
potatoes beginning September 1, 1996, and continuing until amended,
suspended, or terminated. This rule will not preempt any State or local
laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted
therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on
the petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the
petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States
in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or
her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the
Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not
later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the
economic impact of this rule on small entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in
that they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 285 producers of Colorado Area II potatoes
in the production area and approximately 118 handlers subject to
regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers have
been defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as
those having annual receipts of less than $500,000, and small
agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts
are less than $5,000,000. The majority of Colorado Area II potato
producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.
The Colorado potato marketing order provides authority for the
Committee, with the approval of the Department, to formulate an annual
budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer
the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of
Colorado Area II potatoes. They are familiar with the Committee's needs
and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are
thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment
rate. The assessment rate is
[[Page 36814]]
formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly
affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
In Colorado, both a State and a Federal marketing order operate
simultaneously. The State order authorizes promotion, including paid
advertising, which the Federal order does not. All expenses in this
category are financed under the State order. The jointly operated
programs consume about equal administrative time and the two orders
continue to split administrative costs equally.
The Committee met on May 23, 1996, and unanimously recommended
1996-97 expenditures of $60,999 and an assessment rate of $0.0030 per
hundredweight of potatoes. In comparison, last year's budgeted
expenditures were $62,328. The assessment rate of $0.0030 is the same
as last year's established rate. Major expenditures recommended by the
Committee for the 1996-97 year include $34,624 for salaries for the
Executive Director, Administrator, and Assistant Administrator, and
$3,000 for utilities. Budgeted expenses for these items in 1995-96 were
$36,978 and $3,000, respectively.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by
dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of Colorado Area II
potatoes. Potato shipments for the year are estimated at 16,500,000
hundredweight which should provide $49,500 in assessment income. Income
derived from handler assessments, along with funds from the Committee's
authorized reserve, will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds
in the reserve will be kept within the maximum permitted by the order.
While this rule will impose some additional costs on handlers, the
costs are in the form of uniform assessments on all handlers. Some of
the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these
costs will be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the
marketing order. Therefore, the AMS has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Interested persons are invited to submit information on the
regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small
businesses.
The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in
effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by the
Secretary upon recommendation and information submitted by the
Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate is effective for an indefinite
period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each
fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider
recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and
times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or the
Department. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested
persons may express their views at those meetings. The Department will
evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to
determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed.
Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's
1996-97 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods will be reviewed
and, as appropriate, approved by the Department.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including
the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other
available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as
hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of
the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good
cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public
interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into
effect, because: (1) The Committee needs to have sufficient funds to
pay its expenses which are incurred on a continuous basis; (2) the
1996-97 fiscal period begins on September 1, 1996, and the marketing
order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply
to all assessable potatoes handled during such fiscal period; (3)
handlers are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by
the Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment
rate actions issued in past years; and (4) this interim final rule
provides a 30-day comment period, and all comments timely received will
be considered prior to finalization of this rule.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 948
Marketing agreements, Potatoes, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 948 is
amended as follows:
PART 948--IRISH POTATOES GROWN IN COLORADO
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 948 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. A new Sec. 948.216 is added to read as follows:
Note: This section will appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Sec. 948.216 Assessment rate.
On and after September 1, 1996, an assessment rate of $0.0030 per
hundredweight is established for Colorado Area II potatoes.
Dated: July 8, 1996.
Robert C. Keeney,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-17867 Filed 7-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17794 Minnesota State Plan; Level of Federal Enforcement
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 136 (Monday, July 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36824-36825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17794]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1952
Minnesota State Plan; Level of Federal Enforcement
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Final rule; change in level of Federal enforcement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document gives notice of a change in the level of federal
enforcement authority in Minnesota. The Minnesota Department of Labor
and Industry is excluding coverage of tribal and private sector
employment on Indian Reservations under its approved State plan. As a
result, the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) is assuming coverage over tribal and private
sector employment on Indian reservations. OSHA is hereby amending
sections of its regulations to reflect this change in the level of
enforcement authority.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Cyr, Acting Director, Office of
Information and Consumer Affairs, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room, N-3637, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, (202) 219-8148.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29
U.S.C. 667, provides that States which wish to assume responsibility
for developing and enforcing their own occupational safety and health
standards, may do so by submitting, and obtaining Federal approval of,
a State plan. State plan approval occurs in stages which include
initial approval under section 18(b) of the Act and, ultimately, final
approval under section 18(e).
The Minnesota State plan was initially approved on May 29, 1973. On
July 30, 1985, OSHA announced the final approval of the Minnesota State
plan pursuant to section 18(e) and amended Subpart N of 29 CFR Part
1952 to reflect the Assistant Secretary's decision. As a result,
Federal OSHA relinquished its authority with regard to occupational
safety and health issues covered by the Minnesota plan. Federal OSHA
retained its authority over safety and health in private sector
offshore maritime employment, employment at the Twin Cities Army
Ammunition Plant, and with regard to Federal government employers and
employees.
29 CFR 1952.205 states that ``any hazard, industry, geographical
area, operation or facility over which the State is unable to
effectively exercise jurisdiction for reasons not related to the
required performance or structure of the plan shall be deemed to be an
issue not covered by the plan which has received final approval and
shall be subject to Federal enforcement. Where enforcement jurisdiction
is shared between Federal and State authorities for a particular area,
project, or facility, in the interest or [sic] administrative
practicability Federal jurisdiction may be assumed over the entire
project or facility. In either of the two aforementioned circumstances,
Federal enforcement may be exercised immediately upon agreement between
Federal OSHA and the State designated agency.''
On December 21, 1994 Darrell E. Anderson, Director, Minnesota OSHA
Management Team, Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, wrote that
because of the many ``obstacles Minnesota OSHA faces in gaining access
to Indian reservation worksites and tribal employers, and because
Federal OSHA is not subject to the same limitations as the State . .
.'' Minnesota will ``exclude Indian reservations from coverage under
the Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Act'' (December 21, 1994
letter to Area Director Charles E. Burin).
B. Decision
To assure worker protection under the OSH Act, Federal OSHA will
assume coverage over tribal and private sector employment on Indian
reservations. OSHA is hereby amending 29 CFR part 1952, Subpart N, to
reflect this change in the level of Federal enforcement.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1952
Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement, Occupational safety
and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of June 1996.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary.
For the reasons set out in the preamble 29 CFR part 1952 is amended
as set forth below:
PART 1952--APPROVED STATE PLANS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF STATE STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 1952 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 18, 84, Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 667); 29 CFR part
1902, Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-90 (55 FR 9033).
2. Section 1952.204 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1952.204 Final approval determination.
* * * * *
(b) The plan which has received final approval covers all
activities of employers and all places of employment in Minnesota
except for private sector offshore maritime employment, employment at
the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, Federal government employers and
employees, and any tribal or private sector employment
[[Page 36825]]
within any Indian reservation in the State.
* * * * *
3. Section 1952.205 is amended by revising the first four sentences
of paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1952.205 Level of Federal enforcement.
* * * * *
(b) In accordance with section 18(e), final approval relinquishes
Federal OSHA authority only with regard to occupational safety and
health issues covered by the Minnesota plan. OSHA retains full
authority over issues which are not subject to State enforcement under
the plan. Thus, Federal OSHA retains its authority relative to safety
and health in private sector offshore maritime activities and will
continue to enforce offshore all provisions of the Act, rules or
orders, and all Federal standards, current or future, specifically
directed to maritime employment (29 CFR Part 1915, shipyard employment;
Part 1917, marine terminals; Part 1918, longshoring; Part 1919, gear
certification) as well as provisions of general industry standards (29
CFR Part 1910) appropriate to hazards found in these employments.
Federal jurisdiction is also retained over the Twin Cities Army
Ammunitions Plant, over Federal government employers and employees, and
over any tribal or private sector employment within any Indian
reservation in the State. * * *
* * * * *
4. Section 1952.205 is further amended by removing the word ``or''
immediately preceding the words ``administrative practicability'' in
the second to last sentence in paragraph (b) and adding the word ``of''
in its place.
[FR Doc. 96-17794 Filed 7-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17792 Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Interest Rate for Valuing Benefits
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 136 (Monday, July 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36968-36969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17792]
[[Page 36967]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
_______________________________________________________________________
29 CFR Part 4044
Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Interest Rates and
Assumptions Used in Making Benefits Valuations; Final Rule and Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 136 / Monday, July 15, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 36968]]
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION
29 CFR Part 4044
Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Interest Rate for
Valuing Benefits
AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer
Plans. The regulation prescribes interest assumptions for valuing
benefits under terminating single-employer plans. This rule adopts
interest assumptions for plans with valuation dates in August 1996 and
advises the public of the new assumptions. These interest assumptions
are also used under the PBGC's regulation on Duties of Plan Sponsor
Following Mass Withdrawal.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold J. Ashner, Assistant General
Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4024
(202-326-4179 for TTY and TDD).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule adopts the August 1996 interest
assumptions to be used in benefit valuations for terminating single-
employer plans. Before July 1996, the interest assumptions used for
such benefit valuations were contained in PBGC regulations codified at
29 CFR part 2619. In a final rule effective July 1, 1996 (61 FR 34001),
the PBGC reorganized and renumbered its regulations. The single-
employer benefit valuation provisions are now codified in the PBGC's
regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans at 29 CFR
part 4044, and this rule amends that regulation. As discussed in a
notice published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, these interest
assumptions are also used in valuations of multiemployer plans
following mass withdrawal.
Part 4044 prescribes actuarial assumptions for valuing plan
benefits of terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Under ERISA
section 4041(c), a single-employer plan administrator wishing to
terminate the plan in a distress termination must value guaranteed
benefits and ``benefit liabilities'' (i.e., all benefits provided under
the plan as of the plan termination date) in accordance with part 4044.
(Benefit liabilities may also be valued in accordance with part 4044
for purposes of the Standard Termination Notice filed with the PBGC by
a plan terminating in a standard termination, although this is not
required.) In addition, when the PBGC terminates an underfunded plan
involuntarily pursuant to ERISA section 4042(a), it values benefits in
accordance with part 4044 to determine the amount of the plan's
underfunding.
Among the actuarial assumptions prescribed in part 4044 are
interest rates and factors, which are set forth in appendix B to part
4044. Because these interest rates and factors are intended to reflect
current conditions in the financial and annuity markets, it is
necessary to update the rates and factors periodically.
Two sets of interest rates and factors are prescribed, one set for
the valuation of benefits to be paid as annuities and one set for the
valuation of benefits to be paid as lump sums. This amendment adds to
appendix B to part 4044 the two sets of interest rates and factors for
valuing benefits in plans with valuation dates during August 1996.
For annuity benefits, the interest rates will be 6.30 percent for
the first 20 years following the valuation date and 4.75 percent
thereafter. For benefits to be paid as lump sums, the interest
assumptions to be used by the PBGC will be 5.25 percent for the period
during which benefits are in pay status, 4.50 percent during the seven-
year period directly preceding the benefit's placement in pay status,
and 4.00 percent during any other years preceding the benefit's
placement in pay status. The annuity interest assumptions represent an
increase (from those in effect for July 1996) of 0.10 percent for the
first 20 years following the valuation date and are otherwise
unchanged. The lump sum interest assumptions represent an increase
(from those in effect for July 1996) of 0.25 percent for the period
during which benefits are in pay status and the seven years directly
preceding that period and are otherwise unchanged.
Generally, the interest rates and factors under part 4044 are in
effect for at least one month. However, the PBGC publishes its interest
assumptions each month regardless of whether they represent a change
from the previous month's assumptions. The assumptions are normally
published in the Federal Register on or about the 15th of the preceding
month.
The PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this
amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This
finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest rates
and factors promptly so that the rates and factors can reflect, as
accurately as possible, current market conditions.
Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation
of benefits in plans with valuation dates during August 1996, the PBGC
finds that good cause exists for making the rates and factors set forth
in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.
The PBGC has determined that this action is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the criteria set forth in Executive Order
12866.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for
this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply.
See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 4044
Pension insurance, Pensions.
In consideration of the foregoing, part 4044 of chapter XL, title
29, Code of Federal Regulations, is hereby amended as follows:
PART 4044--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 4044 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1362.
Appendix B to Part 4044--[Amended]
2. In appendix B, a new entry is added to Table I, and Rate Set 34
is added to Table II, as set forth below. The introductory text of each
table is republished for the convenience of the reader and remains
unchanged.
Appendix B to Part 4044--Interest Rates Used to Value Annuities and
Lump Sums
[[Page 36969]]
Table I.--Annuity Valuations
[This table sets forth, for each indicated calendar month, the interest rates (denoted by i1, i2, * * *, and
referred to generally as it) assumed to be in effect between specified anniversaries of a valuation date that
occurs within that calendar month; those anniversaries are specified in the columns adjacent to the rates. The
last listed rate is assumed to be in effect after the last listed anniversary date]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The values of it are:
For valuation dates occurring in -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
the month-- it for t= it for t= it for t=
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
August 1996....................... .0630 1-20 .0475 >20 N/A N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.--Lump Sum Valuations
[In using this table: (1) For benefits for which the participant or beneficiary is entitled to be in pay status on the valuation date, the immediate
annuity rate shall apply; (2) For benefits for which the deferral period is y years (where y is an integer and 0 < y n1), interest rate i1
shall apply from the valuation date for a period of y years, and thereafter the immediate annuity rate shall apply; (3) For benefits for which the
deferral period is y years (where y is an integer and n1 < y n1 + n2), interest rate i2 shall apply from the valuation date for a period of
y - n1 years, interest rate i1 shall apply for the following n1 years, and thereafter the immediate annuity rate shall apply; (4) For benefits for which
the deferral period is y years (where y is an integer and y > n1 + n2), interest rate i3 shall apply from the valuation date for a period of y - n1 - n2
years, interest rate i2 shall apply for the following n2 years, interest rate i1 shall apply for the following n1 years, and thereafter the immediate
annuity rate shall apply]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For plans with a valuation date Immediate Deferred annuities (percent)
Rate set ---------------------------------- annuity rate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On or after Before (percent) i1 i2 i3 n1 n2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
34.............. 08-1-96 09-1-96 5.25 4.50 4.00 4.00 7 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issued in Washington, DC, on this 5th day of July 1996.
Martin Slate,
Executive Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
[FR Doc. 96-17792 Filed 7-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7708-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17746 Elimination of Requirement for Proof of Service in Consented Requests for Extensions of Time To File a Notice of Opposition
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 136 (Monday, July 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17746]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Part 2
[Docket No. 960621181-6181-01]
RIN 0651-AA89
Elimination of Requirement for Proof of Service in Consented
Requests for Extensions of Time To File a Notice of Opposition
AGENCY: Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule deletes the requirement for proof of service when a
request for an extension of time to oppose registration of a trademark
is based upon a statement that applicant has consented to the request.
This rule will simplify opposition proceedings by eliminating an
unnecessary requirement.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 15, 1996. This rule will be applicable to all
relevant correspondence filed with the Office on or after the effective
date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Sams by telephone at (703) 308-
9330, by facsimile transmission at (703) 308-9333, or by mail marked to
his attention and addressed to the Assistant Commissioner for
Trademarks, Box TTAB, 2900 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202-
3513.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 2.102(c)(2), which provides for an
extension of time for filing an opposition under 37 CFR Part 2, is
revised to delete the requirement that proof of service be included in
consented extension requests. This change permits potential opposers to
request an extension of time to oppose aggregating more than 120 days
from the date of publication based on a written statement that the
applicant or its authorized representative has consented to the
request. The Office believes that the requirement for proof of service
is unnecessary when the applicant has assertedly consented to the
filing of the extension request. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
sends a copy of the request together with the Board's action thereon to
the applicant, which may file a request for reconsideration of the
Board's action if necessary.
The Patent and Trademark Office has determined that this revision
is procedural and remedial in nature, and this revision is therefore
being published as a final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3) (A) and (B). This
rule is not a significant rule for the purposes of Executive Order
12866. No notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule under
5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, so a regulatory flexibility analysis is
not required and has not been prepared. 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 2
Administrative practice and procedure, Conflicts of interest,
Courts, Inventions and patents, Lawyers.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and pursuant to the
authority contained in 15 U.S.C. 1123 and 35 U.S.C. 6, part 2 of title
37 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below:
PART 2--RULES OF PRACTICE IN TRADEMARK CASES
1. The authority citation for 37 CFR Part 2 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1123; 35 U.S.C. 6, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 2.102(c)(2) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 2.102 Extension of time for filing an opposition.
* * * * *
(c) * * * (2) a written request by the potential opposer or its
authorized representative stating that the applicant or its authorized
representative has consented to the request, or * * *
Dated: July 2, 1996.
Bruce A. Lehman,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and
Trademarks.
[FR Doc. 96-17746 Filed 7-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17711 Service of Process; Production of Official Information; and Testimony of Agency Employees
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 136 (Monday, July 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36820-36824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17711]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY
22 CFR Part 608
Service of Process; Production of Official Information; and
Testimony of Agency Employees
AGENCY: Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule establishes or clarifies policies, practices,
responsibilities, and procedures for the service of legal process upon
the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA, the
Agency), its officers, and employees, and the production of official
ACDA information and the appearance of and testimony by ACDA employees
as witnesses in connection with litigation. This rule is procedural in
nature.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frederick Smith, Jr., United States
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Room 5635, 320 21st Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20451, telephone (202) 647-3596.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
General
This rule is intended to clarify ACDA policies and practices
regarding litigation-related matters such as service of process upon
ACDA and ACDA
[[Page 36821]]
employees and the production of official ACDA information in
litigation. ACDA anticipates that the rule will eliminate or reduce
current ambiguities regarding such matters for ACDA employees, as well
as for private attorneys and judicial and quasi-judicial authorities.
ACDA also expects that this rule will promote consistency in ACDA's
assertions of privileges and objections, thereby reducing the potential
for both inappropriate, potentially harmful disclosure of protected
information and wasteful or inappropriate allocation of Agency
resources. Although the rule is largely self-explanatory, we describe
the general scheme of the several subsections below for the readers'
ease of reference.
Service of Process
Part 604.4(b) of 22 CFR establishes the Agency's Office of the
General Counsel as the designated office for the presentation of
administrative claims asserted under the Federal Tort Claims Act (and
22 CFR parts 602, 603, and 605 set forth procedures for administrative
requests under the Freedom of Information Act, under the Privacy Act,
and for declassification of national security information,
respectively). However, until the present, the Agency has not had
regulations establishing the Agency's General Counsel, or his/her
delegate, as the sole Agency recipient for litigation-related demands,
whether civil or criminal, for official Agency information, whether
oral or documentary, or for other Agency action. The rule also
clarifies that ACDA is not an agent for service on behalf of its
employees in respect of purely private legal disputes and explains that
ACDA will counsel its employees not to use their official positions to
evade judicial process.
Compliance With Requests or Demands for Official Information
Fundamentally, the compliance sections of the rule (Secs. 608.4-
608.9) simply track, to a greater or lesser degree, similar regulations
which have been adopted by other federal agencies and which derive from
the Supreme Court's decision in United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen,
340 U.S. 462 (1951). Thus, the principal thrust of the compliance
provisions of the rule is that Agency employees (including former
employees) must obtain the approval of the Agency's General Counsel, or
his/her delegate, prior to responding to any subpoenas or other
litigation-related requests or demands for Agency information, whether
classified or unclassified, that relate to the employee's official
duties.
Significantly, Sec. 608.5 requires the party who initiates a
litigation-related request or demand for official ACDA information to
provide a written statement providing specified information concerning
the nature and scope of the demand.
Finally, the rule describes factors, among others, that Agency
officials shall take into consideration when considering litigation-
related requests or demands and specifies that Agency employees may
ordinarily not provide expert or official testimony on behalf of
private parties.
On May 28, 1996, ACDA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (61
FR 26474-26477) with a 31-day comment period. No comments were received
during the comment period. Accordingly, the rule is adopted as
proposed.
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 608
Administrative practice and procedure, Classified information,
Government employees.
Chapter VI of title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended by adding a new part 608 to read as follows:
PART 608--SERVICE OF PROCESS; PRODUCTION OR DISCLOSURE OF OFFICIAL
INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO COURT ORDERS, SUBPOENAS, NOTICES OF
DEPOSITIONS, REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, INTERROGATORIES, OR SIMILAR
REQUESTS OR DEMANDS IN CONNECTION WITH FEDERAL OR STATE LITIGATION;
EXPERT TESTIMONY
Sec.
608.1 Purpose and scope; definitions.
608.2 Service of summonses and complaints.
608.3 Service of subpoenas, court orders, and other demands or
requests for official information or action.
608.4 Testimony and production of documents prohibited unless
approved by appropriate Agency officials.
608.5 Procedure when testimony or production of documents is
sought--general.
608.6 Procedure when response to demand is required prior to
receiving instructions.
608.7 Procedure in the event of an adverse ruling.
608.8 Considerations in determining whether the Agency will comply
with a demand or request.
608.9 Prohibition on providing expert or opinion testimony.
Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2581(j).
Sec. 608.1 Purpose and scope; definitions.
(a) This part sets forth the procedures to be followed with respect
to:
(1) service of summonses and complaints or other requests or
demands directed to the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA,
the Agency) or to any ACDA employee or former employee in connection
with federal or state litigation arising out of or involving the
performance of official activities of ACDA; and
(2) the oral or written disclosure, in response to subpoenas,
orders, or other requests or demands of federal or state judicial or
quasi-judicial authority (collectively, ``demands''), whether civil or
criminal in nature, or in response to requests for depositions,
affidavits, admissions, responses to interrogatories, document
production, or other litigation-related matters, pursuant to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, or applicable state rules (collectively, ``requests''), of
any material contained in the files of the Agency, any information
relating to material contained in the files of the Agency, or any
information acquired while the subject of the demand or request is or
was an employee of the Agency as part of the performance of the
person's duties or by virtue of the person's official status.
(b) For purposes of this part, and except as ACDA may otherwise
determine in a particular case, the term employee includes the Director
of ACDA and former Directors of ACDA, and all employees and former
employees of ACDA or other federal agencies who are or were appointed
by, or subject to the supervision, jurisdiction, or control of the
Director of ACDA, whether residing or working in the United States or
abroad, including United States nationals, foreign nationals, and
contractors.
(c) For purposes of this part, the term litigation encompasses all
pre-trial, trial, and post-trial stages of all judicial or
administrative actions, hearings, investigations, or similar
proceedings before courts, commissions, boards, or other judicial or
quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals, whether criminal, civil, or
administrative in nature. This part governs, inter alia, responses to
discovery requests, depositions, and other pre-trial, trial, or post-
trial proceedings, as well as responses to informal requests by
attorneys or others in situations involving litigation. However, this
part shall not apply to any claims by ACDA employees (present or
former), or applicants for Agency employment, for which
[[Page 36822]]
jurisdiction resides with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission; the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board; the Office of
Special Counsel; the Federal Labor Relations Authority; the Foreign
Service Labor Relations Board; the Foreign Service Grievance Board; or
a labor arbitrator operating under a collective bargaining agreement
between ACDA and a labor organization representing ACDA employees; or
their successor agencies or entities.
(d) For purposes of this part, official information means all
information of any kind, however stored, that is in the custody and
control of ACDA, relates to information in the custody and control of
ACDA, or was acquired by ACDA employees as part of their official
duties or because of their official status within ACDA while such
individuals are employed by or served on behalf of ACDA.
(e) Nothing in this part affects disclosure of information under
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, the Privacy Act, 5
U.S.C. 552a, Executive Order 12958, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 333, the
Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b, the Agency's regulations
in 22 CFR chapter VI implementing any of the foregoing, or pursuant to
congressional subpoena. Nothing in this part otherwise permits
disclosure of information by ACDA or its employees except as provided
by statute or other applicable law.
(f) This part is intended only to inform the public about ACDA
procedures concerning the service of process and responses to demands
or requests and is not intended to and does not create, and may not be
relied upon to create, any right or benefit substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law by a party against ACDA or the United States.
(g) Nothing in this part affects:
(1) The disclosure of information during the course of legal
proceedings in foreign courts, commissions, boards, or other judicial
or quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals; or
(2) The rules and procedures, under applicable U.S. law and
international conventions, governing diplomatic and consular immunity.
(h) Nothing in this part affects the disclosure of official
information to other federal agencies or Department of Justice
attorneys in connection with litigation conducted on behalf or in
defense of the United States, its agencies, officers, and employees, or
to federal, state, local, or foreign prosecuting and law enforcement
authorities in conjunction with criminal law enforcement
investigations, prosecutions, extradition, deportation or other
proceedings.
Sec. 608.2 Service of summonses and complaints.
(a) Only ACDA's General Counsel, or his/her delegate, is authorized
to receive and accept summonses or complaints sought to be served upon
ACDA or ACDA employees. All such documents should be delivered or
addressed to General Counsel, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency,
320 21st St. NW., Room 5635, Washington, DC 20451. Pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 659(b) and 5 U.S.C. 5520a(c)(1), this same officer has been
designated specifically to accept service of process for the
enforcement of the legal obligation to provide child support or to make
alimony payments by employees of the Agency and to accept service of
process for the enforcement of the legal obligation to pay monies owed
for other than child support or alimony by employees of the Agency,
respectively.
(b) In the event any summons or complaint described in
Sec. 608.1(a) is delivered to an employee of ACDA other than in the
manner specified in this part, such attempted service shall be
ineffective, and the recipient thereof shall either decline to accept
the proffered service or return such document under cover of a written
communication which directs the person attempting to make service to
the procedures set forth in this part.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in Secs. 608.2(d) and 608.3(c),
ACDA is not an authorized agent for service of process with respect to
civil litigation against ACDA employees purely in their personal, non-
official capacity. Copies of summonses or complaints directed to ACDA
employees in connection with legal proceedings arising out of the
performance of official duties may, however, be served upon ACDA's
General Counsel, or his/her delegate.
(d) Although ACDA is not an agent for the service of process upon
its employees with respect to purely personal, non-official litigation,
ACDA recognizes that its employees stationed overseas should not use
their official positions to evade their personal obligations and will,
therefore, counsel and encourage ACDA employees to accept service of
process in appropriate cases, and will waive applicable diplomatic or
consular privileges and immunities when ACDA determines that it is in
the interest of the United States to do so. Pursuant to section 302 of
Executive Order 12953 (3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 325), ACDA's General
Counsel has been designated in Appendix B to 5 CFR part 581 as the
official to assist in the service of legal process in civil actions
pursuant to orders of State courts to establish paternity and to
establish or to enforce support obligations by making ACDA employees
available for service of process, regardless of the location of the
employee's workplace.
(e) Documents for which ACDA's General Counsel, or his/her
delegate, accepts service in official capacity only shall be stamped
``Service Accepted in Official Capacity Only.'' Acceptance of service
shall not constitute an admission or waiver with respect to
jurisdiction, propriety of service, improper venue, or any other
defense in law or equity available under the laws or rules applicable
for the service of process.
Sec. 608.3 Service of subpoenas, court orders, and other demands or
requests for official information or action.
(a) Except in cases in which ACDA is represented by legal counsel
who have entered an appearance or otherwise given notice of their
representation, only ACDA's General Counsel, or his/her delegate, is
authorized to receive and accept subpoenas, or other demands or
requests directed to ACDA or any component thereof, or its employees,
or former employees, whether civil or criminal in nature, for:
(1) Material, including documents, contained in the files of the
Agency;
(2) Information, including testimony, affidavits, declarations,
admissions, response to interrogatories, or informal statements,
relating to material contained in the files of the Agency or which any
Agency employee acquired in the course and scope of the performance of
official duties;
(3) Garnishment or attachment of compensation of current or former
employees; or
(4) The performance or non-performance of any official ACDA duty.
(b) In the event that any subpoena, demand, or request is sought to
be delivered to an Agency employee (including former employee) other
than in the manner prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section, such
attempted service shall be ineffective. Such employee shall, after
consultation with the Office of the General Counsel, decline to accept
the subpoena, demand, or request or shall return it to the server under
cover of a written communication referring to the procedures prescribed
in this part.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in this part, ACDA is not an agent
for service or otherwise authorized to accept on behalf of its
employees any subpoenas, show-cause orders, or
[[Page 36823]]
similar compulsory process of federal or state courts, or requests from
private individuals or attorneys, which are not related to the
employees' official duties except upon the express, written
authorization of the individual ACDA employee to whom such demand or
request is directed.
(d) Acceptance of such documents by ACDA's General Counsel, or his/
her delegate, does not constitute a waiver of any defenses that might
otherwise exist with respect to service under the Federal Rules of
Civil or Criminal Procedure or other applicable rules.
Sec. 608.4 Testimony and production of documents prohibited unless
approved by appropriate Agency officials.
(a) No employee of ACDA shall, in response to a demand or request
in connection with any litigation, whether criminal or civil, provide
oral or written testimony by deposition,declaration, affidavit, or
otherwise concerning any information acquired while such person is or
was an employee of ACDA as part of the performance of that person's
official duties or by virtue of that person's official status, unless
authorized to do so by ACDA's General Counsel, or his/her delegate.
(b) No ACDA employee shall, in response to a demand or request in
connection with any litigation, produce for use at such proceedings any
document or any other material acquired as part of the performance of
that employee's duties or by virtue of that employee's official status,
unless authorized to do so by ACDA's General Counsel, or his/her
delegate.
Sec. 608.5 Procedure when testimony or production of documents is
sought--general.
(a) If official ACDA information is sought, through testimony or
otherwise, by a request or demand, the party seeking such release or
testimony must (except as otherwise required by federal law or
authorized by the Office of the General Counsel) set forth in writing
and with as much specificity as possible, the nature and relevance of
the official information sought. Where documents or other materials are
sought, the party should identify the record or reasonably describe it
in terms of date, format, subject matter, the office originating or
receiving the record, and the names of all persons to whom the record
is known to relate. Subject to Sec. 606.7, ACDA employees may produce,
disclose, release, comment upon, or testify concerning only those
matters that were specified in writing and properly approved by ACDA's
General Counsel or his/her delegate. See United States ex rel. Touhy v.
Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951). The Office of the General Counsel may waive
this requirement in appropriate circumstances.
(b) To the extent it deems necessary or appropriate, ACDA may also
require from the party seeking such testimony or documents a plan of
all reasonably foreseeable demands, including but not limited to the
names of all employees and former employees from whom discovery will be
sought, areas of inquiry, expected duration of proceedings requiring
oral testimony, and identification of potentially relevant documents.
(c) ACDA's General Counsel, or his/her delegate, will notify the
ACDA employee and such other persons as circumstances may warrant of
the decision regarding compliance with the request or demand.
(d) The Office of the General Counsel will consult with the
Department of Justice regarding legal representation for ACDA employees
in appropriate cases.
Sec. 608.6 Procedure when response to demand is required prior to
receiving instructions.
(a) If a response to a demand is required before ACDA's General
Counsel, or his/her delegate, renders a decision, ACDA will request
that either a Department of Justice attorney or an ACDA attorney
designated for the purpose:
(1) Appear with the employee upon whom the demand has been made;
(2) Furnish the court or other authority with a copy of the
regulations contained in this part;
(3) Inform the court or other authority that the demand has been or
is being, as the case may be, referred for the prompt consideration of
ACDA's General Counsel, or his/her delegate; and
(4) Respectfully request the court or authority to stay the demand
pending receipt of the requested instructions.
(b) In the event that an immediate demand for production or
disclosure is made in circumstances that would preclude the proper
designation or appearance of a Department of Justice or ACDA attorney
on the employee's behalf, the employee shall respectfully request the
demanding court or authority for a reasonable stay of proceedings for
the purpose of obtaining instructions from ACDA.
Sec. 608.7 Procedure in the event of an adverse ruling.
If the court or other judicial or quasi-judicial authority declines
to stay the effect of the demand in response to a request made pursuant
to Sec. 608.6, or if the court or other authority rules that the demand
must be complied with irrespective of the Agency's instructions not to
produce the material or disclose the information sought, the employee
upon whom the demand has been made shall respectfully decline to comply
with the demand, citing these regulations and United States ex rel.
Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 463 (1951).
Sec. 608.8 Considerations in determining whether the Agency will
comply with a demand or request.
(a) In deciding whether to comply with a demand or request, ACDA
officials and attorneys shall consider, among others:
(1) Whether such compliance would be unduly burdensome or otherwise
inappropriate under the applicable rules of discovery or the rules of
procedure governing the case or matter in which the demand arose;
(2) Whether compliance is appropriate under the relevant
substantive law concerning privilege or disclosure of information;
(3) The public interest;
(4) The need to conserve the time of ACDA employees for the conduct
of official business;
(5) The need to avoid spending the time and money of the United
States for private purposes;
(6) The need to maintain impartiality between private litigants in
cases where a substantial government interest is not implicated;
(7) Whether compliance would have an adverse effect on performance
by ACDA of its mission and duties; and
(8) The need to avoid involving ACDA in controversial issues not
related to its mission.
(b) Among those demands and requests in response to which
compliance will not ordinarily be authorized are those with respect to
which, inter alia, any of the following factors exist:
(1) Compliance would violate a statute or a rule of procedure;
(2) Compliance would violate a specific regulation or executive
order;
(3) Compliance would reveal information properly classified in the
interest of national security;
(4) Compliance would reveal confidential commercial or financial
information or trade secrets without the owner's consent;
(5) Compliance would reveal the internal deliberative processes of
the Executive Branch; or
(6) Compliance would potentially impede or prejudice an on-going
law enforcement investigation.
[[Page 36824]]
Sec. 608.9 Prohibition on providing expert or opinion testimony.
(a) Except as provided in this section, and subject to 5 CFR
2635.805, ACDA employees shall not provide opinion or expert testimony
based upon information which they acquired in the scope and performance
of their official ACDA duties, except on behalf of the United States or
a party represented by the Department of Justice.
(b) Upon a showing by the requester of exceptional need or unique
circumstances and that the anticipated testimony will not be adverse to
the interests of the United States, ACDA's General Counsel, or his/her
delegate, may, consistent with 5 CFR 2635.805, in the exercise of
discretion, grant special, written authorization for ACDA employees to
appear and testify as expert witnesses at no expense to the United
States.
(c) If, despite the final determination of ACDA's General Counsel,
a court of competent jurisdiction or other appropriate authority orders
the appearance and expert or opinion testimony of an ACDA employee,
such employee shall immediately inform the office of the General
Counsel of such order. If the Office of the General Counsel determines
that no further legal review of or challenge to the court's order will
be made, the ACDA employee shall comply with the order. If so directed
by the Office of the General Counsel, however, the employee shall
respectfully decline to testify. See United States ex rel. Touhy v.
Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951).
Dated: July 1, 1996.
Mary Elizabeth Hoinkes,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 96-17711 Filed 7-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-32-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17593 Modification of Class E Airspace; Rice Lake, WI
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 136 (Monday, July 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17593]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AGL-19]
Modification of Class E Airspace; Rice Lake, WI
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action corrects an error in the summary portion of the
Rice Lake Regional-Carl's Field Airport, Rice Lake, WI, docket
published in the final rule on April 24, 1996 (61 FR 18061). Airspace
Docket Number 95-AGL-19. There is no change to the legal description of
the airspace.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John A. Clayborn, Air Traffic
Division, Operations Branch, AGL-530, Federal Aviation Administration,
2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018, telephone (847)
294-7568.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
Federal Register Document 96-9997, Airspace Docket 95-AGL-19,
published on April 24, 1996, (61 FR 18061), established the Class E5 to
accommodate a Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) for
runway 19 approach and a Nondirectional Radio Beacon (NDB) for runway
1/19 approach at Rice Lake Regional-Carl's Field Airport, Rice Lake,
WI.
Upon review of the final rule errors were discovered in the summary
portion of the airspace action.
The correct summary should read as follows: This action modifies
Class E5 airspace to accommodate a VOR approach to runway 01, a VOR
approach to runway 19 and an NDB approach to runway 19 at Rice Lake
Regional-Carl's Field Airport, Rice Lake, WI.
* * * * *
Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois, June 25, 1996.
Maureen Woods,
Manager, Air Traffic Division.
[FR Doc. 96-17593 Filed 7-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17580 Periodic Updates to the Pipeline Safety Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 136 (Monday, July 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36825-36826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17580]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Parts 192, 193, and 195
[Docket No. PS-143; Amdts. 192-76; 193-11; 195-56]
RIN 2137-AC74
Periodic Updates to the Pipeline Safety Regulations
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Corrections to the final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 24, 1996, RSPA published a final rule in the Federal
Register (61 FR 26121) titled ``Periodic Updates to the Pipeline Safety
Regulations.'' This final rule updated the references to voluntary
specifications and standards to reflect more recently published
editions of each document, enabling pipeline operators to utilize
current technology, materials, and practices, thereby reducing costs
and enhancing economic growth. The final rule also eliminated the
requirement for odorization of hydrogen transmission lines in cases
where the odorization interferes with industrial end uses. Consistent
with President Clinton's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, these
actions eliminated unnecessary regulatory burdens without compromising
safety. This document makes minor corrections to the final rule to
provide consistency in the regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 14, 1996.
[[Page 36826]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eben M. Wyman, (202) 366-0918,
regarding the subject matter of this document; or the Dockets Unit,
(202) 366-4453; for copies of this document or other materials in the
docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Need for Correction
The final rule did not make note of amendment numbers to properly
revise the pipeline safety laws. The amendment numbers for Docket No.
PS-143 are ``Amdt. 192-76; 193-11; 195-56.''
In Section 192.63(a)(1) of the final rule, the word ``fitting'' is
improperly used in discussing the marking of thermoplastic fittings in
accordance with ASTM D 2513. The word ``fittings'' should replace the
word ``fitting.''
The final rule also updated two references to the address of the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). However, the correct
address was not updated in the amended Section 195.3(b)(6). The address
was listed as ``Conshohocken, PA'' not ``West Conshohocken, PA,'' as
correctly noted in the amended Appendix A of Part 192. To provide
consistency in the pipeline safety regulations, this document corrects
section 195.3(b)(6) to reflect the accurate address for ASTM. The
correct address is ``American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),
100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428.''
Finally, the updated editions of voluntary consensus standards
included in Appendix A of Part 192 were not updated in Appendix B--
``Qualification of Pipe.'' Appendix B lists the pipe specifications
incorporated by reference in Part 192. For consistency, the
specifications in Appendix B should accurately reflect the updated
references in Appendix A. This document updates the specifications in
Appendix B to match Appendix A.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the publication on May 24, 1996, of the final rule (61
FR 26121) is corrected as follows:
Sec. 192.63--[Corrected]
On page 26122, in the third column, in Sec. 192.63, paragraph
(a)(1), in line four, the word ``fitting'' is corrected to read
``fittings.''
Appendix B to Part 192--[Revised]
On page 26123, in the third column, a new amendatory instruction is
added following amendment 5.
6. Appendix B to Part 192, section I, is revised to read as
follows:
Appendix B to Part 192--Qualification of Pipe
I. Listed Pipe Specifications (Numbers in Parentheses Indicate
Applicable Editions)
API 5L--Steel pipe (1995).
ASTM A 53--Steel pipe (1995a).
ASTM A 106--Steel pipe (1994a).
ASTM A 333/A 333M--Steel pipe (1994).
ASTM A 381--Steel pipe (1993).
ASTM A 671--Steel pipe (1994).
ASTM A 672--Steel pipe (1994).
ASTM A 691--Steel pipe (1993).
ASTM D 2513--Thermoplastic pipe and tubing (1995c).
ASTM D 2517--Thermosetting plastic pipe and tubing (1994).
* * * * *
Sec. 195.3--[Corrected]
On page 26123, in the third column, in Sec. 195.3, paragraph
(b)(6), in line three, the name ``Conshohocken'' is corrected to read
``West Conshohocken.''
These updates were incorporated in the final rule, so RSPA does not
need further rulemaking action to correct the updated specifications in
Appendix B of Part 192. The purpose of this Notice is to provide
consistency in the pipeline safety regulations. RSPA regrets any
confusion this error may have occasioned, and publishes this document
to provide clarification to all affected parties of this rulemaking.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 3, 1996.
Richard B. Felder,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 96-17580 Filed 7-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17483 Airworthiness Directives; Fairchild Aircraft SA226 and SA227 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 136 (Monday, July 15, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36817-36820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17483]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 93-CE-35-AD; Amendment 39-9689; AD 93-15-02 R2]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Fairchild Aircraft SA226 and SA227
Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment revises Airworthiness Directive (AD) 93-15-02
R1, which requires the following on Fairchild Aircraft SA226 and SA227
series airplanes that are equipped with a certain Simmonds-Precision
pitch trim actuator: repetitively measuring the freeplay of the pitch
trim actuator and repetitively inspecting the actuator for rod
slippage; immediately replacing any actuator if certain freeplay
limitations are exceeded or rod slippage is evident; and eventually
replacing the actuator regardless of the inspection results. The
compliance times for the first inspection of an actuator that is
installed in accordance with AD 93-15-02 R1 was inadvertently
referenced incorrectly. This action retains the repetitive inspection
and replacement requirements of the current AD, corrects the above-
referenced compliance times, and adds an additional replacement
actuator option that will then require repetitive inspections and
replacements of that actuator. The actions specified by this AD are
intended to prevent the horizontal stabilizer from going nose-down or
jamming because of pitch trim actuator failure, which could result in
loss of control of the airplane.
DATES: Effective July 25, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director
[[Page 36818]]
of the Federal Register as of July 25, 1996.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before August 30, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Service information that applies to this AD may be obtained
from Field Support Engineering, Fairchild Aircraft, P.O. Box 790490,
San Antonio, Texas 78279-0490; telephone (210) 824-9421; facsimile
(210) 820-8609. This information may also be examined at the FAA, Room
1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Werner Koch, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Airplane Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth,
Texas 76193-0150; telephone (817) 222-5133; facsimile (817) 222-5960.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Events Leading to This Action
On July 20, 1993, the FAA issued AD 93-15-02, Amendment 39-8648 (59
FR 40734, July 30, 1993), to require the following on Fairchild
Aircraft SA226 and SA227 series airplanes that are equipped with a
Simmonds-Precision pitch trim actuator, part number (P/N) DL5040M5:
--repetitively measuring the freeplay of the pitch trim actuator and
repetitively inspecting the actuator for rod slippage; and,
--if certain freeplay limitations are exceeded or rod slippage is
evident, replacing any actuator with a new actuator of the same part
number or with a part of improved design, P/N 27-19008-001 or P/N 27-
19008-002.
The requirements of the AD will no longer apply when an actuator of
improved design, P/N 27-19008-001 or P/N 27-19008-002, is installed. AD
93-15-02 specified accomplishment of the freeplay measurements and
inspections in accordance with the instructions in Fairchild Aircraft
SA226 Series Service Letter (SL) 226-SL-005, and Fairchild Aircraft
SA227 Series SL 227-SL-011, both Issued: April 8, 1993, Revised: April
28, 1993, as applicable; and specified accomplishment of the pitch trim
actuator replacement in accordance with the applicable maintenance
manual.
AD 93-15-02 was issued based on reports of two in-flight incidents
where the above-referenced pitch trim actuator failed on Fairchild
Aircraft SA226 and SA227 series airplanes. In one case, the horizontal
stabilizer went full-nose down, and in the other instance, the
horizontal stabilizer jammed. Fortunately, the pilots were able to
safely land in both of these instances. Upon removal and inspection of
each of these pitch trim actuators, fatigued barrel nuts were found and
the actuator usage time was well over 5,000 hours time-in-service
(TIS).
After AD 93-15-02 became effective, the FAA received a report of an
in-flight incident where the referenced actuator on one of the affected
airplanes failed. The airplane operator had accomplished the 5,000-hour
TIS initial inspection (with satisfactory results), but had not reached
the 6,500-hour TIS mandatory replacement threshold.
This prompted the FAA to revise AD 93-15-02 (to the R1 level,
Amendment 39-9180, 60 FR 15667, March 27, 1995) to require the same
repetitive inspections and actuator replacement as AD 93-15-02, but
changes the compliance times by (1) reducing the number of hours time-
in-service (TIS) before the initial inspection is required; and (2)
shortening both the time period between repetitive inspections and the
actuator replacement compliance time, unless the replacement actuator
is new or if the tube nut assemblies have been replaced during
overhaul. Fairchild Aircraft revised the applicable service bulletins
to reflect the inspection time changes. Accomplishment of the
inspections required by AD 93-15-02 R1 is in accordance with the
instructions in Fairchild Aircraft SA226 Series Service Letter (SL)
226-SL-005, and Fairchild Aircraft SA227 Series SL 227-SL-011, both
Issued: April 8, 1993, Revised: March 2, 1995, as applicable.
AD 93-15-02 R1 inadvertently referenced incorrect compliance times
for the first inspection for an actuator that is installed in
accordance with AD 93-15-02 R1. That AD specifies repetitively
inspecting the actuator at either 250 or 300-hour TIS intervals after
replacing the actuator. The intent was to initially inspect upon
accumulating 3,000, 5,000, or 7,500 hours TIS (depending on the type of
actuator replacement) after installing the actuator, and repetitively
inspecting every 250 or 300 hours TIS thereafter.
In addition, the FAA has become aware of an additional replacement
actuator that should be incorporated into the existing AD. This
replacement actuator is a modified P/N DL5040M5 actuator that is re-
identified as P/N DL5040M6. Installation of this actuator would then
require repetitive inspections and replacements.
After examining all available information related to the subject
discussed above, the FAA has determined that further AD action should
be taken to correct these compliance times of AD 93-15-02 R1 and to
prevent the horizontal stabilizer from going nose-down or jamming
because of pitch trim actuator failure, which could result in loss of
control of the airplane.
Fairchild Aircraft has revised (dated May 22, 1996) SA226 Series SL
226-SL-005 and SA227 Series 227-SL-011, to reflect the information
discussed above.
Explanation of the Provisions of the AD
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop in other Fairchild Aircraft SA226 and SA227 series
airplanes of the same type design that are equipped with a Simmonds-
Precision pitch trim actuator, P/N DL5040M5 or P/N DL5040M6, this AD
requires the same repetitive inspections and actuator replacement as AD
93-15-02 R1, but revises the initial inspection compliance times after
installing the actuator as previously specified. This action
incorporates Simmonds-Precision pitch trim actuator, P/N DL5040M6, as a
replacement option that will then require repetitive inspections and
replacements. The P/N DL5040M6 actuator can consist of a new part or a
modified DL5040M5 actuator, both of which can be obtained from
Simmonds-Precision.
This action revises a previous action to correct an error in a
final rule by changing the compliance time for the initial inspection
after installing the actuator, and incorporates the additional
replacement option. This change in the compliance time reduces the
burden upon the public. The replacement option imposes the same burden
that is currently required. Since this action does not impose any
additional burden (financial or otherwise) upon the public than is
already required by AD 93-15-02 R1 or than was previously required by
AD 93-15-02, it is found that notice and prior public comment hereon
are unnecessary.
Comments Invited
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves
requirements affecting immediate flight safety and, thus, was not
preceded by notice and opportunity to comment, comments are invited on
this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire.
Communications should identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted
in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications
received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered,
and this rule may be amended in light of the comments received. Factual
information that supports the commenter's ideas and
[[Page 36819]]
suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the
AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be
needed.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be
available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the
Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that
summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this
AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation
prepared for this action has been placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of
it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location
provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing Amendment 39-9180 (60 FR
15667, March 27, 1995), and by adding a new airworthiness directive to
read as follows:
93-15-02 R2 Fairchild Aircraft: Amendment 39-9689; Docket No. 93-CE-
35-AD. Revises AD 93-15-02 R1, Amendment 39-9180.
Applicability: All SA226 and SA227 series airplanes (all models
and serial numbers), certificated in any category, that are equipped
with a Simmonds-Precision pitch trim actuator, part number (P/N)
DL5040M5 or P/N DL5040M6.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated in the body of this AD, unless
already accomplished.
To prevent failure of the pitch trim actuator, which could
result in the horizontal stabilizer going nose-down or jamming,
accomplish the following:
Note 2: The paragraph structure of this AD is as follows:
Level 1: (a), (b), (c), etc.
Level 2: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Level 3: (i), (ii), (iii), etc.
Level 2 and Level 3 structures are designations of the Level 1
paragraph they immediately follow.
(a) Accomplish the following at the times specified in the chart
in paragraph (b) of this AD:
(1) Initial and repetitive inspections: Measure the freeplay
(inspection) of the pitch trim actuator and inspect the actuator for
rod slippage in accordance with the INSTRUCTIONS section of
Fairchild Aircraft SA226 Series Service Letter (SL) 226-SL-005, and
Fairchild Aircraft SA227 Series SL 227-SL-011, both Issued: April 8,
1993, Revised: May 22, 1996, as applicable.
(2) Initial and repetitive replacements: Replace the pitch trim
actuator with one of the following in accordance with the
instructions in the applicable maintenance manual at the times
specified in the Initial Inspection and Repetititive Inspection
columns of the chart in paragraph (b) of this AD and, replace the
pitch trim actuator prior to further flight if certain freeplay
limitations that are specified in the service letters are exceeded
or if rod slippage is found.
(i) A new Simmonds-Precision actuator, P/N DL5040M5 or DL5040M6.
(ii) A pitch trim actuator with an overhauled, zero-timed part
of the same design and part number.
(iii) A new actuator of improved design, P/N 27- 19008-001 or
27-19008-002. This replacement eliminates the repetitive inspection
and replacement requirements of this AD, and may be accomplished at
any time to eliminate the inspection requirement of this AD.
(b) The following chart presents the initial and repetitive
inspection and replacement compliance times of this AD:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Condition Initial inspection Repetitive inspection Repetitive replacement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With an original Simmonds-Precision Upon accumulating 3,000 Every 250 hours TIS Initially upon
actuator, P/N DL5040M5, installed. hours TIS on a after initial accumulating 5,000
Simmonds-Precision P/N inspection until hours TIS on the
DL5040M5 actuator or accumulating 5,000 actuator or 500 hours
within 50 hours TIS hours TIS on the TIS after the initial
after April 17, 1995 actuator or 500 hours inspection, whichever
(the effective date of TIS after the last occurs later, and
AD 93-15-02 R1), inspection required by thereafter as
whichever occurs later. AD 93-15-02 R1, indicated below.
whichever occurs later.
With a replacement Simmonds-Precision Initially upon Every 300 hours TIS Upon accumulating 6,500
actuator, P/N DL5040M5, installed. accumulating 5,000 after the initial hours TIS on the
hours TIS on the new inspection until actuator.
actuator. accumulating 6,500
hours TIS on the
actuator.
With a replacement Simmonds-Precision Initially upon Every 300 hours TIS Upon accumulating 9,900
actuator, P/N DL5040M6, installed. accumulating 7,500 after the initial hours TIS on the
This part can be new, modified from hours TIS on the new inspection until actuator.
a P/N DL5040M5 actuator or or modified actuator. accumulating 9,900
overhauled and zero-timed. hours TIS on the
actuator..
[[Page 36820]]
With a replacement P/N DL5040M5 Initally upon Every 300 hours TIS Upon accumulating 6,500
actuator installed that was accumulating 5,000 after the initial hours TIS on the
overhauled and zero-timed where both hours TIS on the inspection until actuator.
nut assemblies, P/N AA56142, were overhauled actuator. accumulating 6,500
replaced with new assemblies during hours TIS on the
overhaul. actuator.
With a replacement P/N DL5040M5 Initally upon Every 250 hours TIS Upon accumulating 5,000
actuator installed that was accumulating 3,000 after the initial hours TIS on the
overhauled and zero-timed where both hours TIS on the inspection until actuator.
nut assemblies, P/N AA56142, were overhauled actuator. accumulating 5,000
not replaced with new assemblies hours TIS on the
during overhaul. actuator.
With a pitch trim actuator of No action necessary.... No action necessary.... No action necessary.
improved design installed, P/N 27-
19008-001 or 27-19008-002.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
initial or repetitive compliance times that provides an equivalent
level of safety may be approved by the Manager, Airplane
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth,
Texas 76193-0150. The request shall be forwarded through an
appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then
send it to the Manager, Fort Worth ACO.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Fort Worth ACO.
(e) The inspections and modification required by this AD shall
be done in accordance with Fairchild Aircraft SA226 Series Service
Letter 226-SL-005, and Fairchild Aircraft SA227 Series Service
Letter 227-SL-011, both Issued: April 8, 1993, Revised: May 22,
1996, as applicable. This incorporation by reference is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Field Support
Engineering, Fairchild Aircraft, P.O. Box 790490, San Antonio, Texas
78279-0490. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Central Region,
Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th
Street, Kansas City, Missouri, or at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(f) This amendment (39-9689) revises AD 93-15-02 R1, Amendment
39-9180.
(g) This amendment (39-9689) becomes effective on July 25, 1996.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 25, 1996.
James E. Jackson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-17483 Filed 7-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.