issue-1996-09-03•Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-03
Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-03
issue-1996-09-03Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-03Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-22507 1996-97 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46390-46399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22507]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 32
RIN 1018-AD76
1996-97 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) amends certain
regulations that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game
hunting, big game hunting and sport fishing on individual national
wildlife refuges for the 1996-97 seasons. Refuge hunting and fishing
programs are reviewed annually to determine whether the individual
refuge regulations governing these programs should be modified, deleted
or have additions made to them. Changing environmental conditions,
State and Federal regulations, and other factors affecting wildlife
populations and habitat may warrant modifications
[[Page 46391]]
ensuring continued compatibility of hunting and fishing with the
purposes for which individual refuges were established. The Service
determines that such use is compatible with the purposes for which
these refuges were established. The Service further determines that
this action is in accordance with the provisions of all applicable
laws, is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife
management, and is otherwise in the public interest by providing
additional recreational opportunities at national wildlife refuges.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective September 3, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen R. Vehrs, (703) 358-2397.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 50 CFR part 32 contains provisions governing
hunting and fishing on national wildlife refuges. Hunting and fishing
are regulated on refuges to:
Ensure compatibility with refuge purposes;
Properly manage the fish and wildlife resource;
Protect other refuge values; and
Ensure refuge user safety.
On many refuges, the Service policy of adopting State hunting and
fishing regulations is adequate in meeting these objectives. On other
refuges, it is necessary to supplement State regulations with more
restrictive Federal regulations to ensure that the Service meets its
management responsibilities, as outlined under the section entitled
``Statutory Authority.'' Refuge-specific hunting and fishing
regulations may be issued only after a wildlife refuge is opened to
migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting or
sport fishing through publication in the Federal Register. These
regulations may list the wildlife species that may be hunted or are
subject to sport fishing, seasons, bag limits, methods of hunting or
fishing, descriptions of open areas, and other provisions as
appropriate. Previously issued refuge-specific regulations for hunting
and fishing are contained in 50 CFR part 32. Many of the amendments to
these sections are being promulgated to standardize and clarify the
existing language of these regulations.
Text in this final rule is somewhat different than that used in the
proposed rule because it reflects conformity to plain English writing
standards. In the June 24, 1996, issue of the Federal Register (61 FR
32415-32422) the Service published a proposed rulemaking containing a
description of the refuges, their proposed hunting and/or fishing
programs and invited public comment.
The State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection,
Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife, commented that the proposed rule
did not include any openings for sport fishing in New Jersey. This
concern has been forwarded to the Service's Regional Director, having
jurisdiction in New Jersey. To open new fishing programs in New Jersey,
a separate rulemaking is necessary. The refuge managers, in
consultation with other Fish and Wildlife Service offices and the New
Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife, will determine whether to
open additional public fishing areas on refuges in New Jersey through a
compatible use determination process.
The State of Utah, Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Wildlife Resources commented that the proposed regulations for Bear
River Migratory Bird Refuge were overly restrictive regarding: (1) The
requirement for cased or dismantled firearms while being carried and/or
transported on the refuge, since this regulation is more restrictive
than State law; (2) refuge closure 90 minutes after hunting hours,
where at least two hours should be allowed; and (3) a ten-shell limit
for swan hunting could create a significant law enforcement problem.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) generally supports
the changes made to the refuge regulations, but expressed concern about
hunting tundra swans on this refuge and other national wildlife
refuges. They were supportive of steps taken by the refuge manager to
better regulate the swan hunt. The HSUS further recommends that the
number of shotshells used to hunt swans be limited to five shells.
The Fund for Animals Inc. commented on the proposed 1995-96 late
season migratory bird hunting frameworks, 60 FR 44463 (August 28,
1995), and the Draft Bear River Refuge Hunt Plan Environmental
Assessment (DEA). Both of these documents follow a separate public
comment process and therefore will be responded to elsewhere and not
addressed in this rulemaking.
The Biodiversity Legal Foundation (BLF) commented that regulations
for Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge are insufficient to protect and
encourage adequate restoration of the trumpeter swan in Utah. They
specifically recommend: (1) The refuge be closed 60 minutes after
shooting time to discourage sky-busting and the resultant crippling of
swans. They feel this is more than sufficient time to accumulate all
equipment and depart from the refuge; (2) illegal shooting from dikes
is well documented and the Service should take all necessary steps to
eliminate this activity, particularly on those areas that lie between
closed (security) areas where low flying trumpeters are observed; and
(3) the Service should consider the kind of regulations and recovery
effects that would exist if the trumpeter were listed under the ESA.
They suggest that these same recovery goals should be in effect at this
time; and refuge regulations clearly allow for an excessive and
unreasonable incidental take (mortality) of trumpeters in contradiction
to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The Service has reviewed the above comments regarding proposed
changes in waterfowl hunting regulations at the Bear River Migratory
Bird Refuge. A number of alternatives were considered while trying to
improve the swan hunt with a minimum impact to waterfowlers and
birdwatchers. The Service considered: assigning blinds; limiting hunter
numbers; closing portions of the Refuge to swan hunting; requiring
check-in and check-out; limiting shooting hours and requiring swan
hunters to pass a special training class.
The requirement for all guns, when not being used in the act of
hunting, to be dismantled or cased when in vehicles is a System-wide
regulation contained in 50 CFR 27.42(b), therefore, the proposed refuge
specific regulation for Bear River is removed from this final rule.
The Service will extend the refuge closing time from the proposed
ninety minutes to two hours after shooting time ends. This will allow
adequate time for avid hunters with decoys to traverse remote areas of
the refuge during darkness. However, we remain concerned with the
possibility of increased wildlife disturbance, lost or injured hunters
and those who may avoid being checked by enforcement officers. Refuge
patrol plans will be made to specifically address these issues.
The Service feels it is important to retain the regulation
requiring a 10-shell possession limit for swan hunting. Hunters may
reasonably expect to be successful within this 10-shell limit. This
technique has worked well at other refuges, along with modified law
enforcement techniques, to minimize shooting at out-of-range birds.
In an effort to improve the overall quality of refuge visits for
both hunters and birdwatchers, time and space zoning will be used to
better separate the two activities.
The Refuge Manager understands the above concerns about hunting at
the
[[Page 46392]]
Bear River NWR, and will continue to consult with representatives of
the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, The Humane Society of the
United States, The Fund for Animals, Inc. and the Biodiversity Legal
Foundation. The Refuge Manager will closely monitor this year's hunt
program and has ample authority to place greater restrictions, amend,
and/or relax these refuge specific hunting requirements during the
course of the season with local, public/hunter notice in accordance
with 50 CFR,32.3(f).
This rule is effective upon publication. The Service has determined
that any further delay in the implementation of these refuge-specific
hunting and sport fishing regulations would not be in the public
interest in that it would hinder the effective planning and
administration of the hunting and fishing programs. The Service
received public comment on these proposals during the 30-day comment
period and delay of an additional 30 days would jeopardize holding the
hunting and/or fishing programs this year, or shorten their duration
and thereby lessen the management effectiveness of this regulation.
Therefore, the Service finds good cause to make this rule effective
upon publication (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)).
Statutory Authority
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRSAA) of
1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd), and the Refuge Recreation Act of
1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k) govern the administration and public use of
national wildlife refuges. Specifically, Section 4(d)(1)(A) of the
NWRSAA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit the use of
any area within the Refuge System for any purpose, including but not
limited to, hunting, fishing, and public recreation, accommodations,
and access, when he determines that such uses are compatible with the
major purpose(s) for which the area was established.
The Refuge Recreation Act (RRA) authorizes the Secretary to
administer areas within the Refuge System for public recreation as an
appropriate incidental or secondary use only to the extent that it is
practicable and not inconsistent with the primary purpose(s) for which
the areas were established. The NWRSAA and the RRA also authorize the
Secretary to issue regulations to carry out the purposes of the Acts
and regulate uses.
The Service develops hunting and sport fishing plans for each
existing refuge prior to opening it to hunting or fishing. It also
develops refuge-specific regulations, in many cases, to ensure the
compatibility of the programs with the purposes for which the refuge
was established. An interim determination of compatibility for hunting
and sport fishing on newly acquired refuges, made at the time of
acquisition, ensures initial compliance with the NWRSAA and the RRA.
This process ensures the determinations required by these acts were
made prior to the addition of refuges to the lists of areas open to
hunting and fishing in 50 CFR part 32. The Service ensures continued
compliance by the development of long-term hunting and sport fishing
plans and by annual review of hunting and sport fishing programs and
regulations.
The Service determines that this action is in accordance with the
provisions of all applicable laws, is consistent with principles of
sound fish and wildlife management, helps implement Executive Order
12962 (Recreational Fisheries), and is otherwise in the public interest
by providing additional recreational opportunities at national wildlife
refuges. Sufficient funds are available within the refuge budgets to
operate the hunting and sport fishing programs as proposed.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Service has examined this regulation under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 and has found it to contain no information
collection requirements.
Economic Effect
Service review has revealed that the rulemaking will increase
hunter and fishermen visitation to the surrounding area of the refuges
before, during or after the recreational uses, compared to closing the
refuges to these recreational uses. When the Service acquired these
lands, all public use ceased under law until opened to the public in
accordance with this rulemaking.
Refuges generally are located away from large metropolitan areas.
Businesses in the area of the refuges consist primarily of small
family-owned stores, restaurants, gas stations and other small
commercial enterprises. In addition, there are several small commercial
and recreational fishing and hunting camps and marinas in the general
areas. This rule has a positive effect on such entities; however, the
amount of revenue generated is not large.
Many area residents enjoy a rural lifestyle that includes frequent
recreational use of the abundant resources of the area. A high
percentage of the households enjoy hunting, fishing, and boating in
area wetlands, rivers and lakes. Refuge lands generally were not
available for public use prior to government acquisition; however,
friends and relatives of the landowners fished and hunted there and
some lands operated under commercial hunting and fishing leases. Many
nearby residents also participate in other forms of nonconsumptive
outdoor recreation such as biking, hiking, camping, birdwatching,
canoeing, and other outdoor sports.
Economic impacts of refuge fishing and hunting programs on local
communities are calculated from average expenditures in the ``1995
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated
Recreation''. In 1995, 42 million U.S. residents 16 years old and older
hunted and/or fished. More specifically, 37 million fished and 14.5
million hunted. Those who both fished and hunted account for the 9.5
million overage. Nationwide expenditures by sportsmen totaled $42
billion. Trip-related expenditures for food, lodging, and
transportation were $16 billion or 37 percent of all fishing and
hunting expenditures; equipment expenditures amounted to $19 billion,
or 46 percent of the total; other expenditures such as those for
magazines, membership dues, contributions, land leasing, ownership,
licenses, stamps, tags, and permits accounted for $6.9 billion, or 16
percent of all expenditures. Overall, anglers spent an average of $41
per day. For each day of hunting, big game hunters averaged spending
$40, small game hunters $20, and migratory bird hunters $33.
At these 40 National Wildlife Refuges in 24 states, 816,000
fisherman are expected to spend $33.5 million annually in pursuit of
their sport, while an estimated 203,000 hunters will spend $6.7 million
annually hunting on the refuges. While many of these fishermen and
hunters already made expenditures prior to the refuge opening,
additional expenditures directly are due to the new recreational
opportunities being provided by the land now being open to the general
public.
This rulemaking was not subject to Office of Management and Budget
review under Executive Order 12866. A review under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) has revealed that
although the rulemaking would increase visitation and expenditures in
the surrounding area of the refuge, it would not have a significant
effect on a substantial number of small entities in the area, such as
businesses, organizations and governmental jurisdictions.
[[Page 46393]]
Environmental Considerations
The Service ensures compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)) when it develops hunting
and sport fishing plans, and the required determinations are made prior
to the addition of refuges to the lists of areas open to hunting and
fishing in 50 CFR part 32. The Service reviewed the changes in hunting
and fishing herein adopted with regard to Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) and found them to either have
no effect on or not likely to adversely affect listed species or
critical habitat. The amendments of refuge-specific hunting and fishing
regulations are subject to a categorical exclusion from the NEPA
process if they do not significantly alter the existing use of a
particular national wildlife refuge. The Service employs the exclusion
found at 516 DM 6, App.1.4 B(5) as these amendments are ``[m]inor
changes in the amounts or types of public use on FWS or State-managed
lands, in accordance with regulations, management plans, and
procedures.'' These refuge-specific hunting and fishing revisions to
existing regulations qualify or otherwise define an existing hunting or
fishing activity, for purposes of resource management. These documents
are on file in the offices of the Service and may be viewed by
contacting the primary author noted below. Information regarding
hunting and fishing permits and the conditions that apply to individual
refuge hunts and sport fishing activities, and maps of the respective
areas are at refuge headquarters and can be obtained from the regional
offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the addresses listed
below:
Region 1--California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
Assistant Regional Director--Refuges and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Eastside Federal Complex, Suite 1692, 911 N.E. 11th
Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181; Telephone (503) 231-6214.
Region 2--Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. Assistant Regional
Director--Refuges and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Box
1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103; Telephone (505) 766-1829.
Region 3--Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio
and Wisconsin. Assistant Regional Director--Refuges and Wildlife, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, Fort Snelling, Twin
Cities, Minnesota 55111; Telephone (612) 725-3507.
Region 4--Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina, Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands. Assistant Regional Director--Refuges and Wildlife,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Room 324,
Atlanta, Georgia 30345; Telephone (404) 679-7152.
Region 5--Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, Virginia and West Virginia. Assistant Regional
Director--Refuges and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300
Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts 01035; Telephone (413)
253-8550.
Region 6--Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. Assistant Regional Director--Refuges and
Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Box 25486, Denver Federal
Center, Denver, Colorado 80225; Telephone (303) 236-8145.
Region 7--Alaska. Assistant Regional Director--Refuges and Wildlife,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Rd., Anchorage, Alaska
99503; Telephone (907) 786-3545.
Unfunded Mandates
The Service has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded
Mandates Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking will not
impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or
State governments or private entities.
Civil Justice Reform
The Department has determined that these final regulations meet the
applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988.
Primary Author
Stephen R. Vehrs, Division of Refuges, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC 20240, is the primary author of this rulemaking
document.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 32
Fishing, Hunting, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Wildlife, Wildlife refuges.
Accordingly, Part 32 of Chapter I of Title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 32--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 32 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 460k, 664, 668dd, and 715i.
Sec. 32.7 [Amended]
2. Section 32.7 List of refuge units open to hunting and/or
fishing, is amended by alphabetically adding the listings ``Windom
Wetland Management District'' to the State of Minnesota; ``William L.
Finley National Wildlife Refuge'' to the State of Oregon; ``Upper
Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge'' to the State of
Wisconsin; and revising the existing name of ``Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center'' to read ``Patuxent Research Refuge'' in the State of
Maryland.
3. Section 32.23 Arkansas is amended by adding paragraph D.3. to
Cache River National Wildlife Refuge to read as follows:
Sec. 32.23 Arkansas.
* * * * *
Cache River National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *
D. Sport Fishing. * * *
* * * * *
3. Fishermen must fish and frog in accordance with refuge
regulations and applicable state fishing and frogging regulations.
* * * * *
4. Section 32.24 California is amended by revising paragraph A.7.,
of Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge; and by revising paragraph
A.2., of Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge to read as follows:
Sec. 32.24 California.
* * * * *
Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge
A. Hunting of Migratory Game Birds. * * *
* * * * *
7. Hunters may only use nonmotorized boats and boats with electric
motors on units 4b and 4c from the start of hunting season through
November 30. Hunters may use motorized boats on units 4b and 4c from
December 1 through the end of hunting season.
* * * * *
Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge
A. Hunting of Migratory Game Birds. * * *
* * * * *
2. Hunters must hunt from assigned blinds on the Union Tract and
within
[[Page 46394]]
100 feet (.9144 meters) of blind sites on the Hazard Tract, except when
shooting to retrieve crippled birds.
* * * * *
5. Section 32.28 Florida is amended by revising paragraphs A. and
D. of Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge to read as follows:
Sec. 32.28 Florida.
* * * * *
Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge
A. Hunting of Migratory Game Birds. Hunters may hunt ducks and
coots in designated areas of the refuge subject to the following
conditions:
1. Hunters must possess a valid refuge hunting permit at all times
while hunting on the refuge.
2. Hunters may hunt only on Wednesday, Saturday, Sunday, and the
following holidays: Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years Day only
within the designated state season.
3. Hunters may hunt only in four designated areas of the refuge
subject to delineation in the refuge hunting map and brochure,
including the open waters of Mosquito Lagoon, Indian River, and
designated impoundments outside the NASA security area.
4. Hunting hours are one-half hour before sunrise until 1:00 pm.
each hunting day.
5. Hunters in Areas 1, 2 or 4 must complete and carry proof of
completing an approved hunter safety training course. Hunters in Area 3
born after June 1, 1975 must complete and carry proof of completing an
approved hunter safety training course in accordance with State law.
6. An adult 21 years of age or older must supervise and remain in
sight and normal voice contact with hunters under the age of 16.
7. The public must not enter the refuge between sunset and sunrise
except: hunters may access the refuge for waterfowl hunting only after
2:00 am each hunting day during waterfowl hunting season; and a valid
refuge hunting permit must be in possession during these times.
8. Hunters may not park along Blackpoint Wildlife Drive or
Playalinda Beach Road for the purposes of waterfowl hunting.
9. Hunters may not trespass or hunt migratory game birds in refuge
areas posted ``AREA CLOSED''.
10. Vehicles must use only designated public access routes and boat
launching areas north and south of Haulover Canal.
11. Hunters must not construct permanent above ground, or pit
blinds, nor dig into dikes.
12. Hunters must not shoot from within 10 feet of any dike,
roadway, or railroad fill.
13. Hunters must remove decoys, boats, and other personal property
from the refuge by 2:00 pm daily.
14. Refuge guides must purchase and have Guide Permits on their
person while in the field hunting.
15. Hunters may not launch boats off Black Point Wildlife Drive.
16. Hunters may not use air thrust boats, hovercraft, jetskis or
similar craft on refuge waters.
17. Boats must not exceed ``Idle Speed'' in Bairs Cove nor 8 mph or
``Slow speed-Minimum Wake'' in Haulover Canal.
* * * * *
D. Sport Fishing. Fishermen may fish, crab, clam, oyster and shrimp
in designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
1. Fishermen may night fish from a boat only in Mosquito Lagoon,
Indian River, Banana River, and Haulover Canal. All fishermen must
possess a valid refuge night fishing permit.
2. Fishermen must attend their lines at all times.
3. Vehicles must use only designated public access routes and boat
launching areas north and south of Haulover Canal.
4. Fishermen may not launch boats from Black Point Wildlife Drive.
5. Fishermen may not use air thrust boats, hovercraft, jetskis or
similar craft on refuge waters.
6. Fishermen may launch or moor boats only between sunset and
sunrise at Beacon 42 fish camp and Bairs Cove at Haulover Canal
Recreation Area.
7. The public must not use motorized boats in the Banana River
Manatee sanctuary (north of KARS Park on the west side of the Barge
Channel and north of the Air Force power line on the east side of the
Barge Channel). This includes any boat having an attached motor or a
non-attached motor that is capable of use (including electric trolling
motors). This regulation is in effect throughout the year.
8. Boats must not exceed ``Idle Speed'' in Bairs Cove and KARS
Marina nor 8 mph or ``Slow speed-Minimum Wake'' in Haulover Canal.
9. The public must not enter the refuge between sunset and sunrise
except fishermen may launch boats while fishing from Beacon 42 Fish
Camp or Bairs Cove at Haulover Canal. Nighttime fishermen must also
possess a valid refuge fishing permit while fishing on the refuge.
* * * * *
6. Section 32.32 Illinois is amended by removing paragraph A.4.,
and revising paragraphs D.2. and D.5 of Chautauqua National Wildlife
Refuge; by revising paragraphs C.1. and D.1. of Crab Orchard National
Wildlife Refuge; by revising Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge; by
revising paragraphs D.1., D.2., D.3., adding paragraph D.4. of
Meredosia National Wildlife Refuge; and revising paragraph A.1., adding
paragraph A.3., revising paragraphs B.1., B.2. and B.3.; revising
paragraphs C.1., C.2., and C.3. of Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and
Fish Refuge to read as follows:
Sec. 32.32 Illinois.
* * * * *
Chautauqua National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *
D. Sport Fishing. * * *
* * * * *
2. Anglers must not use more than two poles and each pole may not
have more than two hooks or lures attached while fishing in the
Kikunessa Pool of Chautauqua National Wildlife Refuge.
* * * * *
5. The public may not enter Weis Lake on the Cameron-Billsbach Unit
of Chautauqua National Wildlife Refuge from October 16 through January
14, to provide sanctuary for migratory birds.
Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *
C. Big Game Hunting. * * *
1. Hunters must possess a special permit issued by the Illinois
Department of Natural Resources.
* * * * *
D. Sport Fishing. * * *
1. Fishermen may fish from boats all year west of Wolf Creek Road.
2. From March 15 through September 30 fishermen may fish from boats
east of Wolf Creek Road.
3. Fishermen may fish from the bank east of Wolf Creek Road all
year, but only at the Wolf Creek and Route 148 causeways.
4. Fishermen must remove trotlines and jugs west of Wolf Creek Road
from sunrise to sunset from Memorial Day through Labor Day.
5. Fishermen must remove trotlines and jugs from the entire lake on
the last day of use.
6. Fishermen may anchor trotlines only with portable weights that
are removed from the water, along with the trotlines and jugs.
7. Fishermen must not use stakes or employ any floatation device
which has previously contained any petroleum based materials or toxic
substances.
8. Fishermen may use all non-commercial fishing methods except
[[Page 46395]]
those requiring underwater breathing apparatus.
* * * * *
Mark Twain National Wildlife Refuge
A. Hunting of Migratory Game Birds. Hunters may hunt migratory game
birds on designated areas of the refuge subject to posted regulations.
B. Upland Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt upland game on designated
areas of the refuge subject to posted regulations.
1. Hunters must possess and use only nontoxic shot while hunting
all permitted birds, except wild turkeys. Hunters may possess and use
lead shot for hunting wild turkey.
C. Big Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt white-tailed deer on
designated areas of the refuge subject to posted regulations.
D. Sport Fishing. Fishermen may fish on designated areas of the
refuge subject to posted regulations.
Meredosia National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *
D. Sport Fishing. * * *
1. Fishermen may sport fish on all refuge waters during daylight
hours from January 15 through October 15.
2. From October 16 through January 14, fishermen may fish south of
Carver Lake by foot access only.
3. Private boats may not be left in refuge waters overnight.
4. Motorboats must not exceed ``slow speed/minimum wake.''
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge
A. Hunting of Migratory Game Birds. * * *
1. Hunters may not hunt migratory birds on refuge closed areas
posted ``Area Closed'', on the Goose Island ``No Hunting'' zone in Pool
8, and on the Upper Halfway Creek Marsh ``No Hunting'' zone in Pool 7.
* * * * *
3. Hunters may only use and possess nontoxic shot when hunting for
any permitted migratory bird.
B. Upland Game Hunting. * * *
1. Hunters may not hunt or possess firearms between March 15 and
the opening of the State fall hunting seasons except that hunters may
hunt wild turkeys during the State spring turkey season.
2. Hunters may hunt on refuge areas posted as ``Area Closed''
beginning the day after the close of the applicable State duck hunting
season until season closure or March 15, whichever occurs first, except
that hunters may hunt wild turkey during the State spring wild turkey
season.
3. Hunters must not hunt at any time within the Goose Island ``No
Hunting'' zone in Pool 8, nor Upper Halfway Creek Marsh ``No Hunting''
zone in Pool 7.
* * * * *
C. Big Game Hunting. * * *
1. Hunters may only hunt until season closure or March 15,
whichever date occurs first.
2. Hunters may hunt on refuge areas posted ``Area Closed''
beginning the day after the close of the applicable State duck hunting
season until season closure or March 15, whichever date occurs first.
3. Hunters must not hunt at any time on the Goose Island ``No
Hunting'' zone in Pool 8 and Upper Halfway Creek Marsh ``No Hunting''
zone in Pool 7.
* * * * *
7. Section 32.34 Iowa is amended by removing paragraph C.2., and
redesignating paragraphs C.3. and C.4. as paragraphs C.2. and C.3. of
Desoto National Wildlife Refuge; and by removing paragraphs C.6. and
C.7. of Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge; and revising the
introductory text of paragraph B. and paragraph B.2. of Walnut Creek
National Wildlife Refuge to read as follows:
Sec. 32.34 Iowa.
* * * * *
DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *
C. Big Game Hunting. * * *
* * * * *
2. Hunters must not construct or use permanent blinds, platforms or
ladders at any time.
3. Hunters must remove all hunting stands from the refuge by the
close of the season.
* * * * *
Walnut Creek National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *
B. Upland Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt ringnecked pheasants,
bobwhite quail, cottontail rabbits, and squirrels on designated areas
of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
* * * * *
2. Hunters may hunt from the opening of state season until closed
on the dates posted by the refuge manager.
* * * * *
8. Section 32.36 Kentucky is amended by revising paragraphs A., B.,
and C., of Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge to read as
follows:
Sec. 32.36 Kentucky.
* * * * *
Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge
A. Hunting of Migratory Game Birds. Hunters may hunt migratory game
birds on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following
conditions:
1. Each hunter must have in his possession a current copy of the
Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge Hunting Regulations Leaflet
while participating in a refuge hunt.
B. Upland Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt rabbit and squirrel on
designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
1. Hunters must not use dogs for pursuit while rabbit hunting.
2. Hunters may only use shotguns for taking squirrels and rabbits.
3. Each hunter must have in his possession a current copy of the
Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge Hunting Regulations Leaflet
while participating in a refuge hunt.
4. Hunters will possess and use, while in the field, only nontoxic
shot.
C. Big Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt white-tailed deer on
designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
1. Hunters may only archery hunt.
2. Hunters may not hunt by organized deer drives of two or more
hunters. The definition of a drive is: the act of chasing, pursuing,
disturbing or otherwise directing deer so as to make the animals more
susceptible to harvest.
3. Hunters may not bait deer on refuge lands.
4. Each hunter must have in his possession a current copy of the
Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge Regulations Leaflet while
participating in a refuge hunt.
* * * * *
9. Section 32.37 Louisiana is amended by revising paragraph C.1.,
of D'Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge; by revising paragraph A. of Lake
Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge; and revising paragraph C.1. of Upper
Ouachita National Wildlife Refuge to read as follows:
Sec. 32.37 Louisiana.
* * * * *
D'Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *
C. Big Game Hunting. * * *
1. Hunters may hunt either-sex deer with firearms during the second
and third either-sex firearms seasons for Union Parish.
* * * * *
Lake Ophelia National Wildlife Refuge
A. Hunting of Migratory Game Birds. Hunters may hunt ducks and
coots on
[[Page 46396]]
designated areas of the refuge subject to the following condition:
1. Hunters must possess a refuge daily permit.
* * * * *
Upper Ouachita National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *
C. Big Game Hunting. * * *
1. Hunters may hunt either-sex deer with firearms during the second
and third either-sex firearms seasons for Union Parish.
* * * * *
10. Section 32.38 Maine is amended by revising paragraphs A., B.,
and C., of Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge to read as follows:
Sec. 32.38 Maine.
* * * * *
Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge
A. Hunting of Migratory Game Birds. Hunters may hunt ducks, geese,
coots, woodcock and snipe on designated areas of the refuge subject to
the following conditions:
1. Hunters must possess a refuge permit.
2. Hunters must remove all personal property from the refuge after
each day's hunt.
B. Upland Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt upland game birds, gray
squirrel, cottontail rabbit, snowshoe hare, fox and coyote on
designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
1. Hunters must possess a refuge permit.
2. Hunters may hunt fox and coyote only during the State firearm
deer season.
3. Hunters during firearms big game season must wear in a
conspicuous manner on head, chest and back a minimum of 400 square
inches (10.16 square meters) of solid-colored hunter orange clothing or
material.
4. Hunters will possess and use, while in the field, only nontoxic
shot.
C. Big Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt deer on designated areas of
the refuge subject to the following conditions:
1. Hunters must possess a refuge permit.
2. Hunters during firearms big game season must wear in a
conspicuous manner on head, chest and back a minimum of 400 square
inches (10.16 square meters) of solid-colored hunter orange clothing or
material.
* * * * *
11. Section 32.39 Maryland is amended by revising the refuge
heading, the introductory text of paragraphs A., B., and C.; and
revising paragraph D., of Patuxent Research Refuge, to read as follows:
Sec. 32.39 Maryland.
* * * * *
Patuxent Research Refuge
A. Hunting of Migratory Game Birds. Hunters may hunt migratory game
birds on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following
conditions:
* * * * *
B. Upland Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt upland game on designated
areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
* * * * *
C. Big Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt deer on designated areas of
the refuge subject to the following conditions:
* * * * *
D. Sport Fishing. Fishermen may fish in designated waters of the
refuge at designated times subject to the following conditions:
1. Fishermen may fish only in delineated areas as shown on a map
available at the refuge.
2. Fresh water fishing and boating laws of the State of Maryland
apply to include opening/closing of seasons and creel limits.
3. Fishermen may use hook and line tackle and baits permitted by
Maryland law, with the exception of live minnows or other fish.
4. Special provisions: Cash Lake, a 54 acre lake located on the
South Tract requires a federal permit to fish, and a limit of 25 daily
permits will be issued. Persons may request a permit application by
contacting: National Wildlife Visitor Center, Laurel, Maryland, during
normal working hours. Each request must include the person's name,
address, and phone number, and the model, year and license number of
the vehicle that will drive to the refuge. You may request a fishing
date 1 week prior to when you plan to fish. One licensed angler or up
to two children under the age of 16 may accompany the permit holder.
Open season is June 15 through October 15: 6 a.m. to legal sunset
daily. You may fish for the following species: Bass, pickerel, catfish,
and sunfish. Daily creel limits: bass, catch and release only;
pickerel, catch and release only except you may keep one pickerel
greater than 15 inches in length; sunfish and catfish, 15 per day total
fish limit. Permittees may use boats subject to the following
conditions: no gasoline motors permitted; You may not trailer boats to
the water; boats other than canoes may not exceed 14 feet; you may not
use sailboats or kayaks.
12. Section 32.40 Massachusetts is amended by revising paragraph
C., of Parker River National Wildlife Refuge to read as follows:
Sec. 32.40 Massachusetts.
* * * * *
Parker River National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *
C. Big Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt white-tailed deer on
designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
1. Hunters must possess a refuge permit.
* * * * *
13. Section 32.42 Minnesota is amended by revising introductory
text of paragraph B., of Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge; by adding
in alphabetical order Windom Wetland Management District to read as
follows:
Sec. 32.42 Minnesota.
* * * * *
Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *
B. Upland Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt ruffed grouse, spruce
grouse, grey and fox squirrels, cottontail rabbit and snowshoe hare on
designated areas of the refuge.
Windom Wetland Management District
A. Hunting of Migratory Game Birds. Hunters may hunt migratory game
birds throughout the district except that hunters may not hunt on the
Worthington Waterfowl Production Area in Nobles County.
B. Upland Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt upland game throughout the
district except that hunters may not hunt on the Worthington Waterfowl
Production Area in Nobles County.
C. Big Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt big game throughout the
district except that hunters may not hunt on the Worthington Waterfowl
Production Area in Nobles County.
D. Sport Fishing. Fishermen may fish throughout the district.
14. Section 32.43 Mississippi is amended by revising paragraph D.,
of Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge to read as follows:
Sec. 32.43 Mississippi.
* * * * *
Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *
D. Sport Fishing. Fishermen may fish on designated areas of the
refuge subject to the following condition:
[[Page 46397]]
1. Fishermen must possess a refuge permit.
* * * * *
15. Section 32.44 Missouri is amended by revising paragraphs B.,
C., and D., of Mingo National Wildlife Refuge to read as follows:
Sec. 32.44 Missouri.
* * * * *
Mingo National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *
B. Upland Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt upland game on designated
areas of the refuge subject to posted regulations.
C. Big Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt big game on designated areas
of the refuge subject to posted regulations.
D. Sport Fishing. Fishermen may fish on designated areas of the
refuge subject to posted regulations.
* * * * *
16. Section 32.47 Nevada is amended by revising paragraph B., of
Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge; and by revising paragraphs D.2,
D.4., D.5., and D.8. of Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge to read as
follows:
Sec. 32.47 Nevada.
* * * * *
Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *
B. Upland Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt quail, cottontail rabbits,
and jackrabbits on designated areas of the refuge subject to the
following conditions:
1. Hunters may hunt cottontail rabbits and jackrabbits only during
the State quail hunting season.
2. Hunters must only use shotguns.
* * * * *
Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *
D. Sport Fishing. * * *
* * * * *
2. Fishermen may only fish on dikes in the areas north of the Brown
Dike and east of the Collection Ditch with the exception that you may
fish by wading and from personal flotation devices (float tubes) in
Unit 21.
* * * * *
4. Fishermen may annually, beginning June 15 and continuing until
December 31, only use motorless boats or boats with battery powered
electric motors on the South Marsh.
5. Fishermen may annually, beginning August 1 and continuing until
December 31, use boats propelled with a motor or combination of motors
in the aggregate, but not to exceed 10 horse-power rating, on the South
Marsh.
* * * * *
8. Fishermen may bank fish in the South Marsh only at Brown Dike,
the Main Boat Landing, and Narciss Boat Landing.
* * * * *
17. Section 32.49 New Jersey is amended by revising paragraph A.
and adding paragraphs A.1., A.2., and A.3., of Cape May National
Wildlife Refuge to read as follows:
* * * * *
Sec. 32.49 New Jersey.
* * * * *
Cape May National Wildlife Refuge
A. Hunting of Migratory Game Birds. Hunting of waterfowl, coots,
moorhens and rails, common snipe, and woodcock is permitted in
designated areas of the refuge subject to State of New Jersey
regulations and the following special refuge conditions:
1. All persons while hunting migratory game birds, except
waterfowl, must wear in a conspicuous manner on head, chest and back a
minimum of 400 square inches of solid-colored hunter orange clothing or
material.
2. All hunting blind materials, boats, and decoys must be removed
at the end of each hunting day. Permanent and pit blinds are not
permitted.
3. The common snipe season on the refuge begins with the early
woodcock south zone season. (The refuge common snipe season will
continue through the end of the State-set common snipe season.)
* * * * *
18. Section 32.50 New Mexico is amended by revising paragraphs A.1.
and D., of Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge to read as follows:
Sec. 32.50 New Mexico.
* * * * *
Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge
A. Hunting of Migratory Game Birds. * * *
1. Hunters may hunt for migratory game birds only on Tuesdays,
Thursdays, and Saturdays of each week until 1 p.m.
* * * * *
D. Sport Fishing. [Reserved]
* * * * *
19. Section 32.52 North Carolina is amended by revising paragraphs
C. and D.3., of Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge; and revising
introductory language of paragraphs A., B., C. and D., and revising
paragraphs B.1., D.1-5; and removing paragraphs B.2-4 of Pee Dee
National Wildlife Refuge to read as follows:
Sec. 32.52 North Carolina.
* * * * *
Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *
C. Big Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt white-tailed deer on
designated areas of the refuge subject to the following condition:
1. Hunters must possess a refuge permit.
D. Sport Fishing. * * *
* * * * *
3. Fishermen may not dip herring (alewife).
* * * * *
Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge
A. Hunting of Migratory Game Birds. Hunters may hunt mourning doves
on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following condition:
1. Hunters must possess a refuge permit.
B. Upland Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt quail, squirrel, rabbit,
raccoon and opossum on designated areas of the refuge subject to the
following condition:
1. Hunters must possess a refuge permit.
C. Big Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt white-tailed deer on
designated areas of the refuge subject to the following condition:
1. Hunters always must possess a refuge permit and a special quota
permit for gun deer hunts.
D. Sport Fishing. Fishermen may fish in designated waters of the
refuge subject to the following conditions:
1. Fishermen may fish with a pole and line or rod and reel from
March 15 to October 15 during daylight hours only.
2. Fishermen may use boats in Andrews Pond, Beaver Ponds, and
Arrowhead Lake only.
3. Fishermen may only use electric motors in refuge waters.
4. Fishermen may not possess or use of trotlines, set hooks, gigs,
yo-yo's, jug-lines, limblines, nets, seines, fish traps, and other
similar equipment on the refuge.
5. Fishermen may not possess or use minnows as bait on the refuge.
6. Fishermen may not frog or turtle on the refuge.
7. The refuge may close certain fishing areas at anytime for
management purposes.
* * * * *
20. Section 32.55 Oklahoma is amended by revising paragraphs B. and
C., of Deep Fork National Wildlife
[[Page 46398]]
Refuge; and by revising paragraphs A., B.1., B.2., C. and D.1.; adding
paragraphs B.3, B.4., B.5. and D.4., of Sequoyah National Wildlife
Refuge to read as follows:
Sec. 32.55 Oklahoma.
* * * * *
Deep Fork National Wildlife Refuge
A. Hunting of Migratory Game Birds. [Reserved]
B. Upland Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt squirrels on portions of
the refuge in accordance with State hunting regulations subject to the
following exceptions and conditions:
1. Hunters may not hunt squirrels on the refuge during the first
half of the archery deer season.
2. Hunters may use only shotguns with non-toxic shot.
3. The refuge leaflet designates parking and hunting areas.
C. Big Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt white-tailed deer on
designated portions of Deep Fork NWR subject to the following
conditions:
1. Hunters must pay fees and obtain a refuge permit.
2. Hunters must not drive off designated refuge roads.
3. Each hunter entering the refuge must possess a refuge permit.
* * * * *
Sequoyah National Wildlife Refuge
A. Hunting of Migratory Game Birds. Hunters may hunt waterfowl,
dove, coots, rail, snipe and woodcock on designated areas of the refuge
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Sequoyah National Wildlife Refuge is open during seasons,
dates, and times as posted by signs and/or indicated on refuge
leaflets, special regulations, permits, and maps.
2. All hunters shall possess and use, while in the field, only
nontoxic shot.
3. Hunters may not build pits or permanent blinds.
4. Neither hunters nor dogs may enter closed areas to retrieve
game.
5. Hunters may not hunt or shoot within 50 ft. (15.24 meters) of
designated roads or parking areas.
6. Hunters may only hunt with shotguns and bows with arrows
(excluding broadhead arrows).
7. Hunters must remove decoys, boats and other personal property
from the refuge following each days hunt.
B. Upland Game Hunting. * * *
1. The Sequoyah National Wildlife Refuge is open during seasons,
dates, and times as posted by signs and/or indicated on refuge
leaflets, special regulations, permits, and maps.
2. All hunters shall possess and use, while in the field, only
nontoxic shot.
3. Neither hunters nor dogs may enter closed areas to retrieve
game.
4. Hunters may not shoot or hunt within 50 ft.(15.24 meters) of
designated roads or parking areas.
5. Hunters may only hunt with shotguns and bows with arrows
(excluding broadhead arrows).
C. Big Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt white-tailed deer on
designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
1. Hunters must pay fees and obtain a refuge permit.
2. All hunters must attend a hunter orientation briefing prior to
each hunt.
D. Sport Fishing. * * *
1. The Sequoyah National Wildlife Refuge is open to fishing as
specified on refuge leaflets, special regulations, permits, maps, or as
posted on signs.
* * * * *
4. Fishermen may not take turtles or mussels.
* * * * *
21. Section 32.56 Oregon is amended by revising paragraphs B.3, of
Cold Springs National Wildlife Refuge; by revising paragraph B.3. of
McKay Creek National Wildlife Refuge, and by revising paragraph B.3. of
Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge to read as follows:
Sec. 32.56 Oregon.
* * * * *
Cold Springs National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *
B. Upland Game Hunting. * * *
* * * * *
3. Hunters shall possess and use, while in the field, only nontoxic
shot.
* * * * *
McKay Creek National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *
B. Upland Game Hunting. * * *
* * * * *
3. Hunters shall possess and use, while in the field, only nontoxic
shot.
* * * * *
Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge
A. Hunting of Migratory Game Birds. * * *
* * * * *
B. Upland Game Hunting. * * *
* * * * *
3. Hunters shall possess and use, while in the field, only nontoxic
shot.
* * * * *
22. Section 32.57 Pennsylvania is amended by revising paragraphs
A., B. and C., of Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge to read
as follows:
Sec. 32.57 Pennsylvania.
* * * * *
Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge
A. Hunting of Migratory Game Birds. Hunters may hunt migratory game
birds on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following
conditions:
1. Each hunter must have in his possession a current copy of the
Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge Hunting Regulations Leaflet
while participating in a refuge hunt.
B. Upland Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt rabbits and squirrels on
designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
1. Hunters may not use dogs for pursuit while rabbit hunting.
2. Hunters may only use shotguns for hunting squirrels and rabbits.
3. Each hunter must have in his possession a current copy of the
Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge Hunting Regulations Leaflet
while participating in a refuge hunt.
4. Hunters will possess and use, while in the field, only nontoxic
shot.
C. Big Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt white-tailed deer on
designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
1. Hunters may only archery hunt.
2. Hunters may not hunt deer with organized deer drives by two or
more hunters. A drive hereby is defined as the act of chasing,
pursuing, disturbing or otherwise directing deer so as to make the
animals more susceptible to harvest.
3. Hunters must not bait deer on refuge lands.
4. Each hunter must have in his possession a current copy of the
Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge Regulations Leaflet while
participating in a refuge hunt.
* * * * *
23. Section 32.64 Utah is amended by revising paragraphs A., B. and
D. of Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge to read as follows:
Sec. 32.64 Utah.
* * * * *
Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge
A. Hunting of Migratory Game Birds. Hunters may hunt geese, ducks,
coots, and tundra swan on designated areas of the refuge subject to the
following conditions:
1. Hunters may not shoot or hunt within 100 yards (30.48 meters) of
principal refuge roads (the tour route).
2. While in the field, hunters shall possess and use only nontoxic
shot.
3. Hunters may not use pits or permanent blinds.
4. Airboats are permitted only in Unit 9 and in Block C of the
Refuge.
[[Page 46399]]
5. Refuge closes two (2) hours after sunset (end of shooting
hours), including parking sites. Decoys, boats, vehicles and other
personal property may not be left on the refuge overnight.
6. Hunters may only park in designated parking sites.
7. Hunters who take or attempt to take tundra swans must possess a
Utah State Swan Permit and may not possess or use more than 10 shells
per day while hunting swans.
8. Any person entering, using or occupying the refuge for waterfowl
hunting must abide by all the terms and conditions in the Refuge
Hunting Brochure.
B. Upland Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt pheasants on designated
areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
1. While in the field, hunters shall possess and use only nontoxic
shot.
C. Big Game Hunting. * * *
D. Sport Fishing. Fishermen may fish on designated areas of the
refuge subject to the following conditions:
1. Fishermen may fish year-round in designated areas of the Refuge.
* * * * *
24. Section 32.65 Vermont is amended by revising introductory text
of paragraph B., and revising paragraph B.2. of Missisquoi National
Wildlife Refuge to read as follows:
Sec. 32.65 Vermont.
* * * * *
Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *
B. Upland Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt rabbits, ruffed grouse and
squirrels on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following
conditions:
* * * * *
2. Hunters may not use rifles on that portion of the refuge lying
east of the Missisquoi River.
* * * * *
25. Section 32.66 Virginia is amended by revising paragraph C., of
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge to read as follows:
* * * * *
Sec. 32.66 Virginia.
* * * * *
Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *
C. Big Game Hunting. Hunters may hunt white-tailed deer and sika in
designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
1. Hunters must possess a refuge permit.
* * * * *
26. Section 32.67 Washington is amended by revising paragraph A.,
of Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge; and by revising paragraph B.2.,
of Toppenish National Wildlife Refuge to read as follows:
Sec. 32.67 Washington.
* * * * *
Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge
A. Hunting of Migratory Game Birds. Hunters may hunt geese, ducks,
and coots on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following
condition:
1. Hunting is by permit only.
* * * * *
Toppenish National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *
B. Upland Game Hunting. * * *
* * * * *
2. Hunters shall possess and use, while in the field, only nontoxic
shot.
* * * * *
27. Section 32.69 Wisconsin is amended by revising paragraphs B.1.,
B.2., C.4. and D., of Necedah National Wildlife Refuge; and adding
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge
alphabetically to read as follows:
Sec. 32.69 Wisconsin.
* * * * *
Necedah National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *
B. Upland Game Hunting. * * *
1. Hunters must unload or case guns in the retrieval zone of Refuge
Area 7 during the State waterfowl hunting season.
2. During the spring turkey hunting season only, persons with an
unexpired State spring turkey permit in possession may enter and hunt
wild turkeys in all open refuge areas.
* * * * *
C. Big Game Hunting. * * *
* * * * *
4. Refuge Areas 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are open to deer hunting.
* * * * *
D. Sport Fishing. Fishermen may fish in designated waters of the
refuge at designated times subject to the following conditions.
1. Fishermen may use non-motorized boats in Sprague-Goose Pools
only when these pools are open to fishing. Fishermen may use motorized
boats in Suk Cerney Pool.
* * * * *
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge Refer to
32.32 Illinois for regulations.
28. Section 32.71 Pacific Islands Territory is amended by revising
paragraphs D.1., D.3., D.4., removing paragraph D.5., and redesignating
paragraph D.6 as paragraph D.5. of Johnson Atoll National Wildlife
Refuge to read as follows:
Sec. 32.71 Pacific Islands Territory.
* * * * *
Johnson Atoll National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *
D. Sport Fishing. * * *
1. Fishermen may take lobsters of 3\1/4\-inch carapace length or
more in the lagoon area from September 1 through May 31, but not by
spearing, traps, or the use of pry bars or related methods destructive
to coral; fishermen may not take female lobsters bearing eggs at any
time.
* * * * *
3. Fishermen or divers may not take fish by the use of a spear
``gun'', either above or below the water. Hand-propelled spears or
``Hawaiian Slings'' consisting of a single shaft propelled by a rubber
tube are permitted for underwater fishing.
4. The public may not, by any means, collect, export or take any
form of live or dead coral.
* * * * *
Dated: August 27, 1996.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 96-22507 Filed 8-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22409 Motor Vehicle Content Labeling
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46385-46390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22409]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 583
[Docket No. 92-64; Notice 9]
RIN 2127-AG46
Motor Vehicle Content Labeling
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Temporary final rule; Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under NHTSA's content labeling program, passenger motor
vehicles (passenger cars and other light vehicles) are required to be
labeled with
[[Page 46386]]
information about their domestic and foreign parts content. In response
to petitions for rulemaking submitted by the American Automobile
Manufacturers Association and General Motors, the agency is making a
limited, temporary amendment to its content calculation procedures to
provide vehicle manufacturers added flexibility in making content
determinations where outside suppliers have not responded to requests
for content information. This flexibility will only be available for up
to 10 percent, by value, of a carline's total parts content from
outside suppliers, and only for carlines offered for sale prior to
January 1, 1997. It will also only be available where manufacturers or
allied suppliers have made a good faith effort to obtain the
information. The agency is requesting comments on whether to provide
this or similar added flexibility for a longer period of time.
DATES: Effective date: The amendments made by this temporary rule are
effective September 3, 1996.
Comments: Comments must be received on or before October 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number of
this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. (Docket Room hours are 9:30 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Mr. Orron Kee,
Office of Planning and Consumer Programs, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590
(202-366-0846).
For legal issues: Mr. J. Edward Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-2992).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 21, 1994, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (59 FR
37294) a new regulation, 49 CFR Part 583, Automobile Parts Content
Labeling, to implement the American Automobile Labeling Act (Labeling
Act). That Act, which is codified at 49 U.S.C. 32304, requires
passenger motor vehicles to be labeled with information about their
domestic and foreign parts content. Interested persons are encouraged
to read the July 1994 notice for a detailed explanation of this
program.
NHTSA received several petitions for reconsideration of the July
1994 final rule, and has subsequently published three notices
addressing issues raised in those or subsequent petitions. In a final
rule published in the Federal Register (60 FR 14228) on March 16, 1995,
NHTSA partially responded to the petitions for reconsideration by
extending, for an additional year, a temporary alternative approach for
data collection and calculations. This option, which ceased to be
available effective June 1, 1996, permitted manufacturers and suppliers
to use procedures that are expected to yield similar results to the
full procedures set forth in Part 583. NHTSA provided this temporary
alternative approach in the 1994 final rule because there was
insufficient remaining time, before the statutory date for beginning to
provide labeling information, for manufacturers to complete the full
procedures. The agency provided the one-year extension of the temporary
approach in light of a substantial number of complex issues raised
about the full procedures in the petitions for reconsideration and the
time needed by the agency to address those issues.
The agency completed its response to the initial set of petitions
in a final rule published in the Federal Register (60 FR 47878) on
September 15, 1995. The agency made a number of changes to reduce the
burdens associated with making content calculations and to produce more
accurate information.
NHTSA received one petition for reconsideration of the September
1995 final rule, from the American Automobile Manufacturers Association
(AAMA). That organization re-raised an issue that it had raised in its
first petition, concerning a provision in Part 583 which specifies that
the U.S./Canadian content of components is defaulted to zero if outside
suppliers fail to respond to a manufacturer's or allied supplier's
request for content information.
On April 19, 1996, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (61 FR
17253) a notice denying AAMA's petition. The agency explained that it
believes that the ability to obtain the necessary content information
from suppliers is within the control of the vehicle manufacturers.
Petitions for Rulemaking
NHTSA has received petitions for rulemaking from AAMA (on behalf of
some of its members) and General Motors (GM) which again raise concerns
about the provision in Part 583 which specifies that the U.S./Canadian
content of components is defaulted to zero if suppliers fail to respond
to a manufacturer's or allied supplier's request for content
information. According to the petitioners, although a great deal of
effort has been put forth to obtain certificates from suppliers, some
vehicle manufacturers continue to have difficulty with non-responsive
suppliers. The petitioners requested that the agency immediately extend
for an additional six months the temporary procedures that have been in
place for the last two years. The petitioners also requested again that
NHTSA permit vehicle manufacturers and allied suppliers to make good-
faith content determinations when their outside suppliers fail to do
so.
AAMA and GM made several arguments in support of their petitions.
First, the petitioners stated that NHTSA took six months to respond to
the earlier petition for reconsideration, leaving only six weeks for
manufacturers to calculate U.S./Canadian content for 1997 model year
vehicles under new rules. They argued that it is unreasonable to expect
compliance with this provision of the rule when the agency took so long
to respond to the earlier petition.
Second, AAMA and GM stated that while NHTSA has concluded that
automakers can easily cause supplier compliance by contract, the
supplier relationship is much more complex than whether the supplier
provides one piece of data to the purchaser. They argued that to expect
a shift in production from one supplier to another for not supplying
AALA data is not realistic. The petitioners also argued that even if a
non-responsive supplier is penalized under the contract, the penalty
paid to the manufacturer is not compensatory because the ``damages''
that result are not financial but result in an understated U.S./
Canadian content value for the manufacturer's vehicles.
Third, AAMA and GM argued that any procedure that requires 100
percent compliance and does not provide alternative approaches to
determine the result will understate the U.S./Canadian value and
provide false information to the consumer. Finally, AAMA and GM stated
that NHTSA permits outside suppliers to make certain ``best effort''
determinations of where value was added, and argued that it is
inequitable not to permit allied suppliers and vehicle manufacturers
this same flexibility.
Representatives of GM met with NHTSA staff on June 12 to provide
additional information in support of that company's petition. Among
other things, they discussed a letter which Chrysler had sent to NHTSA
Deputy Administrator Philip R. Recht on May 9 concerning Chrysler's
success in
[[Page 46387]]
obtaining information from suppliers. Chrysler's letter, from Vice
Chairman and Chief Administrative Officer T. G. Denomme, read as
follows:
At our recent meeting with Secretary Pena, I mentioned that we
were not experiencing much success with our suppliers on submitting
information required under labeling legislation. You asked if we had
leveraged our suppliers on this issue.
After our meeting, I got into the issue in more detail. As it
turns out, you were correct on this one. We had not pushed the
suppliers hard enough. On April 25, only 46% of our suppliers had
returned the labeling forms (873 suppliers out of 1,924 total). With
a renewed effort on our part, by May 7 we had pushed that figure to
81% response with an expectation of getting well into the 90% level
by this summer.
I send you this because I did not want to leave you with the
wrong impression on this issue. It now appears Chrysler should be in
position to not only comply with the terms of the legislation, but
also to have virtually all of our suppliers reporting as well.
The GM representatives stated that GM's situation is different than
Chrysler's because of several factors. GM said it has more than 13,000
suppliers, while Chrysler has 1,924. GM is highly vertically
integrated; Chrysler is not. Because of vertical integration, GM must
trace parts through multiple tiers internally and externally. Finally,
the GM representatives stated that their company's multiplicity of
carlines makes the determination of domestic content more complex.
The GM representatives also discussed their efforts to obtain
certificates from outside suppliers. A number of GM employees have been
working full-time for the past several weeks to obtain certificates
from outside suppliers who have not responded to previous requests.
The GM representatives indicated that, despite these efforts, the
stated domestic content of some of GM's cars will fall by about 10
percentage points (e.g., from 95% in model year 1996 to 85% in model
year 1997), solely as a result of defaulting non-reporting supplier
content to zero domestic content. They also discussed, by way of
example, a vehicle for which GM has had particular difficulty ``getting
the last 9% [of content] identified.''
The GM representatives argued that, unless the agency provides
immediate relief, consumers will receive information about that
company's vehicles which is inaccurate. The need for immediate relief
arises from the fact that the vehicle manufacturers are in the final
stages of making content calculations for their model year 1997
vehicles. Under the content labeling program, these calculations are
made only once per model year for a carline. Subsequent to the meeting,
GM sent the agency a list of its 1997 model year startup dates. Most of
the startup dates were between late June and very early August, with
many in the middle of July.
Response to Petitions
NHTSA notes that the AAMA and GM petitions re-raise many issues
which the agency has addressed at length in responding to previous
petitions. Since the petitions did not provide any new arguments
significantly different from the ones previously offered by the
petitioners, the agency is not changing its views with respect to those
basic issues.
However, based on the new information provided by AAMA and GM,
NHTSA has decided that a very narrow, temporary change should be made
in the content calculation procedures. The agency is amending Part 583
to provide that, in limited situations where outside suppliers have not
responded to requests for content information, allied suppliers and
manufacturers are permitted to make those content calculations. This
flexibility will only be available if the allied supplier or
manufacturer has a good faith basis for making the calculation.
Moreover, this flexibility will only be available for up to 10 percent,
by value, of a carline's total parts content from outside suppliers.
Finally, the flexibility will only be available where manufacturers or
allied suppliers have made a good faith effort to obtain the
information.
Today's amendment applies only to carlines offered for sale before
January 1, 1997. The agency has not decided whether the applicability
of the amendment, or a similar one, should be extended past that date.
However, the agency is requesting comments on that issue.
NHTSA is issuing today's amendment in light of several factors. On
the one hand, NHTSA believes that Chrysler's experience demonstrates
that the ability to obtain the necessary content information from
suppliers is within the control of the vehicle manufacturers. However,
the agency also agrees that there are differences between Chrysler and
GM, related to number of suppliers and degree of vertical integration,
which make efforts by GM to obtain content information from its
suppliers considerably more complex.
The agency has previously recognized that a certain amount of
confusion is likely during the time period when a new program, such as
content labeling, is implemented. The content labeling program is still
a relatively new program. Indeed, model year 1997 is the first year for
which the full content calculation procedures of Part 583 are required,
i.e., the temporary alternative procedures are not available.
The agency believes that GM has demonstrated that it has been
making significant efforts in recent months to obtain content
information from non-responsive suppliers. Moreover, GM has shown that,
despite those efforts, it is having difficulty obtaining information
for the last portion of a carline's content.
Finally, NHTSA believes that, all other things being equal, a good
faith content determination by a vehicle manufacturer or allied
supplier of equipment it receives is likely to be more accurate than
simply applying a ``default-to-zero'' provision. Thus, adoption of
today's amendment should result in more accurate information for
consumers.
The agency recognizes, of course, that the most accurate
determinations are those provided by the outside suppliers themselves,
since they obviously have much more complete information about the
content of the equipment they manufacture than the purchaser.
Therefore, the agency must consider whether its actions would have the
effect of reducing the incentives for outside suppliers to provide the
required information, or for the vehicle manufacturers to make efforts
to obtain the information.
NHTSA has concluded that adoption of today's temporary amendment
will not reduce incentives for outside suppliers or vehicle
manufacturers for model year 1997. Given that the vehicle manufacturers
are already in the final stages of making content calculations for
these vehicles, today's amendment should not have any effect on whether
outside suppliers provide, or do not provide, the required information
for model year 1997. However, the agency will consider this issue
further in deciding whether to extend the applicability of today's
temporary amendment. NHTSA also emphasizes that today's amendment does
not excuse outside suppliers for failure to comply with Part 583.
The agency notes that today's temporary amendment is much narrower
than the temporary one requested by AAMA and GM. The petitioners
requested a six-month extension of the temporary procedures that have
been in place for the last two years. However, they raised concerns
about only one of Part 583's provisions, the one concerning non-
responsive outside suppliers. AAMA and GM did not give any reasons why
the agency
[[Page 46388]]
should provide flexibility for other aspects of the content labeling
calculation procedures. Therefore, the agency declines to provide
relief related to other sections.
In addition, as noted above, the added flexibility is limited to no
more than 10 percent, by value, of a carline's total parts content from
outside suppliers. The relief is thus tailored to the fact that the
problem faced by the vehicle manufacturers is in obtaining the last
portion of outside content value for particular carlines. Also, the
amendment ensures that the added flexibility can only be used for a
very small portion of a carline's total outside content, and that the
vast majority of U.S./Canadian content determinations will be based on
supplier certificates.
This flexibility will also only be available where manufacturers or
allied suppliers have made a good faith effort to obtain the
information. NHTSA is not including a specific definition of what
constitutes ``good faith effort'' in today's final rule. However, the
agency intends the term to mean at least some effort beyond the request
for information and certificates that is required by Part 583, e.g.,
some kind of follow-up effort.
NHTSA will not provide specific responses to all of the other
issues raised by AAMA and GM in their petitions, because the agency has
responded to many of those issues in previous notices. The agency
specifically incorporates by reference its responses to these issues
set forth in the September 15, 1995 and April 19, 1996 notices
referenced earlier in this document.
However, the agency will address two issues. First, NHTSA rejects
the suggestion that it should amend Part 583 because it took six months
to respond to AAMA's earlier petition for reconsideration. NHTSA's
regulations clearly specify that the filing of a petition for
reconsideration does not mean that a rule does not take effect. See 49
CFR 553.35(d).
Second, the agency does not believe there is anything inequitable
about providing different procedures for outside and allied suppliers.
The Labeling Act establishes vastly different procedures for outside
and allied suppliers. For example, in making domestic content
calculations, outside suppliers need determine only whether an item of
equipment has at least 70 percent U.S./Canadian content, while allied
suppliers must make precise calculations based on certificates from
outside suppliers. The differences in Part 583's procedures for outside
and allied suppliers reflect the specific statutory differences for
these two groups and/or the agency's efforts to limit the regulatory
burdens associated with the content labeling program. For example, a
significant reason why the agency permits outside suppliers to make
good faith estimates of the U.S./Canadian content of the materials they
purchase is that, unlike the situation for allied suppliers, suppliers
to outside suppliers are not required, by statute or regulation, to
provide certificates of content.
NHTSA finds that the issuance of this final rule without prior
opportunity for comment is necessary in view of the immediate
difficulties that some manufacturers, including GM, are having
obtaining content information from a number of outside suppliers, and
the fact that the manufacturers are necessarily in the final stages of
making content determinations for their model year 1997 vehicles.
Unless the agency amends the standard on an immediate basis, consumers
will receive less accurate content information for model year 1997
vehicles. NHTSA also finds good cause to establish an immediate
effective date for this final rule. In the absence of an immediate
effective date, the manufacturers could not avail themselves of the
added flexibility in making content determinations for their model year
1997 vehicles. The final rule does not impose any new requirements but
instead provides additional flexibility to manufacturers in making
content determinations.
NHTSA notes that, since model year 1997 production has begun for
some carlines, some vehicles have probably already been labeled. Given
the circumstances of today's final rule, the agency believes it would
be appropriate for manufacturers to re-label these vehicles, should
they wish to do so.1 In such an instance, however, NHTSA urges
manufacturers to take steps to prevent confusion when consumers compare
the labels of vehicles within the same carline manufactured at
different times. For example, manufacturers could take steps to re-
label all of the vehicles within a carline that have not yet been sold
to a consumer. Alternatively, the revised label could include a note
indicating that the carline percentages have been revised during the
model year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While content percentages are ordinarily calculated only
once for a carline for a particular model year, NHTSA has previously
concluded that, under special circumstances, manufacturers may
revise the carline percentages. See interpretation letter to Diamond
Star Motors dated February 10, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second issue to be considered is whether the applicability of
today's amendment, or a similar one, should be extended for a longer
period of time. The agency believes that the guiding principle for
making this decision should be the statutory direction specifying that
regulations promulgated under the Labeling Act are to provide the
ultimate purchaser of a new passenger motor vehicle with the best and
most understandable information possible about the foreign and U.S./
Canadian origin of the equipment of the vehicles without imposing
costly and unnecessary burdens on the manufacturers. 49 U.S.C.
32304(e).
There is no question that the ``best'' determinations of the
content of equipment provided by outside suppliers are those provided
by the suppliers themselves, since they obviously have much more
complete information about the content of the equipment they
manufacture than the purchaser. There is also no question that the
Labeling Act contemplates the vehicle manufacturers basing their
content calculations on certificates provided by the outside suppliers,
and that outside suppliers are statutorily required to provide this
information. See 49 U.S.C. 32304(e). Thus, the only question is the
extent, if any, to which the agency should provide alternatives to
address situations where outside suppliers fail to provide the required
information despite being asked to do so by the vehicle manufacturers.
As indicated above, an important consideration is whether such
alternatives would have the effect of reducing the incentives for
outside suppliers to provide the required information, or for the
vehicle manufacturers to make efforts to obtain the information. It is
clear that the ``default-to-zero'' provision does provide significant
incentives in this regard. Therefore, the agency will not simply drop
that provision.
To the extent that the non-responsive supplier problem experienced
by GM is likely to continue, it could be argued that, at some point,
the costs of obtaining the last portion of outside supplier content
value for a particular carline become unreasonable. This argument could
be used to support extending the temporary amendment. The length of
such extension would depend on how long the problem was likely to
continue.
On the other hand, NHTSA is not convinced that the vehicle
manufacturers cannot ultimately obtain the necessary content
information from essentially 100 percent of their suppliers, without
costly efforts. The agency included the following discussion in its
March 16, 1996 notice
[[Page 46389]]
denying AAMA's earlier petition on this subject:
NHTSA notes that AAMA's petition did not discuss whether its
member companies experienced difficulty in obtaining content
information from suppliers in the presence or absence of specific
contractual provisions intended to ensure the provision of content
information by suppliers. As stated in the September 1995 notice,
outside suppliers are dependent on the vehicle manufacturers for
their business. Therefore, the agency believed, and continues to
believe, that the ability to obtain the necessary content
information is within the control of the vehicle manufacturers.
The purpose of including any specific provision in a business
contract is to make observance of the terms of that provision a
required element of the business relationship. Just as such things
as meeting material specifications, strength requirements and
specified time of delivery are a necessary part of a supplier's
doing business with a vehicle manufacturer and are ensured by
provisions included in contractual agreements, the providing of
content information can also be made a necessary part of that
business relationship and be reflected in the purchase contract.
Moreover, just as liquidated damages clauses can be inserted in
a contract for failure to comply with any other part of the
contract, so can such a provision be included for failure to provide
timely content reports. If a supplier knows that it will be paid
less money if it fails to provide content information, it will have
a strong incentive to provide the information.
The agency also notes that the supplier industry is highly
competitive. If one supplier is unwilling to agree to provide
content information (an agreement to do no more than comply with
existing Federal law), other suppliers would step in to take
advantage of the opportunity for new business.
For the above reasons, including those presented in the
September 1995 notice, NHTSA continues to believe that the vehicle
manufacturers will be able to obtain the required content
information from their suppliers.
As indicated above, AAMA and GM argued in their new petitions that
even if a non-responsive supplier is penalized under the contract, the
penalty paid to the manufacturer is not compensatory because the
``damages'' cannot offset the effects of understating the U.S./Canadian
content value for the manufacturer's vehicles. NHTSA believes, in
contrast, that the contractual provisions would help ensure that
outside suppliers provide content information without the need to
actually impose ``damages.'' The agency believes outside suppliers
would not sign contracts that they planned to violate. Also, given that
it is not very costly to provide content information, it would be
irrational for outside suppliers to decide to pay damages instead of
simply providing the information (information that they are, in any
event, required by Federal law to provide).
In addition to providing an extra incentive for outside suppliers,
such contractual provisions would provide an educational function. AAMA
stated in its petition that ``suppliers that deliberately do not
respond cite the uncompensated cost to establish the information on
content in their parts, the increased employees to calculate the data,
and the burdens they already face in generating multiple content
reports such as for NAFTA, AALA, CAFE and others each with its own
rules.'' These sorts of explanations by suppliers suggest that they
were unaware of the need to provide content information when they
signed their contracts. The inclusion of a specific contract provision
concerning the need to provide content information would make suppliers
aware of this obligation. While the costs of providing content
information may not be compensated directly, such costs are simply a
necessary part of doing business. Assuming that suppliers are aware of
these costs, they will presumably consider them in negotiating their
contracts, just as they consider other costs of doing business.
As indicated above, NHTSA has not decided whether to extend today's
amendment beyond December 31 of this year, but is requesting comments
on this issue. The agency requests commenters to address the following
questions:
1. Can the problems being experienced by some vehicle manufacturers
with non-responsive suppliers be resolved by contractual provisions?
Have the vehicle manufacturers experiencing these problems included
specific provisions concerning content labeling in their contracts? If
not, why? If such provisions are not included in contracts, how long
would it take to add them? Are there other ways to resolve these
problems, particularly without costly efforts by the vehicle
manufacturers?
2. If the agency were to extend the applicability of today's
amendment beyond December 31 of this year, how long should the
extension be? Should such an extension continue to provide the same
type and degree of flexibility, i.e., flexibility for up to 10 percent,
by value, of a carline's total parts content from outside suppliers?
Would another value, or a somewhat different means for providing
flexibility, be more appropriate?
3. If the agency provides flexibility past December 31 of this
year, should the flexibility be limited to situations where the vehicle
manufacturers have made specified good-faith efforts to obtain the
information from an outside supplier (beyond the initial request to the
supplier)? If so, what good-faith efforts should be specified in the
regulation, e.g., certain contractual provisions, follow-up letters
and/or phone calls, etc.?
NHTSA recognizes that, to the extent commenters argue that a
somewhat different amendment should apply to models introduced after
December 31 of this year, those arguments may bear also on the
appropriateness of the relief provided up to that date. However, given
the imminence of the introduction of most model year 1997 vehicles, it
is not clear whether it would be feasible to consider amendments to the
relief provided for models introduced before December 31. Nonetheless,
the agency invites commenters to address this issue. Moreover, to
accommodate the possibility of making such an amendment, the agency
expediting the comment process by limiting the comment period to 30
days.
For the reasons discussed above, NHTSA is granting the AAMA and GM
petitions to the extent reflected in today's final rule and request for
comments. The petitions are otherwise denied.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order
12866. NHTSA has considered the economic implications of this
regulation and determined that it is not significant within the meaning
of the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedure. Today's amendments will
not affect manufacturer or supplier costs. They simply provide
additional flexibility to vehicle manufacturers and their allied
suppliers in making content calculations.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NHTSA has
evaluated the effects of this action on small entities. Based upon this
evaluation, I certify that the final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Today's
amendments simply provide additional flexibility to vehicle
manufacturers and their allied suppliers in making content
calculations. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required for this action.
[[Page 46390]]
C. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the final rule did not have sufficient Federalism implications to
warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. No state laws are
affected.
D. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. States are
preempted from promulgating laws and regulations contrary to the
provisions of this rule. The rule does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
E. National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has considered the environmental implications of this
rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and determined that this rule will not significantly affect the human
environment.
Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this document.
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
the purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted
to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and
seven copies from which the purportedly confidential information has
been deleted should be submitted to the NHTSA Docket Section. A request
for confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting
forth the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
All comments received by NHTSA before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be
available for examination in the docket at the above address both
before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to this rulemaking action will be
considered as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on
the document will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA
will continue to file relevant information as it becomes available in
the docket after the closing date, and recommends that interested
persons continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 583
Motor vehicles, Imports, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 583 is amended as
follows:
PART 583--AUTOMOBILE PARTS CONTENT LABELING
1. The authority for part 583 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32304, 49 CFR 1.50, 501.2(f).
2. Section 583.6 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(5) and adding
paragraph (c)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 583.6 Procedure for determining U.S./Canadian parts content.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(6) of this section, if a
manufacturer or allied supplier does not receive information from one
or more of its suppliers concerning the U.S./Canadian content of
particular equipment, the U.S./Canadian content of that equipment is
considered zero. This provision does not affect the obligation of
manufacturers and allied suppliers to request this information from
their suppliers or the obligation of the suppliers to provide the
information.
(6) For carlines which are first offered for sale to ultimate
purchasers before January 1, 1997, if a manufacturer or allied supplier
requests information in a timely manner from one or more of its outside
suppliers concerning the U.S./Canadian content of particular equipment,
but does not receive that information despite a good faith effort to
obtain it, the manufacturer or allied supplier may make its own good
faith value added determinations, subject to the following provisions:
(i) The manufacturer or allied supplier shall make the same value
added determinations as would be made by the outside supplier, i.e.,
whether 70 percent or more of the value of equipment is added in the
United States and/or Canada;
(ii) The manufacturer or allied supplier shall consider the amount
of value added and the location in which the value was added for all of
the stages that the outside supplier would be required to consider;
(iii) The manufacturer or allied supplier may determine that the
value added in the United States and/or Canada is 70 percent or more
only if it has a good faith basis to make that determination;
(iv) A manufacturer and its allied suppliers may, on a combined
basis, make value added determinations for no more than 10 percent, by
value, of a carline's total parts content from outside suppliers;
(v) Value added determinations made by a manufacturer or allied
supplier under this paragraph shall have the same effect as if they
were made by the outside supplier;
(vi) This provision does not affect the obligation of outside
suppliers to provide the requested information.
Issued on: August 28, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-22409 Filed 8-28-96; 5:08 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22388 Industrial Labor Relations Activities
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22388]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Air Force
32 CFR Part 801
Industrial Labor Relations Activities
AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Air Force is removing the rule on
Industrial Labor Relations Activities because it has limited
applicability to the general public. This action is the result of
departmental review. The intended effect is to ensure that only rules
which substantially affect the public are maintained in the Air Force
portion of the Code of Federal Regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 3, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms Patsy Conner, Air Force Federal
Register Liaison Officer, SAF/AAX, 1720 Air Force Pentagon, Washington
DC 20330-1720.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 801
Equal employment opportunity, Federal buildings and facilities,
Government contracts, Investigations, Labor unions, Military personnel.
PART 801--[REMOVED]
Accordingly under the authority 10 U.S.C. 8013, 32 CFR Chapter VII
is amended by removing Part 801.
Patsy J. Conner,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-22388 Filed 8-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3910-01-W
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22377 Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46380-46384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22377]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-5602-6]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today is granting a
petition submitted by Giant Refining Company (Giant) to exclude from
hazardous waste control (delist) certain solid wastes. The wastes being
delisted consist of excavated soils contaminated with K051 currently
being stored in an on-site waste pile. This action responds to Giant's
petition to delist these wastes on a one-time basis from the hazardous
waste lists. After careful analysis, EPA has concluded that the
petitioned waste is not hazardous waste when disposed of in Subtitle D
landfills. This exclusion applies only to excavated soils generated at
Giant's Bloomfield, New Mexico facility. Accordingly, this final rule
excludes the petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
when disposed of in Subtitle D landfills.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this final rule is located at the
Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202, and is available for viewing in the EPA Library of the
12th floor from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for appointments. The
reference number for this docket is ``F-96-NMDEL-GIANT.'' The public
may copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the first
100 pages and at a cost of $0.15 per page for additional copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general and technical information
concerning this document, contact Michelle Peace, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, (214) 665-7430.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Authority
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition EPA to
remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by excluding them from
the lists
[[Page 46381]]
of hazardous wastes contained in Secs. 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically,
Sec. 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator to modify
or revoke any provision of Parts 260 through 265 and 268 of Title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations; and Sec. 260.22 provides generators
the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a
``generator-specific'' basis from the hazardous waste lists.
Petitioners must provide sufficient information to EPA to allow EPA to
determine that the waste to be excluded does not meet any of the
criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In
addition, the Administrator must determine, where he/she has a
reasonable basis to believe that factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed could
cause the waste to be a hazardous waste, that such factors do not
warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
B. History of This Rulemaking
Giant petitioned EPA to exclude from hazardous waste control the
excavated soils contaminated with K051-API separator sludge waste
presently stored in an on-site waste pile at Bloomfield, New Mexico
facility. After evaluating the petition, EPA proposed, on May 20, 1996
to exclude Giant's waste from the lists of hazardous wastes under
Secs. 261.31 and 261.32 (See 61 FR 25175). This rulemaking addresses
public comments received on the proposal and finalizes the proposed
decision to grant Giant's petition.
II. Disposition of Petition
Giant Refining Company, Bloomfield, New Mexico
A. Proposed Exclusion
Giant petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists of hazardous wastes
contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32, a discrete volume of
contaminated soil excavated from its wastewater treatment impoundments.
Specifically, in its petition, Giant requested that EPA grant a one-
time exclusion for 2,000 cubic yards of excavated soil presently stored
in an on-site waste pile. The soil is classified as EPA Hazardous Waste
No. K051--``API separator sludge from the petroleum refining
industry.'' The listed constituents of concern for EPA Hazardous Waste
No. K051 are hexavalent chromium and lead (see Part 261, Appendix VII).
Giant petitioned the EPA to exclude this discrete volume of excavated
soil because it does not believe that the waste meets the criteria for
which it was listed. Giant also believes that the waste does not
contain any other constituents that would render it hazardous. Review
of this petition included consideration of the original listing
criteria, as well as the additional factors required by the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. See Section 222 of HSWA, 42
U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d) (2)-(4).
In support of its petition, Giant submitted: (1) descriptions of
its wastewater treatment processes and the excavation activities
associated with the petitioned waste; (2) results from total
constituent analyses for the eight Toxicity Characteristic (TC) metals
listed in Sec. 261.24 (i.e., the TC metals) antimony, beryllium,
cyanide, nickel, vanadium, and zinc from representative samples of the
stockpiled waste; (3) results from the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP, SW-846 Method 1311) for the eight TC metals, antimony,
beryllium, cyanide, nickel, vanadium, and zinc from representative
samples of the stockpiled waste; (4) results from the Oily Waste
Extraction Procedure (OWEP, SW-846 Method 1330) for the eight TC
metals, antimony, beryllium, nickel, vanadium, and zinc from
representative samples of the stockpiled waste; (5) results from the
Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test (EP, SW-846 Method 1310) for the
eight metals listed in Sec. 261.24 from representative samples of the
stockpiled waste; (6) results from total oil and grease analyses from
representative samples of the stockpiled waste; (7) test results and
information regarding the hazardous characteristics of ignitability,
corrosivity, and reactivity; and (8) results from total constituent and
TCLP analyses for certain volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds
from representative samples of the stockpiled waste.
B. Summary of Responses to Public Comments
The EPA received public comment on the May 20, 1996, proposal from
two interested parties, the American Zinc Association (AZA) and
Horsehead Resource Development Company (HRD). The comments consisted of
the concern that zinc is incorrectly viewed as a hazardous constituent
to which the EPA Composite Model for Landfills (EPACML) must be applied
and the need to evaluate delisting decisions in relation to the
Pollution Prevention Act and the Land Disposal Restrictions.
Classification of Zinc as a Hazardous Constituent
Comment: The AZA is concerned that, for some reason, EPA in
connection with the delisting petition filed by Giant Refining Company
appears to view zinc as a ``hazardous constituent'' to which the EPACML
must be applied. The AZA contends that zinc is not considered a
``hazardous constituent'' as defined under RCRA, is not listed on
Appendix VIII to 40 CFR Part 261 and is specifically excluded from the
definition of ``underlying hazardous constituents'' in 40 CFR 268.2
(i). The AZA requests that the final rule be changed to exclude zinc.
Response: The criteria for making a successful petition to amend
Part 261 to exclude a waste produced at a particular facility can be
found in 40 CFR Part 260.22. The regulations in 40 CFR Part
260.22(a)(2) states that based on a complete application, the
Administrator must determine where there is a reasonable basis to
believe that factors (including additional constituents) other than
those for which the waste was listed could cause the waste to be a
hazardous waste, that such factors do not warrant retaining the waste
as a hazardous waste.
The EPA understands the AZA's concern regarding implication that
zinc is being viewed as a ``hazardous constituent'' in this delisting
petition. In response to this concern, EPA will revise the preamble
language to future rulemakings to read that `` the EPACML will be used
to predict the concentrations of constituents that may be released from
the petitioned waste, once it is disposed.'' To evaluate delisting
petitions, any constituent detected in the leachate of the petitioned
waste must be evaluated by the EPACML. All organic and inorganic
constituents detected in the leachate of a petitioned waste are
evaluated for their potential hazard to human health and the
environment. Zinc, while it may not meet the definitions of hazardous
constituent or ``underlying hazardous constituent'' as defined under
the Land Disposal Restrictions, is a constituent found in Giant
Refining's waste and moreover, in the leachate of the petitioned waste.
Therefore, to meet the delisting criteria, zinc must be evaluated to
determine if as a result of leaching into the groundwater the
concentration of zinc would pose a hazard to human health or the
environment.
In the analysis of the leachate from Giant's waste, levels of zinc
were detected and the maximum value is reported on the list of
inorganic constituents found in Table 1 of the May 20, 1996, notice.
The evaluation of zinc as an ``additional constituent'' is conducted
and compared to its health-based value and the secondary drinking water
regulations to determine whether the levels of zinc detected could
cause
[[Page 46382]]
the waste to be a potential hazard. In the case of Giant's waste, the
value for zinc is below the level of regulatory concern and should not
present a hazard to human health or the environment.
Impact of This Delisting Upon Recycling of K051
Comment: The commenter did not object to the proposed decision to
delist Giant's waste, since the constituent levels in the waste were
low enough that HRD did not feel that any statutory mandates were
violated. The commenter summarized two principal statutory requirements
that HRD feels must be accounted for in order for any delisting
decision to be valid:
(a) The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 established a hierarchy of
waste management methods, in order of decreasing preference as: (1)
source reduction, (2) recycling, (3) treatment, and (4) land disposal.
The commenter emphasized that recycling, such as high temperature metal
recovery, is favored over waste treatment methods, such as
stabilization. The commenter also stated that the low levels of metals
in the petitioned waste were not amenable to recycling; and
(b) The Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) of RCRA include stringent
treatment standards which must be met prior to land disposal of
hazardous wastes. The commenter felt that LDR treatment standards
should be one of the ``factors (including additional constituents)
other than those for which the waste was listed'' that could cause the
waste to be a hazardous waste or to be retained as a hazardous waste
(see 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)). Again, the commenter did not feel that the
constituent levels in the petitioned waste were high enough to exceed
LDR treatment standards.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the statutory
mandates summarized above are very important considerations. The EPA
also agrees that the decision to delist the waste which is the subject
of this final rule is not in conflict with either of these mandates. It
is also EPA's position that if the evaluation of a delisting petition
reveals that the petitioned waste meets all the appropriate criteria in
Petitions to Delist Hazardous Wastes--A Guidance Manual, Second
Edition, EPA Publication No. EPA/530-R-93-007, March 1993, the
conditions specified in 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2) have been met, and the
waste need not be subject to RCRA Subtitle C. That is to say, the
delisting levels established by EPA are protective of human health and
the environment, and a waste that meets these levels does not have
factors that ``could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste.'' Many
LDR treatment standards are concentration levels below those that would
be protective of human health and the environment, because they are
based on what is technologically achievable, rather than on risk.
The EPA has responded, in an earlier rulemaking, to similar comment
by HRD concerning the effect that delisting stabilized wastes might
have on the recycling of wastes to recover metals (see 60 FR 31109,
June 13, 1995). The EPA's position continues to be that no policies are
undermined nor regulations violated by the delisting of a waste which
meets all applicable criteria for delisting. Specifically, the
existence of an alternate treatment and/or recycling technology is not
a factor that ``could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste.''
C. Final Agency Decision
For reasons stated in both the proposal and this document, EPA
believes that Giant's excavated soil should be excluded from hazardous
waste control. The EPA, therefore, is granting a final exclusion to
Giant Refining Company, Bloomfield, New Mexico for its 2,000 cubic
yards of excavated soil, described in its petition as EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K051. This exclusion only applies to the waste described in
the petition. The maximum volume of contaminated soil covered by this
exclusion is 2,000 cubic yards.
Although management of the waste covered by this petition is
relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction, the generator of the delisted
waste must either treat, store, or dispose of the waste in an on-site
facility, or ensure that the waste is delivered to an off-site storage,
treatment, or disposal facility, either of which is permitted, licensed
or registered by a State to manage municipal or industrial solid waste.
Alternatively, the delisted waste may be delivered to a facility that
beneficially uses or reuses, or legitimately recycles or reclaims the
waste, or treats the waste prior to such beneficial use, reuse,
recycling, or reclamation (see 40 CFR part 260, Appendix I).
III. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion
The final exclusion being granted today is issued under the Federal
(RCRA) delisting program. States, however, are allowed to impose their
own, non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more stringent than
EPA's, pursuant to section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent
requirements may include a provision which prohibits a Federally-issued
exclusion from taking effect in the State. Because a petitioner's waste
may be regulated under a dual system (i.e., both Federal (RCRA) and
State (non-RCRA) programs), petitioners are urged to contact the State
regulatory authority to determine the current status of their wastes
under the State law.
Furthermore, some States (e.g., Louisiana, Georgia, Illinois) are
authorized to administer a delisting program in lieu of the Federal
program, i.e., to make their own delisting decisions. Therefore, this
exclusion does not apply in those authorized States. If the petitioned
waste will be transported to and managed in any State with delisting
authorization, Giant must obtain delisting authorization from that
State before the waste can be managed as non-hazardous in the State.
IV. Effective Date
This rule is effective September 3, 1996. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended Section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to
become effective in less than six months when the regulated community
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the
case here because this rule reduces, rather than increases, the
existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes. These
reasons also provide a basis for making this rule effective
immediately, upon publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
V. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of
the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory
actions. The effect of this rule is to reduce the overall costs and
economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. The
reduction is achieved by excluding waste from EPA's lists of hazardous
wastes, thereby enabling a facility to treat its waste as non-
hazardous. As discussed in EPA's response to public comments, this rule
is unlikely to have an adverse annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more. Therefore, this rule does not represent a significant
regulatory action under the Executive Order, and no assessment of costs
and benefits is necessary. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has exempted this rule from the requirement for OMB review under
Section (6) of Executive Order 12866.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Secs. 601-612,
whenever an agency is required to publish a general
[[Page 46383]]
notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis
which describes the impact of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the
Administrator or delegated representative certifies that the rule will
not have any impact on any small entities.
This regulation will not have an adverse impact on any small
entities since its effect will be to reduce the overall costs of EPA's
hazardous waste regulations. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this
regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This regulation, therefore, does not require
a regulatory flexibility analysis.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated
with this final rule have been approved by OMB under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2050-0053.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), Pub. L. 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement for rules with Federal
mandates that may result in estimated costs to State, local, and tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. When such a statement is required for EPA
rules, under section 205 of the UMRA, EPA must identify and consider
alternatives, including the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The
EPA must select that alternative, unless the Administrator explains in
the final rule why it was not selected or it is inconsistent with law.
Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may significantly
or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small
governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in the development
of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them on compliance
with the regulatory requirements.
The UMRA generally defines a Federal mandate for regulatory
purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. The EPA finds that today's
delisting decision is deregulatory in nature and does not impose any
enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector. In addition, today's delisting decision does not
establish any regulatory requirements for small governments and so does
not require a small government agency plan under UMRA section 203.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: August 21, 1996.
Jane N. Saginaw,
Regional Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR Part 261 is amended
as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for Part 261 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
2. In Table 2 of Appendix IX, Part 261 add the following waste
stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
Appendix IX--Wastes Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and 260.22
Table 2.--Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Giant Refining Company, Inc. Bloomfield, New Mexico.................. Waste generated during the excavation of
soils from two wastewater treatment
impoundments (referred to as the South
and North Oily Water Ponds) used to
contain water outflow from an API
separator (EPA Hazardous Waste No.
K051). This is a one-time exclusion for
approximately 2,000 cubic yards of
stockpiled waste. This exclusion was
published on September 3, 1996.
Notification Requirements: Giant
Refining Company must provide a one-
time written notification to any State
Regulatory Agency to which or through
which the delisted waste described
above will be transported for disposal
at least 60 days prior to the
commencement of such activities.
Failure to provide such a notification
will result in a violation of the
delisting petition and a possible
revocation of the decision.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46384]]
[FR Doc. 96-22377 Filed 8-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22370 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner; Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act; Streamlining Final Rule; Correction and Clarification
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22370]
[[Page 46509]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Housing and Urban Development
_______________________________________________________________________
24 CFR Part 3500
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act: Streamlining Regulatory Reform
and Escrow Accounting Procedures; Final Rule and Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 3, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 46510]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Part 3500
[Docket No. FR-4023-F-03]
RIN 2502-AG69
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing
Commissioner; Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act; Streamlining Final
Rule; Correction and Clarification
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing
Commissioner, HUD.
ACTION: Correction to final rule and clarification.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 26, 1996 (61 FR 13232), the Department published a
final rule streamlining its regulations under the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). That rule, when published, left
unchanged references in the rule to ``effective date[s]'' in certain
provisions. HUD's intent was that these references should continue to
refer to the effective date of the escrow accounting procedures rule,
which was May 24, 1995, not to the effective date of the streamlining
rule. By this document, the text of the streamlining rule is corrected
to include expressly the May 24, 1995, effective date in the applicable
provisions.
In addition, this document contains a technical clarification of
the streamlining rule concerning the use of toll-free numbers.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 8, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David R. Williamson, Director, Office
of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, Room 5241, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410,
telephone number (202) 708-4560 (this is not a toll-free number); or
for legal questions: Kenneth A. Markison, Assistant General Counsel for
GSE/RESPA, Grant Mitchell, Senior Attorney for RESPA, or Richard S.
Bennett, Attorney, Room 9262, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410, telephone
number (202) 708-1550 (this is not a toll-free number). For hearing- or
speech-impaired persons, this number may be accessed via TTY (text
telephone) by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-
877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Corrections
The March 26, 1996 (61 FR 13232) streamlining rule left unchanged
references in Secs. 3500.17(b) and (c)(4)(i) to the ``effective date of
this rule'', the ``effective date of this final rule'', and ``effective
date of this section''. These references appeared in the definitions of
``phase-in period'', ``post rule account'', and ``pre-rule account''.
HUD is issuing this correction to substitute the May 24, 1995,
effective date of the applicable rule escrow accounting procedures rule
(60 FR 8812, February 15, 1995), for the unclear references in those
provisions.
Technical Clarification
The streamlining rule was first corrected on April 29, 1996 (61 FR
18674). Subsequently, some servicers have noted that the streamlining
rule removed from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) a number of
examples of Initial and Annual Escrow Account Statements. Each example
of the statements referenced ``[Servicer's name, address and toll-free
number]'' under the format's title. Some have questioned whether the
removal of these formats from the CFR constitutes a change in the
requirements pertaining to toll-free numbers.
The requirements have not changed. As the preamble to the
streamlining rule makes clear, while the Department removed from
codification several of the appendices that previously accompanied part
3500, these materials have been preserved and are available as Public
Guidance Documents. Because the removal of these formats from
codification did not change any requirements, including those for toll-
free numbers (see, e.g., paragraph 6(b)(3)(B) of RESPA; 12 U.S.C.
2605(b)(3)(B)), HUD does not believe that any change to the rule text
is required to make this clarification.
List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 3500
Consumer protection, Condominiums, Housing, Mortgages, Mortgage
servicing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, part 3500 of title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
PART 3500--REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES ACT
1. The authority citation is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
2. Section 3500.17 is amended:
a. In paragraph (b) by revising the definitions of ``Phase-in
period'', ``Post-rule account'', and ``Pre-rule account''; and
b. In paragraph (c)(4)(i) by revising the last sentence, to read as
follows:
Sec. 3500.17 Escrow Accounts.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Phase-in period means the period beginning on May 24, 1995, and
ending on the conversion date, i.e., October 27, 1997, by which date
all servicers shall use the aggregate accounting method in conducting
escrow account analyses.
Post-rule account means an escrow account established in connection
with a federally related mortgage loan whose settlement date is on or
after May 24, 1995.
* * * * *
Pre-rule account is an escrow account established in connection
with a federally related mortgage loan whose settlement date is before
May 24, 1995.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * * After May 24, 1995, refinancing transactions (as defined
in Sec. 3500.2) shall comply with the requirements for post-rule
accounts.
* * * * *
Dated: August 27, 1996.
Nicolas P. Retsinas,
Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 96-22370 Filed 8-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-27-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22369 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Scallop Fishery; Closure in Registration Area H
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46399-46400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22369]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 960502124-6190-02; I.D. 082796E]
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Scallop
Fishery; Closure in Registration Area H
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Closure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is closing the scallop fishery in the Kamishak Bay
District of Registration Area H (Cook Inlet). This action is necessary
to prevent exceeding
[[Page 46400]]
the scallop total allowable catch (TAC) in this area.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 800 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), August 27, 1996,
until 1159 hrs, A.l.t., July 1, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Smoker, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The scallop fishery in the exclusive
economic zone off Alaska is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery
Management Plan for Scallop Fishery off Alaska (FMP) prepared by the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Fishing for scallops
is governed by regulations appearing at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
In accordance with Sec. 679.62(b) the 1996 scallop TAC for the
Kamishak Bay District of Registration Area H was established by the
Final 1996-97 Harvest Specifications of Scallops (61 FR 38099, July 23,
1996) as 20,000 lb (9,074 kg) shucked meat.
The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined, in accordance
with Sec. 679.62(c), that the scallop TAC for the Kamishak Bay District
of Registration Area H has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is prohibiting
the taking and retention of scallops in the Kamishak Bay District of
Registration Area H from 800 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), August
27, 1996 through 1159 hrs, A.l.t., July 1, 1997.
Classification
This action is taken under Sec. 679.62 and is exempt from review
under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: August 27, 1996.
Gary C. Matlock,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-22369 Filed 8-28-96; 12:07 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22335 Fees for Motions To Reopen or Reconsider
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46373-46374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22335]
========================================================================
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. 171 / Tuesday, September 3, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 46373]]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Immigration and Naturalization Service
8 CFR Parts 3, 103, and 242
[EOIR No. 114I; A.G. Order No. 2051-96]
RIN 1125-AA15
Fees for Motions To Reopen or Reconsider
AGENCY: Department of Justice.
ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim rule clarifies when and how fees must be paid
when a motion to reopen or reconsider is filed concurrently with any
application for relief under the immigration laws for which a fee is
chargeable. This interim rule applies to motions to reopen or
reconsider that are filed in all types of immigration proceedings,
including those over which the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(the ``Service'') and the Board of Immigration Appeals (the ``Board'')
have appellate jurisdiction, respectively.
DATES: This interim rule is effective September 3, 1996. Written
comments must be received on or before November 4, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Please submit written comments to Margaret M. Philbin,
General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Suite 2400,
5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22041, and Ernest B. Duarte,
Branch Chief, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 425 I Street NW.,
Suite 3214, Washington, DC 20536.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret M. Philbin, General Counsel,
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Suite 2400, 5107 Leesburg
Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22041, telephone (703) 305-0470, or Ernest
B. Duarte, Branch Chief, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 425 I
Street NW., Suite 3214, Washington, DC 20536, telephone (202) 307-3587.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This interim rule amends 8 CFR parts 3, 103,
and 242 by clarifying when the required fees must be paid when a motion
to reopen or reconsider is filed concurrently with any application for
relief under the immigration laws for which a fee is chargeable. This
interim rule applies to motions to reopen or reconsider that are filed
in all types of immigration proceedings, including those over which the
Service and the Board of Immigration Appeals have appellate
jurisdiction, respectively.
This interim rule is necessary to eliminate questions that have
arisen regarding the payment of fees for applications for relief that
require their own separate fees when filed concurrently with motions to
reopen or reconsider. For example, if an individual files a motion to
reopen his or her deportation case in order to apply for suspension of
deportation, is the individual required to pay only one fee for the
motion to reopen, or one fee for the motion, and a second fee for the
application?
Prior to April 4, 1989, the provision at 8 CFR 103.7(b) regarding
motions to reopen or reconsider contained a sentence that specified
that ``[w]hen the motion to reopen or reconsider is made concurrently
with any application under the immigration laws, the application will
be considered an integral part of the motion and only for the fee for
filing the motion or the fee for filing the application, whichever is
greater, is payable.'' When this provision was amended in April 1989,
see 54 FR 13515, this sentence was deleted without explanation. During
the ensuing years, confusion mounted as to the meaning, if any, of this
deletion from the regulation and its effect on the fee requirements.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (``EOIR'') and the Service
are prepared to eliminate this confusion by amending the fee
requirement for motions to reopen or reconsider as follows:
If a motion to reopen or reconsider is filed by an individual
concurrently with any application for relief under the immigration laws
for which a fee is chargeable (e.g., an application for suspension of
deportation, adjustment of status, or registry), the individual
initially must pay only the fee required for the motion (currently,
$110), unless a fee waiver has been granted pursuant to 8 CFR
103.7(c)(1). If the motion to reopen or reconsider is granted, the
individual then will have to pay the fee set forth in 8 CFR 103.7(b)
required for the underlying application for relief in order to complete
the application. Fee remittance for the underlying application for
relief should be made payable to the ``Immigration and Naturalization
Service''. Unless a fee waiver has been granted pursuant to 8 CFR
103.7(c)(1), failure to pay the subsequent fee for the underlying
application for relief will result in the denial of the application. If
the motion to reopen or reconsider is denied, no further fee will be
required because the underlying application for relief, in effect, will
be moot. This procedure provides a fair and equitable fee structure for
motions and their underlying applications by requiring payment of a fee
for the underlying application only if the motion to reopen or
reconsider is granted. This will prevent imposing undue financial
burdens on those individuals filing such motions.
The implementation of this rule as an interim rule, with provisions
for post-promulgation public comment, is based upon the ``good cause''
exceptions found at 5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(B) and (d)(3). The reasons and the
necessity for immediate implementation of this interim rule without
prior notice and comment are as follows: Immediate implementation of
this rule will ensure that fees for motions to reopen or reconsider,
and their underlying applications for relief, are acceptable in a
consistent manner by all immigration courts and the Board. Immediate
implementation of this rule also will eliminate any existing confusion
with regard to the payment of such fees at the earliest possible time,
while still affording the agencies the opportunity to solicit and
consider all public comments that are timely submitted. Finally, this
interim rule provides a benefit to individuals who wish to file motions
to reopen or reconsider. Hence, immediate implementation will make this
benefit available without any further delay, which would be contrary to
the public interest.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Attorney General certifies
that this rule affects only individuals filing
[[Page 46374]]
motions to reopen or reconsider concurrently with applications for the
relief from deportation. Therefore, this rule does not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Attorney General has determined that this rule is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order No. 12866, and accordingly this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This
rule has no federalism implications warranting the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment in accordance with Executive Order No. 12612. The
rule meets the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988.
List of Subjects
8 CFR Part 3
Administrative practice and procedure, Immigration, Lawyers,
Organizations and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
8 CFR Part 103
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations
(Government agencies), Freedom of Information, Privacy, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
8 CFR Part 242
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens.
Accordingly, chapter I of Title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 3--EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
Subpart C--Rules of Procedure for Immigration Judge Proceedings
1. The authority citation for part 3 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1252 note, 1252b, 1324b,
1362, 1362; 28 U.S.C. 509, 1746; sec. 2, Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1950,
3 CFR 1949-1953 Comp., p. 1002.
2. In Sec. 3.31, paragraph (b) is amended by revising the first
sentence to read as follows:
Sec. 3.31 Filing documents and applications.
* * * * *
(b) Except as provided in 8 CFR 242.17(e), all documents or
applications requiring the payment of a fee must be accompanied by a
fee receipt from the Service or by an application for a waiver of fees
pursuant to 8 CFR 3.24. * * *
* * * * *
PART 103--POWERS AND DUTIES OF SERVICE OFFICERS; AVAILABILITY OF
SERVICE RECORDS
3. The authority citation for part 103 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, 552(a); 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1201, 1252
note, 1252b, 1304, 1356; 31 U.S.C. 9701, E.O. 12356, 47 FR 14874;
15557; 3 CFR, 1982, Comp., p. 166; 8 CFR part 2.
4. In Sec. 103.7, paragraph (b)(1) is amended by revising the two
entries for ``Motion'', respectively, to read as follows:
Sec. 103.7 Fees.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * *
Motion. For filing a motion to reopen or reconsider any decision
under the immigration laws in any type of proceeding over which the
Board of Immigration Appeals has appellate jurisdiction. No fee shall
be charged for a motion to reopen or reconsider a decision on an
application for relief for which no fee is chargeable. (The fee of $110
shall be charged whenever an appeal or motion is filed by or on behalf
of two or more aliens and all such aliens are covered by one decision.
When a motion to reopen or reconsider is made concurrently with any
application for relief under the immigration laws for which a fee is
chargeable, the fee of $110 will be charged when the motion is filed
and, if the motion is granted, the requisite fee for filing the
application for relief will be charged and must be paid within the time
specified in order to complete the application.)--$110.
Motion. For filing a motion to reopen or reconsider any decision
under the immigration laws in any type of proceeding over which the
Board of Immigration Appeals does not have appellate jurisdiction. No
fee shall be charged for a motion to reopen or reconsider a decision on
an application for relief for which no fee is chargeable. (The fee of
$110 shall be charged whenever an appeal or motion is filed by on or
behalf of two or more aliens and all such aliens are covered by one
decision. When a motion to reopen or reconsider is made concurrently
with any application for relief under the immigration laws for which a
fee is chargeable, the fee of $110 will be charged when the motion is
filed and, if the motion is granted, the requisite fee for filing the
application for relief will be charged and must be paid within the time
specified in order to complete the application.)--$110.
* * * * *
PART 242--PROCEEDINGS TO DETERMINE DEPORTABILITY OF ALIENS IN THE
UNITED STATES: APPREHENSION, CUSTODY, HEARING, AND APPEAL
5. The authority citation for part 242 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1182, 1186a, 1251, 1252, 1252 note,
1252a, 1252b, 1524, 1362; 8 CFR , part 2.
6. In Sec. 242.17, paragraph (e) is amended by adding two new
sentences after the 4th sentence, to read as follows:
Sec. 242.17 Ancillary matters, applications.
* * * * *
(e) * * * When a motion to reopen or reconsider is made
concurrently with an application for relief seeking one of the
immigration benefits set forth in paragraphs (a) and (c) of this
section, only the fee set forth in Sec. 103.7(b)(1) of this chapter for
the motion must accompany the motion and application for relief. If
such a motion is granted, the appropriate fee for the application for
relief, if any, set forth in 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1), must be paid within the
time specified in order to complete the application.* * *
Dated: August 26, 1996.
Janet Reno,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 96-22335 Filed 8-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22331 Lassen Volcanic National Park
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46379-46380]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22331]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 7
RIN 1024-AC52
Lassen Volcanic National Park
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) is removing the current
regulations concerning boating, fishing and limit of catch in Lassen
Volcanic National Park. With this deletion, the park will allow for
catch and release fishing only, using a barbless hook, when fishing at
Manzanita Lake. The existing regulation allows for the taking of native
fish species (rainbow trout) in this small fishery. The taking of the
native species has and would continue to adversely affect native
species composition if allowed to continue. The NPS intends to maintain
and, where necessary, restore the aquatic ecosystem to a natural state
while allowing recreational fishing to continue at levels that allow
natural processes to continue. The park will continue to manage
boating, a restricted fishing season, closed waters, limits of catch
and the catch and release program through the Superintendent's
Compendium.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes effective on September 3, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilbert E. Blinn, Lassen Volcanic
National Park, P.O. Box 100, Mineral, CA 96063.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This final rule addresses a problem where a special park regulation
(36 CFR 7.11) was not removed at the time improved management means
were instituted to manage boating, fishing and limit of catch at Lassen
Volcanic National Park. Operation of motorboats on all waters in the
park and the closure to all vessels on four of the lakes within the
park is now documented and addressed in Superintendent's Compendium
under the authority found at 36 CFR 1.5, Closures and public use
limits. Fishing restrictions on Grassy Creek during certain months of
the year, and closure of certain other waters to fishing is also
documented and addressed in the Superintendent's Compendium.
In 1976, fish stocking of Manzanita Lake was discontinued after 44
years of almost annual stocking due to the policy of the NPS to cease
artificial management of natural resources. In 1982, due to
observations that the fishery at Manzanita Lake was declining, a
fisheries study of the lake was conducted. As a result of this study,
two recommendations were made for Manzanita Lake: (1) Reduce the
current limit of 5 trout or 5 pounds and 1 trout, to 1 or 2 fish of 18
inches or more; or (2) designate the lake as catch and release only,
using artificial lures and barbless hooks. In 1984, the California Game
and Fish Commission recommended that the NPS adopt regulations for
catch and release fishing only using artificial lures with a barbless
hook in Manzanita Lake.
In March of 1985, in order to restore natural aquatic ecosystems
while allowing recreational fishing in Manzanita Lake, the park adopted
catch and release fishing with artificial lures and barbless hooks.
This is addressed in the Superintendent's Compendium.
Other management options considered included leaving the current
regulation in place and returning to more consumptive methods of
fishing. Continuing fishery studies and public comment favor the catch
and release fishing method. Closures and restrictions are documented
and addressed in the Superintendent's
[[Page 46380]]
Compendium and need not be repeated in the special regulations.
The deletion of the existing rule allows the park to continue to
restore the natural aquatic ecosystem while allowing recreational
fishing in all park waters. Closures and restrictions have been in
place in the park for over 20 years and are fully accepted and
supported by the visiting public and the State of California.
Administrative Procedure Act
In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B)), the NPS is promulgating this rule under the ``good cause''
exception of the Act from general notice and comment rulemaking. As
discussed above, the NPS believes this exception is warranted because
the existing regulations are no longer used and have not been used for
over 20 years. This final rule will not impose any additional
restrictions on the public and comments on this rule are deemed
unnecessary. Based upon this discussion, the NPS finds pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 533(b)(B) that it would be contrary to the public interest to
publish this rule through general notice and comment rulemaking.
The NPS also believes that publishing this final rule 30 days prior
to the rule becoming effective would be counterproductive and
unnecessary for the reasons discussed above. A 30-day delay in this
instance would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.
Therefore, under the ``good cause'' exception of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)), it has been determined that this
final rulemaking is excepted from the 30-day delay in the effective
date and will therefore become effective on the date published in the
Federal Register.
Drafting Information
The primary authors of this rule are Bryan Swift, Chief Ranger of
Lassen Volcanic National Park, and Dennis Burnett, Washington Office of
Ranger Activities, National Park Service.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule does not contain collections of information
requiring approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Compliance With Other Laws
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review
under Executive Order 12866. The Department of the Interior determined
that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The economic effects of this rulemaking are
local in nature and negligible in scope.
The NPS has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.), that this rule will not
impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local, State
or tribal governments or private entities.
The NPS has determined that this rule will not have a significant
effect on the quality of the human environment, health and safety
because it is not expected to:
(a) Increase public use to the extent of comprising the nature and
character of the area or causing physical damage to it;
(b) Introduce non-compatible uses that may compromise the nature
and characteristics of the area, or cause physical damage to it;
(c) Conflict with adjacent ownerships or lands uses; or
(d) Cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants.
Based upon this determination, this final rule is categorically
excluded from the procedural requirements of the National Policy Act
(NEPA) by Departmental regulations in 516 DM 6 (49 FR 21438). As such,
neither an Environmental Assessment (EA) nor an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) has been prepared.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7
National parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 36 CFR Chapter I is amended as
follows:
PART 7--SPECIAL REGULATIONS, AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for Part 7 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q), 462(k); Sec. 7.96 also
issued under D.C. Code 8-137 (1981) and D.C. Code 40-721 (1981).
Sec. 7.11 [Removed]
2. Section 7.11 is removed.
Dated: August 15, 1996.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 96-22331 Filed 8-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22288 Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972; Amendment
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46378-46379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22288]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
32 CFR Part 706
Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations
for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972; Amendment
AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy is amending its certifications and
exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing
Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy
Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty) of the Navy has determined
that USS HOPPER (DDG 70) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its
special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain
provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special
function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn
mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant M.W. Kerns, JAGC, U.S.
Navy, Assistant Admiralty Counsel, Office of the Judge Advocate
General, Navy Department, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22332-
2400, Telephone number: (703) 325-9744.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the authority granted in 33
U.S.C. 1605, the Department of the Navy amends 32 CFR Part 706. This
amendment provides notice that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate
General (Admiralty) of the Navy, under authority delegated by the
Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS HOPPER (DDG 70) is a
vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose,
cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72
COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship:
Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(i) pertaining to placement of the masthead
light or lights above and clear of all other lights and obstructions;
Annex I, paragraph 3(a) pertaining to the location of the forward
masthead light in the forward quarter of the vessel, and the horizontal
distance between the forward and after masthead lights; and, Annex I,
paragraph 3(c) pertaining to placement of task lights not less than two
meters from the fore and aft centerline of the ship in the athwartship
direction. The Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty) has
also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible
compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.
Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR Parts
296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment
prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public
interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of
lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed
herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its
military functions.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706
Marine safety, Navigation (water), and Vessels.
Accordingly, 32 CFR Part 706 is amended as follows:
PART 706--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR Part 706 continues to read:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1605.
2. Table Four, Paragraph 15 of Sec. 706.2 is amended by adding the
following entry:
Sec. 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under
Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Horizontal distance
from the fore and aft
Vessel Number centerline of the
vessel in the
athwartship direction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
USS HOPPER....................... DDG 70 1.83 meters.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Table Four, Paragraph 16 of Sec. 706.2 is amended by adding the
following entry:
Sec. 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive
Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obstruction angle
Vessel Number relative ship's
headings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
USS HOPPER....................... DDG 70 102.25 thru
112.50 deg.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Table Five of Sec. 706.2 is amended by adding the following
entry:
Sec. 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive
Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605.
* * * * *
[[Page 46379]]
Table Five
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After
Masthead masthead
lights not Forward light less
over all masthead than \1/2\ Percentage
other lights light not in ship's horizontal
Vessel No. and forward length aft separation
obstructions. quarter of of forward attained
annex I, sec. ship. annex masthead
2(f) I, sec. 3(a) light. annex
I, sec. 3(a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
USS HOPPER....................... DDG70 X X X 20.4
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: August 1, 1996.
M.W. Kerns,
LT, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Acting Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General
(Admiralty).
[FR Doc. 96-22288 Filed 8-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22287 Secondary Direct Food Additives Permitted in Food for Human Consumption
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46376-46378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22287]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
21 CFR Part 173
[Docket No. 95F-0161]
Secondary Direct Food Additives Permitted in Food for Human
Consumption
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the food
additive regulations to provide for the safe use of a mixture of
peroxyacetic acid, acetic acid, and hydrogen peroxide to reduce the
microbial load in water used to wash certain fruits and vegetables.
Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is also publishing
a document that provides for the safe use of a mixture of peroxyacetic
acid, acetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, and 1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1-
diphosphonic acid (HEDP) to reduce the microbial load in water used to
wash certain fruits and vegetables. This action is in response to a
petition filed by Ecolab Inc.
DATES: Effective September 3, 1996; written objections and requests for
a hearing by October 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit written objections to the Dockets Management Branch
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23,
Rockville, MD 20857.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary E. LaVecchia, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-217), Food and Drug Administration,
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204-0001, 202-418-3072.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal
Register of July 13, 1995 (60 FR 36150), FDA announced that a food
additive petition (FAP 5A4459) had been filed by Ecolab Inc., 370 North
Wabasha St., St. Paul, MN 55102. The petition proposed to amend the
food additive regulations in Sec. 173.315 Chemicals used in washing or
to assist in the lye peeling of fruits and vegetables (21 CFR 173.315)
to provide for the safe use of a mixture of peroxyacetic acid, acetic
acid and hydrogen peroxide to control microbial growth in water
contacting fruits and vegetables.
An antimicrobial solution used to wash fruits and vegetables is
potentially subject to regulation as a food additive under section 409
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 348),
or as a pesticide chemical under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136(u)), depending upon the
status of the fruit or vegetable. FDA regulates antimicrobial solutions
as food additives under the act when such solutions are used on
processed food.
[[Page 46377]]
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates antimicrobial
solutions as pesticide chemicals under FIFRA when the solutions are
used on raw agricultural commodities.
Under section 201(q)(1) of the act (21 U.S.C. 321(q)(1)), as
amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, the term
``pesticide chemical'' means a pesticide as defined in FIFRA. Under
FIFRA's regulatory scheme, an antimicrobial solution used on or in
processed food does not come within the definition of the term
pesticide. FIFRA defines a pesticide as any substance intended for
preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest (7 U.S.C.
136(u)); the definition of pest includes ``fungus'' (7 U.S.C. 136(t)).
However, excluded from the definition of fungus are rust, smut, mildew,
mold, yeast, and bacteria on or in processed food (7 U.S.C. 136(k)).
Therefore, by definition, an antimicrobial solution used on or in
processed food is not a pesticide because it does not prevent, destroy,
repel, or mitigate a ``pest,'' within the meaning of that term (7
U.S.C. 136(t)). Thus, such a solution is not a pesticide chemical under
the act.
FDA received one comment in response to the notice of filing of
this petition. The comment expressed concern that the chemical mixture
appeared to be a biocide and may require FIFRA pesticide registration.
The comment also stated that the preparation would be regulated more
accurately under Sec. 178.1010 Sanitizing solutions (21 CFR 178.1010).
As noted above, an antimicrobial formulation used on raw
agricultural commodities is regulated as a pesticide chemical and thus,
may require registration under FIFRA, as well as a tolerance
established under section 408 of the act (21 U.S.C. 346a). Similarly,
FDA has jurisdiction over antimicrobial solutions used on processed
foods. Thus, consistent with FDA's jurisdiction, FDA's approval of this
formulation is limited to its use in washing fruits and vegetables
other than those that are raw agricultural commodities. This approval
is consistent with the division of responsibility between FDA and EPA
over solutions of this type. FDA has, however, referred the petitioner
to EPA in order to ascertain whether FIFRA pesticide registration and a
tolerance under section 408 of the act are required for any uses not
regulated by FDA. Thus, FDA's decision in this final rule takes into
consideration the jurisdictional question between FDA and EPA raised by
the comment.
FDA disagrees with the comment to the extent that it suggests that
the solution in question should be regulated as a sanitizing solution.
The petitioned use for this formulation is to reduce the microbial load
in water used to wash fruits and vegetables, consistent with the
technical effect listed in 21 CFR 170.3(o)(2). This use is different
from its use as a sanitizing solution. Because the petitioned
conditions of use differ from those for a sanitizing solution, approval
under Sec. 173.315 is necessary and appropriate. The point of this
comment is not entirely clear. To the extent that this comment suggests
that the solution is not safe for use as a washing solution for fruits
and vegetables, the agency has determined that the petitioned use is
safe.
FDA has evaluated data in the petition and other relevant material.
As part of its review, FDA evaluated the safety of each of the
components of the antimicrobial solution. Based on this information,
the agency concludes that the proposed use of the additive is safe,
that it will achieve its intended technical effect of reducing the
microbial load in water used to wash fruits and vegetables, and that
therefore, the regulations in Sec. 173.315 should be amended as set
forth below.
In accordance with Sec. 171.1(h) (21 CFR 171.1(h)), the petition
and the documents that FDA considered and relied upon in reaching its
decision to approve the petition are available for inspection at the
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition by appointment with the
information contact person listed above. As provided in Sec. 171.1(h),
the agency will delete from the documents any materials that are not
available for public disclosure before making the documents available
for inspection.
The agency has carefully considered the potential environmental
effects of this action. FDA has concluded that the action will not have
a significant impact on the human environment, and that an
environmental impact statement is not required. The agency's finding of
no significant impact and the evidence supporting that finding,
contained in an environmental assessment, may be seen in the Dockets
Management Branch (address above) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may at
any time on or before October 3, 1996, file with the Dockets Management
Branch (address above) written objections thereto. Each objection shall
be separately numbered, and each numbered objection shall specify with
particularity the provisions of the regulation to which objection is
made and the grounds for the objection. Each numbered objection on
which a hearing is requested shall specifically so state. Failure to
request a hearing for any particular objection shall constitute a
waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection. Each numbered
objection for which a hearing is requested shall include a detailed
description and analysis of the specific factual information intended
to be presented in support of the objection in the event that a hearing
is held. Failure to include such a description and analysis for any
particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a
hearing on the objection. Three copies of all documents shall be
submitted and shall be identified with the docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document. Any objections received in
response to the regulation may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 173
Food additives.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, 21 CFR part 173 is amended as follows:
PART 173--SECONDARY DIRECT FOOD ADDITIVES PERMITTED IN FOOD FOR
HUMAN CONSUMPTION
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 173 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 402, 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348).
2. Section 173.315 is amended in the table in paragraph (a)(2) by
alphabetically adding two new entries under the headings ``Substances''
and ``Limitations'' to read as follows:
Sec. 173.315 Chemicals used in washing or to assist in the lye peeling
of fruits and vegetables.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
[[Page 46378]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substances Limitations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Hydrogen peroxide. Used in combination with acetic acid to form peroxyacetic acid.
Not to exceed 59 ppm in wash water. Limited to use on fruits
and vegetables that are not raw agricultural commodities.
Peroxyacetic acid. Prepared by reacting acetic acid with hydrogen peroxide. Not to
exceed 80 ppm in wash water. Limited to use on fruits and
vegetables that are not raw agricultural commodities.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: August 26, 1996.
Fred R. Shank,
Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 96-22287 Filed 8-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22286 Secondary Direct Food Additives Permitted in Food for Human Consumption
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46374-46376]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22286]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 173
[Docket No. 95F-0160]
Secondary Direct Food Additives Permitted in Food for Human
Consumption
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the food
additive regulations to provide for the safe use of a mixture of
peroxyacetic acid, acetic acid, hydrogen peroxide and 1-
hydroxyethylidene-1,1-diphosphonic acid (HEDP) to reduce the microbial
load in water used to wash certain fruits and vegetables. Elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is publishing a document that
provides for the safe use of a mixture of peroxyacetic acid, acetic
acid, and hydrogen peroxide
[[Page 46375]]
to reduce the microbial load in water used to wash certain fruits and
vegetables. This action is in response to a petition filed by Ecolab
Inc.
DATES: Effective September 3, 1996; written objections and requests for
a hearing by October 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit written objections to the Dockets Management Branch
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23,
Rockville, MD 20857.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary E. LaVecchia, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-217), Food and Drug Administration,
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204-0001, 202-418-3072.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal
Register of July 13, 1995 (60 FR 36150), FDA announced that a food
additive petition (FAP 5A4460) had been filed by Ecolab Inc., 370 North
Wabasha St., St. Paul, MN 55102. The petition proposed to amend the
food additive regulations in Sec. 173.315 Chemicals used in washing or
to assist in the lye peeling of fruits and vegetables (21 CFR 173.315)
to provide for the safe use of a mixture of peroxyacetic acid, acetic
acid, hydrogen peroxide and 1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1-diphosphonic acid
(HEDP) to control microbial growth in water contacting fruits and
vegetables.
An antimicrobial solution used to wash fruits and vegetables is
potentially subject to regulation as a food additive under section 409
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 348),
or as a pesticide chemical under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136(u)), depending upon the
status of the fruit or vegetable. FDA regulates antimicrobial solutions
as food additives under the act when such solutions are used on
processed food. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates
antimicrobial solutions as pesticide chemicals under FIFRA when the
solutions are used on raw agricultural commodities.
Under section 201(q)(1) of the act (21 U.S.C. 321(q)(1)), as
amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, the term
``pesticide chemical'' means a pesticide as defined in FIFRA. Under
FIFRA's regulatory scheme, an antimicrobial solution used on or in
processed food does not come within the definition of the term
pesticide. FIFRA defines a pesticide as any substance intended for
preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest (7 U.S.C.
136(u)); the definition of pest includes ``fungus'' (7 U.S.C. 136(t)).
However, excluded from the definition of fungus are rust, smut, mildew,
mold, yeast, and bacteria on or in processed food (7 U.S.C. 136(k)).
Therefore, by definition, an antimicrobial solution used on or in
processed food is not a pesticide because it does not prevent, destroy,
repel, or mitigate a ``pest,'' within the meaning of that term (7
U.S.C. 136(t)). Thus, such a solution is not a pesticide chemical under
the act.
FDA received one comment in response to the notice of filing of
this petition. The comment expressed concern that the chemical mixture
appeared to be a biocide and may require FIFRA pesticide registration.
The comment also stated that the preparation would be regulated more
accurately under Sec. 178.1010 Sanitizing solutions (21 CFR 178.1010).
Lastly, the comment stated that one of the components of the mixture
contained phosphoric acid, which needed to be declared as an
ingredient.
As noted above, an antimicrobial formulation used on raw
agricultural commodities is regulated as a pesticide chemical and thus,
may require registration, under FIFRA, as well as a tolerance
established under section 408 of the act (21 U.S.C. 346a). Similarly,
FDA has jurisdiction over antimicrobial solutions used on processed
foods. Thus, consistent with FDA's jurisdiction, FDA's approval of this
formulation is limited to its use in washing fruits and vegetables
other than those that are raw agricultural commodities. This approval
is consistent with the division of responsibility between FDA and EPA
over solutions of this type. FDA has, however, referred the petitioner
to EPA in order to ascertain whether FIFRA pesticide registration and a
tolerance under section 408 of the act are required for any uses not
regulated by FDA. Thus, FDA's decision in this final rule takes into
consideration the jurisdictional question between FDA and EPA raised by
the comment.
FDA disagrees with the comment to the extent that it suggests that
the solution in question should be regulated as a sanitizing solution.
FDA notes that this formulation is presently approved for use as a
sanitizing solution, under Sec. 178.1010(b)(30). However, the
petitioned use for this formulation is to reduce the microbial load in
water used to wash fruits and vegetables, consistent with the technical
effect listed in 21 CFR 170.3(o)(2). This use is different from its use
as a sanitizing solution. Because the petitioned conditions of use
differ from those for a sanitizing solution, approval under
Sec. 173.315 is necessary and appropriate. The point of this comment is
not entirely clear. To the extent that this comment suggests that the
solution is not safe for use as a washing solution for fruits and
vegetables, the agency has determined that the petitioned use is safe.
To the extent that the comment suggests that the solution should be
regulated as a sanitizing solution under Sec. 178.1010, the comment is
meaningless because the solution is already approved for such use
(Sec. 178.1010(b)(30)).
Finally, the agency disagrees with the comment to the extent that
it asserts that one of the components of the mixture contains
phosphoric acid, which should be considered an ingredient. Importantly,
there is no phosphoric acid in the formulation and thus there is no
need to consider it as an ingredient. Commercial HEDP does contain a
low level (approximately 3 percent by weight) of phosphorous acid, not
phosphoric acid (Ref. 1), which is used as a reactant in the
preparation of HEDP. The agency has evaluated the level of phosphorous
acid in HEDP and concludes that essentially no residue of phosphorous
acid would remain on treated produce and that this use of HEDP is safe.
Because this antimicrobial solution contains no phosphoric acid, FDA
finds no merit in the comment stating that phosphoric acid needs to be
disclosed as an ingredient.
FDA has evaluated data in the petition and other relevant material.
As part of its review, FDA evaluated the safety of each of the
components of the antimicrobial solution. Based on this information,
the agency concludes that the proposed use of the additive is safe,
that it will achieve its intended technical effect of reducing the
microbial load in water used to wash fruits and vegetables, and that
therefore, the regulations in Sec. 173.315 should be amended as set
forth below.
In accordance with Sec. 171.1(h) (21 CFR 171.1(h)), the petition
and the documents that FDA considered and relied upon in reaching its
decision to approve the petition are available for inspection at the
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition by appointment with the
information contact person listed above. As provided in Sec. 171.1(h),
the agency will delete from the documents any materials that are not
available for public disclosure before making the documents available
for inspection.
The agency has carefully considered the potential environmental
effects of this action. FDA has concluded that the action will not have
a significant impact on the human environment, and that an
environmental impact statement is not required. The agency's finding of
no significant impact and the evidence
[[Page 46376]]
supporting that finding, contained in an environmental assessment, may
be seen in the Dockets Management Branch (address above) between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may at
any time on or before October 3, 1996, file with the Dockets Management
Branch (address above) written objections thereto. Each objection shall
be separately numbered, and each numbered objection shall specify with
particularity the provisions of the regulation to which objection is
made and the grounds for the objection. Each numbered objection on
which a hearing is requested shall specifically so state. Failure to
request a hearing for any particular objection shall constitute a
waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection. Each numbered
objection for which a hearing is requested shall include a detailed
description and analysis of the specific factual information intended
to be presented in support of the objection in the event that a hearing
is held. Failure to include such a description and analysis for any
particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a
hearing on the objection. Three copies of all documents shall be
submitted and shall be identified with the docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document. Any objections received in
response to the regulation may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Reference
The following reference has been placed on display in the Dockets
Management Branch (address above) and may be seen by interested persons
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
1. Monsanto Material Safety Data Sheet for Monsanto Product Name
DEQUEST 2010 DEFLOCCULANT and SEQUESTRANT.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 173
Food additives.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, 21 CFR part 173 is amended as follows:
PART 173--SECONDARY DIRECT FOOD ADDITIVES PERMITTED IN FOOD FOR
HUMAN CONSUMPTION
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 173 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 402, 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348).
2. Section 173.315 is amended in the table in paragraph (a)(2) by
alphabetically adding a new entry under the headings ``Substances'' and
``Limitations'' to read as follows:
Sec. 173.315 Chemicals used in washing or to assist in the lye peeling
of fruits and vegetables.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substances Limitations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
1-Hydroxyethylidene-1,1-diphosphonic acid. May be used only with peroxyacetic acid. Not to exceed 4.8 ppm
in wash water. Limited to use on fruits and vegetables that
are not raw agricultural commodities.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: August 26, 1996.
Fred A. Shank,
Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 96-22286 Filed 8-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22147 Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Requirements for Physician Incentive Plans in Prepaid Health Care Organizations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46384-46385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22147]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Health Care Financing Administration
42 CFR Part 417
[OMC-010-FC]
RIN 0938-AF74
Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Requirements for Physician
Incentive Plans in Prepaid Health Care Organizations
AGENCY: Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), HHS.
ACTION: Final rule correction; Notice of changes in compliance dates,
with comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In the March 27, 1996, issue of the Federal Register, we
published, at 61 FR 13430, a final rule with comment period that
implements requirements in sections 4204(a) and 4731 of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 that concern physician incentive
plans. In the preamble of that rule, we set forth dates by which
prepaid health plans had to comply with certain of the rule's
provisions. This document clarifies and changes some of those
deadlines, and provides an opportunity for public comments on them. It
does not otherwise change the requirements set forth in the rule.
In addition this document corrects the March 27 rule's inadvertent
reversal of the nomenclature change made by a previous final rule.
DATES: Effective date: September 3, 1996.
Comment dates: Comments on the decision to change the compliance
dates published in the March 27, 1996 preamble will be considered if
received at the appropriate address provided below, no later than 5
p.m. on November 4, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Mail written comments (1 original and 3 copies) to the
following address: Health Care Financing Administration, Department of
Health and Human Services, Attention: OMC-010-CN, P.O. Box 26688,
Baltimore, MD 21207.
If you prefer, you may deliver your written comments (1 original
and 3 copies) to one of the following addresses: Room 309-G, Hubert H.
Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201,
or Room C5-09-26, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
Because of staffing and resource limitations, we cannot accept
comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. In commenting, please refer
to file code OMC-010-CN. Comments received timely will be available for
public inspection as they are received, generally beginning
approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, in Room 309-G of
the Department's offices at 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC, on Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
(phone: (202) 690-7890).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Medicare: Tony Hausner, (410) 786-
1093. Medicaid: Beth Sullivan, (410) 786-4596.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Change in Compliance Dates
The preamble for the March 27, 1996, rule (61 FR 13430) stated that
the regulation was effective on April 26, 1996. The preamble also set
forth a set of ``compliance dates,'' by which times the prepaid health
plans affected by the regulation would be required to have taken
actions to be in compliance with the regulation. These dates varied,
depending on the specific requirements of the regulations. They also
varied depending on whether the prepaid health plan had a contract with
Medicare or Medicaid in place on March 27, 1996, or entered into its
initial contract at a later date.
These compliance dates ranged from a date certain--May 28, 1996--to
a date determined by when the prepaid health plan applied for a
contract, renewed an existing contract, or took other actions specified
in the regulation. For example, most of the requirements that prepaid
health plans disclose specified elements of information to us would
become applicable by May 28, 1996, or by the renewal date of the plan's
contract with us, whichever is later. Since all Medicare risk contracts
with prepaid health plans are put on a January 1 renewal cycle, this
meant that, for practical purposes, these requirements would all become
effective on January 1, 1997.
The explanation of these compliance dates in the March 27, 1996,
preamble, however, was not sufficiently comprehensive and unambiguous
to be fully understood. There has been considerable confusion, doubt,
and misunderstanding about them, particularly with respect to their
applicability to new contracts entered into subsequent to March 27,
1996. It is also now apparent that some of the compliance dates were
clearly impracticable. Most notably, the regulation requires plans,
under certain circumstances, to obtain ``stop-loss'' insurance; the
compliance date set forth for doing so was May 28, 1996. This was not
only unrealistic, but it was also inconsistent with the related
disclosure requirements that would not go into effect until January 1,
1997, and with the wording in the congressional authorizing legislation
stating that the law should become effective with the start of a
contract year. We notified prepaid health plans on May 28 that this
requirement would not be enforced before January 1, 1997.
Because of these difficulties with the compliance dates set forth
in the March 27 publication, we have decided to simplify and clarify
all of the compliance dates. Stated in general terms, the compliance
date for all provisions (other than the two exceptions noted below) is
now the first renewal date falling on or after January 1, 1997, or the
effective date of a new contract or agreement having an effective date
on or after January 1, 1997. To explain how this statement applies to
contracts and agreements having various renewal dates or effective
dates, and how it applies differently to Medicare contracts and to
Medicaid contracts or agreements, we provide the following details:
For all affected health maintenance organizations (HMOs),
competitive medical plans (CMPs), and health insuring organizations
(HIOs) that have contracts or agreements with HCFA or State Medicaid
Agencies in effect on the date of this notice, the March 27, 1996,
regulation becomes applicable (according to the terms set forth in the
regulation) at the time the contract or agreement is next renewed on or
after January 1, 1997. For all plans with Medicare risk contracts, this
means the compliance date is January 1, 1997, since that is uniformly
the renewal date for all risk contracts. That is also the renewal date
for the majority of Medicare cost contracts, although there are a few
for which the renewal date will occur later in 1997, at which time this
regulation becomes applicable to them. Medicaid agreements have varying
dates for renewal and some of them are written as multi-year
agreements. For Medicaid agreements, compliance is required for all
plans at a date during calendar year 1997. That date is the date on
which the agreement is renewed or, in the case of multi-year
agreements, the anniversary date of the effective date of the
agreement.
For all affected HMOs and CMPs that enter into Medicare
contracts between the date of this notice and the end of calendar year
1996, the
[[Page 46385]]
compliance date is January 1, 1997. For HMOs and HIOs entering into
Medicaid contracts or agreements during this period, the regulation
becomes applicable on the first anniversary date in 1997 of the
effective date of their contract or agreement.
For all affected HMOs, CMPs, and HIOs that enter into
contracts or agreements on or after January 1, 1997, whether for
Medicare or Medicaid, the regulation becomes applicable on the
effective date of the contract or agreement.
There are two exceptions to the general rule set forth above:
The requirement in Sec. 417.479(g)(1) that surveys be
conducted of plan enrollees and disenrollees under specified
circumstances must be met within 1 year of the compliance date for the
plan in question, as set forth above. This allows affected HMOs, CMPs,
and HIOs discretion on the timing of the survey and permits them to
combine it with a survey they may already be conducting and to survey
all the enrollees in their sample at the same time.
The requirement in Sec. 417.479(h)(1)(vi) that plans
disclose capitation payments for the most recent year must be met, by
all plans with contracts or agreements in effect on December 31, 1996,
by April 1, 1997, disclosing information for calendar year 1996. Plans
with new agreements on or after January 1, 1997, must comply by April 1
of the first year after the year of the effective date, disclosing data
for the calendar year of the effective date.
II. Other Provisions of the March 27 Regulation
This document does not address any of the requirements set forth in
the March 27, 1996, final rule other than the compliance dates. All of
the obligations of prepaid plans set forth in the regulation remain
intact. The March 27, 1996, rule provided a 60-day opportunity for
comment. We have received a variety of comments in response to it. We
will be publishing a document in the Federal Register later, evaluating
and responding to these comments. In the meantime, prepaid plans
affected by this regulation should be making arrangements to comply
with the requirements as set forth on March 27, in accordance with the
compliance dates established in this document.
III. Technical Corrections in Nomenclature
The March 27 rule inadvertently reversed a nomenclature change that
a previous final rule identified as OCC-015 (published on July 15,
1993, at 58 FR 134) had made throughout part 417. This document
corrects the oversight by restoring the precise terms ``HMO'' and
``CMP'' that are currently used throughout part 417 instead of the
generic ``organization''.
IV. Waiver of Prior Notice and Comment
Changes in final regulations are ordinarily published in proposed
form to provide for a period of public comment prior to the change
taking effect. However, we may waive this procedure if we find good
cause that prior notice and comment are impractical, unnecessary, or
contrary to public interest. We find good cause to implement the
changes made in this notice without prior notice and comment because
the delay in prior notice and comment would be impractical and contrary
to the public interest. As set forth above, we do not believe that it
would be reasonable to expect HMOs, CMPs, and HIOs to be in compliance
with the requirements that the final rule indicated these entities were
required to comply with by May 28, 1996. We have already communicated
with affected entities the fact that we were planning to publish a
notice changing these compliance dates and would not take enforcement
actions under the regulations pending this change. We believe that it
is not in the public interest for regulatory compliance obligations to
be imposed under a timeframe that both the entities affected and we
believe to be unreasonable and impractical. Given the fact that some of
these compliance obligations have already taken effect, we believe that
it would be impractical to leave these obligations in place pending a
public notice and comment process.
Corrections
Sec. 417.479 [Corrected]
1. On page 13446, column 3, in Sec. 417.479(a) introductory text,
``organization'' is revised to read ``HMO or CMP''.
2. On page 13447, column 1, in paragraph (b), ``eligible
organizations'' is revised to read ``HMOs and CMPs''; in the
definitions in paragraph (c) of ``bonus'', ``payments'', and
``physician incentive plan'', ``organization'', wherever it appears, is
revised to read ``HMO or CMP'', and in the definition of ``payments'',
``this subpart'' is revised to read ``this section''.
3. On page 13447, column 2, in the definition of ``withhold'',
``organization'' is revised to read ``HMO or CMP'', and in paragraph
(d), ``organization's'' is revised to read ``HMO's or CMP's''.
4. On page 13447, column 3, in paragraph (g) introductory text,
``organizations'' is revised to read ``HMOs and CMPs'', and in
paragraph (g)(1)(i), ``organization'' is revised to read ``HMO or
CMP'', and ``organization's'' is revised to read ``HMO's or CMP's''.
5. On page 13448, column 1, in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) introductory
text and paragraph (g)(2)(iii), ``organization'', wherever it appears,
is revised to read ``HMO or CMP'', and in paragraphs (h)(1)
introductory text and (h)(1)(v)(B), ``organization'' is revised to read
``HMO or CMP''.
6. On page 13448, column 2, in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) introductory
text, (h)(2)(ii) introductory text, (h)(3) introductory text, and
paragraph (i)(1) introductory text, ``organization'' is revised to read
``HMO or CMP''.
7. On page 13448, column 3, in paragraph (i)(2) introductory text,
and the heading of paragraph (j), ``organization'' is revised to read
``HMO or CMP'', and in the text of paragraph (j), ``eligible
organization'' is revised to read ``HMO or CMP''.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.733--
Medicare--Hospital Insurance Program; No. 93.774--Medicare
Supplementary Medical Insurance Program; No. 93.778--Medical
Assistance Program)
Dated: August 4, 1996.
Bruce C. Vladeck,
Administrator, Health Care Financing Administration.
Dated: August 14, 1996.
Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-22147 Filed 8-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.