issue-1996-09-20•Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-20
Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-20
issue-1996-09-20Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-20Regulation
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. 96-24273 Migratory Bird Hunting; Seasons and Bag Limits for the 1996-97 Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 184 (Friday, September 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49638-49643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24273]
[[Page 49637]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Fish and Wildlife Service
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 20
Migratory Bird Hunting; Seasons and Bag Limits for the 1996-97 Youth
Waterfowl Hunting Day; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 184 / Friday, September 20, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 49638]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
RIN 1018-AD69
Migratory Bird Hunting; Seasons and Bag Limits for the 1996-97
Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule prescribes the hunting seasons, hours, areas, and
daily bag and possession limits for the youth waterfowl hunting day for
the 1996-97 duck-hunting season. Taking of migratory birds is
prohibited unless specifically provided for by annual regulations. This
rule permits the taking of designated species during the 1996-97
season. These selections will be published in the Federal Register as
amendments to Sec. 20.105 of title 50 CFR part 20.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 21, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments received will be available for public inspection
during normal business hours in room 634, Arlington Square Building,
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul R. Schmidt, Chief, Office of
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of the Interior, ms 634--ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC
20240, (703) 358-1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations Schedule for 1996
On March 22, 1996, the Service published in the Federal Register
(61 FR 11992) a proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The proposal dealt
with the establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for
migratory game birds under Secs. 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and
20.110 of subpart K. On June 13, 1996, the Service published in the
Federal Register (61 FR 30114) a second document providing supplemental
proposals for early- and late-season migratory bird hunting regulations
frameworks, detailing information on the 1996-97 regulatory schedule,
and announcing the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee and
Flyway Council meetings. On June 14, 1996, the Service published in the
Federal Register (61 FR 30490) a third document describing the
Service's proposed regulatory alternatives for the 1996-97 duck hunting
season and the Service's consideration of a proposed youth waterfowl
hunting day. On August 15, 1996, the Service published in the Federal
Register (61 FR 425000) a proposal for the establishment of a special
youth waterfowl hunting day. On September 18, 1996, the Service
published the final framework for establishing a youth waterfowl
hunting day for the 1996-97 migratory bird hunting season from which
wildlife conservation agency officials from the States selected hunting
dates, hours, areas, and limits. The final rule described here deals
specifically with amending subpart K of 50 CFR part 20. It sets hunting
seasons, hours, areas, and limits for the youth waterfowl hunting day.
NEPA Consideration
NEPA considerations are covered by the programmatic document,
``Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual
Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-
14),'' filed with EPA on June 9, 1988. The Service published a Notice
of Availability in the June 16, 1988, Federal Register (53 FR 22582).
The Service published its Record of Decision on August 18, 1988 (53 FR
31341). Copies of these documents are available from the Service at the
address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.
Endangered Species Act Consideration
As in the past, the Service designs hunting regulations to remove
or alleviate chances of conflict between migratory game bird hunting
seasons and the protection and conservation of endangered and
threatened species. Consultations have been conducted to ensure that
actions resulting from these regulations will not likely jeopardize the
continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in
the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat.
Findings from these consultations are included in a biological opinion
and may have caused modification of some regulatory measures previously
proposed. The final frameworks reflect any modifications. The Service's
biological opinions resulting from its Section 7 consultation are
public documents available for public inspection in the Service's
Division of Endangered Species and MBMO, at the address indicated under
the caption ADDRESSES.
Regulatory Flexibility Act; Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and the
Paperwork Reduction Act
In the March 22, 1996, Federal Register, the Service reported
measures it took to comply with requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and E.O. 12866. One measure was to prepare a Small
Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) documenting the significant
beneficial economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
The Analysis estimated that migratory bird hunters would spend between
$254 and $592 million at small businesses in 1996. Copies of the
Analysis are available upon request from the Office of Migratory Bird
Management. This rule was not subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866.
The Service examined these proposed regulations under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 and found no information collection requirements.
Regulations Promulgation
The rulemaking process for migratory game bird hunting must, by its
nature, operate under severe time constraints. However, the Service
intends that the public be given the greatest possible opportunity to
comment on the regulations. Thus, when the proposed rulemaking was
published, the Service established what it believed were the longest
periods possible for public comment. In doing this, the Service
recognized that when the comment period closed time would be of the
essence. That is, if there were a delay in the effective date of these
regulations after this final rulemaking, the States and Territories
would have insufficient time to establish and publicize the necessary
regulations and procedures to implement their decisions. The Service
therefore finds that ``good cause'' exists, within the terms of 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and these
regulations will, therefore, take effect immediately upon publication.
Accordingly, with each conservation agency having had an
opportunity to participate in selecting the hunting seasons desired for
its State or Territory on those species of migratory birds for which
open seasons are now to be prescribed, and consideration having been
given to all other relevant matters presented, certain sections of
title 50, chapter I, subchapter B, part 20, subpart K, are hereby
amended as set forth below.
Unfunded Mandates
The Service has determined and certifies in compliance with the
requirements of 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 government or private entities.
[[Page 49639]]
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined
that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in
Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Dated: September 17, 1996
George T. Frampton, Jr
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
PART 20--[AMENDED]
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 50, chapter I,
subchapter B, Part 20, subpart K is amended as follows.
1. The authority citation for Part 20 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 703-712; and 16 U.S.C. 742 a--j.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-F
[[Page 49640]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.056
[[Page 49641]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.057
[[Page 49642]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.058
[[Page 49643]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.059
[FR Doc. 96-24273 Filed 9-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24196 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Reallocation of Pacific Cod
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 184 (Friday, September 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49418-49419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24196]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 960129019-6019-01; I.D. 081696B]
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Reallocation
of Pacific Cod
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Reallocation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is reallocating the projected unused amount of Pacific
cod from vessels using trawl gear to vessels using hook-and-line or pot
gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) and
is reallocating Pacific cod from vessels using jig gear to vessels
using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI. These actions are
necessary to allow the 1996 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific cod
to be harvested. It is intended to promote the goals and objectives of
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 17, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew N. Smoker, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management
Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
under authority of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management
Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is governed by regulations implementing
the FMP at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
Apportionment from Trawl gear to Hook-and-line or Pot Gear
On August 27, 1996, NMFS proposed to apportion the projected unused
amount, 15,000 metric tons (mt) of Pacific cod from vessels using trawl
gear to vessels using hook-and-line or pot gear and invited public
comments (61 FR 44033, August 27, 1996). Twenty letters of comment were
received by NMFS regarding the proposed apportionment, all of which
supported the action.
The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that vessels
using trawl gear will not be able to harvest 15,000 mt of Pacific cod
allocated to those vessels under Sec. 679.20(a)(7)(i)(A).
Therefore, in accordance with Sec. 679.20(a)(7)(ii), NMFS
apportions the projected unused amount, 15,000 mt of Pacific cod from
vessels using trawl gear to vessels using hook-and-line or pot gear.
Apportionment from Jig Gear to Vessels using Hook-and-line or Pot
Gear
In accordance with Sec. 679.20(c)(5), the Pacific cod total
allowable catch for the BSAI was established by the Final 1996 Harvest
Specifications of Groundfish (61 FR 4311, February 5, 1996), and
increased by an apportionment from the
[[Page 49419]]
reserve (61 FR 16085, April 11, 1996) to 270,000 metric tons (mt). Of
this amount, 5,400 mt was allocated to vessels using jig gear.
The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that vessels
using jig gear will not harvest 4,400 mt of Pacific cod by the end of
the year. Therefore, in accordance with Sec. 679.20(a)(7)(ii) NMFS is
reallocating the unused amount of 4,400 mt of Pacific cod allocated to
vessels using jig gear to vessels using hook-and-line or pot gear.
Classification
This action is taken under 50 CFR 679.20 and is exempt from OMB
review under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: September 16, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-24196 Filed 9-17-96; 4:29 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24181 Extension of Great Lakes Load Line Certificate
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 184 (Friday, September 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24181]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
46 CFR Part 42
[CGD 96-006]
RIN 2115-AF29
Extension of Great Lakes Load Line Certificate
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On July 9, 1996, the Coast Guard published a direct final rule
(61 FR 35963; CGD 96-006). This direct final rule notified the public
of the Coast Guard's intent to revise the limit on the number of days
that a Great Lakes Load Line Certificate extension may be granted from
90 days to 365 days. The Coast Guard has not received an adverse
comment, or notice of intent to submit an adverse comment, objecting to
this rule as written. Therefore, this rule will go into effect as
scheduled.
DATES: The effective date of the direct rule is confirmed as October 7,
1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Mark R. DeVries, G-MOC, (202)
267-1464.
Dated: September 17, 1996.
J.C. Card,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Marine Safety and Environmental
Protection.
[FR Doc. 96-24181 Filed 9-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24178 Amendment of Class E Airspace; Torrington, Wyoming
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 184 (Friday, September 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24178]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ANM-017]
Amendment of Class E Airspace; Torrington, Wyoming
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action amends Torrington, Wyoming, Class E airspace by
providing additional controlled airspace to accommodate a
Nondirectional Beacon (NDB) Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP) to the Torrington Municipal Airport.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, January 30, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James C. Frala, Operations Branch, ANM-532.4, Federal Aviation
Administration, Docket No. 96-ANM-017, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW, Renton,
Washington 98055-4056; telephone number: (206) 227-2535.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On July 10, 1996, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to amend Class E airspace at
Torrington, Wyoming, by providing additional controlled airspace to
accommodate a NDB SIAP to the Torrington Municipal Airport (61 FR
36316).
Interested parties were invited to participate in the rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments
were received.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9D dated September 4, 1996, and effective
September 16, 1996, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of Federal Aviation Regulations amends
Class E airspace at Torrington, Wyoming. The FAA has determined that
this regulation only involves an established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is
not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 71 as
follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9D, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated September 4, 1996, and effective September 16,
1996, is amended as follows:
Pargraph 6005 Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ANM WY E5 Torrington, WY [Revised]
Torrington Municipal Airport, WY
(Lat. 42 deg.03'52''N, long. 104 deg.09'10''W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.7-mile radius of the Torrington Municipal Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Seattle, Washington, on September 6, 1996.
Glenn A. Adams III,
Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division, Northwest Mountain Region.
[FR Doc. 96-24178 Filed 9-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24177 Amendment of Class E Airspace; Blanding, Utah
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 184 (Friday, September 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49412-49413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24177]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ANM-25]
Amendment of Class E Airspace; Blanding, Utah
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action amends the Blanding, Utah, Class E airspace to
accommodate a Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrumental
Approach Procedure (SIAP) to the Blanding Municipal Airport. A
correction is being made herein by adding language to the legal
description that will exclude from this action that airspace within
Federal airways and within the Farmington, NM, Class E airspace area.
This language was inadvertently omitted from the proposed action.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, January 30, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James C. Frala, Operations Branch,
ANM-532.4, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No. 95-ANM-25, 1601
Lind Avenue S.W., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone number:
(206) 227-2535.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On July 29, 1996, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to amend Class E airspace at
Blanding, Utah, to accommodate a new GPS SIAP to the Blanding Municipal
Airport (61 FR 39370). In the proposed legal description, a statement
which excludes airspace within Federal airways and the Farmington, NM,
Class E airspace area from this action was inadvertently omitted. That
error is corrected herein. Interested parties were invited to
participate in the rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments
on the proposal. No comments were received.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph
6005 on FAA Order 7400.9D dated September 4, 1996, and effective
September 16, 1996, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of Federal Aviation Regulations
establishes Class E airspace at Blanding, Utah. The FAA has determined
that this regulation only involves an established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is
not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 71 as
follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9D, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated September 4, 1996, and effective September 16,
1996, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ANM UT E5 Blanding, UT [Revised]
Blanding Municipal Airport, UT
(Lat. 37 deg.34'59'' N, long. 109 deg.29'00'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the Blanding Municipal Airport, and
within 5.1 miles either side of the 182 deg. bearing from the
airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 15 miles south of the
airport; that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the
surface bounded by a line beginning at lat. 37 deg.42'00'' N, long
109 deg.42'00'' W; to lat. 37 deg.42'00'' N, long. 109 deg.20'30''
W; to lat. 37 deg.52'18'' N, long. 108 deg.58'58'' W; to lat.
37 deg.45'17'' N, long. 108 deg.51'56'' W; to lat. 37 deg.25'09'' N,
long.
[[Page 49413]]
109 deg.18'00'' W; to lat. 37 deg.22'45'' N, long. 109 deg.18'00''
W; to lat. 37 deg.04'00'' N, long. 108 deg.36'11'' W; to lat.
37 deg.02'00'' N, long. 108 deg.55'00'' W; to lat. 37 deg.12'26'' N,
long. 109 deg.18'00'' W; to lat. 37 deg.04'00'' N, long.
109 deg.18'00'' W; to lat. 37 deg.04'00'' N, long. 109 deg.27'20''
W; to lat. 36 deg.30'00'' N, long. 109 deg.34'45'' W; to lat.
36 deg.30'00'' N, long. 109 deg.46'05'' W; to lat. 37 deg.04'00'' N,
long. 109 deg.38'45'' W; to lat. 37 deg.04'00'' N, long.
109 deg.42'00'' W, thence to point of beginning; excluding Federal
airways and the Farmington, NM, Class E airspace area.
* * * * *
Issued in Seattle, Washington, on September 9, 1996.
Helen Fabian Parke,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Northwest Mountain Region.
[FR Doc. 96-24177 Filed 9-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24176 Establishment of Class E Airspace; Canon City, Colorado
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 184 (Friday, September 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49411-49412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24176]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ANM-018]
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Canon City, Colorado
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action establishes the Canon City, Colorado, Class E
airspace to accommodate a Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard
Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) to the Fremont County Airport.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, January 30, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James C. Frala, Operations Branch,
ANM-532.4, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No. 96-ANM-018, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW, Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone number: (206)
227-2535.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On July 11, 1996, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E airspace at
Canon City, Colorado, to accommodate a new GPS SIAP to the Fremont
County Airport (61 FR 36520). Interested parties were invited to
participate in the rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments
on the proposal. No comments were received.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9D dated September 4, 1996, and effective
September 16, 1996, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of Federal Aviation Regulations
establishes Class E airspace at Canon City, Colorado. The FAA has
determined that this regulation only involves an established body of
technical regulations for which frequent
[[Page 49412]]
and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally
current. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 71 as
follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9D, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated September 4, 1996, and effective September 16,
1996, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ANM CO E5 Canon City, CO [New]
Fremont County Airport, Canon City, CO
(Lat. 38 deg.25'47''N, long. 105 deg.06'31''W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the Fremont County Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Seattle, Washington, on September 6, 1996.
Glenn A. Adams III,
Assistant Manager, Air Force Division, Northwest Mountain Region.
[FR Doc. 96-24176 Filed 9-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24068 Fair Market Rents for the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments ProgramFiscal Year 1997
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 184 (Friday, September 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49576-49635]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24068]
[[Page 49575]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Housing and Urban Development
_______________________________________________________________________
Office of the Secretary
_______________________________________________________________________
24 CFR Part 888
Fair Market Rents for the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments
Program--Fiscal Year 1997; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 184 / Friday, September 20, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 49576]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Office of the Secretary
24 CFR Part 888
[Docket No. FR-4134-N-01]
Fair Market Rents for the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments
Program--Fiscal Year 1997
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD.
ACTION: Notice of final Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 Fair Market Rents (FMRs).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 8(c)(1) of the United States Housing Act of 1937
requires the Secretary to publish FMRs annually to be effective on
October 1 of each year. FMRs are used for the Section 8 Rental
Certificate Program (including space rentals by owners of manufactured
homes under that program); the Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room
Occupancy program; housing assisted under the Loan Management and
Property Disposition programs; payment standards for the Rental Voucher
program; and any other programs whose regulations specify their use.
Today's notice provides final FY 1997 FMRs for all areas. It
includes increased FMRs for 21 areas as a result of HUD-contracted
Random Digit Dialing (RDD) surveys conducted through August, 1996. It
also includes increased FMRs in 8 areas that submitted public comments,
plus 4 areas that submitted manufactured home space rent comments.
Today's notice also makes effective FMR reductions for 9 areas that
were proposed for reduction in the May 8, 1996 notice (61 FR 20982),
based on the results of recent RDD and American Housing Surveys (AHSs).
EFFECTIVE DATE: The FMRs published in this notice are effective on
October 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerald Benoit, Operations Division,
Office of Rental Assistance, telephone (202) 708-0477. For technical
information on the development of schedules for specific areas or the
method used for the rent calculations, contact Alan Fox, Economic and
Market Analysis Division, Office of Economic Affairs, telephone (202)
708-0590, Extension 328. Hearing- or speech-impaired persons may
contact the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 (TTY).
(Other than the ``800'' TTY number, telephone numbers are not toll
free.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 8 of the United States Housing Act
of 1937 (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1437f) authorizes housing assistance to
aid lower income families in renting decent, safe, and sanitary
housing. Assistance payments are limited by FMRs established by HUD for
different areas. In general, the FMR for an area is the amount that
would be needed to pay the gross rent (shelter rent plus utilities) of
privately owned, decent, safe, and sanitary rental housing of a modest
(non-luxury) nature with suitable amenities.
Method Used to Develop FMRs
FMR Standard: FMRs are gross rent estimates; they include shelter
rent and the cost of utilities, except telephone. HUD sets FMRs to
assure that a sufficient supply of rental housing is available to
program participants. To accomplish this objective, FMRs must be both
high enough to permit a selection of units and neighborhoods and low
enough to serve as many families as possible. The level at which FMRs
are set is expressed as a percentile point within the rent distribution
of standard quality rental housing units. The current definition used
is the 40th percentile rent, the dollar amount below which 40 percent
of standard quality rental housing units rent. The 40th percentile rent
is drawn from the distribution of rents of units which are occupied by
recent movers (renter households who moved into their unit within the
past 15 months). Newly built units less than two years old are
excluded, and adjustments have been made to correct for the below
market rents of public housing units included in the data base.
Data Sources: HUD used the most accurate and current data available
to develop the FMR estimates. The sources of survey data used for the
base-year estimates are:
(1) The 1990 Census, which provides statistically reliable rent
data for all FMR areas;
(2) The Bureau of the Census' American Housing Surveys (AHSs),
which are used to develop between-Census revisions for the largest
metropolitan areas and which have accuracy comparable to the decennial
Census; and
(3) The Random Digit Dialing (RDD) telephone surveys of individual
FMR areas, which are based on a sampling procedure that uses computers
to select statistically random samples of rental housing.
The base-year FMRs are updated using trending factors based on
Consumer Price Index (CPI) data for rents and utilities, or HUD
regional rent change factors developed from RDD surveys. Annual average
CPI data are available individually for 102 metropolitan FMR areas. RDD
Regional rent change factors are developed annually for the
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan parts of each of the 10 HUD regions.
The RDD factors are used to update the base year estimates for all FMR
areas that do not have their own local CPI survey.
RDD surveys have a high degree of statistical accuracy; there is a
95 percent likelihood that the recent mover rent estimates developed
using this approach are within 3 to 4 percent of the actual rent value.
Virtually all of the RDD survey FMR estimates will be within 5 percent
of the actual value.
State Minimum FMRs: Starting with the FY 1996 FMRs, HUD implemented
a new minimum FMR policy in response to concerns that FMRs in rural
areas were too low to operate the program successfully. As a result,
FMRs are established at the higher of the local FMR or the Statewide
average of nonmetropolitan counties, subject to a ceiling rent cap. The
State minimum also affects a small number of metropolitan areas whose
rents would otherwise fall below the State minimum.
Public Comments
In response to the May 8, 1996 proposed FMRs, HUD received 53
public comments covering 37 FMR areas. Rental housing survey
information was provided for 20 of the FMR areas covered by comments,
including the 4 requests for manufactured home space rent changes only.
HUD carefully evaluated all of the survey data submitted and, based on
that review, is revising the FMRs for 12 of the 20 areas. The
information submitted for the other 17 FMR areas that did not submit
rental housing surveys was not considered sufficient to provide a basis
for revising the FMRs.
The 8 FMR areas with approved FMR revisions are as follows:
Dover, DE MSA
Sussex County, DE
Reno, NV MSA
Preble County, OH
Box Elder County, UT
Cache County, UT
Iron County, UT
Fond du Lac County, WI
The 4 manufactured home space survey areas with approved revisions
are:
Mendocino County, CA
Rochester, NY MSA
Utica-Rome, NY MSA
Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA MSA
PHAs and other interested parties should be aware that FMR comments
[[Page 49577]]
may be sent to HUD at any time during the year, not just during the 60-
day comment period. Comments received too late for adjusting the
current year's Final FMRs will be held for use in the following year,
in which case HUD will trend the survey results to the date of the FMR
estimate using its standard trending factor. If the PHA is concerned
that rents are changing rapidly, surveys should be timed to be received
as close as possible to HUD's deadline for processing, which is usually
around July 30.
AHS and RDD Surveys
This notice makes effective the FMRs for 9 areas proposed with
reductions based on recent RDD or AHS surveys. One of these areas, the
Portland, ME MSA, submitted information that caused HUD to reduce the
FMRs less than had been proposed. For the other areas, the lower
proposed FMRs are, by this notice, being made final. FMR areas with
reductions based on AHS surveys are Orange County, CA PMSA, and
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA PMSA. The areas with reductions based on
RDD surveys include: Danbury, CT PMSA, Portland, ME MSA (see note,
above), Portsmouth-Rochester, NH-ME PMSA, and Aguadilla, PR MSA,
Arecibo, PR PMSA, Ponce, PR MSA, and Nonmetropolitan Puerto Rico.
In addition, by this notice HUD is increasing FMRs for the
following 21 areas, based on RDDs that were completed after the date of
the proposed FMR notice; they are:
Abilene, TX MSA
Bloomington-Normal, IL MSA
Boston, MA-NH PMSA
Charlottesville, VA MSA
Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR MSA
Gary, IN PMSA
Greenville, NC MSA
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH MSA
Iowa City, IA MSA
Kokomo, IN MSA
Lafayette, IN MSA
Lansing-East Lansing, MI MSA
Nashville, TN MSA
Richmond-Petersburg, VA MSA
Sioux City, IA-NE MSA
Springfield, MA MSA
Hall County, NE
Grant County, NM
Luna County, NM
Knox County, OH
Pike County, OH
FMR Area Definition Change
The May 8, 1996 publication invited comments on HUD's proposal to
include St. Landry and St. Martin Parishes with the Lafayette, LA FMR
area, in accordance with OMB's practice. No comments were received on
this proposed change, and therefore the proposal is being put into
effect.
Manufactured Home Space Surveys
HUD also received public comments and survey data from 4 FMR areas
concerning the manufactured home space FMRs. As a result of a review of
the data, increased FMRs have been approved for Portland-Vancouver, OR-
WA MSA, Rochester, NY MSA, Utica-Rome, NY MSA, and Mendocino County,
CA.
Manufactured home space FMRs are 30 percent of the applicable
Section 8 Rental Certificate Program two-bedroom FMR. HUD accepts
public comments requesting modifications of manufactured home space
FMRs. In order to be accepted as a basis for revising the FMRs, such
comments must contain statistically valid survey data that show the
40th percentile space rent (excluding the cost of utilities) for the
entire FMR area. However, the sampling requirements for manufactured
home space rent surveys are easier to meet than for regular FMR
comments, and interested parties should contact HUD for suggestions.
This program uses the same FMR area definitions as the Section 8 Rental
Certificate Program. Manufactured home space FMR revisions are
published as final FMRs in Schedule D. Once approved, the revised
manufactured home space FMRs establish new base year estimates that are
updated annually using the same data used to update the Rental
Certificate program FMRs.
HUD Rental Housing Survey Guides
HUD recommends the use of professionally-conducted RDD telephone
surveys to test the accuracy of FMRs for areas where there is a
sufficient number of Section 8 units to justify the survey cost of
$10,000-$12,000. Areas with 500 or more program units usually meet this
criterion, and areas with fewer units may meet it if the actual two-
bedroom FMR rent standard is significantly different than that proposed
by HUD. In addition, HUD has developed a version of the RDD survey
methodology for smaller, nonmetropolitan PHAs. This methodology is
designed to be simple enough to be done by the PHA itself, rather than
by professional survey organizations, at a cost of about $5,000.
PHAs in nonmetropolitan areas may, in certain circumstances, do
surveys of groups of counties. All grouped county surveys must be
approved in advance by HUD. PHAs are cautioned that the resulting FMRs
will not be identical for the counties surveyed; each individual FMR
area will have a separate FMR based on its relationship to the combined
rent of the group of FMR areas.
PHAs that plan to use the RDD survey technique may obtain a copy of
the appropriate survey guide by calling HUD USER on 1-800-245-2691.
Larger PHAs should request ``Random Digit Dialing Surveys; A Guide to
Assist Larger Public Housing Agencies in Preparing Fair Market Rent
Comments.'' Smaller PHAs should obtain ``Rental Housing Surveys; A
Guide to Assist Smaller Public Housing Agencies in Preparing Fair
Market Rent Comments.''
HUD prefers, but does not mandate, the use of RDD telephone
surveys, or the more traditional method described in the small PHA
survey guide. Other survey methodologies are acceptable as long as they
provide statistically reliable, unbiased estimates of the 40th
percentile gross rent. Survey samples should preferably be randomly
drawn from a complete list of rental units for the FMR area. If this is
not feasible, the selected sample must be drawn so as to be
statistically representative of the entire rental housing stock of the
FMR area. In particular, surveys must include units of all rent levels
and be representative by structure type (including single-family,
duplex and other small rental properties), age of housing unit, and
geographic location. The decennial Census should be used as a starting
point and means of verification for determining whether the sample is
representative of the FMR area's rental housing stock. All survey
results must be fully documented.
The cost of an RDD survey may vary, depending on the
characteristics of the telephone system used in the FMR area. RDDs (and
simplified telephone surveys) of some non-metropolitan areas have been
unusually expensive because of telephone system characteristics. A PHA
or PHA contractor that cannot obtain the recommended number of sample
responses after reasonable efforts should consult with HUD before
abandoning its survey; in such situations HUD is prepared to relax
normal sample size requirements.
FMRs for Federal Disaster Areas
Under the authority granted in 24 CFR part 899, the Secretary of
HUD finds good cause to waive the regulatory requirements that govern
requests for geographic area FMR exceptions for areas that are declared
disaster areas by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) during
FY 1997. HUD field offices are authorized to approve exceptions up to
10 percent above the applicable FMRs for: (1) Single-county
[[Page 49578]]
FMR areas and for individual county parts of multi-county FMR areas
that qualify as disaster areas under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; if (2) the PHA certifies that
damage to the rental housing stock as a result of the disaster is so
substantial that it has increased the prevailing rent levels in the
affected area. Such exceptions must be requested in writing by the
responsible PHAs. Once approved by HUD, they will remain in effect
until superseded by the publication of the final FY 1999 FMRs.
Puerto Rico FMRs
The May 8, 1996 notice proposed 4 areas in Puerto Rico for
reductions, based on RDD surveys begun in 1995 and completed in 1996.
HUD has received several written comments on those proposed reductions,
but no survey data with which to adjust them. Having received no
comments with valid survey data, FMRs for the following areas are being
made final: the Aguadilla, Arecibo, and Ponce MSAs, and the
nonmetropolitan parts of Puerto Rico.
Technical Correction: Santa Rosa, CA
In the May 8, 1996 notice of proposed FMRs, the full schedule for
the Santa Rosa, CA PMSA was wrong, although the 2 bedroom figure was
correct. The corrected final FMRs for FY 1997 are listed in Schedule B.
Other Matters
Environmental Impact
A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment
as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-
4374) is unnecessary, since the Section 8 Rental Certificate Program is
categorically excluded from the Department's National Environmental
Policy Act procedures under 24 CFR 50.20(d).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The undersigned, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 605(b)), hereby certifies that this notice does not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
because FMRs do not change the rent from that which would be charged if
the unit were not in the Section 8 Program.
Impact on the Family
The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under Executive
Order No. 12606, The Family, has determined that this notice will not
have a significant impact on family formation, maintenance, or well-
being. The notice amends Fair Market Rent schedules for various Section
8 assisted housing programs, and does not affect the amount of rent a
family receiving rental assistance pays, which is based on a percentage
of the family's income.
Federalism Impact
The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under section 6(a)
of Executive Order No. 12611, Federalism, has determined that this
notice will not involve the preemption of State law by Federal statute
or regulation and does not have Federalism implications. The Fair
Market Rent schedules do not have any substantial direct impact on
States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibility among the
various levels of government.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program number is
14.156, Lower-Income Housing Assistance Program (Section 8).
Dated: September 13, 1996.
Henry G. Cisneros,
Secretary.
Accordingly, the Fair Market Rent Schedules, which will not be
codified in 24 CFR Part 888, are amended as follows:
Fair Market Rents for the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments
Program
Schedules B and D--General Explanatory Notes
1. Geographic Coverage
a. The FMRs shown in Schedule B incorporate the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) most current definitions of metropolitan
areas, with the exceptions discussed in paragraph (b). HUD uses the OMB
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and Primary Metropolitan
Statistical Area (PMSA) definitions for FMR areas because they closely
correspond to housing market area definitions. FMRs are housing market-
wide rent estimates that are intended to provide housing opportunities
throughout the geographic area in which rental housing units are in
direct competition.
b. The exceptions are counties deleted from seven large
metropolitan areas whose revised OMB definitions were determined by HUD
to be larger than the housing market areas. The FMRs for the following
counties (shown by the metropolitan area) are calculated separately and
are shown in Schedule B within their respective States under the
``Metropolitan FMR Areas'' listing:
Metropolitan Area and Counties Deleted
Atlanta, GA--Carroll, Pickens, and Walton Counties.
Chicago, IL--DeKalb, Grundy and Kendall Counties.
Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN--Brown County, Ohio; Gallatin, Grant and
Pendleton Counties in Kentucky; and Ohio County, Indiana.
Dallas, TX--Henderson County.
Flagstaff, AZ-UT--Kane County, UT.
New Orleans, LA--St. James Parish.
Washington, DC-MD--VA-WV--Berkeley and Jefferson Counties in West
Virginia; and Clarke, Culpeper, King George and Warren Counties in
Virginia.
c. FMRs also are established for nonmetropolitan counties and for
county equivalents in the United States, for nonmetropolitan parts of
counties in the New England States and for FMR areas in Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands and the Pacific Islands.
d. FMRs for the areas in Virginia shown in the table below were
established by combining the census data for the nonmetropolitan
counties with the data for the independent cities that are located
within the county borders. Because of space limitations, the FMR
listing in Schedule B includes only the name of the nonmetropolitan
county. The full definitions of these areas, including the independent
cities, are as follows:
Virginia Nonmetropolitan County FMR Area and Virginia Independent Cities
Included With County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Cities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny................................. Clifton Forge and Covington.
Augusta................................... Staunton and Waynesboro.
Carroll................................... Galax.
Frederick................................. Winchester.
Greensville............................... Emporia.
Henry..................................... Martinsville.
Montgomery................................ Radford.
Rockbridge................................ Buena Vista and Lexington.
Rockingham................................ Harrisonburg.
Southhampton.............................. Franklin.
Wise...................................... Norton.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. FMRs for Section 8 manufactured home spaces are established at
30 percent of the two-bedroom Section 8 Rental Certificate program
FMRs, with the exception of the areas listed in Schedule D whose FMRs
have been revised on the basis of public comments. Once approved, the
revised manufactured home space FMRs establish new base-year estimates
that will be updated annually using the same data used to estimate the
Rental Certificate program FMRs. The FMR area definitions used for
manufactured
[[Page 49579]]
home spaces are the same as for the Section 8 Certificate program.
2. Arrangement of FMR Areas and Identification of Constituent Parts
a. The FMR areas in Schedule B are listed alphabetically by
metropolitan FMR area and by nonmetropolitan county within each State.
The exception FMRs for manufactured home spaces in Schedule D are
listed alphabetically by State.
b. The constituent counties (and New England towns and cities)
included in each metropolitan FMR area are listed immediately following
the listings of the FMR dollar amounts. All constituent parts of a
metropolitan FMR area that are in more than one State can be identified
by consulting the listings for each applicable State.
c. Two nonmetropolitan counties are listed alphabetically on each
line of the nonmetropolitan county listings.
d. The New England towns and cities included in a nonmetropolitan
part of a county are listed immediately following the county name.
e. The FMRs are listed by dollar amount on the first line beginning
with the FMR area name.
BILLING CODE 4210-32-P
[[Page 49580]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.000
[[Page 49581]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.001
[[Page 49582]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.002
[[Page 49583]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.003
[[Page 49584]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.004
[[Page 49585]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.005
[[Page 49586]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.006
[[Page 49587]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.007
[[Page 49588]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.008
[[Page 49589]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.009
[[Page 49590]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.010
[[Page 49591]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.011
[[Page 49592]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.012
[[Page 49593]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.013
[[Page 49594]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.014
[[Page 49595]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.015
[[Page 49596]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.016
[[Page 49597]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.017
[[Page 49598]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.018
[[Page 49599]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.019
[[Page 49600]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.020
[[Page 49601]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.021
[[Page 49602]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.022
[[Page 49603]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.023
[[Page 49604]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.024
[[Page 49605]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.025
[[Page 49606]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.026
[[Page 49607]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.027
[[Page 49608]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.028
[[Page 49609]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.029
[[Page 49610]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.030
[[Page 49611]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.031
[[Page 49612]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.032
[[Page 49613]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.033
[[Page 49614]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.034
[[Page 49615]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.035
[[Page 49616]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.036
[[Page 49617]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.037
[[Page 49618]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.038
[[Page 49619]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.039
[[Page 49620]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.040
[[Page 49621]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.041
[[Page 49622]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.042
[[Page 49623]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.043
[[Page 49624]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.044
[[Page 49625]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.045
[[Page 49626]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.046
[[Page 49627]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.047
[[Page 49628]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.048
[[Page 49629]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.049
[[Page 49630]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.050
[[Page 49631]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.051
[[Page 49632]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.052
[[Page 49633]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.053
[[Page 49634]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.054
[[Page 49635]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20SE96.055
[FR Doc. 96-24068 Filed 9-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-32-C
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24045 Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan, North Carolina: Approval of Cape Industries, Air Permit No. 130R17
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 184 (Friday, September 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49413-49414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24045]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[NC-43-1-9618a; FRL-5609-1]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan, North
Carolina: Approval of Cape Industries, Air Permit No. 130R17
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 17, 1989, the State of North Carolina issued to Cape
Industries, located in Wilmington, New Hanover County, North Carolina,
air permit number 130R11, which set the sulfur dioxide emission limit
at 2.3 pounds per million British Thermal Units (BTU). The State then
submitted this permit to EPA on September 21, 1989, for approval as a
revision to the State implementation plan (SIP). Air permit number
130R11 expired on October 1, 1991, and was subsequently replaced by the
current Cape Industries air permit number 130R17 on December 29, 1994.
Upon review of the permit, EPA finds that the designated limit for Cape
Industries is adequate to protect the ambient standard and approves
this permit.
DATES: This action is effective November 19, 1996 unless adverse or
critical comments are received by October 21, 1996. If the effective
date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr.
Randy Terry at the EPA Regional Office listed below.
Copies of the documents relative to this action are available for
public inspection during normal business hours at the following
locations. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24
hours before the visiting day.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102), US
Environmental Protection Agency, 443, 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC
20460
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV Air Programs Branch, 345
Courtland Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, P.O. Box 29535,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Randy Terry, Regulatory Planning
and Development Section, Air Programs Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics
Management Division, Region IV Environmental Protection Agency, 345
Courtland Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365. The telephone number is
404/347-3555, ext. 4212.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 7, 1982 (47 FR 54934), EPA
announced approval of a revised sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission limit for
most fuel-burning sources in North Carolina. This revision raised the
emission limit of SO2 from 1.6 pounds per million BTU to 2.3
pounds per million BTU. Cape Industries, located in Wilmington, New
Hanover County, North Carolina, was included in this rulemaking, but
was not allowed to increase it's emission level until such time that
appropriate conditions could be applied to ensure that the ambient
standard was not violated. These conditions included the issuance of an
air permit. On August 17, 1989, North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission issued air permit no. 130R11 to Cape Industries. On
September 21, 1989, the State of North Carolina, through the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
submitted this permit to EPA for approval as a revision to the North
Carolina SIP regarding the SO2 emissions limitation for Cape
Industries. In a letter dated November 25, 1991, EPA responded to the
Cape Industries submittal with several comments concerning the
enforceability of the permit. EPA determined North Carolina's emission
standards did not contain the specific test method, the test run
duration, and the averaging time for each emission standard, and was
therefore unenforceable. EPA also stated that the permit should be
revised to include the opacity limits of each emission point. EPA
directed North Carolina to address these sections before the permit
could be approved. On March 2, 1994, North Carolina submitted a letter
to EPA which effectively responded to all of EPA's concerns and
demonstrated that the permit contains adequate recordkeeping and
testing requirements.
However, in May, 1994, Cape Industries submitted a modeling
protocol to EPA requesting a permit modification to remove current fuel
use and boiler firing limitations which were used as permit conditions
to avoid an earlier PSD applicability issue. Since the proposed
modifications would affect the previous permit conditions which were
used as a basis to demonstrate compliance with the Sulfur Dioxide SIP,
Cape Industries also submitted this protocol as a Sulfur Dioxide SIP
revision. This Modeling protocol was not approveable and on July 28,
1994, EPA responded with a letter outlining the areas that must be
addressed. On March 14, 1996, in response to the July 28, 1994, EPA
letter, Cape Industries officially withdrew their request for the
permit modification. During this time the original Cape Industries air
permit expired and air permit number 130R17 was issued.
Final Action
EPA is approving Cape Industries' air permit No. 130R17 submitted
on August 9, 1996, for incorporation into the North Carolina SIP. The
EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the EPA
views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse
comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal Register
publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision should
adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be effective
October 21, 1996 unless, within 30 days of its publication, adverse or
critical comments are received.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is
advised that this action will be effective November 19, 1996.
The EPA has reviewed this request for revision of the Federally-
approved SIP
[[Page 49414]]
for conformance with the provisions of the 1990 Amendments enacted on
November 15, 1990. The EPA has determined that this action conforms
with those requirements irrespective of the fact that the submittal
preceded the date of enactment.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C.
7607(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed
in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by
November 19, 1996. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this
rule for purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within
which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7607 (b)(2)).
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
Nothing in this action shall be construed as permitting or allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for a revision to
any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be considered
separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental
factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory
requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not
create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that the
State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP-approval
does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does not have a
significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the
nature of the Federal-state relationship under the CAA, preparation of
a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into
the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA to
base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v.
U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. section
7410(a)(2).
Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. section 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the
General Accounting Office prior to publication of this rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. section 804(2).
Unfunded Mandates
Under Sections 202, 203 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995,
EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to State,
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of this state implementation plan or plan
revision, the State and any affected local or tribal governments have
elected to adopt the program provided for under section 110 of the
Clean Air Act. These rules may bind State, local and tribal governments
to perform certain duties. To the extent that the rules being approved
by this action will impose any mandate upon the State, local or tribal
governments either as the owner or operator of a source or as a
regulator, or would impose any mandate upon the private sector. EPA's
action will impose no new requirements; such sources are already
subject to these regulations under State law. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action. EPA has also determined that
this final action does not include a mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate or to the private sector.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: June 6, 1996.
Michael V. Peyton,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart II--North Carolina
2. Section 52.1770, is amended by adding paragraph (c)(91) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1770 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(91) The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources submitted revisions to the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan on September 21, 1989. These revisions incorporate
SO2 limits and permit conditions for Cape Industries.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Permit for Cape Industries (air permit no. 130R17) which was
issued by the Environmental Management Commission on December 29, 1994.
(ii) Additional material--none.
[FR Doc. 96-24045 Filed 9-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24043 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans State: Approval of Revisions to the State of North Carolina's State Implementation Plan (SIP)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 184 (Friday, September 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49414-49418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24043]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[NC-78-1-7236a; NC-80-1-2-9631a; FRL-5606-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans State: Approval
of Revisions to the State of North Carolina's State Implementation Plan
(SIP)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to allow the State air pollution control
agency and the Forsyth County, North Carolina air pollution control
agency to utilize exclusionary rules for the purpose of limiting
potential to emit (PTE) criteria pollutants for certain source
categories to less than the title V permitting major source thresholds.
EPA is also approving under section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act several
source-categories of the submitted regulations for limiting
[[Page 49415]]
PTE of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) to less than title V permitting
major source thresholds. These exclusionary rules allow facilities to
compute potential emissions based on actual emissions or raw material
usage for the following source categories: gasoline service stations
and dispensing facilities; coating, solvent degreasing, and graphic
arts operations; dry cleaning facilities, grain elevators, cotton gins,
and emergency generators. On August 4, 1995, the State of North
Carolina through the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources (DEHNR) submitted a SIP revision fulfilling the requirements
necessary to utilize exclusionary rules to limit PTE of air pollutants
in a federally enforceable manner. On December 28, 1995, the Forsyth
County Department of Environmental Affairs (FCDEA) through the DEHNR
submitted a SIP revision fulfilling the requirements necessary to allow
Forsyth County to utilize exclusionary rules to limit PTE of air
pollutants in a federally enforceable manner. Forsyth County's SIP
regulations are a verbatim adoption of the State of North Carolina
exclusionary regulations.
DATES: This action is effective November 19, 1996 unless notice is
received by October 21, 1996 that someone wishes to submit adverse or
critical comments. If the effective date is delayed, timely notice will
be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Scott Miller at the
EPA Regional office listed below.
Copies of the material submitted by North Carolina may be examined
during normal business hours at the following locations:
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 100
Alabama Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303
North Carolina Department of Health, Environment, and Natural
Resources, Air Quality Section, P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina
27626
Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department, Air Quality Section,
537 North Spruce Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Miller, Air Programs Branch,
Air, Pesticides & Toxics Management Division, Region 4 Environmental
Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
The telephone number is 404/347-3555 extension 4153. Reference file
numbers NC78 and NC80.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 4, 1995, and December 28, 1995,
the State of North Carolina and the FCDEA, respectively, through the
DEHNR submitted SIP revisions designed to allow the two agencies to
utilize exclusionary rules for the purpose of limiting PTE for gasoline
service stations and dispensing facilities; coating, solvent
degreasing, and graphic arts operations; dry cleaning facilities, grain
elevators, cotton gins, and emergency generators. Exclusionary rules
are designed to create federally enforceable limits on a facility's PTE
in a manner that does not require a facility-specific evaluation of
emissions and limiting conditions. As such, exclusionary rules are
appropriate for the purpose of limiting PTE when a facility has one
type of emission source. EPA is approving all source-category rules
submitted for purposes of limiting PTE for criteria pollutants. EPA is
approving under section 112(l) of the CAA, North Carolina regulations
15A NCAC 2Q.0801, 2Q.0803 through 2Q.0804 and Forsyth County
regulations 3Q.0801, 3Q.0803 through 3Q.0804 for purposes of limiting
PTE of HAP. For a description of this and other ways to limit PTE for a
facility see the EPA guidance document entitled ``Options for Limiting
the Potential to Emit (PTE) of a Stationary Source Under Section 112
and Title V of the Clean Air Act (Act)'' dated January 25, 1995, from
John Seitz to the EPA Regional Air Division Directors.
North Carolina and FCDEA exclusionary rules were designed to meet
criteria listed in the EPA guidance memorandum entitled ``Guidance for
State Rules for Optional Federally Enforceable Emissions Limits Based
on Volatile Organic Compound Use'' dated October 15, 1993, from D. Kent
Barry to the EPA Regional Air Division Directors, an EPA guidance
document entitled ``Approaches to Creating federally-Enforceable
Emissions Limits'' dated November 3, 1993, and the January 25, 1995,
guidance memorandum referenced above. These guidance documents set out
specific guidelines for exclusionary rule development regarding
applicability, compliance determination and certification, monitoring,
reporting, recordkeeping, public involvement, practical enforceability,
and the requirement that a facility cannot rely on emission limits or
caps contained in a exclusionary rule to justify violation of any rate-
based emission limits or other applicable requirements.
An exclusionary rule applies to facilities which agree to limit
their annual emissions to less than major source thresholds for
criteria and/or hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. An
exclusionary rule must also provide that a facility owner or operator
specifically apply for coverage under the exclusionary rule. Regulation
15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 2Q.0801(a) and Forsyth
County Regulation 3Q.0801(a) provide that certain source categories may
define and limit their potential emissions to less than 100 tons per
year of each regulated pollutant, 10 tons per year of each hazardous
air pollutant, and 25 tons per year of all hazardous air pollutants
combined. The source categories covered by the exclusionary rules are
gasoline service stations and dispensing facilities; coating, solvent
degreasing, and graphic arts operations; dry cleaning facilities, grain
elevators, cotton gins, and emergency generators. North Carolina
Regulation 15A NCAC 2Q.0801(c) and Forsyth County Regulation 3Q.0801(c)
provide that even though a facility is exempted from obtaining a title
V permit by complying with these exclusionary rules, it may still be
required to be permitted under the State or local's minor source
construction and operating permit regulations found at North Carolina
Regulation 15A NCAC 2Q.0300 and Forsyth County Regulation 3Q.0300. As
such, these regulations meet the guidelines specified in the October
15, 1993, and the January 25, 1995, guidance documents that require
that an exclusionary rule to clearly identify the category of sources
that qualify for the rule's coverage.
The October 15, 1993, and the January 25, 1995, guidance documents
suggest that facilities be required to show compliance with the
exclusionary rule on a yearly basis by requiring monthly recordkeeping
of the relevant variable causing emissions and showing compliance using
the monthly record of the relevant variable affecting emissions. The
January 25, 1995, guidance document stipulates that where monitoring
cannot be used to determine emissions directly, limits on appropriate
operating parameters must be established for the units or source, and
monitoring must verify compliance with those limits. In the case of the
State of North Carolina and Forsyth County regulations, a facility is
required to keep records of the use of or processing of a product or
substance that produces the emissions. For instance, North Carolina
Regulation 15A NCAC 2Q.0802 and
[[Page 49416]]
Forsyth County Regulation 3Q.0802 require gasoline service stations and
gasoline dispensing facilities to keep monthly records of gasoline
throughput. The gasoline service station and gasoline dispensing
facility must then show compliance with the 15,000,000 gallon
exclusionary yearly rule limit on a monthly rolling average of gasoline
throughput. EPA believes that the exclusionary rules submitted by the
DEHNR and FCDEA meet guidelines outlined in the October 15, 1993, and
January 25, 1995, guidance documents for purposes of detailing specific
compliance monitoring to show compliance with the relevant limit
resulting from a exclusionary rule.
The October 15, 1993, guidance document requires that all
submittals from a source required pursuant to an exclusionary rule be
certified for truth, accuracy, and completeness. Each facility which
chooses to be covered by an exclusionary rule submitted by the DEHNR
and FCDEA must make submissions which are certified by the appropriate
official as defined under North Carolina Regulation 15A NCAC 2Q.0304(j)
and Forsyth County Regulation 3Q.0304(j). Regulation 15A NCAC
2Q.0304(j) and Forsyth County Regulation 3Q.0304(j) require
certifications to be signed by the following: For corporations, by a
principal executive officer of at least the level of vice president, or
his duly authorized representative, if such representative is
responsible for the overall operation of the facility from which the
emissions described originates; for partnership or limited partnership,
by a general partner; for a sole proprietorship, by the proprietor; and
for municipal, state, Federal, or other public entity, by a principal
executive officer, ranking elected official, or other duly authorized
employee. These requirements for the certifying official are similar to
those requirements found in 40 CFR 70.2 for a responsible official
which would certify truth, accuracy, and completeness of a part 70
permit application. Therefore, EPA believes that the exclusionary rules
submitted by the DEHNR and FCDEA meet requirements outlined in the
October 15, 1993, guidance document for purposes of certification with
respect to truth, completeness, and accuracy.
The October 15, 1993, guidance document recommends that reporting
requirements should vary based on how close the facility emissions are
to the relevant major source threshold. For facilities that are close
to the major source threshold, the guidance recommends that a state or
local air pollution control agency require more frequent reporting of
the variable affecting emissions (i.e. gasoline throughput). For
instance, North Carolina Regulation 15A NCAC 2Q.0802 and Forsyth County
Regulation 3Q.0802 require that gasoline service stations and gasoline
dispensing facilities with annual gasoline throughput that exceeds
10,000,000 gallons per year report gasoline throughput once yearly. For
those gasoline service stations and gasoline dispensing facilities with
annual gasoline throughput that exceeds 13,000,000 gallons per year, a
facility must report gasoline throughput once every six months. EPA
believes that the exclusionary rules submitted by the DEHNR and FCDEA
meet requirements outlined in the October 15, 1993, guidance document
for purposes of reporting the relevant variable affecting emissions
from the process. The October 15, 1993, guidance document also requires
that a facility report any exceedance of an exclusionary rule within
one week after its occurrence. The DEHNR and FCDEA regulations satisfy
this requirement by a verbatim incorporation of this requirement under
each exclusionary rule source-category. Therefore, EPA believes that
the DEHNR and FCDEA regulations meet the requirements set out in the
above-listed guidance documents for reporting.
The October 15, 1993, and the January 25, 1995, guidance documents
specify that recordkeeping is required by a facility to show that the
facility is eligible for the exclusionary rule and that the facility is
in compliance with the relevant exclusionary rule. The October 15,
1993, guidance document requires that recordkeeping shall be maintained
on site and available to the permitting authority upon demand. The
October 15, 1993, guidance document also requires that a facility be
required to retain records for a period sufficient to support
enforcement efforts. The DEHNR and FCDEA regulations require that
copies of all records required to be kept for exclusionary rule
purposes be kept on site and be available to each agency on demand. The
exclusionary rules submitted by DEHNR and FCDEA require that records be
kept for a period of three years from the date the records are
originated. EPA believes that a three year time period is an adequate
time period for a facility subject to an exclusionary rule to maintain
records in order to support enforcement efforts.
The November 3, 1993, guidance document and the January 25, 1995,
guidance document set out requirements for public involvement in the
development and application of exclusionary rules. The November 3,
1993, guidance document states that if exclusionary rules are
sufficiently reliable and replicable, EPA and the public need not be
involved with their application to individual sources, as long as the
protocols themselves have been subject to notice and opportunity to
comment and have been approved by EPA into the SIP. The January 25,
1995, guidance document provides that source-category standards
approved into the SIP or under section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act can
be used as federally enforceable limits on PTE. Once a specific source
qualifies under the applicability requirements of the source-category
rule, additional public participation is not required to make the
limits federally enforceable as a matter of legal sufficiency since the
rule itself underwent public participation and EPA review. Both the
DEHNR and FCDEA exclusionary rules underwent public participation at
the State and local level when these rules were made State and locally-
effective. EPA believes that with this Federal Register document and
other public process received at the State and local level that the
DEHNR and FCDEA exclusionary rules satisfy requirements for public
participation outlined in the November 3, 1993, and the January 25,
1995, guidance documents.
The January 25, 1995, guidance document sets out requirements for
exclusionary rule conditions to be practically enforceable. These
requirements stem from past precedence in what the EPA has required for
a permit to be considered enforceable as a practical matter. See 54 FR
27274 (June 28, 1989) and a June 13, 1989, EPA policy memorandum
entitled ``Limiting Potential to Emit in New Source Permitting.'' The
criteria include clear statements as to the applicability, specificity
as to the standard that must be met, explicit statements of the
compliance time frames (e.g. hourly, daily, monthly, or 12-month
averages, etc.), that the time frame and method of compliance employed
must be sufficient to protect the standard involved, recordkeeping
requirements must be specified, and equivalency provisions must meet
specific requirements. In general, practical enforceability means that
the provision must specify (1) a technically accurate limitation and
the portions of the source subject to the limitation; (2) the time
period for the limitation; (3) the method to determine compliance
including appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. Each of
these elements have been discussed prior to this paragraph in this
Federal Register with the
[[Page 49417]]
exception of (2) above. The DEHNR and FCDEA regulations require
facilities subject to the exclusionary rule to keep records on a
monthly basis and to determine compliance with a yearly limit on a
calendar monthly rolling average basis. This method for determining
compliance with the exclusionary rule limitation was addressed
specifically as one practically enforceable way to show compliance with
a permit limit in the June 13, 1989, guidance document entitled
``Limiting Potential to Emit in New Source Permitting.'' As such, EPA
believes the DEHNR and FCDEA exclusionary rule regulations meet the
requirements necessary for exclusionary rules to be enforceable as a
practical matter.
Finally, the October 15, 1993, guidance document stipulates that a
facility cannot rely on emission limits or caps contained in a
exclusionary rule to justify violation of any rate-based emission
limits or other applicable requirements. This requirement is reflected
by a verbatim incorporation of this provision found at North Carolina
regulation 15A NCAC 2Q.0801(b) and Forsyth County regulation
3Q.0801(b). Therefore, EPA believes that the DEHNR and FCDEA
exclusionary rules meet the requirements listed in the October 15,
1993, guidance document regarding the use of an exclusionary rule cap
to justify violation of any rate-based emission limit or other
applicable requirements.
Eligibility for federally enforceable exclusionary rule
certifications extends not only to certifications made after the
effective date of this rule, but also to certifications issued under
the State or local current rule prior to the effective date of this
rulemaking. If the State or local agency followed its own regulation
meaning that, each source received exclusionary rule certifications
that established a limiting condition on the facility's PTE, EPA will
consider all such exclusionary rule certifications as federally
enforceable upon the effective date of this action.
Final action
In this action, EPA is approving the State of North Carolina
exclusionary rules found at 15A NCAC 2Q.0800 through 15A NCAC 2Q.0807
into the North Carolina SIP. EPA is also approving the Forsyth County
exclusionary rules found at 3Q.0800 through 3Q.0807 into the Forsyth
County portion of the North Carolina SIP. EPA is approving North
Carolina regulations 15A NCAC 2Q.0801, 2Q.0803 through 2Q.0804 and
Forsyth County regulations 3Q.0801, 3Q.0803 through 3Q.0804 for
purposes of limiting PTE of HAP under section 112(l) of the CAA. EPA is
publishing this document without prior proposal because the EPA views
this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse
comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal Register
publication, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision should
adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be effective
November 19, 1996, unless within 30 days of its publication, adverse or
critical comments are received. If EPA receives such comments, this
action will be withdrawn before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this action serving as a proposed rule. EPA will not institute
a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time. If no such
comments are received, the public is advised that this action will be
effective November 19, 1996.
EPA has reviewed this request for revision of the federally-
approved SIP for conformance with the provisions of the 1990 Amendments
enacted on November 15, 1990. EPA has determined that this action
conforms with those requirements.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7607 (b)(1),
petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the
United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November
19, 1996. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for purposes
of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7607 (b)(2).)
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989, (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by
a July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted
this action from review under Executive Order 12866.
Nothing in this action shall be construed as permitting or allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for a revision to
any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to the SIP
shall be considered separately in light of specific technical,
economic, and environmental factors and in relation to relevant
statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600, EPA must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of any
proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the CAA
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP-
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under the CAA,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2) and 7410(k)(3).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the direct final approval action
promulgated today does not include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal
action approves pre-existing requirements
[[Page 49418]]
under State or local law, and imposes no new Federal requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by Reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: August 5, 1996.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42. U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. Section 52.1770 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(89) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1770 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(89) Exclusionary rules for the State of North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources and the Forsyth County
Department of Environmental Affairs submitted by the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources on August 8,
1995, and December 28, 1995, respectively, as part of the North
Carolina SIP.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Regulations 15A NCAC 2Q.0801 through 15A NCAC 2Q.0807 of the
North Carolina SIP as adopted by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission on June 8, 1995, and which became effective on
August 1, 1995.
(B) Regulations Subchapter 3Q.0801 through Subchapter 3Q.0807 of
the Forsyth County portion of the North Carolina SIP as adopted and
made effective by the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners on November
13, 1995.
(ii) Other material. None.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-24043 Filed 9-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23851 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 184 (Friday, September 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49409-49411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23851]
========================================================================
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. 184 / Friday, September 20, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 49409]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-NM-223-AD; Amendment 39-9764; AD 96-19-17]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that
is applicable to certain Boeing Model 757 series airplanes. This action
requires a one-time inspection to detect discrepancies of the main
battery shunt, and replacement with a serviceable part, if necessary.
This action also requires inspection of certain wires, washers, and
brass jam nuts to detect any discrepancy, and replacement with a
serviceable part, if necessary. Additionally, this action requires
inspection, and adjustment if necessary, of the torque and resistance
of the installation of the main battery ground stud. This amendment is
prompted by a report of interruption of electrical power during flight
due to improper installation of the main battery shunt and ground stud
connection of the main battery. The actions specified in this AD are
intended to prevent such electrical power interruptions, which could
result in loss of battery power to the source of standby power for the
airplane.
DATES: Effective October 7, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 7, 1996.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before November 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM-223-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington
98124-2207. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at
the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,
suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen S. Oshiro, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington;
telephone (206) 227-2793; fax (206) 227-1181.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA recently has received reports
indicating that interruptions of electrical power have occurred during
flight, which resulted in the loss of battery power to the hot battery
bus (HBB) on a Boeing Model 767 series airplane. The HBB is the source
of standby power to the airplane. Investigation revealed that the
reported loss of power to the HBB occurred due to cracked shunts,
improper installation of fasteners on the shunt studs, and improper
torque of shunt fasteners. It appears that the improper installation of
fasteners on the shunt studs and improper torque of shunt fasteners
occurred during manufacture.
Loose fasteners on the shunt studs can create an open circuit or
high resistance in the connection of the main battery ground stud,
which can cause an interruption of the battery charger and the loss of
the HBB. The loss of the HBB and associated loads will cause multiple
advisory level Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS)
messages; loss of power to the standby buses/loads during standby
operation; and the potential loss of center bus power. Such loss of
standby power could adversely affect the function of the following
systems:
1. the captain's standby instruments,
2. flight control electronics,
3. Very High Frequency (VHF) communications,
4. thrust reverser control,
5. standby ignition,
6. passenger oxygen,
7. fire detection and extinguishing, and
8. wing and engine anti-ice systems, among others.
Improper installation of the main battery shunt and ground stud
connection of the main battery, if not corrected, could cause an
interruption of electrical power and loss of battery power to the HBB
during flight.
The main battery shunts of the main equipment center on the Boeing
Model 767 series airplanes are identical to those installed on the
Boeing Model 757 series airplanes; therefore, both of these models may
be subject to this same unsafe condition. The FAA has addressed this
unsafe condition in Model 767 series airplanes with the issuance of AD
96-19-10, amendment 39-9757, on September 6, 1996.
Explanation of Relevant Service Information
The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
757-24A0079, dated August 8, 1996, which describes procedures for
inspection of the main battery shunt to detect contaminated fasteners,
missing pressure washers or washers having an incorrect part number, or
damage to the terminal posts or to the plastic base, and replacement of
the main battery shunt, if necessary. The alert service bulletin also
describes inspection of certain wires, washers, and brass jam nuts to
detect any discrepancy, and replacement of any discrepant part with a
serviceable part.
Additionally, the alert service bulletin describes procedures for
an inspection of the main battery ground stud to verify the torque and
resistance, and adjustment of the torque and resistance, if necessary.
Explanation of the Requirements of the Rule
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on Boeing Model 757 series airplanes, this AD is being
issued to prevent interruption of electrical power during flight, which
could result in loss of battery power to the source of standby power
for the airplane. This AD requires inspection of the main battery
[[Page 49410]]
shunt to detect contaminated fasteners, missing pressure washers or
washers having an incorrect part number, or damage to the terminal
posts or to the plastic base, and replacement of the main battery
shunt, if necessary. This AD also requires inspection of certain wires,
washers, and brass jam nuts to detect any discrepancy, and replacement
of any discrepant part with a serviceable part. Additionally, this AD
requires an inspection of the main battery ground stud to verify the
torque and electrical resistance, and adjustment of the torque and
resistance, if necessary. The actions are required to be accomplished
in accordance with the alert service bulletin described previously.
Determination of Rule's Effective Date
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for
making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Comments Invited
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves
requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by
notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on
this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire.
Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption
ADDRESSES. All communications received on or before the closing date
for comments will be considered, and this rule may be amended in light
of the comments received. Factual information that supports the
commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating
the effectiveness of the AD action and determining whether additional
rulemaking action would be needed.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be
available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the
Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that
summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this
AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 96-NM-223-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency
regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe
condition in aircraft, and that it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further
that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is
determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be
significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final
regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket.
A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the
location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-19-17 Boeing: Amendment 39-9764. Docket 96-NM-223-AD.
Applicability: Model 757 series airplanes, as listed in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 757-24A0079, dated August 8, 1996;
certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent interruptions of electrical power during flight,
which could result in loss of battery power to the source of standby
power for the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 45 days after the effective date of this AD,
accomplish the actions specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2) and
(a)(3) of this AD, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
757-24A0079, dated August 8, 1996.
(1) Perform an inspection of the main battery shunt, to detect
any contaminated fasteners, missing pressure washers or washers
having an incorrect part number, or damage to terminal posts or to
the plastic base. If any discrepancy is found, prior to further
flight, replace the main battery shunt, in accordance with the alert
service bulletin.
(2) Perform an inspection of the wires, washers, and brass jam
nuts to detect any contamination or damage. If any discrepancy is
found, prior to further flight, replace the discrepant part with a
serviceable part, in accordance with the alert service bulletin.
(3) Inspect the torque and electrical resistance of the
installation of the main battery ground stud, and adjust the torque
and resistance of the ground stud, in accordance with the alert
service bulletin.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Seattle ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) The actions shall be done in accordance with Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 757-24A0079, dated August 8, 1996. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in
[[Page 49411]]
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707,
Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North
Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on October 7, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 11, 1996.
James V. Devany,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-23851 Filed 9-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.