issue-1996-09-23•Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-23
Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-23
issue-1996-09-23Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-23Regulation
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. 96-24357 Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media; Verification of Statements of Account
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 185 (Monday, September 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24357]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Part 201
[Docket No. 93-2B]
Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media; Verification of
Statements of Account
AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
ACTION: Extension of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Copyright Office is extending the comment period in its
consideration of interim regulations that provide for the verification
of the information contained in digital audio recording technology
(DART) Statements of Account filed with the Office.
DATES: The extended deadline for comments is October 16, 1996, and for
reply comments is November 18, 1996.
ADDRESSES: If sent by mail, fifteen copies of written comments should
be addressed to Marilyn J. Kretsinger, Acting General Counsel,
Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, D.C.
20024. Telephone: (202) 707-8380. Telefax: (202) 707-8366. If by hand,
fifteen copies should be brought to: Office of the General Counsel,
Copyright Office, James Madison Memorial Building, Room LM-407, First
and Independence Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20540.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn J. Kretsinger, Acting General
Counsel, Telephone: (202) 707-8380 or Telefax: (202) 707-8366.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 18, 1996, the Copyright Office
published interim regulations providing for the verification of the
information contained in digital audio recording technology (DART)
Statements of Account filed with the Office. 61 FR 30808 (June 18,
1996). To allow interested parties more time to submit comments, the
Office is extending the comment period from September 16, 1996, to
October 16, 1996, and the deadline for reply comments from October 16,
1996, to November 16, 1996.
Dated: September 18, 1996.
Marilyn J. Kretsinger,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 96-24357 Filed 9-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24356 Safety Zones, Security Zones, and Special Local Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 185 (Monday, September 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49678-49680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24356]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 100 and 165
[CGD 96-047]
Safety Zones, Security Zones, and Special Local Regulations
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of temporary rules issued.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document provides required notice of substantive rules
adopted by the Coast Guard and temporarily effective between July 1,
1996 and September 18, 1996, which were not published in the Federal
Register. This quarterly notice lists temporary local regulations,
security zones, and safety zones, which were of limited duration and
for which timely publication in the Federal Register was not possible.
DATES: This document lists temporary Coast Guard regulations that
became effective and were terminated between July 1, 1996 and September
18, 1996, as well as several regulations which were not included in the
previous quarterly list.
ADDRESSES: The complete text of these temporary regulations may be
examined at, and is available on request, from Executive Secretary,
Marine Safety Council (G-LRA), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100
Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Commander Stephen J. Darmody, Executive Secretary, Marine Safety
Council at (202) 267-1477 between the hours of 8 a.m. and 3 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: District Commanders and Captains of the Port
(COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety needs of the waters
within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs
have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations.
Safety zones may be established for safety or environmental purposes. A
safety zone may be stationary and described by fixed limits or it may
be described as a zone around a vessel in motion. Security zones limit
access to vessels, ports, or waterfront facilities to prevent injury or
damage. Special local regulations are issued to enhance the safety of
participants and spectators at regattas and other marine events. Timely
publication of these regulations in the Federal Register is often
precluded when a regulation responds to an emergency, or when an event
occurs without sufficient advance notice. However, the affected public
is informed of these regulations through Local Noticers to Marines,
press releases, and other means. Moreover, actual notification is
provided by Coast Guard patrol vessels enforcing the restrictions
imposed by the regulation. Because mariners are notified by Coast Guard
officials on-scene prior to enforcement action, Federal Register notice
is not required to place the special local regulation, security zone,
or safety zone in effect. However, the Coast Guard, by law, must
publish in the Federal Register notice of substantive rules adopted. To
discharge this legal obligation without imposing undue expense on the
public, the Coast Guard periodically publishes a list of these
temporary special local regulations, security zones, and safety zones.
Permanent regulations are not included in this list because they are
published in their entirety in the Federal Register. Temporary
regulations may also be published in their entirety if sufficient time
is available to do so before they are placed in effect or terminated.
These safety zones, special local regulations and security zones have
been exempted from review under E.O. 12866 because of their emergency
nature, or limited scope and temporary effectiveness.
The following regulations were placed in effect temporarily during
the period July 1, 1996 and September 18, 1996, unless otherwise
indicated.
Stephen J. Darmody,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Executive Secretary, Marine Safety
Council.
Quarterly Report
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Docket No. Location Type Effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corpus Christi 96-009............. Corpus Christi Ship Safety Zone................ 8/2/96
Channel.
Guam 96-001....................... Cocos Island Reef, Guam... Safety Zone................ 3/7/96
Guam 96-002....................... Apra, Guam................ Safety Zone................ 3/27/96
Guam 96-004....................... Sasanhaya East Harbor, Safety Zone................ 5/2/96
Rota.
Guam 96-005....................... Rota...................... Safety Zone................ 5/2/96
Guam 96-008....................... Outer Apra Harbor, Guam... Safety Zone................ 7/31/96
Houston-Galveston 96-008.......... Houston, TX............... Safety Zone................ 6/21/96
Houston-Galveston 96-009.......... Houston, TX............... Safety Zone................ 7/4/96
Houston-Galveston 96-010.......... Houston, TX............... Safety Zone................ 6/27/96
LA/Long Beach 96-013.............. San Pedro Bay, CA......... Safety Zone................ 6/30/96
LA/Long Beach 96-013.............. San Pedro Bay, CA......... Safety Zone................ 6/30/96
LA/Long Beach 96-014.............. Carpinteria, CA........... Safety Zone................ 7/12/96
LA/Long Beach 96-015.............. San Pedro Bay, CA......... Safety Zone................ 7/19/96
LA/Long Beach 96-016.............. San Pedro Bay, CA......... Safety Zone................ 7/25/96
LA/Long Beach 96-020.............. Huntington Beach, CA...... Safety Zone................ 9/6/96
Miami 96-047...................... Kew West, FL.............. Safety Zone................ 7/13/96
Mobile 96-20...................... Gulf of Mexico, AL........ Safety Zone................ 7/13/96
Pittsburgh 96-002................. Pittsburgh, PA............ Security Zone.............. 8/18/96
Port Arthur 96-08................. Beaumont, TX.............. Safety Zone................ 7/5/96
San Diego Bay 96-003.............. San Diego, CA............. Safety Zone................ 8/10/96
Savannah 96-042................... Hilton Head Island, SC.... Safety Zone................ 7/4/96
Savannah 96-043................... Savannah River, Savannah, Safety Zone................ 7/20/96
GA.
Western Alaska 95-001............. Cook Inlet, AK............ Safety Zone................ 7/25/96
Western Alaska 96-002............. Cook Inlet, AK............ Safety Zone................ 7/27/96
01-95-059......................... Guilford, CT.............. Safety Zone................ 7/5/96
01-95-063......................... Groton, CT................ Safety Zone................ 7/6/96
01-96-008......................... Winter Harbor Lobster Boat Special Local.............. 8/10/96
Race, Winter Ha.
[[Page 49679]]
01-96-015......................... New Bedford, MA........... Special Local..............
01-96-069......................... Narragansett Bay, RI...... Special Local.............. 7/9/96
01-96-070......................... Upper New York Bay, NY and Safety Zone................ 7/15/96
NJ.
01-96-071......................... Peekskill Bay, NY......... Safety Zone................ 7/27/96
01-96-076......................... Danvers River, Salem, MA.. Safety Zone................ 8/2/96
01-96-079......................... Newport, Jamestown, RI.... Security Zone.............. 7/18/96
01-96-080......................... Rockaway Park, NY......... Safety Zone................ 8/6/96
01-96-087......................... Boston, MA................ Safety Zone................ 9/6/96
01-96-088......................... COHASSET, MA.............. Safety Zone................ 8/17/96
01-96-098......................... Cape Code, MA............. Safety and Sec............. 8/3/96
01-96-102......................... Boston, MA................ Safety Zone................ 8/15/96
01-96-103......................... Providence, RI............ Special Local.............. 8/16/96
01-96-104......................... Queens, NY................ Security Zone.............. 8/18/96
01-96-116......................... Boston, MA................ Safety Zone................ 9/11/96
02-96-008......................... Davenport, IA............. Special Local.............. 7/5/96
05-96-041......................... Delaware River, Special Local.............. 7/7/96
Philadelphia, PA.
05-96-046......................... Portsmouth, VA............ Special Local.............. 7/4/96
05-96-049......................... Chester, PA............... Safety Zone................ 7/2/96
05-96-050......................... Delaware River, Westville, Safety Zone................ 7/1/96
NJ.
05-96-051......................... Delaware River............ Safety Zone................ 7/1/96
05-96-054......................... Delaware Bay, Delaware Safety Zone RE............. 7/7/96
River.
05-96-055......................... James, Elizabeth, York Safety Zone................ 7/12/96
River, VA.
05-96-057......................... Delaware River, Gibbstown, Safety Zone................ 7/17/96
NJ.
05-96-058......................... Elizabeth River, VA....... Safety Zone................ 7/16/96
05-96-059......................... Hampton Roads and Safety Zone................ 7/24/96
Elizabeth River, VA.
05-96-060......................... Delaware River, Marcus Safety Zone................ 7/23/96
Hook, PA.
05-96-061......................... Chesapeake Bay, MD........ Safety Zone................ 7/27/96
05-96-062......................... Delaware Bay, Delaware Safety Zone................ 7/29/96
River.
05-96-066......................... James River, VA........... Safety Zone................ 8/5/96
05-96-075......................... Salem River, New Jersey... Safety Zone................ 9/2/96
05-96-076......................... Delaware River............ Safety Zone................ 9/3/96
05-96-078......................... Hampton Roads, VA and Safety Zone................ 9/5/96
vicinity.
05-96-080......................... James River, VA and Safety Zone................ 9/7/96
vicinity.
08-96-016......................... Kanawha River, M. 46 to M. Special Local.............. 7/6/96
47.
08-96-017......................... Mississippi River, M. Special Local.............. 7/3/96
202.5 to M. 203.5.
08-96-018......................... Mississippi River, M. 518 Special Local.............. 7/3/96
to M. 519.
08-96-019......................... Mississippi River, M. Special Local.............. 7/4/96
179.2 to M. 180.
08-96-020......................... Mississippi River, M. 634 Special Local.............. 7/6/96
to M. 635.
08-96-021......................... Arkansas River, M. 307.5 Special Local.............. 7/4/96
to M. 309.5.
08-96-022......................... Mississippi River, M. 383 Special Local.............. 7/4/96
to M. 384.
08-96-023......................... Ohio River, M. 943 to M. Special Local.............. 7/4/96
944.3.
08-96-024......................... Ohio River, M. 934 to M. Special Local.............. 7/3/96
935.
08-96-027......................... Cumberland River, M. 190 Special Local.............. 7/4/96
to M. 191.
08-96-028......................... Mississippi River, M. 748 Safety Zone................ 4/19/96
to M. 755.
08-96-030......................... Ohio River, M. 934 to M. Special Local.............. 7/27/96
935.
08-96-031......................... Illinois River, M. 179.5 Special Local.............. 7/28/96
to M. 180.5.
08-96-032......................... Missouri River, M. 68 to Special Local.............. 7/28/96
M. 69.
08-96-035......................... Mississippi River, M. 482 Special Local.............. 7/25/96
to M. 483.
08-96-036......................... Mississippi River, M. 790 Special Local.............. 8/3/96
to M. 792.
08-96-037......................... Ohio River MI. 221 to 222. Special Local.............. 8/10/96
08-96-042......................... Tennessee River, M. 255.5 Special Local.............. 7/4/96
to M. 256.3.
08-96-043......................... Mississippi River, M. Special Local.............. 7/20/96
813.6 to M. 815.
09-96-006......................... Seven Sisters Smoke Safety Zone................ 8/10/96
Stacks, Detroit River.
09-96-008......................... Grand River, MI........... Drawbridge................. 8/5/96
09-96-011......................... Maumee River.............. Security Zone.............. 8/26/96
13-96-012......................... Kennewick, WA............. Special Local.............. 7/22/96
13-96-018......................... Kennewick, WA............. Safety Zone................ 7/4/96
13-96-019......................... Portland, OR.............. Safety Zone................ 7/4/96
13-96-020......................... Portland, OR.............. Safety Zone................ 7/4/96
13-96-021......................... Richland, VA.............. Safety Zone................ 7/5/96
13-96-022......................... Astoria, OR............... Safety Zone................ 7/4/96
13-96-023......................... Port Townsend, WA......... Safety Zone................ 7/4/96
13-96-024......................... Seattle, WA............... Special Local.............. 8/1/96
13-96-025......................... Bellingham, WA............ Safety Zone................ 7/14/96
13-96-026......................... Seattle, WA............... Safety Zone................ 7/31/96
13-96-027......................... Astoria, OR............... Safety Zone................ 8/10/96
13-96-029......................... Seattle, WA............... Safety Zone................ 8/10/96
13-96-030......................... Portland, OR.............. Safety Zone................ 9/3/96
13-96-031......................... Benton, WA................ Safety Zone................ 9/5/96
13-96-034......................... Benton, WA................ Safety Zone................ 9/12/96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 49680]]
[FR Doc. 96-24356 Filed 9-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24355 Electrical Engineering Requirements for Merchant Vessels
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 185 (Monday, September 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24355]
[[Page 49691]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
46 CFR Parts 110 and 161
[CGD 94-108]
RIN 2115-AF24
Electrical Engineering Requirements for Merchant Vessels
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Correction to interim rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the interim rule that
was published June 4, 1996, as part of the President's Regulatory
Reinvention Initiative. The interim rule amends the Coast Guard's
electrical engineering regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 23, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gerald P. Miante, Project Manager,
Office of Design and Engineering Standards (G-MSE), (202) 267-2206.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The interim rule that is the subject of these corrections amends
the Coast Guard's electrical engineering regulations to reduce the
regulatory burden on the marine industry, purge obsolete regulation,
and replace prescriptive requirements with performance-based
regulations that incorporate international standards.
Need for Correction
Based upon review of the interim rule by the Office of the Federal
Register, the following corrections were identified as necessary to
avoid confusion by the reader.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the publication on June 4, 1996, of the interim rule
at 61 FR 28260, which was the subject of FR Doc. 96-13416, is corrected
as follows:
Sec. 110.10-1 [Corrected]
1. On page 28273, in the list of National Fire Protection
Association standards, in the list of sections affected for NFPA 70,
National Electrical Code (NEC), after ``111.50-3(c);'', add ``111.50-
7;''.
2. On page 28292, in the second column, the amendatory paragraph
217 should read as follows: 217. In Sec. 161.002-10, in paragraph (b),
revise the paragraph heading and paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows;
in paragraph (b)(2), remove ``signal'' in the paragraph heading and
add, in its place, ``alarm'' and remove ``signals'' and add, in its
place, ``alarms''; in paragraph (b)(3), remove ``signal'' in the
paragraph heading and add, in its place, ``alarm'', remove ``fire
bells'' and add, in its place, ``audible fire alarms'', remove ``fire
bell'' and add, in its place, ``audible fire alarm'', and remove ``fire
signal'' and add, in its place, ``fire alarm''; in paragraph (b)(4),
remove ``alarm signals simultaneously'' and add, in its place, ``alarms
simultaneously'', remove ``fire alarm bells'' and add, in its place,
``audible fire alarms'', and remove ``succeeding fire alarm signals''
and add, in its place, ``succeeding sensor signals''; in paragraph
(b)(5), remove ``signals'' and add, in its place, ``alarms''; in
paragraph (c)(3), remove ``Fire bells'' in the paragraph heading and
add, in its place, ``Audible fire alarms'' and remove ``fire bell'' and
add, in its place, ``audible fire alarm''; in the heading to paragraph
(d), remove ``alarm signals'' and add, in its place, ``alarms''; in
paragraph (d)(1), in the first sentence, remove ``bell'', in the second
sentence, remove ``power failure'' and ``bell'', and, in the third
sentence, remove ``power failure alarm bell for'' and add, in its
place, ``alarm of''; in paragraph (d)(2), in the paragraph heading,
remove ``signal'' and add, in its place, ``alarm'' and remove ``power
failure alarm bell'' and add, in its place, ``audible power failure
alarm''; in paragraph (e), in the paragraph heading, remove ``alarm
signals'' and add, in its place, ``alarms'', in paragraph (e)(1),
remove ``bell or buzzer'', and remove ``fire alarm signal'' and add, in
its place, ``fire alarm''; paragraph (e)(2) is revised to read as
follows; in paragraph (e)(3), remove ``alarm signals'' and add, in its
place, ``alarms'' and remove ``alarm signal'' and add, in its place,
``alarm''; in paragraph (e)(4), remove ``alarm signals'' and add, in
its place, ``alarms''; in paragraph (f)(1), remove ``fire alarm
condition'' and add, in its place, ``fire condition''; and paragraphs
(i) through (m) are removed:
Sec. 161.002-10 Automatic fire detecting system control unit.
* * * * *
(b) Fire alarms--(1) General. The operation of a fire detecting and
alarm system must cause automatically--
(i) The sounding of a vibrating type fire bell with a gong diameter
not smaller than 15 cm (6 inches) or other audible alarm that has an
equivalent sound level and that is mounted at the control unit and at
the remote annunciator panel, when provided;
(ii) The sounding of a vibrating type fire bell with a gong
diameter not smaller than 20 cm (8 inches) or other audible alarm that
has an equivalent sound level and that is located in the engine room;
and
(iii) an indication of the fire detecting zone from which the
signal originated, visible at the control unit and at the remote
annunciator panel, when provided;
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Silencing audible alarm. Manual means shall be provided at the
control unit to silence the audible alarm. Operation of the silencing
means shall permit the visible alarm to remain until the trouble has
been corrected.
* * * * *
Dated: September 17, 1996.
Joseph J. Angelo,
Director of Standards, Marine Safety and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 96-24355 Filed 9-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24318 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 610
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 185 (Monday, September 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24318]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 960129018-6018-01; I.D. 091796B]
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in
Statistical Area 610
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Closure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in
Statistical Area 610 of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is
necessary to prevent exceeding the 1996 pollock total allowable catch
(TAC) in this area.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), September 18,
1996, until 2400 hrs, December 31, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Furuness, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management
Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (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.
The 1996 pollock TAC in Statistical Area 610 was established by the
Final 1996 Harvest Specifications of Groundfish (61 FR 4304, February
5, 1996) as 25,480 metric tons (mt). (See Sec. 679.20(c)(3).)
The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator),
has determined, in accordance with Sec. 679.20(d)(1), that the 1996
pollock TAC in Statistical Area 610 soon will be reached. The Regional
Administrator established a directed fishing allowance of 24,680 mt,
and has set aside the remaining 800 mt as bycatch to support other
anticipated groundfish fisheries. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting
directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610.
Maximum retainable bycatch amounts may be found in the regulations
at Sec. 679.20(e).
Classification
This action is taken under 50 CFR 672.20 and is exempt from review
under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: September 17, 1996.
Bruce Morehead,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-24318 Filed 9-18-96; 12:54 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24317 Prohibition Against Certain Flights Within the Territory and Airspace of Iran
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 185 (Monday, September 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49870-49871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24317]
[[Page 49869]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 91
Prohibition Against Certain Flights Within the Territory and Airspace
of Iran; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 185 / Monday, September 23, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 49870]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 91
[Docket No. 28690; Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 76]
RIN 2120-AG28
Prohibition Against Certain Flights Within the Territory and
Airspace of Iran
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action prohibits flight operations within the territory
and airspace of Iran by any United States air carrier or commercial
operator, by any person exercising the privileges of an airman
certificate issued by the FAA except persons operating U.S.-registered
aircraft for a foreign air carrier, or by an operator using an aircraft
registered in the United States unless the operator of such aircraft is
a foreign air carrier. Increased military presence and activity
adjacent to civilian air traffic corridors in Iran have increased the
potential threat to civil aircraft overflying the area. Therefore, this
action is taken to prevent an undue hazard to persons and U.S.-
registered aircraft overflying the area as a result of the ongoing
activity in that area.
DATES: This SFAR is effective September 17, 1996, and shall remain in
effect until further notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia Lane, Airspace and Air Traffic Law Branch, AGC-230, or Mark W.
Bury, International Affairs and Legal Policy Staff, AGC-7, Office of
the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Telephone: (202) 267-3515.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Document
An electronic copy of this document may be down loaded using a
modem and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations
section of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone:
703-321-3339), the Federal Register's electronic bulletin board service
(telephone: 202-512-1661), or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory
Committee Bulletin Board service (telephone: 202-267-5948).
Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov
or the Federal Register's webpage at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su__docs
for access to recently published rulemaking documents.
Any person may obtain a copy of this document by submitting a
request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
Attention: ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591,
or by calling (202) 267-9677. Communications must identify the number
of this SFAR.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
rules should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which
describes the application procedure.
Background
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for the
safety of flight in the United States and for the safety of U.S.-
registered aircraft and U.S. operators throughout the world. Section
40101(d)(1) of Title 49, United States Code, requires the Administrator
of the FAA to consider the regulation of air commerce in a manner that
best promotes safety and fulfills the requirements of national security
as being in the public interest. Section 44701(a) of Title 49, United
States Code, provides the FAA with broad authority to carry out this
policy by prescribing regulations governing the practices, methods, and
procedures necessary to ensure safety in air commerce.
In mid-September 1996, Iran established an I-HAWK surface-to-air
missile launch site near the Iran-Turkey border. This new active SAM
site is located approximately seven miles southeast of Uromiyeh
Airfield (37 deg.40'N/04 deg.50'4'' E). In the exercise of these
statutory responsibilities, the FAA has determined that the presence of
the missile launch site in proximity to civilian air traffic corridors
has increased the potential threat to civil aircraft and justifies the
imposition of certain measures to ensure the safety of U.S.-registered
aircraft and operators that are conducting flight operations in the
vicinity of the territory and airspace of Iran.
Prohibition Against Certain Flights Within the Territory and Airspace
of Iran
On the basis of the above information, and in furtherance of my
responsibilities to promote the safety of flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce, I have determined that immediate action by the FAA is
required to prevent the injury or loss of certain U.S.-registered
aircraft and U.S. operators conducting flights in the vicinity of Iran.
I find that the presence of an active I-HAWK surface-to-air missile
launch site in close proximity to civilian air traffic corridors has
increased the potential threat to civil aircraft overflying the
territory and airspace of Iran. Accordingly, I am ordering a
prohibition of flight operations within the territory and airspace of
Iran by any United States carrier and commercial operator, by any
person exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the
FAA except persons operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air
carrier, or by an operator using an aircraft registered in the United
States unless the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier.
This action is necessary to prevent an undue hazard to U.S.-registered
aircraft and to protect persons on board that aircraft. Operations
approved by the Administrator, or by another agency of the United
States Government with FAA approval and certain emergency operations
shall be excepted from the prohibition. Because the circumstances
described in this SFAR warrant immediate action by the FAA to maintain
the safety of flight, I also find that notice and public comment under
5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest.
Further, I find that good cause exists for making this rule effective
immediately upon issuance. I also find that this action is fully
consistent with my obligations under 49 U.S.C. 40105(b)(1)(A) to ensure
that I exercise my duties consistently with the obligations of the
United States under international agreements. The Department of State
has been advised of, and has no objection to, the action taken herein.
This rule shall remain effective until further notice.
Regulatory Evaluation
Benefits
This regulation will generate potential benefits in the form of
ensuring that the current acceptable level of safety continues for U.S.
air carriers and other operators. The potential benefits of this action
will accrue only to those air carriers and other operators currently
engaging in overflights of the territory of Iran. Since this action is
promulgated prior to the occurrence of a serious incident resulting in
loss of life or damage to or destruction of property, there are no
statistics from which a quantitative estimate of benefits can be
derived.
Costs
The SFAR will impose a potential incremental cost of compliance in
the form of the circumnavigation (including the additional time for
preflight planning) of the territory and airspace of
[[Page 49871]]
Iran. Based on information available to informed FAA personnel, there
are three U.S. air carriers currently conducting flights within Iranian
airspace and over the territory of Iran. In addition, there may be
overflights of Iranian territory by other U.S. civil aviation. The FAA
believes that these operators will be the only entities affected by
this action. These operators will incur costs for additional fuel and
time as the result of diverting from their normal flight routes over
Iran between Europe, Africa, and Asia. This action will impose costs in
the form of additional preflight planning and circumnavigation of
Iranian territory. The FAA seeks comment on the economic effects of
this rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and
disproportionately burdened by Federal regulations. The RFA requires a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a proposed rule would have
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' FAA Order 2100.14A outlines the FAA's procedures and
criteria for implementing the RFA. The FAA has determined that none of
the U.S. air carriers affected by the SFAR are ``small entities'' as
defined by FAA Order 2100.14A. Thus, the SFAR would not impose a
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.''
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains no information collection requests requiring
approval of the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.).
International Trade Impact Assessment
This final rule could have an impact on the international flights
of U.S. air carriers and commercial operators because it will restrict
their ability to overfly the territory of Iran and, therefore, may
impose additional costs relating to the circumnavigation of Iranian
territory and airspace. This final rule, however, will not restrict the
ability of foreign air carriers to overfly Iranian territory. Given the
narrow scope of this rule, it will not eliminate existing or create
additional barriers to the sale of foreign aviation products in the
United States or to the sale of U.S. aviation products and services in
foreign countries.
Federalism Determination
The SFAR set forth 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 (52 FR 41685; October 30, 1987), it is determined
that this regulation does not have federalism implications warranting
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, FAA has determined that this
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866. This action is considered a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
The FAA has determined that none of the U.S. air carriers affected by
the SFAR are ``small entities'' as defined by FAA Order 2100.14A. Thus,
the FAA certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulation Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91
Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Air traffic control, Aviation safety,
Freight, Iran.
The Amendment
For the reasons set forth above, the Federal Aviation
Administration is amending 14 CFR part 91 as follows:
PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111,
44701, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306,
46315, 46316, 46502, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531.
2. Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 76 is added to
read as follows:
Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 76--Prohibition Against Certain
Flights Within the Territory and Airspace of Iran
1. Applicability. This rule applies to the following persons:
(a) All U.S. air carriers and commercial operators;
(b) All persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate
issued by the FAA except such persons operating U.S.-registered
aircraft for a foreign air carrier; or
(c) All operators of aircraft registered in the United States
except where the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier.
2. Flight Prohibition. Except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4 of
this SFAR, no person described in paragraph 1 may conduct flight
operations over or within the territory and airspace of Iran.
3. Permitted Operations. This SFAR does not prohibit persons
described in paragraph 1 from conducting flight operations over or
within the territory and airspace of Iran where such operations are
authorized by an exemption issued by the Administrator.
4. Emergency Situations. In an emergency that requires immediate
decision and action for the safety of the flight, the pilot in command
of an aircraft may deviate from this SFAR to the extent required by
that emergency. Except for U.S. air carriers and commercial operators
that are subject to the requirements of 14 CFR part 119, 121, or 135,
each person who deviates from this rule shall, within ten (10) days of
the deviation, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays,
submit to the nearest FAA Flight Standards District Office a complete
report of the operations of the aircraft involved in the deviation,
including a description of the deviation and the reasons therefore.
5. Expiration. This Special Federal Aviation Regulation will remain
in effect until further notice.
Issued in Washington, DC, on September 17, 1996.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-24317 Filed 9-18-96; 12:54 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24261 Changes in Form No. 1 Instructions
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 185 (Monday, September 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49662-49678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24261]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 141
[Docket No. RM96-17-000; Order No. 590]
Changes in Form No. 1 Instructions
Issued September 16, 1996.
Agency: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Action: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is modifying the
instructions for the filing of FERC Form No. 1, ``Annual report of
Major electric utilities, licensees and others,'' to make them clearer
and to make it easier to file the Form electronically.
Effective date: This final rule is effective on October 23, 1996.
For Further Information Contact:
Joseph C. Lynch (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. N.E., Washington,
D.C. 20426, (202) 208-2128
Robert J. Lynch (Technical Information), Office of the Chief
Accountant, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20426, (202) 219-3012.
Supplementary Information: In addition to publishing the full text of
this document in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides all
interested persons an opportunity to inspect or copy the contents of
this document during normal business hours in the Public Reference Room
at 888 First Street. NE., Washington, DC. 20426.
The Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS), an electronic
bulletin board service, provides access to the texts of formal
documents issued by the Commission. CIPS is available at no charge to
the user and may be accessed using a personal computer with a modem by
dialing (202) 208-1397 if dialing locally, or 1-800-856-3920 if dialing
long distance. CIPS is also available through the FedWorld System (by
modem or Internet). To access CIPS, set your communications software to
19200, 14400, 12000, 9600, 7200, 4800, 2400 or 1200bps, full duplex, no
parity, 8 data bits, and 1 stop bit. The full text of this document
will be available on CIPS indefinitely in ASCII and WordPerfect 5.1
format for one year. The complete text on diskette in WordPerfect
format may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, La
Dorn Systems Corporation, also located in the Public Reference Room at
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC. 20426.
Issued: September 16, 1996.
I. Introduction
On December 29, 1994, the Commission amended its regulations to
provide for the electronic filing of FERC Form No. 1, ``Annual report
of Major electric utilities, licensees and others'' (Form No. 1).1
The Commission directed that, beginning with reporting year 1994 (for
which reports were due on or before May 31, 1995),2 parties would
submit to the Commission a computer diskette with the Form No. 1
information on it, in addition to the required number of paper copies.
The Commission concluded that the change would yield significant
benefits, including more timely analysis and publication of data and
reduced cost of data entry and retrieval. Aside from requiring
electronic filing of Form No. 1, the Commission otherwise left Form No.
1 unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Electronic Filing of FERC Form No. 1 and Delegation to Chief
Accountant, Order No. 574, 60 FR 1716 (Jan. 5, 1995), FERC Stats. &
Regs. Regulations Preambles 1991-1996 para. 31,013 (1994)
(Electronic Filing I), reconsid. denied, 70 FERC para. 61,330 (1995)
(Electronic Filing II).
\2\ Electronic Filing II, 70 FERC at 62,020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is now amending the instructions for filing Form No.
1 to eliminate ambiguity and to make it easier to file the form
electronically.
II. Public Reporting Burden
The Commission estimates the public reporting burden for the
collection of information under the final rule will remain unchanged
for Form No. 1, since the only modifications are to the instructions
for the filing of the form to make them clearer and to make it easier
to file the form electronically.
[[Page 49663]]
The current annual reporting burden for the industry for the
collection of information is estimated to be 235,000 hours. The
industry burden is based on an estimate of 1,217 average hours on an
annual basis for the 193 entities which complete a Form No. 1 filing.
This estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, researching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden can be sent to, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426 (Attention: Michael Miller,
Information Services Division, (202) 208-1415), and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and
Budget (Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission); FAX: (202) 395-7285; telephone: (202) 395-3087.
III. Background
The Commission, in the exercise of its authority under the Federal
Power Act (FPA), collects data pertaining to the electric utility
industry in the United States.3 One of the principal forms that
the Commission uses to collect this information is Form No. 1, which
some 193 electric utilities and licensees submit annually.4 Form
No. 1 consists of cover pages, four pages of general information and
instructions, and 113 pages of schedules incorporating financial and
operational information pertaining to the respondent companies. An
independent certified public accountant must certify that certain
information on the form conforms to the Commission's Uniform System of
Accounts.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 16 U.S.C. 825, 825c.
\4\ Electronic Filing I, 60 FR at 1716-17; FERC Stats. & Regs.
at 31,256.
\5\ 18 CFR Part 101. See Electronic Filing I, 60 FR at 1717;
FERC Stats. & Regs. at 31,256.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has now gained experience from two reporting cycles
under the new system. The Commission received numerous inquiries
seeking clarification of certain of the instructions that were not
compatible with the new electronic filing requirement. The Commission
has determined that, in addition to clarifying these instructions, it
also should revise certain others that have created ambiguity in prior
reporting cycles.
The Commission is making these revisions in the Form No. 1
instructions in tandem with its continuing improvement of the Form No.
1 software. These changes to the Form No. 1 instructions will make it
easier to field test, and eventually distribute, a new version of the
software to each Form No. 1 respondent. A detailed description of the
changes that the Commission is making in its Form No. 1 instructions
follows. A revised set of Form No. 1 instructions appears in the
Appendix.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Note: This Appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Description of Changes to Form No. 1 Instructions
A. Overview of Instructions that the Commission is Modifying
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page No. Topic Instruction No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
102.................. Control Over Respondent.. 2
103.................. Corporations Controlled 4
By Respondent.
104.................. Officers................. 3
108.................. Important Changes During 12
The Year.
115.................. Statement Of Income For 7
The Year (Continued).
118.................. Statement of Retained 8
Earnings For The Year.
120.................. Statement Of Cash Flows.. 1
122.................. Notes To Financial 6
Statements.
261.................. Reconciliation Of 3
Reported Net Income With
Taxable Income For
Federal Income Taxes.
263.................. Taxes Accrued, Prepaid 8
And Charged During Year
(Continued).
350-351.............. Regulatory Commission 2, 4 and column
Expenses. headings (d), (e),
(i), (l).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Description of and Reason for Changes
Page 102, Instruction No. 2
1. Change: deleted.
2. Reason: Inconsistent with requirement to file data in a
structured electronic format. Instruction called for referencing
information submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
(i.e. the SEC's 10-K annual report), rather than providing the
information on a diskette.
Page 103, Instruction No. 4
1. Change: deleted.
2. Reason: Inconsistent with requirement to file data in a
structured electronic format. Instruction called for referencing
information submitted to the SEC (i.e., the SEC's 10-K annual report),
rather than providing the information on a diskette.
Page 104, Instruction No. 3
1. Change: deleted.
2. Reason: Inconsistent with requirement to file data in a
structured electronic format. Instruction called for substituting a
copy of the information submitted to the SEC (i.e., item 4 of
Regulation S-K), instead of completing page 104.
Page 108, Instruction No. 12
1. Change: The Commission is changing the words ``attached to'' to
``included on'' this page.
2. Reason: The words ``attached to'' are inconsistent with the
requirement to file data in a structured electronic format. Instruction
provided for attaching a copy of the notes that appear in the
respondent's annual report.
Page 115, Instruction No. 7
1. Change: The Commission is changing the words ``attached at'' to
``included on'' page 122.
2. Reason: The words ``attached at'' are inconsistent with the
requirement to file the data in a structured electronic format.
Instruction called for attaching at page 122 a copy of the notes
appearing in the report to stockholders.
Page 118, Instruction No. 8
1. Change: The Commission is changing the words ``attach them at''
to ``include them on'' page 122.
2. Reason: The words ``attach them at'' are inconsistent with the
requirement to file the data in a structured electronic format.
Instruction called for attaching at page 122 a copy of the notes
appearing in the report to stockholders.
Page 120, Instruction No. 1
1. Change: The Commission is changing the words ``attached to'' to
``included on'' page 122.
2. Reason: The words ``attached to'' are inconsistent with the
requirement to file the data in a structured electronic format.
Instruction called for attaching at page 122 a copy of the notes
appearing in the annual stockholders report.
Page 122, Instruction No. 6
1. Change: The Commission is changing the words ``attached hereto''
to ``included herein.''
2. Reason: The words ``attached hereto'' are inconsistent with the
[[Page 49664]]
requirement to file the data in a structured electronic format.
Instruction called for attaching a copy of the notes that appear in the
respondent's annual report to stockholders.
Page 261, Instruction No. 3
1. Change: The Commission is adding the following direction to this
instruction: ``For electronic reporting purposes complete line 27 and
provide the substitute page in the context of a footnote.''
2. Reason: As currently written, the instruction is inconsistent
with the requirement to file the data in a structured electronic
format.
Page 263, Instruction No. 8
1. Change: The Commission is deleting the current text of this
instruction and is replacing that text with the following language:
``Report in columns (i) through (l) how the taxes were distributed.
Report in column (i) only the amounts charged to Accounts 408.1 and
409.1 pertaining to electric operations. Report in column (l) the
amounts charged to Accounts 408.1 and 409.1 pertaining to other utility
departments and amounts charged to Accounts 408.2 and 409.2. Also show
in column (l) the taxes charged to utility plant or other balance sheet
accounts.''
2. Reason: The current instruction is confusing.
Pages 350-351, Instructions Nos. 2 and 4, and Column Headings for (d),
(e), (i) and (l)
1. Change: The Commission is deleting the text of Instruction No. 2
and replacing the text of that instruction with the following language:
``Report in columns (b) and (c) only the current year's expenses that
are not deferred and the current year's amortization of amounts
deferred in previous years.''
The Commission is also revising the related column (d) heading to
read: ``Total Expenses for Current Year (b)+(c)''
The Commission is deleting Instruction No. 4 and renumbering
Instruction Nos. 5 and 6 as Nos. 4 and 5.
Finally, the Commission is revising the references to Account 186
that appear in the column headings for (e), (i) and (l) to read
``Account 182.3''.
2. Reason: Current Instruction No. 2 is confusing; current
Instruction No. 4 is outdated; and, to effect the necessary changes,
the Commission must renumber certain instructions and revise column
headings accordingly.
V. Environmental Statement
Commission regulations require that an environmental assessment or
an environmental impact statement be prepared for any Commission action
that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.
7 The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from
this requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment. 8 No environmental consideration is necessary for the
promulgation of a rule that is clarifying, corrective or procedural.
9 Because the changes in the Form No. 1 instructions that the
Commission is making here are merely procedural and clarifying, and
simply correct ambiguity in certain of the instructions, no
environmental statement is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs.
Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 para. 30,783 (1987) (codified at 18
CFR Part 380).
\8\ 18 CFR 380.4.
\9\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Regulatory Flexibility Act 10 requires rulemakings either
to contain a description and analysis of the impact the rule will have
on small entities or to certify that the rule will not have a
substantial economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Because most respondents do not fall within the definition of ``small
entity,'' 11 the Commission certifies
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
\11\ See 5 U.S.C. 601(3), citing to section 3 of the Small
Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, which defines a ``small business
concern'' as a business which is independently owned and operated
and which is not dominant in its field of operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
VII. Information Collection Statement
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations require OMB to
approve certain information collection requirements imposed by an
agency 12. The information collection requirements in the final
rule are contained in FERC Form No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 5 CFR 1320.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: FERC Form No. 1 ``Annual Report of Major Electric Utilities,
Licensees and Others''.
Action: Final Rule.
OMB Control No.: 1902-0021 (Respondents shall not be penalized for
failure to respond to this collection of information unless the
collection of information displays a valid OMB control number).
Respondents: Business or other for profit entities.
Frequency of responses: Annually
Necessity of the information: The Commission uses the data
collected to carry out its regulatory responsibilities. The
Commission's Office of Chief Accountant uses the data in its audit
program and continuous review of the financial condition of regulated
companies. The Office of Electric Power Regulation (OEPR) uses the data
in rate and other proceedings, and the Offices of Hydroelectric
Licensing (OHL), Economic Policy (OEP) and General Counsel (OGC) use
the data in investigations and programs relating to the administration
of the Federal Power Act (FPA).
The FPA mandates the collection of data needed by the Commission to
perform its regulatory responsibilities in, inter alia, the setting of
just and reasonable rates. The Commission could be held in violation of
the FPA if the data were not collected.
The final rule will not change the reporting requirements of FERC
Form No. 1. This rule therefore is not subject to OMB review. The
Commission is submitting a copy of the proposed rule to OMB for
information purposes only. Interested persons may obtain information on
these reporting requirements by contacting the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE. Washington, DC. 20426
[Attention: Michael Miller, Information Services Division, (202) 208-
1415]. Comments on the requirements of this rule can be sent to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB [Attention: Desk
Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]; FAX: (202) 395-
7285; telephone: (202) 395-3087.
VIII. Administrative Findings and Effective Date
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 13 requires rulemakings
to be published in the Federal Register. The APA also mandates that an
opportunity for comments be provided when an agency promulgates
regulations. However, notice and comment are not required under the APA
when the agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure
thereon are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public
interest. 14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 5 U.S.C. 551-559.
\14\ 5 U.S.C. 553(B); e.g., Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc.
v. FERC, 822 F.2d 1123 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission finds that notice and comment are unnecessary for
this rulemaking. As explained above, this
[[Page 49665]]
final rule is merely procedural, clarifying and ministerial in nature.
The Commission is merely clarifying its Form No. 1 instructions and
making them more compatible with the requirement of electronic filing.
The Commission, therefore, finds good cause to make this rule effective
October 23, 1996.
IX. Congressional Notification
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
requires agencies to report to Congress on the promulgation of certain
final rules prior to their effective dates. 15 That reporting
requirement does not apply to this final rule because it falls within a
statutory exception for rules relating to procedural matters. 16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 5 U.S.C. 801 (1994).
\16\ 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(B) (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects
18 CFR Part 141
Electric power; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By the Commission.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends the
instructions for Form No. 1 as appear in the Appendix.
Note: This Appendix will not be codified in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
[[Page 49666]]
APPENDIX
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23SE96.000
[[Page 49667]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23SE96.001
[[Page 49668]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23SE96.002
[[Page 49669]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23SE96.003
[[Page 49670]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23SE96.004
[[Page 49671]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23SE96.005
[[Page 49672]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23SE96.006
[[Page 49673]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23SE96.007
[[Page 49674]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23SE96.008
[[Page 49675]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23SE96.009
[[Page 49676]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23SE96.010
[[Page 49677]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23SE96.011
[[Page 49678]]
[FR Doc. 96-24261 Filed 9-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24240 Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas; Assessment Rate
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 185 (Monday, September 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49650-49651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24240]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 906
[Docket No. FV96-906-1 FIR]
Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in
Texas; Assessment Rate
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture (Department) is adopting as a
final rule, without change, the provisions of an interim final rule
establishing an assessment rate for the Texas Valley Citrus Committee
(Committee) under Marketing Order No. 906 for the 1996-97 and
subsequent fiscal periods. The Committee is responsible for local
administration of the marketing order which regulates the handling of
oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas.
Authorization to assess orange and grapefruit handlers enables the
Committee to incur expenses that are reasonable and necessary to
administer the program.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Belinda G. Garza, McAllen Marketing
Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, 1313 E.
Hackberry, McAllen, TX 78501, telephone (210) 682-2833, FAX # (210)
682-5942, or Charles L. Rush, Marketing Order Administration Branch,
Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room 2523-S,
Washington, DC 20090-6456, telephone (202) 690-3670, FAX # (202) 720-
5698.
Small businesses may request information on compliance with this
regulation by contacting: Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room
2523-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456; telephone (202) 720-2491; FAX #
(202) 720-5698.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing
Agreement and Order No. 906 (7 CFR part 906), regulating the handling
of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in
Texas, hereinafter referred to as the ``order.'' The marketing
agreement and order are effective under the Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter
referred to as the ``Act.''
The Department is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive
Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, handlers of
oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas
are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived
from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as
issued herein will be applicable to all assessable oranges and
grapefruit beginning August 1, 1996, and continuing until amended,
suspended, or terminated. This rule will not preempt any State or local
laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted
therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on
the petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the
petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States
in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or
her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the
Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not
later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the
economic impact of this rule on small entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in
that they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 2,000 producers of oranges and grapefruit
in the production area and 19 handlers subject to regulation under the
marketing order. Small agricultural producers have been defined by the
Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as those having annual
receipts less than $500,000, and small agricultural service firms are
defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $5,000,000. The
majority of orange and grapefruit producers and handlers may be
classified as small entities.
The Texas orange and grapefruit marketing order provides authority
for the Committee, with the approval of the Department, to formulate an
annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to
administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers and
handlers of Texas oranges and grapefruit. They are familiar with the
Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their
local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate
budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and
discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have
an opportunity to participate and provide input.
The Committee met on May 29, 1996, and recommended 1996-97
expenditures of $1,085,130 and an assessment rate of $0.125 per \7/10\
bushel carton of oranges and grapefruit. In comparison, last year's
budgeted expenditures were $1,008,643. The assessment rate of $0.125 is
$0.025 higher than last year's established rate. Major expenditures
recommended by the Committee for the 1996-97 fiscal year include
$712,800 for advertising and $174,000 for the Mexican Fruit Fly support
program. Budgeted expenses for these items in 1995-96 were $500,000 for
advertising and $174,000 for the Mexican Fruit Fly support program.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by
dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of Texas oranges
and grapefruit. Texas orange and grapefruit shipments for the year are
estimated at 8 million cartons which should provide $1,000,000 in
assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with
interest income
[[Page 49651]]
and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, will be adequate to
cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve will be kept within the
maximum permitted by the order.
An interim final rule regarding this action was published in the
July 22, 1996, issue of the Federal Register (61 FR 37810). That rule
provided for a 30-day comment period. No comments were received.
While this rule will impose some additional costs on handlers, the
costs are in the form of uniform assessments on all handlers. Some of
the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these
costs will be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the
marketing order. Therefore, the AMS has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in
effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by the
Secretary upon recommendation and information submitted by the
Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate is effective for an indefinite
period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each
fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider
recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and
times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or the
Department. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested
persons may express their views at these meetings. The Department will
evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to
determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. The
Committee's 1996-97 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods will
be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by the Department.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including
the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other
available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as
hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of
the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined that good
cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until
30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The
Committee needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses which are
incurred on a continuous basis; (2) the 1996-97 fiscal period began on
August 1, 1996, and the marketing order requires that the rate of
assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable oranges and
grapefruit handled during such fiscal period; (3) handlers are aware of
this action which was recommended by the Committee at a public meeting
and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past years;
and (4) an interim final rule was published on this action, providing a
30-day comment period, and no comments were received.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 906
Marketing agreements, Grapefruit, Oranges, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
PART 906--ORANGES AND GRAPEFRUIT GROWN IN THE LOWER RIO GRANDE
VALLEY IN TEXAS
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR part 906 which
was published at 61 FR 37810 on July 22, 1996, is adopted as a final
rule without change.
Dated: September 17, 1996.
Robert C. Keeney,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-24240 Filed 9-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24239 Nectarines and Fresh Peaches Grown in California; Assessment Rates
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 185 (Monday, September 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49651-49653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24239]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Parts 916 and 917
[Docket No. FV96-916-1 FIR]
Nectarines and Fresh Peaches Grown in California; Assessment
Rates
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture (Department) is adopting as a
final rule, without change, the provisions of an interim final rule
establishing assessment rates for the Nectarine Administrative
Committee and the Peach Commodity Committee (Committees) under
Marketing Order Nos. 916 and 917 for the 1996-97 and subsequent fiscal
periods. The Committees are responsible for local administration of the
marketing orders which regulate the handling of nectarines and fresh
peaches grown in California. Authorization to assess nectarine and
fresh peach handlers enables the Committees to incur expenses that are
reasonable and necessary to administer the programs.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Kate Nelson, Marketing Assistant,
California Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS,
USDA, 2202 Monterey Street, suite 102B, Fresno, California 93721, (209)
487-5901, FAX (209) 487-5906, or Kenneth G. Johnson, Marketing
Specialist, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable
Division, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room 2523-S, Washington, DC 20090-
6456, telephone (202) 720-5127, FAX (202) 720-5698. Small businesses
may request information on compliance with this regulation by
contacting: Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit
and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room 2523-S,
Washington, D.C. 20090-6456; telephone: (202) 720-2491, FAX (202) 720-
5698.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing
Agreement No. 916 and Order No. 916, both as amended (7 CFR part 916),
regulating the handling of nectarines grown in California, and
Marketing Agreement No. 917 and Order No. 917, both as amended (7 CFR
part 917), regulating the handling of fresh peaches grown in
California, hereinafter referred to as the ``orders.'' The marketing
agreements and orders are effective under the Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter
referred to as the ``Act.''
The Department is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive
Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. Under the marketing orders now in effect, California
nectarine and fresh peach handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to
administer the orders are derived from such assessments. It is intended
that the assessment rates as issued herein will be applicable to all
assessable nectarines and peaches beginning March 1, 1996, and
continuing until amended, suspended, or terminated. This rule will not
preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they
present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted
therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on
the petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the
petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States
in any
[[Page 49652]]
district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her
principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's
ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20
days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the
economic impact of this rule on small entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in
that they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 1,800 producers of nectarines and peaches
in the production area and approximately 300 handlers subject to
regulation under the marketing orders. Small agricultural producers
have been defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601)
as those having annual receipts less than $500,000, and small
agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts
are less than $5,000,000. The majority of nectarine and fresh peach
producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.
The nectarine and peach marketing orders provide authority for the
Committees, with the approval of the Department, to formulate annual
budgets of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer
the programs. The members of the Committees are producers and handlers
of California nectarines and fresh peaches. They are familiar with the
Committees' needs and with the costs for goods and services in their
local area and are thus in a position to formulate appropriate budgets
and assessment rates. The assessment rates are formulated and discussed
in public meetings. Thus, all directly affected persons have an
opportunity to participate and provide input.
The Nectarine Administrative Committee met on May 2, 1996, and
unanimously recommended 1996-97 expenditures of $3,682,728 and an
assessment rate of $0.1850 per 25-pound container or equivalent of
nectarines. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were
$3,683,031. The assessment rate of $0.1850 is the same as last year's
established rate. Major expenditures recommended by the Committee for
the 1996-97 year include $1,326,376 for domestic market development,
$972,300 for inspection, $342,250 in salaries and benefits, and
$120,870 for research. Budgeted expenses for these items in 1995-96
were $1,534,593, $855,000, $340,025, and $99,117 respectively.
The Peach Commodity Committee met on May 1, 1996, and unanimously
recommended 1996-97 expenditures of $3,722,757 and an assessment rate
of $0.1900 per 25-pound container or equivalent of fresh peaches. In
comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $3,736,531. The
assessment rate of $0.1900 is the same as last year's established rate.
Major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 1996-97 year
include $1,326,376 for domestic market development, $991,500 for
inspection, $342,250 in salaries and benefits, and $120,870 for
research. Budgeted expenses for these items in 1995-96 were $1,534,593,
$900,000, $340,025, and $99,117 respectively.
The assessment rates recommended by the Committees were derived by
dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of California
nectarines and fresh peaches. Nectarine shipments for the year are
estimated at 17,266,000 25-pound containers or equivalent which should
provide $3,194,210 in assessment income, and fresh peach shipments for
the year are estimated at 17,250,000 25-pound containers or equivalent
which should provide $3,277,500 in assessment income. Income derived
from handler assessments, the Plum Commodity Committee, and the Pear
Field Service, along with interest income and funds from the
Committees' authorized reserves, will be adequate to cover budgeted
expenses. Funds in the reserves will be kept within the maximum
permitted by the orders.
An interim final rule regarding this action was published in the
July 22, 1996, issue of the Federal Register (61 FR 37812). That rule
provided for a 30-day comment period. Two comments were received, both
in support of the assessment rates as published.
While this rule will impose some additional costs on handlers, the
costs are in the form of uniform assessments on all handlers. Some of
the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these
costs will be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the
marketing orders.
Therefore, the AMS has determined that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The assessment rates established in this rule will continue in
effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by the
Secretary upon recommendation and information submitted by the
Committees or other available information.
Although these assessment rates are effective for an indefinite
period, the Committees will continue to meet prior to or during each
fiscal period to recommend budgets of expenses and consider
recommendations for modification of their assessment rates. The dates
and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committees or
the Department. Committee meetings are open to the public and
interested persons may express their views at these meetings. The
Department will evaluate the Committees' recommendations and other
available information to determine whether modification of the
assessment rates are needed. The Committees' 1996-97 budgets and those
for subsequent fiscal periods will be reviewed and, as appropriate,
approved by the Department.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including
the information and recommendations submitted by the Committees and
other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as
hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of
the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined that good
cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until
30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The
Committees need to have sufficient funds to pay their expenses which
are incurred on a continuous basis; (2) the 1996-97 fiscal periods
began on March 1, 1996, and the marketing orders require that the rates
of assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable nectarines
and peaches handled during such fiscal period; (3) handlers are aware
of this action which was unanimously recommended by the Committees at
public meetings and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued
in past years; and (4) an interim final rule was published on this
action and provided for a 30-day comment period. Two comments were
received, both in support of the assessment rates as published.
[[Page 49653]]
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 916
Nectarines, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
7 CFR Part 917
Peaches, Pears, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
PART 916--NECTARINES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA
PART 917--FRESH PEARS AND PEACHES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR parts 916 and
917 which was published at 61 FR 37812 on July 22, 1996, is adopted as
a final rule.
Dated: September 16, 1996.
Robert C. Keeney,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-24239 Filed 9-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24237 Kiwifruit Grown in California; Assessment Rate
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 185 (Monday, September 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49653-49654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24237]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 920
[Docket No. FV96-920-1 FIR]
Kiwifruit Grown in California; Assessment Rate
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture (Department) is adopting as a
final rule, without change, the provisions of an interim final rule
establishing an assessment rate for the Kiwifruit Administrative
Committee (Committee) under Marketing Order No. 920 for the 1996-97 and
subsequent fiscal periods. The Committee is responsible for local
administration of the marketing order which regulates the handling of
kiwifruit grown in California. Authorization to assess kiwifruit
handlers enables the Committee to incur expenses that are reasonable
and necessary to administer the program.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Kate Nelson, Marketing Assistant,
California Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS,
USDA, 2202 Monterey Street, suite 102B, Fresno, California 93721,
telephone (209) 487-5901, FAX# (209) 487-5906, or Charles L. Rush,
Marketing Specialist, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and
Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room 2523-S, Washington,
DC 20090-6456, telephone (202) 720-5127, FAX# (202) 720-5698. Small
businesses may request information on compliance with this regulation
by contacting: Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch,
Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room 2523-S,
Washington, DC 20090-6456, telephone (202) 720-2491, FAX# (202) 720-
5698.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing Order
No. 920, as amended (7 CFR part 920), regulating the handling of
kiwifruit grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the
``order.'' The marketing order is effective under the Agricultural
Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674),
hereinafter referred to as the ``Act.''
The Department is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive
Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, California
kiwifruit handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the
order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the
assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable
kiwifruit beginning August 1, 1996, and continuing until amended,
suspended, or terminated. This rule will not preempt any State or local
laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted
therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on
the petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the
petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States
in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or
her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the
Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not
later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the
economic impact of this rule on small entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in
that they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 500 producers of kiwifruit in the
production area and approximately 65 handlers subject to regulation
under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers have been
defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as those
having annual receipts less than $500,000, and small agricultural
service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than
$5,000,000. The majority of kiwifruit producers and handlers may be
classified as small entities.
The kiwifruit marketing order provides authority for the Committee,
with the approval of the Department, to formulate an annual budget of
expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the
program. The members of the Committee are producers of California
kiwifruit and one non-industry member. They are familiar with the
Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their
local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate
budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and
discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have
an opportunity to participate and provide input.
The Committee met on June 12, 1996, and unanimously recommended
1996-97 expenditures of $178,598 and an assessment rate of $0.0175 per
tray or tray equivalent of kiwifruit. In comparison, last year's
budgeted expenditures were $172,683. The assessment rate of $0.0175 per
tray or tray equivalent is $0.0025 higher than last year's established
rate. Major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 1996-97
year include $108,500 for administrative staff and field salaries,
$20,398 for travel, food and lodging and $13,000 for accident and
health insurance. Budgeted expenses for these items in 1995-96 were
$102,850, $19,798 and $13,050, respectively.
In the interim final rule, an expense of $650 for management/staff
food & lodging, was inadvertently omitted. This would modify the total
amount for travel, food and lodging to be $20,398.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by
dividing
[[Page 49654]]
anticipated expenses by expected shipments of California kiwifruit.
Kiwifruit shipments for the year are estimated at 10.5 million trays or
tray equivalents of kiwifruit which should provide $183,750 in
assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with
interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, will
be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve will be
kept within the maximum permitted by the order.
An interim final rule regarding this action was published in the
August 5, 1996, issue of the Federal Register (61 FR 40506). That rule
provided for a 30-day comment period. No comments were received.
While this rule will impose some additional costs on handlers, the
costs are in the form of uniform assessments on all handlers. Some of
the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these
costs will be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the
marketing order. Therefore, the AMS has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in
effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by the
Secretary upon recommendation and information submitted by the
Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate is effective for an indefinite
period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each
fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider
recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and
times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or the
Department. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested
persons may express their views at these meetings. The Department will
evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to
determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. The
Committee's 1996-97 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods will
be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by the Department.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including
the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other
available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as
hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of
the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined that good
cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until
30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The
Committee needs to have sufficient funds to pay its expenses which are
incurred on a continuous basis; (2) the 1996-97 fiscal period began on
August 1, 1996, and the marketing order requires that the rate of
assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable kiwifruit
handled during such fiscal period; (3) handlers are aware of this
action which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public
meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past
years; and (4) an interim final rule was published on this action,
providing a 30-day comment period, and no comments were received.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 920
Kiwifruit, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
PART 920--KIWIFRUIT GROWN IN CALIFORNIA
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR part 920 which
was published at 61 FR 40506 on August 5, 1996, is adopted as a final
rule without change.
Dated: September 17, 1996.
Robert C. Keeney,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-24237 Filed 9-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24199 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan; National Priorities List Update
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 185 (Monday, September 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24199]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-5612-8]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan; National
Priorities List Update
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of deletion of Bonneville Power Administration Ross
Complex (USDOE) from the National Priorities List.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the
deletion of the United States Department of Energy (USDOE) Bonneville
Power Administration Ross Complex, located in Clark County, Vancouver,
Washington, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is
Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to
Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. EPA and the State of
Washington's Department of Ecology have determined that the Site poses
no significant threat to public health or the environment and
therefore, no further remedial measures pursuant to CERCLA are
appropriate.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 23, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Harney, Site Manager, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 6th Avenue (ECL-111),
Seattle, Washington 98101, (206)-553-6635.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to be deleted from the NPL is:
Bonneville Power Administration Ross Complex (USDOE), Clark County,
Vancouver, Washington.
A Notice of Intent to Delete for this site was published July 18,
1996 (FRL-5537-8). The closing date for comments on the Notice of
Intent to Delete was August 19, 1996. EPA received no comments.
EPA identifies sites which appear to present a significant risk to
public health, welfare, or the environment and it maintains the NPL as
the list of those sites. Any site deleted from the NPL remains eligible
for remedial actions in the unlikely event that conditions at the site
warrant such action in the future. NCP Sec. 300.425(e)(3). Deletion of
a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability or
impede agency efforts to recover costs associated with response
efforts.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air pollution control. Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Dated: September 10, 1996.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended
as follows:
PART 300--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Appendix B--[Amended]
2. Table 2 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the
site for Bonneville Power Administration Ross (USDOE), Vancouver,
Washington.
[FR Doc. 96-24199 Filed 9-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24156 Prevailing Rate Systems; Abolishment of Norfolk, MA, Nonappropriated Fund Wage Area
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 185 (Monday, September 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49649-49650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24156]
========================================================================
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. 185 / Monday, September 23, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 49649]]
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 532
RIN 3206-AH58
Prevailing Rate Systems; Abolishment of Norfolk, MA,
Nonappropriated Fund Wage Area
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing interim
regulations to abolish the Norfolk, MA, nonappropriated fund (NAF)
Federal Wage System (FWS) wage area and redefine its five counties as
areas of application to nearby NAF wage areas for pay-setting purposes.
No permanent employee's wage rate will be reduced as a result of this
change.
DATES: This interim rule becomes effective on September 23, 1996.
Comments must be received by October 23, 1996. Employees currently paid
rates from the Norfolk, MA, NAF wage schedule will continue to be paid
from that schedule until their conversion to the schedules of the wage
areas to which their counties of employment are being redefined by this
rule on November 15, 1996, one day prior to the next adjustment of the
Middlesex, MA, NAF schedule.
ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to Donald J. Winstead, Assistant
Director for Compensation Policy, Human Resources Systems Service,
Office of Personnel Management, Room 6H31, 1900 E Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20415, or FAX: (202) 606-0824.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frank Derby, (202) 606-2848.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Defense recommended to OPM
that the Norfolk, MA, NAF FWS wage area be abolished and that the five
counties having continuing FWS employment be redefined as areas of
application to nearby NAF wage areas. Norfolk County, Plymouth County,
and Suffolk County, MA, are being redefined to the Middlesex, MA, wage
area. Barnstable County and Nantucket County, MA, are being redefined
to the Newport, RI, wage area. This change is necessary because the
pending closure of Naval Air Station, South Weymouth, MA, leaves the
Norfolk, MA, NAF wage area without an activity having the capability to
conduct a wage survey.
As required in regulation, 5 CFR 532.219, the following criteria
were considered in redefining these wage areas:
(1) Proximity of largest activity in each county;
(2) Transportation facilities and commuting patterns; and
(3) Similarities of the counties in:
(i) Overall population;
(ii) Private employment in major industry categories; and
(iii) Kinds and sizes of private industrial establishments.
All regulatory factors favor redefinition of Norfolk County and
Suffolk County to the adjacent Middlesex, MA, NAF wage area.
For Plymouth County, proximity slightly favors (10 kilometers or 6
miles) Newport, RI; however, the remaining regulatory factors--i.e.,
commuting patterns and overall population and industrial patterns--both
favor Middlesex, MA.
Commuting patterns for Barnstable County and Nantucket County
slightly favor Middlesex, MA, but proximity and overall population and
industrial patterns both favor Newport, RI.
The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee reviewed this
recommendation and by consensus recommended approval.
Waiver of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Delay in Effective Date
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), I find that good cause exists
for waiving the general notice of proposed rulemaking. Also, pursuant
to section 553(d)(3) of title 5, United States Code, I find that good
cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days
because the next Norfolk, MA, NAF wage survey would otherwise be
required to begin in September 1996.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that these regulations will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they
affect only Federal agencies and employees.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information,
Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
Office of Personnel Management.
Lorraine A. Green,
Deputy Director.
Accordingly, OPM is amending 5 CFR part 532 as follows:
PART 532--PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS
1. The authority citation for part 532 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; Sec. 532.707 also issued under 5
U.S.C. 552.
Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 532--[Amended]
2. In appendix B to subpart B, the listing for the State of
Massachusetts is amended by removing the entry for Norfolk.
3. Appendix D to subpart B is amended by removing the wage area
list for Norfolk, Massachusetts, and by revising the lists for
Middlesex, Massachusetts, and Newport, Rhode Island, to read as
follows:
Appendix D to Subpart B of Part 532--Nonappropriated Fund Wage and
Survey Areas
* * * * *
Massachusetts
Middlesex
Survey Area
Massachusetts:
Middlesex
Area of application. Survey area plus:
Massachusetts:
Norfolk
Plymouth
Suffolk
New Hampshire:
Hillsborough
* * * * *
Rhode Island
* * * * *
[[Page 49650]]
Newport
Survey Area
Rhode Island:
Newport
Area of application. Survey area plus:
Massachusetts:
Barnstable
Nantucket
Rhode Island:
Providence
Washington
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-24156 Filed 9-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24053 Clean Air Act Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan for Colorado; Denver Nonattainment Area PMINF10 Contingency Measures
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 185 (Monday, September 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49682-49684]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24053]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CO-001-0001a; FRL-5606-4]
Clean Air Act Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation
Plan for Colorado; Denver Nonattainment Area PM10 Contingency
Measures
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA approves the state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Colorado on November 17, 1995, to satisfy the
Federal Clean Air Act requirement to submit contingency measures for
the Denver moderate PM10 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers) nonattainment
area. EPA is approving this SIP revision because it is consistent with
the PM10 contingency measure requirements of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (Act).
DATES: This action is effective on December 23, 1996 unless adverse
comments are received by November 22, 1996. If the effective date is
delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Richard R. Long, Director
Air Program, EPA Region VIII, at the address listed below. Copies of
the State's submittal and other information are available for
inspection during normal business hours at the following locations: Air
Program, Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th Street,
Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466; and Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division, 4300
Cherry Creek Dr. South, Denver, Colorado 80222-1530. The information
may be inspected between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., on weekdays, except for
legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Callie Videtich, 8P2-A, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite
500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, (303) 312-6434.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background of Denver PM10 SIP
The Denver, Colorado area was designated nonattainment for
PM10 and classified as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and
188(a) of the Act, upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991); 40 CFR 81.306 (specifying
designations for Colorado).
Those States containing initial moderate PM10 nonattainment
areas were required to submit several provisions by November 15, 1991.
These provisions, including an attainment demonstration (or
demonstration that timely attainment is impracticable), are described
in EPA's proposed rulemaking for the Denver moderate PM10
nonattainment area SIP (see 58 FR 66326, December 20, 1993). The Denver
PM10 control measures targeted re-entrained road dust, residential
wood burning, stationary sources and mobile sources for reductions in
PM10 emissions to demonstrate attainment of the PM10 NAAQS.
See the December 20, 1993, notice of proposed rulemaking and associated
Technical Support Document (TSD) for further details.
Such States were also required to submit contingency measures by
November 15, 1993 (see 57 FR 13543). The Governor of Colorado initially
submitted a contingency measure SIP for Denver on December 9, 1993. On
March 30, 1994, the EPA notified the State that it had determined that
the wintertime secondary particulate concentration contained in the
June 7, 1993, Denver PM10 SIP submittal was underestimated by 5.4
g/m3. Based upon that finding, the contingency measures
contained in the December 9, 1993, submittal were used to provide
further emission reductions for a revised attainment demonstration
addressing the additional secondary impacts. The State then undertook a
process to develop new contingency measures. The Governor submitted the
new measures on November 17, 1995, for the Denver nonattainment area.
II. This Action
A. Analysis Requirements for State Submissions
1. Procedural Background
The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to
EPA [see Section 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the Act]. EPA also must
determine whether a submittal is complete and therefore warrants
further EPA review and action [see section 110(k)(1) of the Act, 57 FR
13565, and EPA's completeness criteria for SIP submittals in 40 CFR
part 51, appendix V].
To entertain public comment, the State of Colorado's Air Quality
Control Commission (AQCC), after providing adequate notice, held a
public hearing on March 16, 1995, to consider the Denver PM10
contingency measures.
[[Page 49683]]
Following the hearing, the AQCC adopted revisions to Colorado
Regulation No. 16 as the Denver PM10 contingency measures. The
Contingency Measure SIP revision was formally submitted to EPA by the
Governor for approval on November 17, 1995.
The SIP revision was reviewed by EPA to determine completeness in
accordance with the completeness criteria referenced above. The
submittal was found to be complete, and a letter dated March 14, 1996,
was forwarded to the Governor indicating the completeness of the
submittal and the next steps to be taken in the processing of the SIP
submittal.
2. PM10 Contingency Measures
The Clean Air Act requires that States containing PM10
nonattainment areas adopt contingency measures that will take effect
without further action by the State or EPA upon a determination by EPA
that an area failed to make RFP or to timely attain the applicable
NAAQS, as described in section 172(c)(9). See generally 57 FR 13510-
13512 and 13543-13544. Pursuant to section 172(b), the Administrator
established a schedule providing that states containing initial
moderate PM10 nonattainment areas shall submit SIP revisions
containing contingency measures no later than November 15, 1993. (See
57 FR 13543.)
The General Preamble further explains that contingency measures for
PM10 should consist of other available control measures, beyond
those necessary to meet the core moderate area control requirement to
implement reasonably available control measures (see sections 172(c)(1)
and 189(a)(1)(C) of the Act). Based on the statutory structure, EPA
believes that contingency measures must, at a minimum, provide for
continued progress toward the attainment goal during the interim period
between the determination that the SIP has failed to achieve RFP/
provide for timely attainment of the NAAQS and the additional formal
air quality planning following the determination (57 FR 13511).
Section 172(c)(9) of the Act specifies that contingency measures
shall ``take effect * * * without further action by the State or the
[EPA] Administrator.'' EPA has interpreted this requirement (in the
General Preamble at 57 FR 13512) to mean that no further rulemaking
activities by the State or EPA would be needed to implement the
contingency measures. In general, EPA expects all actions needed to
effect full implementation of the measures to occur within 60 days
after EPA notifies the State of its failure to attain the standard or
make RFP.
EPA recognizes that certain actions, such as notification of
sources, modification of permits, etc., may be needed before some
measures can be implemented. However, States must show that their
contingency measures can be implemented with minimal further
administrative action on their part and with no additional rulemaking
action such as public hearing or legislative review.
The Denver PM10 Contingency Measure SIP contains the following
control measure--Improved Street Sweeping Technology. The control
measure is found in Colorado Regulation No. 16, Street Sanding
Emissions and provides that beginning November 1 of the first winter
season after the determination and notification that the Denver
PM10 nonattainment area has failed to attain the PM10 NAAQS
or to make RFP, the contingency measure will be implemented.
Below is a detailed description of the contingency measure adopted
for the Denver moderate PM10 nonattainment area:
a. Improved Street Sweeping Technology Contingency Measure. The
Denver PM10 Contingency Measure SIP requires that any entity
responsible for applying street sanding material within the Denver
Central Business District (CBD), defined as the area bounded by Colfax
Avenue, Speer Boulevard, Wynkoop Street, 20th Street and Broadway,
shall clean all streets in the CBD using vacuum sweepers or a more
effective technology within four days of each sanding episode, or as
soon as weather permits. The requirements are found in revisions to
Regulation No. 16, Street Sanding Emissions.
3. Effectiveness of the Contingency Measure
Information provided in the SIP submittal indicates that
implementation of the contingency measure would result in an additional
15 g/m\3\ reduction of PM10 at the highest receptor in
downtown Denver. This reduction equates to an additional 50% reduction
in emissions over that demonstrated for the controls in the Denver
moderate area SIP demonstration. This reduction exceeds the 25%
emissions reduction which EPA expects from contingency measures as
discussed in the General Preamble.
EPA believes this contingency measure is approvable. The control
measures implemented in the PM10 SIP are projected to achieve more
emissions reductions than needed to demonstrate attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS, as indicated by the State's predicted 24-hour
attainment concentration of 147.8 g/m\3\. Furthermore, the
predicted 24-hour ambient concentration resulting if the contingency
measure is implemented is 132.8 g/m\3\. Since the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS is 150 g/m\3\, this established safety margin
further supports the reasonableness of this contingency measure.
4. Early Implementation
Section IV. B. of Colorado Regulation No. 16 sets out its early
implementation policy as follows: Those parties subject to the
contingency measure requirements could implement the measures at any
time prior to EPA's determination that the area failed to attain the
PM10 NAAQS or make RFP. Early implementation of these measures
will not result in the requirement to implement additional contingency
measures if the area eventually is determined to fail to attain the
NAAQS or make RFP. If Denver were reclassified to a serious
nonattainment area, additional control measures, including best
available control measures and ``serious area'' contingency measures,
would be necessary.
5. Enforceability Issues
All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by
the State and EPA (see Sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR
13556). The EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIPs and SIP
revisions were stated in a September 23, 1987, memorandum (with
attachments) from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, et al. (see 57 FR 13541). State implementation plan
provisions also must contain a program to provide for enforcement of
control measures and other elements in the SIP [see section
110(a)(2)(C)].
EPA's review of the November 17, 1995, PM10 Contingency
Measure Plan has revealed that the State has adequate authority to
enforce state air regulations against local entities, and enforce local
air pollution requirements when local entities fail to do so. In
addition, the State has authority to implement and enforce all
emissions limitations and control measures adopted by the AQCC. In
summary, EPA believes that Colorado has adequate enforcement
capabilities to ensure compliance with the Denver contingency measure
SIP. For further information, see the TSD prepared for this document.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving the PM10 contingency measure plan submitted
for
[[Page 49684]]
the Denver moderate PM10 nonattainment area by the Governor of
Colorado on November 17, 1995. This submittal adequately addresses the
PM10 contingency measure requirements for Denver.
EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the
Agency 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 revisions
should adverse or critical comments be filed. Under the procedures
established in the May 10, 1994 Federal Register (59 FR 24054), this
action will be effective December 23, 1996 unless, by November 22,
1996, adverse or critical comments are received.
If EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn before
the effective date by publishing a subsequent notice 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 on December 23, 1996.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to a SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
IV. Executive Order
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.
V. Regulatory Flexibility
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 economic 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.
Approvals of SIP submittals under section 110 and subchapter I,
part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements, but
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.
Therefore, because the Federal SIP-approval does not impose any new
requirements, I certify that it does not have a significant impact on
small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-
State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of a regulatory
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of State action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base
its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.
E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
VI. Unfunded Mandates
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 also determined that this promulgated action 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 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.
VII. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
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 this rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
VIII. Petition for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 22, 1996. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review must 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)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 27, 1996.
Patricia D. Hull,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart G--Colorado
2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(74) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(74) The Governor of Colorado submitted PM10 contingency
measures for Denver, Colorado in a letter dated November 17, 1995.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Section IV. of Regulation No. 16, Street Sanding Emissions,
adopted March 16, 1995, effective May 30, 1995.
[FR Doc. 96-24053 Filed 9-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24051 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Washington
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 185 (Monday, September 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49688-49690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24051]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[WA56-7131a; FRL-5603-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Washington
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving in part
several minor revisions to the State of Washington Implementation Plan
(SIP) and, at the same time, taking no action on two sections of these
revisions which are unrelated to the purposes of the SIP. Pursuant to
section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Director of the
Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) submitted a request to EPA
[[Page 49689]]
dated May 24, 1996 to revise certain sections of a local air pollution
control agency (the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency)
regulations.
DATES: This action is effective on November 22, 1996, unless adverse or
critical comments are received by October 23, 1996. If the effective
date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision request and other information
supporting this action are available for inspection during normal
business hours at the following locations: EPA, Office of Air Quality
(OAQ)-207), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101; and
Washington State Department of Ecology, 300 Desmond Drive, Lacey,
Washington 98504.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tamara Langton, Office of Air Quality
(OAQ-107), EPA, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553-2709.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Discussion of Submittal
The WDOE May 24, 1996 submittal consists of minor amendments to the
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) Regulations I and
III. Regulation I is being amended to be consistent with the state
agricultural burning regulations and to allow training fires and fire
extinguisher training by rule rather than by PSAPCA's formal written
approval. The amendments to Regulation I were adopted by PSAPCA on
February 8, 1996, and became effective on March 14, 1996. During the
period offered by PSAPCA for public comments, no public testimony was
offered.
Regulation III is being amended to include new monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements for perchloroethylene dry cleaning
operations. This amendment to Regulation III was adopted by PSAPCA on
November 8, 1995, and became effective on December 14, 1995. Again,
there were no public comments submitted by the public.
The above two minor amendments to Regulation I and III continue to
provide clarity to revised sections and overall strengthening measures
for the control of ozone within the affected nonattainment areas and,
generally, the control of particulate matter.
The PSAPCA amendments submitted by WDOE for inclusion into the SIP
are local air pollution regulations which are at least as stringent as
the statewide rules of WDOE. EPA has determined that these minor SIP
revisions comply with all applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA
policy and regulations concerning such revisions.
II. Summary of Today's Action
EPA is, by today's action, approving in part Regulation I, Article
8, Outdoor Fires, sections 8.02 and 8.05, and Regulation III, Article
3, Source-Specific Emission Standards, section 3.03; deleting
Regulation I, Article 8, section 8.01, Policy for Outdoor Fires; and,
taking no action in part on Regulation I, Article 8, Outdoor Fires,
sections 8.07 (Fire Extinguisher Training) and 8.08 (Fire Department
Training Exercises) as these revisions are not directly related to the
criteria pollutants regulated under the SIP.
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment to the SIP 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 November 22, 1996, unless, by October 23, 1996,
adverse or critical comments are received.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent notice that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will 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 22, 1996.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
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.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
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.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, 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. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
C. Unfunded Mandates
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 approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
Federal requirements.
[[Page 49690]]
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
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).
E. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 22, 1996. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the 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), 42 U.S.C.
7607(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 19, 1996.
Charles Findley,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the Implementation Plan for
the State of Washington was approved by the Director of the Office
of Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart WW--Washington
2. Section 52.2470 is amended by adding paragraph (c) (65) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2470 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(65) Several minor revisions consisting of amended regulations
affecting a local air agency, the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control
Agency, were submitted to EPA from the Washington State Department of
Ecology for inclusion into the Washington State Implementation Plan.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter dated May 24, 1996 from the Director of the Washington
State Department of Ecology to the EPA Regional Administrator
submitting revisions to the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
regulations for inclusion into the State Implementation Plan: Puget
Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, Regulation I, Article 8, Outdoor
Fires, sections 8.02, Outdoor Fires-Prohibited Types, and 8.05,
Agricultural Burning, effective 3/14/96; Puget Sound Air Pollution
Control Agency, Regulation III, Article 3, Source-Specific Emission
Standards, section 3.03, Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaners, effective 12/
14/95.
[FR Doc. 96-24051 Filed 9-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24047 State of Texas; Approval of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Addressing the Sulfur Dioxide Emission Limit; Site-Specific Revision to the SIP for the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) Facility in Rockdale, TX
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 185 (Monday, September 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49685-49688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24047]
[[Page 49685]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TX-58-1-7256a; FRL-5557-8]
State of Texas; Approval of State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Addressing the Sulfur Dioxide Emission Limit; Site-Specific Revision to
the SIP for the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) Facility in
Rockdale, TX
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces the EPA's decision to approve a
September 20, 1995, request from the State of Texas for a site-specific
revision to the Texas sulfur dioxide (SO2) SIP. The revision
amends the SO2 emission limitations applicable to the ALCOA
facility in Milam County, Texas. In this action, the EPA is approving
Texas' SIP revision allowing an increase in lignite fuel emissions of
SO2 from 3.0 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu)
to 4.0 lb/MMBtu. The SIP revision also includes new requirements for
limits on the sulfur content of the petroleum coke used at the ALCOA
facility and an increased stack height to ``Good Engineering
Practices'' (GEP) as defined in 40 CFR 51.100 (ii). Texas has modeled
these changes demonstrating that with the revisions the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for SO2 will remain
protected.
DATES: This action is effective on November 22, 1996, unless adverse
comments are received by October 23, 1996. If the effective date is
delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Copies of the State's
petition and other information relevant to this action are available
for inspection during normal hours at the following locations:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M. Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Office of Air Quality,
12124 Park 35 Circle, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, TX 78711-3087.
Anyone wishing to review this petition at the EPA office is asked
to contact the person below to schedule an appointment 24 hours in
advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Petra Sanchez, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-6686.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On May 31, 1972 the EPA approved the original Texas SIP submission
allowing for 3.0 lbs/MMBtu SO2 emissions from solid fossil fuel-
fired steam generators at the ALCOA plant. In 1979, ALCOA petitioned
the Texas Air Control Board (TACB), now the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCC), to allow relaxed SO2 emission
limitations for its power plant units.
The 1979 relaxation increased the allowable SO2 limit to 5.0
lb/MMBtu, and was published in the Texas Register on July 6, 1979.
After a public hearing conducted by the TACB on November 13, 1979,
ALCOA modified its original petition and agreed to gradually lower the
SO2 emission limit from 5.0 lb/MMBtu SO2 to 4.5 lb/MMBtu in
1981, and eventually to 4.0 lb/MMBtu after January 1, 1982. The TACB
adopted this phased-in schedule on December 14, 1979, thus, lowering
the requirement to 4.0 lb/MMBtu, as it remains today in the Texas
regulations (see TAC Sec. 112.8). However, the increase in allowable
SO2 limits was not officially revised and submitted to the EPA for
approval as a SIP revision. Also in 1979, a new 545 MW power plant
(Sandow Four) was built, doubling the fuel capacity from 2.1 million to
5.6 million tons of lignite per year. Sandow Four is owned by TU
Electric Company and is under a contractual agreement with ALCOA to
supply most of its power to ALCOA's operations. Therefore, Sandow Four
Unit is not part of this SIP action but must meet more stringent
emissions limitations. Sandow Four has a Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permit and is under New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) as well thus, BACT (Best Available Control Technology)
applies. Under NSPS, Sandow Four is subject to a limitation of 1.2 lb/
MMBtu SO2 emissions in accordance with 40 CFR 60, Subpart D.
SIP Violation
On May 5, 1981, the EPA issued a Notice of Violation to ALCOA for
exceeding the 3.0 lb/MMBtu SO2 limit in the approved 1972 SIP.
Without an approved SIP revision, ALCOA should have complied with the
3.0 lb/MMBtu limit under federal law rather than the higher state
limit. The SIP revision provided by Texas includes information on the
ALCOA facilities (i.e., Sandow One, Two, and Three) to ensure that a
sulfur limit relaxation for those units will result in acceptable
levels of SO2 concentrations and to ensure continued attainment of
the SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards. To support the
proposal, ALCOA submitted technical feasibility studies and economic
evaluations, supported by ambient monitoring data and dispersion
modeling. Compliance with the NAAQS and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) increments for SO2 emission levels were
supported through modeling procedures. The final submittal from the
State contained limits on the use of sulfur-bearing fuels for the three
units to prevent potential violations of the SO2 NAAQS. A public
hearing announcement was published on May 11, 1995, and a hearing was
held on June 14, 1995, in Rockdale, Texas. No adverse comments were
received. Comments were generally supportive of the action. The EPA
found the SIP revision to be administratively complete in a letter
dated November 28, 1995. For further details on the SIP submittal,
please reference the Technical Support Document on file.
Good Engineering Practice and Stack Height Increase at Sandow Three
In June of 1995, ALCOA completed construction of a new stack for
Sandow Three to increase the height of the emission point from 81 to
161 meters. The increase in height helped avoid the down-washing effect
caused by the presence of large nearby structures. However, another
effect of increasing stack height is to disperse emissions over a
larger area, resulting in lower ambient concentrations without a true
emissions reduction in grams per second. To limit over-crediting, the
EPA federal regulations which define ``Good Engineering Practices''
(GEP) for the stack height, were evaluated to ensure that emissions do
not result in excessive concentrations due to atmospheric downwash, or
wakes created by terrain or structures in the vicinity of a source.
Requirements, promulgated under 40 CFR Part 51, regulate stack height
``credits'' instead of actual stack height.
A GEP stack is defined under 40 CFR 51.100 (ii) by a formula that
relates stack height to the dimensions of nearby structures, thus
restricting stack increases to the modeling height necessary to avoid
over-crediting by dilution. It also specifies certain site-specific
demonstrations that are required to justify increases of an
[[Page 49686]]
existing stack to GEP formula height. The EPA interpretation of this
rule (stated in a July 29, 1992 memo from the EPA's Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards to the EPA Directors) waives the
requirement for a site-specific demonstration if a new structure has
been built since the construction of the original stack. Thus, the
siting of a new nearby structure removes a presumption that the
original stack height is the GEP height, since the new structure may
create downwash effects that were not anticipated in the original stack
design. In ALCOA's case, the stack for Sandow Three was built in the
early 1950's and Sandow Four was built in the late 1970's on adjacent
property. The presence of the Sandow Four structure created new
downwash effects. Therefore, the stack height increase is allowed by
the EPA's stack height regulations, as long as it is within the
allowable height as defined by 40 CFR 51.100(ii).
Dispersion Modeling Analysis
Dispersion modeling was used to demonstrate that ambient SO2
concentrations are predicted to be below the NAAQS and allowable
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments. Dispersion
modeling integrates historical meteorological data and continuous
industrial emissions to predict whether the population outside of a
facility's property could be exposed to SO2 levels above
applicable health-based standards.
Alcoa hired Earth Tech/Sigma Research to conduct the modeling
analyses to demonstrate that the ALCOA aluminum reduction facility and
power plant was in compliance with the NAAQS. The PSD increments
modeling was also performed to determine whether an incremental
increase in SO2 emissions from three to four pounds per MMBtu heat
input at Units one, two, and three of the Sandow Power Plant would
cause any violations.
The Industrial Source Complex--Short Term (ISCST2) model was used
to model the Sandow power plant point sources along with 132 non-ALCOA
background sources. The Buoyant Line and Point (BLP) Source model was
used to model all of the line and scrubber stacks for the aluminum
reduction facilities. The meteorological data used in the analyses were
obtained from the Austin surface station and the Stephenville upper air
station. The modeling was conducted in accordance to EPA's Guideline on
Air Quality Models and were generally consistent with the EPA's
regulatory recommendations.
NAAQS Modeling Analysis
The NAAQS analyses was performed in three phases. Results of the
ISCST2 model and BLP dispersion modeling runs were summed up to provide
ambient concentrations on an hourly basis for each receptor. Ambient
concentrations were then compared with the primary and secondary NAAQS.
The NAAQS limits are:
National SO2 Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micrograms
per cubic
NAAQS meter (ug/
m3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary annual SO2.......................................... 80
Primary 24-hour............................................. 365
Secondary 3-hour............................................ 1,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To demonstrate compliance with the SO2 NAAQS, four
alternatives were used (based on smelter production levels and sulfur
content in the anodes). As discussed in the Technical Support Document,
the modeling runs predicted no violations of the applicable NAAQS.
The predicted concentrations for the annual average and the
highest-second-high (H2H) concentrations for three-hour and 24-hour
concentrations were below the SO2 NAAQS for all years evaluated.
The maximum annual concentrations for seven and eight lines scenarios
are 76.83 ug/m3 and 76.90 ug/m3, respectively. Both occur at
684900 easting and 3389100 northing, approximately six kilometers north
of the center of the ALCOA Rockdale facility. Meanwhile, the maximum
H2H 24-hour concentration which occurs with the 2.6 percent sulfur
content eight-line scenario is 355.29 ug/m3 at 683783 easting and
3381889 northing. The maximum H2H three-hour concentration which occurs
with the 3.0 percent sulfur content seven-line operating scenario is
1025.59 ug/m3 at 682500 easting and 3382000 northing.
PSD Modeling Analysis
In addition to the NAAQS evaluations, the EPA requires an analysis
to ensure that incremental increases of SO2 due to a SIP
relaxation will not cause a violation of the PSD increments. Milam
County is classified as a Class II area for the purpose of establishing
its allowable PSD increments.
There are no Class III areas in Texas. Numerical increments for
SO2 are defined below as the maximum increase above baseline,
ambient concentrations.
Class II PSD Increment Standards for SO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PSD increment ug/m3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual SO2 average............................................ 20
24-hour SO2 average........................................... 91
3-hour SO2 average............................................ 512
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PSD modeling analysis was also performed in three phases. For
the PSD analysis, the main ALCOA increment-consuming sources are Sandow
One, Two, and Three. These sources were modeled with ISCST2 using a 1.0
lb/MMBtu emission rate increase, representing the proposed increase in
allowable SO2 emission from 3.0 to 4.0 lb/MMBtu. Sandow Four was
also included in the modeling because it too consumes PSD increment.
The modeling predicted some exceedances of allowable PSD increments in
an area about thirty kilometers to the southwest of the ALCOA facility.
The predicted exceedances however, occurred inside the private property
owned by the Acme Brick Company.
Closure of FM 1786 and Construction of Alternate Route
The TNRCC modeling staff predicted excesses of the NAAQS on a
public roadway, Farm-to-Market Road 1786 (FM 1786), which was
originally built as an entrance into the plant. ALCOA confirmed these
possible impacts in their preliminary modeling efforts. After the
public hearing, ALCOA and Milam County agreed to provide an alternate
route as part of the county road system, resolving potential citizen
complaints. ALCOA eventually acquired a 2.4-mile section of FM 1786 and
privatized the road to limit its public access. On November 23, 1994,
the Governor of Texas signed the deed transferring this section of
roadway to ALCOA. With the closure of the former FM 1786, which is the
entrance to the Rockdale Operations Facility, measures to restrict
public access are to be taken. A gate has been installed and security
guards patrol for unauthorized entry.
Monitoring
ALCOA is currently operating a monitoring network with two monitors
collecting data on SO2 concentrations, fluoride, wind speed, and
wind direction. The Agreed Order requires ALCOA to continue providing
ambient SO2 and meteorological monitors installed and operated at
the TNRCC approved sites in accordance with the Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPP) to ensure that the NAAQS are protected. The QAPP
was submitted to the TNRCC for approval and was approved on June
[[Page 49687]]
13, 1995. The TNRCC assumes all responsibility for ensuring quality
data collection, analysis, calibration, and reporting requirements from
ALCOA will protect the NAAQS. Monitoring reports submitted to the TNRCC
currently show no exceedances of the NAAQS.
Enforceability
In order to protect the annual NAAQS, an annual limit of 3.1
million MW-hours of power generation from Sandow One, Two and Three is
imposed on the facility. This limit was used to calculate the annual
average for all four operating scenarios modeled. The Agreed Order
adopted by TNRCC and ALCOA ensure the annual limits will be enforced
and become federally enforceable through this SIP action. Within sixty
days after adoption of the Agreed Order by the TNRCC, ALCOA began a
fuel sampling program to determine continuous compliance with the
emissions limit of 4.0 lbs SO2/MMBtu.
ALCOA is required to ensure that the total percentage of sulfur
contained in the new petroleum coke used in the anodes in the operating
potlines and portions of potlines do not exceed the following amount
when averaged over a thirty-day period and considering the number of
potlines in operation during that period:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent SO2
allowed in
Number of operating potlines new
petroleum
coke
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.......................................................... 2.6
7 or fewer................................................. 3.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When additional potlines or portions of potlines are started up or
shut down, the maximum allowable percentage of sulfur in the new
petroleum coke shall conform with the applicable sulfur limits stated
above. If ALCOA operates a portion of a potline between the number of
potlines specified above, the maximum allowable percentage of sulfur in
the new petroleum coke shall be determined by proportional
interpolations between the pair of limits specified above. ALCOA will
notify the TNRCC Regional Office ten (10) days prior to the start up or
shut down of any potline(s) or portions of potlines except that in the
case of an emergency shutdown, notice shall be given as soon as
reasonably possible.
ALCOA is prohibited from using any new petroleum coke without test
reports or on-site testing demonstrating compliance. ALCOA is also
required to ensure that the sulfur content of the returned anode butts
is no greater than the sulfur content of the new petroleum coke used in
the manufacture of those returned anode butts. ALCOA will demonstrate
compliance with the total sulfur content limits specified in the Agreed
Order by limiting the percent sulfur in new petroleum coke to the
petroleum coke supplier and will require its supplier to sample,
analyze, and demonstrate that the total sulfur content complies with
ALCOA's percent sulfur specification before shipment of any single lot
of new petroleum coke is made. Test reports from suppliers may be used
to document the sulfur content of new petroleum coke, or on-site
testing of each incoming new petroleum coke shipment in accordance with
ASTM Methods D346-90 or ASTM D4239-85. ALCOA will maintain records
documenting compliance with the requirements of the Agreed Order.
Records will include computations which show the amounts and total
percent sulfur content of new petroleum coke and the sulfur content of
the returned anode butts used in production of anodes. The sulfur
content of the returned anode butts may be based on records of the new
petroleum coke that went into them and ALCOA records showing the
statistically established relationship between that sulfur content and
the sulfur content of returned anode butts.
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
ALCOA will maintain a record of the gross power generated for each
calendar month, and of the gross power generated for the previous
twelve month period. Records will be made available upon request to the
TNRCC, the EPA or any local air pollution control agency having
jurisdiction. Periodic compliance demonstrations will be conducted at
least quarterly beginning with the calendar quarter ending December 31,
1995 using methods prescribed for the initial demonstration in the
Agreed Order. Results will be reported to the TNRCC and the EPA Region
VI no later than thirty days after the completion of testing.
The provisions for the Milam County Agreed Order are adopted
through this SIP action. The Order includes SO2 maximum allowable
emissions limits, recordkeeping, reporting and compliance monitoring
requirements and other required stipulations briefly described in this
notice. For further details on compliance monitoring and record keeping
requirements please reference the Agreed Order and the Technical
Support Document.
Final Rulemaking Action
In today's action, the EPA is approving the ALCOA SIP revision
which includes among other things, TNRCC Agreed Order No. 95-0583-SIP.
Texas's revised Milam County SO2 Order creates an enforceable
restriction on the operations of a primary aluminum smelting plant and
three units of a lignite-fueled power plant at the ALCOA facility. This
action is also approving revisions to 31 TAC Chapter 112, section
112.8, ``Allowable Emissions From Solid Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam
Generators,'' Subsections 112.8(a) and 112.8(b). Adequate modeling
demonstrating that the NAAQS for SO2 and SO2 PSD increment
will be protected in Milam County, Texas was also provided.
This action is being published without a prior proposal because the
EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no
adverse comments to the proposal. However, the EPA is publishing a
separate document in this Federal Register publication, which
constitutes a ``proposed approval'' of the requested SIP revision and
clarifies that the rulemaking will not be deemed final if timely
adverse or critical comments are filed. The ``direct final'' approval
shall be effective on November 22, 1996, unless the EPA receives
adverse or critical comments by October 23, 1996.
If the EPA receives comments adverse to or critical of the approval
discussed above, the EPA will withdraw this approval before its
effective date by publishing a subsequent Federal Register document
which withdraws this final action. All public comments received will
then be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking document. Please be aware
that the EPA will institute a second comment period on this action only
if warranted by significant revisions to the rulemaking based on
comments received in response to this action. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time. If no such
comments are received, the EPA hereby advises the public that this
action will be effective on November 22, 1996.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. The EPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in
light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the
[[Page 49688]]
procedures published in the Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR
2214-2225), as revised by a July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from
Executive Order 12866 review. Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995, signed into law on March 22, 1995, requires that
the EPA prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule
that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires
the EPA to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing,
educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely affected by the rule.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the EPA must
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must
be prepared. The EPA must select from those alternatives the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the EPA explains why this
alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative is
inconsistent with law.
This final rule is estimated to result in the expenditure by State,
local, and tribal governments or the private sector of less then $100
million in any one year. Therefore the EPA has not prepared a budgetary
impact statement or specifically addressed the selection of the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative. Small
governments will not be significantly or uniquely affected by this
rule. Hence, the EPA is not required to develop a plan with regard to
small governments. This rule only approves the incorporation of
existing State rules into the SIP. It imposes no additional
requirements.
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).
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the 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, the 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 Act
do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that
the State is already imposing. The Federal SIP approval does not impose
any additional requirements. Therefore, I certify that the SIP does not
have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, due
to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Act,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of the State action.
The Act forbids the EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. See Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct.
1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 22, 1996. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Regional Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule for the 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).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: August 9, 1996.
Allyn M. Davis,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Title 40, part 52, of the Code of the 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 SS--Texas
2. Section 52.2270 is amended by adding paragraph (c) (101) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2270 Identification of Plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(101) Revisions to Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Regulation II and the Texas State Implementation Plan concerning the
Control of Air Pollution from Sulfur Compounds, submitted by the
Governor by cover letters dated October 15, 1992 and September 20,
1995. These revisions relax the SO2 limit from 3.0 lb/MMBtu to 4.0
lb/MMBtu, and include Agreed Order No. 95-0583-SIP, which stipulates
specific SO2 emission limit compliance methodologies for the
Aluminum Company of America, located in Rockdale, Texas.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Agreed Order No.
95-0583-SIP, approved and effective on August 23, 1995.
(B) Revisions to 31 TAC Chapter 112, Section 112.8, ``Allowable
Emissions From Solid Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam Generators,'' Subsections
112.8(a) and 112.8(b) as adopted by the TNRCC on August 23, 1995.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) The State submittal entitled Revisions to the State
Implementation Plan Concerning Sulfur Dioxide in Milam County, dated
June 14, 1995.
(B) The document entitled Dispersion Modeling Analysis of ALCOA
Rockdale Operations, Rockdale, Texas, dated April 28, 1995 (document
No. 1345-05).
[FR Doc. 96-24047 Filed 9-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23986 Community Development Corporation and Project Investments and Other Public Welfare Investments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 185 (Monday, September 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49654-49662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23986]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
12 CFR Part 24
[Docket No. 96-21]
RIN 1557-AB46
Community Development Corporation and Project Investments and
Other Public Welfare Investments
AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As part of its Regulation Review Program, the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is revising its regulation governing
national bank investments designed primarily to promote the public
welfare. This final rule clarifies banks' authority; renumbers and
reorganizes sections of the regulation; modifies the test for
determining whether investments primarily promote the public welfare;
and simplifies the regulation's investment self-certification and prior
approval processes. This final rule reduces regulatory burden and
inconsistencies while enhancing the ability of national banks to make
community development and other public welfare investments.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 23, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Bellesi, Acting Deputy Director,
Community Development Division, (202) 874-4940; or Michele Meyer,
Senior Attorney, Community and Consumer Law Division, (202) 874-5750,
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20219.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The OCC has reviewed 12 CFR part 24 as part of its Regulation
Review Program (Program). Goals of the Program are eliminating
provisions that do not contribute significantly to maintaining the
safety and soundness of national banks or to accomplishing the OCC's
other statutory responsibilities, updating and modernizing the OCC's
rules where appropriate, and clarifying the OCC's regulations to convey
more effectively the standards the OCC seeks to apply. Consistent with
these goals, this final rule reduces regulatory burden on national
banks and clarifies the standards that the OCC applies to national
banks' community development and public welfare investment programs.
The Proposal
On December 28, 1995, the OCC published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) (60 FR 67091) to revise 12 CFR part 24. Part 24
implements 12 U.S.C. 24(Eleventh), which authorizes national banks to
make investments ``designed primarily to promote the public welfare,
including the welfare of low- and moderate-income families and
communities (such as through the provision of housing, services, or
jobs),'' subject to certain percentage of capital limitations.
As initially written, part 24 placed predominant emphasis on
community development investments. Part 24 permitted national banks to
make investments in community development corporations (CDCs) and
community development projects (CD Projects), consistent with safe and
sound banking practices. Under part 24, banks could self-certify
certain community development investments. Investments that were not
eligible for self-
[[Page 49655]]
certification were subject to one of two prior approval processes. The
first required a bank to file an investment proposal, which the OCC
usually approved or disapproved within 30 days. The second consisted of
a five-day review period for investment proposals that the OCC had
previously approved for another bank.
In the NPRM, the OCC proposed replacing part 24's public welfare
test with modified criteria for determining whether an investment
promotes the public welfare, including a non-exhaustive list of
permissible public welfare activities. The NPRM also proposed
streamlining part 24's investment self-certification and prior approval
provisions. In addition, the NPRM removed redundant or otherwise
unnecessary provisions from the former rule and made several other
changes intended to improve the rule's clarity. Finally, the NPRM asked
for comment on whether the OCC should continue its policy of not using
part 24 authority as a basis for approving an investment that is
otherwise permissible under 12 U.S.C. 24(Seventh).
The Final Rule and Comments Received
The OCC received seven comments. Most commenters supported the
proposed changes. Comments were submitted by three national banks, one
savings bank, two trade groups, and one national non-profit
organization that provides support for local non-profit CDCs. As
discussed later in this preamble, several commenters supported the
proposal but suggested that the OCC make additional changes, and one
commenter opposed the proposed changes to the former rule's public
welfare test and self-certification provisions. The following
discussion summarizes these comments and the amendments to part 24.
Title
The NPRM proposed changing the title of part 24 from ``Community
Development Corporation and Project Investments'' to ``Community
Development Corporation and Project Investments and other Public
Welfare Investments.'' This change reflects the OCC's view that
national banks can promote the public welfare through a variety of
authorized investments, as described in Sec. 24.3, in addition to CDCs
and CD Projects. The OCC received no comments on this issue, and
accordingly adopts the proposed title change.
Authority, Purpose, and OMB Control Number (Sec. 24.1)
The NPRM proposed amending the ``purpose'' paragraph of the
regulation to reflect that CDCs and CD Projects that develop affordable
housing, foster revitalization and stabilization of low-and moderate-
income areas, or provide equity or debt financing for small businesses
are just some of the types of investments that a national bank can make
under part 24. The preamble to the NPRM emphasized that the OCC
continues to encourage national banks to make these types of
investments but also stressed that banks may undertake other kinds of
public welfare investments. The OCC received no comments specifically
on this proposed section. However, as discussed later in this preamble,
the OCC received comments on proposed Sec. 24.3 that resulted in
modifications to that section to provide that banks' part 24
investments benefit low- and moderate-income individuals, low- and
moderate-income areas, or other areas targeted for redevelopment by
local, state, tribal or Federal government. Consistent with the change
to Sec. 24.3, the OCC adopts proposed Sec. 24.1 with a modification to
the ``purpose'' paragraph to clarify that bank efforts to promote the
public welfare through small business investment or area revitalization
or stabilization must be targeted to low- and moderate-income areas or
other redevelopment areas.
Definitions (Sec. 24.2)
In keeping with the Regulation Review Program's goal of using
terminology consistently throughout the OCC's regulations, the NPRM
proposed the use of definitions and terms common to other OCC
regulations. For example, the definition of ``low-income and moderate-
income'' in the NPRM referred to the OCC's CRA Regulation (12 CFR part
25). One commenter supported the OCC's efforts to standardize various
definitions in its regulations, but voiced the concern that the CRA
definition of ``low-income and moderate-income'' was more restrictive
than the definition in the former part 24.
Under the former rule and the OCC's CRA regulation, low- and
moderate-income individuals are individuals whose incomes are less than
80 percent of the median income of the area in which they live. The
former rule defined low- and moderate-income areas slightly differently
from the OCC's CRA regulation, however. The former rule defined low-
and moderate-income areas as areas where at least 51 percent of the
residents are low- and moderate-income persons and families. The CRA
regulation defines low- and moderate-income areas as areas where at
least 50 percent of the families have incomes less than 80 percent of
the area median family income. 12 CFR 25.12. Thus, the CRA regulation
is slightly more expansive in its definition of low- and moderate-
income areas than the former rule. The OCC believes that the difference
between the two definitions is insignificant and that adopting the CRA
regulation definition of low-and moderate-income in this final rule
will enhance its clarity and reduce the burden associated with having
different definitions of the same terms in the OCC's regulations.
Accordingly, the OCC adopts the proposed definition of ``low-income and
moderate-income.''
The NPRM also proposed using the same definition of ``capital and
surplus'' as the OCC's Lending Limit Regulation, 12 CFR part 32, which
refers to components of capital that national banks calculate for
purposes of determining their risk-based capital under 12 CFR part 3.
The OCC received no comments on this section and, accordingly, adopts
the proposed definition of ``capital and surplus.''
The NPRM omitted the former rule's definitions of community
development limited partnership and community-based development
corporation as unnecessary further examples of vehicles that national
banks may use to make investments under this part. The OCC received no
comments on this proposed removal, and accordingly adopts the proposed
change. This change does not affect a national bank's authority to
invest in a community development limited partnership or community
based development corporation. Consistent with the requirements of this
part, a national bank may continue to invest in these and other
vehicles.
The NPRM proposed adding a definition of ``eligible bank'' that is
the same as the ``eligible bank'' definition proposed by the OCC for
corporate applications in its November 29, 1994 notice of proposed
rulemaking concerning 12 CFR part 5 (59 FR 61034). The NPRM proposed
allowing a bank to self-certify investments for purposes of part 24 if
it has a composite rating of 1 or 2 under the Uniform Financial
Institutions Rating System, has at least a satisfactory CRA rating, is
well capitalized, and is not subject to any current OCC enforcement
actions. One commenter suggested that the final rule limit self-
certification eligibility to only banks with outstanding CRA ratings.
The OCC declines to make this change for two reasons. First, part 24
[[Page 49656]]
investments represent an important mechanism for banks to improve their
CRA records. Second, limiting self-certification to banks with
outstanding CRA ratings would result in far fewer banks benefiting from
the streamlined self-certification processes proposed in the NPRM. The
OCC accordingly adopts the proposed definition of ``eligible bank''
with only a technical clarification that the definition applies to the
self-certification process.
The NPRM also clarified that a national bank that is at least
adequately capitalized and that has a composite rating of at least 3
with improving trends may submit a letter to the OCC's Community
Development Division requesting permission to self-certify investments.
The OCC received no comments on this clarification. Accordingly, the
final rule permits a national bank that is at least adequately
capitalized and that has a composite rating of at least 3 with
improving trends to submit a letter to the OCC's Community Development
Division requesting permission to self-certify investments.
In addition, in a change from the former rule, the NPRM proposed
permitting a bank that is subject to a current OCC enforcement action
to seek permission to self-certify investments. As explained in the
preamble to the NPRM, the OCC believes this modification is appropriate
in light of the final rule's expanded self-certification opportunities
for banks (See Sec. 24.6.) Accordingly, the final rule adopts this
change.
In addition, the NPRM proposed changing the definition of
``significant risk to the deposit insurance fund'' to include risk to
all Federal deposit insurance funds. The OCC received no comments on
this proposed section and, accordingly, adopts the proposed change.
Finally, the NPRM proposed making two changes concerning the small
business definitions in former part 24. First, the NPRM proposed
removing the definition of ``minority-owned small businesses'' because
these businesses are encompassed by the regulation's provisions
concerning all small businesses. Second, the NPRM proposed updating the
citation to the Small Business Administration regulations referenced in
the definition of ``small businesses'' in the former regulation. The
OCC received no comments on these proposed changes and, accordingly,
adopts them with the clarification that the definition of ``small
business'' includes minority-owned small business.
Public Welfare Investments (Sec. 24.3)
Former part 24 delineated a public welfare test that consisted of
four requirements. Under former Sec. 24.4, an investment in a CDC or CD
Project was designed primarily to promote the public welfare only if:
(1) the investment primarily benefited low- and moderate-income persons
and families or small businesses; (2) the investment addressed
community development needs not met by the private market in one or
more communities served by the bank; (3) there was nonbank community
involvement in the CDC or CD Project; and (4) the profits and
distributions from a CDC or CD Project were reinvested in activities
that primarily promote the public welfare.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 On December 28, 1995, the OCC published a final rule
eliminating part 24's reinvestment requirement. 60 FR 67049.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the OCC's experience since it adopted part 24, the NPRM
proposed replacing the public welfare test with modified criteria for
determining whether an investment primarily promotes the public
welfare. That list retained the first element of the public welfare
test, the requirement for a primary benefit to low- and moderate-income
individuals or small businesses, but made clear that this benefit could
be provided in a variety of ways. For example, Sec. 24.3(a) of the NPRM
permitted banks to invest in affordable housing, community
revitalization projects, small business financing or ``other
activities, services, or facilities conducive to the public welfare.'
The list of public welfare investment criteria also modified the
private market financing and community involvement elements of the
current public welfare test. Proposed Sec. 24.3(b) required a bank to
demonstrate only that it was difficult, rather than impossible, to
obtain private market financing. Section 24.3(c) of the proposal also
required a bank to demonstrate community support for or participation
in a proposed investment, but, unlike the former rule, it did not
prescribe any particular method of demonstrating that support or
participation.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The former rule required a bank to demonstrate nonbank
community involvement in a CDC or CD project by indicating support
from the affected primary beneficiaries and representatives of local
government. In the case of a CD entity with a board of directors, a
bank was required to demonstrate such support by the composition of
the organization's board of directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Sec. 24.3(d) of the NPRM permitted a bank to make an
investment that also benefitted an area outside those where the bank
provides its core banking services. However, the bank would still have
been required to demonstrate the extent to which its investment
benefits the communities where it provides these services. These
proposed revisions to the public welfare test reflected the OCC's
willingness to consider a wider range of public welfare investments
than under the former rule.
All but one of the commenters voiced strong support for the
proposed revisions to the public welfare test. The objecting commenter,
a national non-profit organization that provides support for local non-
profit CDCs, strongly supported the former rule and expressed concern
that the proposal undermines the intent of 12 U.S.C. 24(Eleventh),
because the revised criteria would discourage banks from taking on
difficult community development projects, such as those targeted to
low- and moderate-income areas where private market financing is
difficult to obtain. The OCC appreciates these concerns and has
modified Sec. 24.3 to clarify that investments must benefit low- and
moderate-income individuals, low- and moderate-income areas, or other
areas targeted for redevelopment by local, state, tribal or Federal
government. The OCC has also modified Sec. 24.3 to require that a bank
demonstrate that it is not reasonably practicable to obtain other
private market financing for a proposed investment. In addition, the
OCC agrees with the commenter's opinion that the phrase ``conducive to
the public welfare'' in proposed Sec. 24.3(a)(4) could be
misinterpreted by some readers as a lowering of the statutory
requirement that banks' investments must ``primarily promote the public
welfare.'' Accordingly, the OCC has revised Sec. 24.3(a)(4) to clarify
that all investments under this part must primarily promote the public
welfare.
Two commenters, although supportive of the proposed changes to the
community participation requirement, requested that the final rule
include a list of examples for demonstrating community support for, or
participation in, a proposed investment. Based on these comments, the
OCC has revised the community participation criterion to include the
following examples:
In the case of an investment in a CD entity with a board
of directors, representation on the board of directors by non-bank
community representatives with expertise relevant to the proposed
investment;
Establishment of an advisory board for the bank's
community development activities that includes non-bank community
representatives with expertise relevant to the proposed investment;
[[Page 49657]]
Formation of a formal business relationship with a
community-based organization in connection with the proposed
investment;
Contractual agreements with community partners to provide
services in connection with the proposed investment;
Joint ventures with local small businesses in the proposed
investment; and
Financing for the proposed investment from the public
sector or community development organizations.
The OCC emphasizes, however, that these examples are by no means
exhaustive; banks and their community partners may determine other
acceptable ways to demonstrate community support for, or participation
in, investments under this part.
To improve clarity, the final rule reverses the order of the
sections concerning community participation and benefit to communities
otherwise served by the bank. Thus, the community participation section
is now set forth at Sec. 24.3(d) of the final rule, and the section
concerning benefit to communities otherwise served by the bank is set
forth at Sec. 24.3(c).
Finally, the NPRM proposed removing as unnecessary former
Sec. 24.4(e), which provided that a bank must manage its CDC and CD
Project investments in a prudent manner. The OCC received no comments
on the proposed removal and, accordingly, adopts the proposed change.
This change streamlines the regulation and, of course, reflects no
change in the applicable standard that national banks must manage their
part 24 investments--as with all their investments--consistent with
safe and sound banking practices.
Investment Limits (Sec. 24.4)
The former rule contained investment limit provisions at
Sec. 24.4(b) and (d). For ease of reference, the NPRM grouped the
provisions concerning part 24 investment limits into a separately
titled section. Section 24.4(a) of the NPRM clarified that, as provided
in 12 U.S.C. 24(Eleventh), a bank's aggregate outstanding investments
under part 24 may not exceed 5 percent of its capital and surplus
unless the bank is at least adequately capitalized and the OCC
determines, by written approval of a proposed investment, that a higher
amount, up to 10 percent, will pose no significant risk to the deposit
insurance fund.
One commenter suggested that the final rule permit an adequately
capitalized bank with assets up to $150 million to commit up to ten
percent of its capital and surplus to part 24 investments. As explained
earlier, however, the statute requires a bank to seek OCC approval of
investments that exceed 5 percent of capital. Accordingly, the OCC
adopts the statutory limitation proposed in the NPRM.
Public Welfare Investment Self-Certification and Prior Approval
Procedures (Sec. 24.5)
The NPRM proposed changes to the self-certification and prior
approval procedures set forth in Sec. 24.11 of the former rule. Former
Sec. 24.11 provided three processes for approval of authorized
investments. The first required a bank to file an investment proposal,
which the OCC usually approved or disapproved within 30 days. The
second process consisted of a five-day review period by the OCC for
investment proposals that the OCC had previously approved for another
bank. The third was a self-certification process for certain
investments, under which a bank filed a notice with the OCC within 10
days after it makes an investment, and the OCC sent a confirmation of
receipt within five days.
The NPRM proposed eliminating the second approval process. Thus,
under Sec. 24.5(a) and Sec. 24.6(a) of the NPRM, a bank would be
permitted to self-certify an investment previously approved by the OCC
for another bank. The preamble to the NPRM further provided that the
OCC will continue its practice of sending a simple confirmation of
receipt of a bank's self-certification notice within five days. The
NPRM also made clear that the OCC will not retroactively review a self-
certified investment proposal, but simply will review the self-
certification documents to ensure that they meet the self-certification
requirements set forth in Sec. 24.5(a). The OCC received no comments on
the proposed elimination of the approval process for investments
previously approved by the OCC for another bank and, accordingly,
adopts this change.
Section 24.5(b) of the NPRM sets forth the prior approval
procedures for investment proposals that do not qualify for self-
certification.3 In considering a bank's investment proposal under
the NPRM, the OCC will consider whether the investment satisfies the
requirements of Sec. 24.3 and whether it is consistent with the bank's
safe and sound operation and the OCC's policies. As explained in the
NPRM's preamble, the OCC will continue its practice of sending a simple
confirmation of receipt of an investment proposal within five days.
Consistent with the former rule, the NPRM permitted a bank, unless
notified otherwise by the OCC, to make a proposed investment 30
calendar days after the date on which the OCC received the bank's
investment proposal. The NPRM further provided that the OCC may notify
the bank that it is extending the review period. If so notified, the
bank could make the investment only with the OCC's written approval.
One commenter suggested that the final rule require that, within 30
days of the OCC's receipt of a bank's investment proposal, the OCC
notify the bank of the proposal's status by facsimile or telephone. The
OCC declines to include this level of detail in the final rule but will
endeavor to notify banks of proposal status as quickly as possible.
Accordingly, the OCC adopts the proposed procedures for prior approval
of investment proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 The NPRM proposed removing the former rule's provision
for optional review as unnecessary. The OCC received no comments on
this proposed removal, and accordingly adopts the proposed change. A
national bank may, however, continue to request prior OCC review and
approval of any investment proposal, including one that qualifies
for self-certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former rule Sec. 24.11(b) contained a limit on the size of
investments eligible for self-certification by banks with more than
$250 million in assets. Those banks were required to seek prior OCC
approval for investments that exceeded the lesser of 2 percent of their
unimpaired capital and surplus or $10 million. The NPRM proposed
removing this additional limitation in light of the proposed new
standards that define the banks eligible to use the self-certification
process (discussed earlier). The OCC received no comments on this
proposed removal and, accordingly, the final rule adopts the proposed
change.
Investments Eligible for Self-Certification (Sec. 24.6)
Section 24.6 of the NPRM proposed replacing former rule Sec. 24.13,
which limited self-certification to investments using certain
structures as well as certain activities. These structures included
multi-bank CDCs; CDCs established by state or local government;
community-based organizations; and certain community development
limited partnerships. A CDC subsidiary was not an eligible structure
for self-certification.
The OCC believes that a structure-based self-certification
limitation is no longer necessary. This limitation was intended to
allow the OCC to ensure that particular investments did not expose
banks to safety and soundness risks or unlimited liability,
particularly relating to then-novel structures, such as limited
liability companies and CD
[[Page 49658]]
banks. However, since self-certification is limited to eligible banks
(as defined in Sec. 24.2(e) of the final rule), the OCC believes it is
reasonable to rely on bank management to determine the appropriate
structures for part 24 investments. The OCC received no comments on the
proposed elimination of the list of eligible structures and,
accordingly, adopts the proposed change.
In addition to eliminating the list of eligible structures,
Sec. 24.6(a) of the NPRM proposed an expanded list of activities
eligible for self-certification to reflect the industry's innovation in
part 24 investing and the OCC's experience with self-certification
under part 24. Part 24's self-certification provisions encourage
community development and other public welfare investments by banks by
reducing the regulatory steps associated with making the investments.
In order to maximize the use of self-certification as an incentive for
banks to make investments that primarily promote the public welfare,
and to encourage banks' creativity in making these investments, the OCC
identified in proposed Sec. 24.6(a) a clear and expanded list of
eligible activities. In addition to the former rule's list of eligible
activities, the NPRM's list included, but was not limited to, certain
investments that benefit low- and moderate-income persons and small
businesses, investments that previously have been determined by the OCC
to be permissible under part 24, and investments previously approved by
the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) under 12 CFR 208.21 for state member
banks.
One commenter suggested several changes to the proposed list of
activities eligible for self-certification. The commenter recommended
deleting from the list investments in an entity that acquires housing
for low- and moderate-income persons. The OCC believes, however, that
this activity, which was eligible for self-certification under the
former rule, promotes the public welfare and that permitting self-
certification of such investments is therefore consistent with the
statute and accordingly declines to remove it from the proposed list.
The commenter also requested that the list clarify that a bank may
self-certify investments as a limited partner, or as a partner in an
entity that it itself a limited partner, in a project with a general
partner that is, or is primarily owned and operated by, a 26 U.S.C.
501(c) (3) or (4) non-profit corporation and that qualifies for the
Federal low-income housing tax credit. The OCC agrees with this
suggestion and accordingly adopts the proposed clarification.
In addition, the commenter suggested that the final rule bar from
self-certification any bank that self-certifies an investment the OCC
later determines was ineligible for self-certification. The OCC
believes that this concern is addressed by the remedial action
provisions of proposed Sec. 24.7(c). Finally, the commenter objected to
the proposed inclusion of investments of a type approved by the FRB in
the list of eligible activities. The OCC believes that national banks
and the beneficiaries of their investments will benefit by the
increased flexibility and reduced burden associated with this
provision, but agrees that no investment can be self-certified, even if
that type of investment has been approved by the FRB, unless it meets
the criteria for public welfare investments set forth in Sec. 24.3.
Accordingly, this provision has been modified in the final rule.
As discussed earlier, the OCC has modified Sec. 24.3 to require
that bank investments be targeted to low- and moderate-income
individuals, low- and moderate-income areas, or other areas targeted
for redevelopment. The OCC has decided, however, to modify the list of
activities eligible for self-certification proposed in Sec. 24.6(a) of
the NPRM to clarify that a bank may self-certify an investment only if
it primarily benefits low- and moderate-income individuals or areas.
National banks must therefore submit for prior approval by the OCC
proposals for other types of investments. The distinction between what
is a permissible investment under Sec. 24.3 and what is eligible for
self-certification under Sec. 24.6 reflects the OCC's view that
investments targeted to low- and moderate-income individuals or areas
necessarily primarily promote the public welfare. Other types of
investments may primarily promote the public welfare also, but the OCC
believes that some prior review of such investments is an appropriate
means to ensure that they satisfy the criteria set forth in Sec. 24.3.
Accordingly, the OCC adopts the list of eligible activities proposed in
Sec. 24.6(a) of the NPRM with two modifications. The first modification
limits self-certification to investments that benefit low- and
moderate-income individuals or areas; and the second modification
reflects the commenter's suggestion concerning limited partnerships
investments.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 In response to another commenter, the OCC clarifies that
permissible investments in a rural community in which a bank has its
main office or branch may be self-certified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding the activities eligible for self-certification
listed in Sec. 24.6(a), Sec. 24.6(b) of the NPRM provided that a bank
may not self-certify investments that involve properties carried on the
bank's books as ``other real estate owned'' (OREO properties) or that
fund projects outside the states or metropolitan areas in which the
bank's main office or branches are located. The latter limitation is
similar to the limit on self-certification that appears in former part
24 but was revised in the NPRM to reflect that some national banks now
have branches in more than one state. One commenter suggested that the
final rule permit self-certification of investments in portfolio
projects, such as regional funds that invest in affordable housing
projects located in several states, where no more than 25 percent of
the affordable housing projects are located outside the states or
metropolitan areas served by the bank. The OCC agrees that a bank
should not be discouraged from investing in innovative projects that
primarily benefit the communities it serves because a small portion of
the investment benefits other areas. Accordingly, under the final rule,
a bank may not self-certify an investment where more than 25 percent of
the investment funds projects in a state or metropolitan area other
than the states or metropolitan areas in which the bank maintains its
main office or branches. If a portion of a bank's investment funds
projects in areas outside of those in which the bank maintains its main
office or branches, the bank must certify under Sec. 24.5(a)(3)(vii)
that no more than 25 percent of the investment funds projects in a
state or metropolitan area other than the states or metropolitan areas
in which the bank maintains its main office or branches.
Examination, Records, and Remedial Action (Sec. 24.7)
The NPRM proposed replacing former Sec. 24.21, which set forth the
former rule's examination, records, and remedial action provisions,
with proposed Sec. 24.7 without substantive change. The OCC received no
comments on this proposed revision, and accordingly adopts the proposed
change.
Accounting for Public Welfare Investments (Current Sec. 24.4(c))
Section 24.4(c) of the former rule provided that a bank's
investments in CDCs and CD Projects generally could be recorded as
``other assets at cost.'' The former rule also set forth circumstances
under which a bank would be required to consolidate its investments on
a line-by-line basis or account for them under the equity method of
accounting. The NPRM proposed eliminating this section as
[[Page 49659]]
unnecessary, because banks generally look to other sources for their
accounting instructions. The OCC received no comments on this proposed
removal, and accordingly adopts the proposed change. Banks should
record their investments, as appropriate, pursuant to the instructions
for Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income published by the
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.
Policy Issue Regarding Dual Sources of Authority
In the past, the OCC has not used 12 U.S.C. 24(Eleventh), as
implemented by part 24, to approve activities permissible under other
provisions of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. 1 et seq. This position
was intended to prevent banks' activities from being subjected
unnecessarily to part 24's limitation on the amount of capital a bank
may commit to community development and public welfare investments. For
example, a bank could make certain affordable housing loans under both
12 U.S.C. 24(Seventh) and 24(Eleventh). If the bank made such a loan
under the authority of 24(Eleventh), the loan would be subject to a
capital limitation that is stricter than the generally applicable
lending limits. Because the bank would have used unnecessarily some of
its limited part 24 authority to make a loan that is also permissible
under 24(Seventh), the bank would be left with less capital to commit
to investments that are permissible only under part 24. Therefore, the
OCC would usually conclude that 24(Seventh) provided the authority for
the loan. This position, however, does not reflect the OCC's general
approach of allowing banks to decide how best to structure their
investments.
The NPRM requested comment on whether the OCC should continue its
policy of not using part 24 as a basis for approving activities
otherwise permissible under the National Bank Act. One commenter opined
that part 24 provides limited authority that should be restricted only
to those activities motivated by concern for the public welfare, rather
than regular business considerations. The OCC believes that part 24
affords banks the opportunity to implement activities that supplement
and enhance otherwise permissible activities but may, in some cases,
provide authority that overlaps with other authority under the National
Bank Act. The OCC has decided that, where a choice is available, a bank
will be permitted to choose whether an investment activity will be
undertaken pursuant to authority under 24(Seventh) or 24(Eleventh).
When a bank seeks to rely on 24(Eleventh), however, the OCC will advise
the bank that the proposed investment is permissible under both
authorities to ensure that the bank is aware of the full range of its
legal investment opportunities and of the effect of the applicable
investment limitations.
Derivation Table
This table directs readers to the provision(s) of the current
regulation, if any, upon which the proposed provision is based.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised section Original section Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 24.1....................... Sec. 24.1................................... Modified.
Sec. 24.2(a).................... Sec. 24.2(a)................................ Modified.
(b).......................... Sec. 24.2(m)................................ Substantial change.
(c).......................... Sec. 24.2(b)................................ Modified.
(d).......................... Sec. 24.2(e)................................ Modified.
(e).......................... ............................................. Added.
(f).......................... Sec. 24.2 (g) ,(h).......................... Substantial change.
(g).......................... Sec. 24.2(k)................................ Modified.
(h).......................... Sec. 24.2(l)................................ Modified.
Sec. 24.2(c)................................ Removed.
Sec. 24.2(d)................................ Removed.
Sec. 24.2(f)................................ Removed.
Sec. 24.2(i)................................ Removed.
(i).......................... Sec. 24.2(a)................................ Modified.
Sec. 24.2(j)................................ Removed.
Sec. 24.3....................... Sec. 24.4(a)................................ Substantial change.
Sec. 24.4....................... Sec. 24.4 (b), (d).......................... Modified.
Sec. 24.4(c)................................ Removed.
Sec. 24.4(e)................................ Removed.
Sec. 24.5(a).................... Sec. 24.11(a)............................... Substantial change.
(b).......................... Sec. 24.11 (b), (d), (e).................... Substantial change.
Sec. 24.11(c)............................... Removed.
Sec. 24.6(a).................... Sec. 24.13(b)............................... Substantial change.
(b).......................... Sec. 24.11(b)............................... Modified.
Sec. 24.13(a)............................... Removed.
Sec. 24.7....................... Sec. 24.21.................................. Modified.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Act
It is hereby certified that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. This
final rule will reduce the regulatory burden on national banks,
regardless of size, by replacing part 24's public welfare test with
modified criteria for determining whether an investment promotes the
public welfare, streamlining the self-certification and prior approval
sections of the rule, and eliminating unnecessary provisions. Although
beneficial, these changes will not have a material impact on affected
banks.
Executive Order 12866
The OCC has determined that this final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
[[Page 49660]]
Unfunded Mandates
The OCC has determined that this final rule will not result in
expenditures by state, local and tribal governments, or by the private
sector, of more than $100 million in any one year. Accordingly, a
budgetary impact statement is not required under section 202 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The collection of information requirements in this final rule are
found in 12 CFR 24.5. This information is required for the public
welfare investment self-certification and prior approval procedures.
The likely respondents are national banks.
Estimated average annual burden hours per respondent: 1.05 hours.
Estimated number of respondents: 400.
Estimated total annual reporting burden: 418 hours.
Start-up costs to respondents: None.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 24
Community development, Credit, Investments, National banks,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority and Issuance
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the OCC amends title 12,
chapter I, part 24, of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth
below.
PART 24--COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS, AND OTHER PUBLIC WELFARE INVESTMENTS
Sec.
24.1 Authority, purpose, and OMB control number.
24.2 Definitions.
24.3 Public welfare investments.
24.4 Investment limits.
24.5 Public welfare investment self-certification and prior
approval procedures.
24.6 Activities eligible for self-certification.
24.7 Examination, records, and remedial action.
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 24(Eleventh), 93a, 481 and 1818.
Sec. 24.1 Authority, purpose, and OMB control number.
(a) Authority: The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)
issues this part pursuant to its authority under 12 U.S.C.
24(Eleventh), 93a, and 481.
(b) Purpose. This part implements 12 U.S.C. 24(Eleventh), which
authorizes national banks to make investments designed primarily to
promote the public welfare, including the welfare of low- and moderate-
income areas or individuals, such as by providing housing, services, or
jobs. It is the OCC's policy to encourage national banks to make
investments described in Sec. 24.3, consistent with safety and
soundness. The OCC believes that national banks can promote the public
welfare through a variety of investments, including those in community
development corporations (CDCs) and community development projects (CD
Projects) that develop affordable housing, foster revitalization or
stabilization of low- and moderate-income areas or other areas targeted
for redevelopment by local, state, tribal or Federal government, or
provide equity or debt financing for small businesses that are located
in such areas or that produce or retain permanent jobs for low- and
moderate-income persons. This part provides:
(1) The standards that the OCC uses to determine whether an
investment is designed primarily to promote the public welfare; and
(2) The procedures that apply to these investments.
(c) OMB control number. The collection of information requirements
contained in this part were approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under OMB control number 1557-0194.
Sec. 24.2 Definitions.
For purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:
(a) Adequately capitalized has the same meaning as adequately
capitalized in 12 CFR 6.4.
(b) Capital and surplus means:
(1) A bank's Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital calculated under the OCC's
risk-based capital standards set out in Appendix A to 12 CFR part 3 as
reported in the bank's Consolidated Report of Condition and Income as
filed under 12 U.S.C. 161; plus
(2) The balance of a bank's allowance for loan and lease losses not
included in the bank's Tier 2 capital, for purposes of the calculation
of risk-based capital under Appendix A to 12 CFR part 3, as reported in
the bank's Consolidated Report of Condition and Income as filed under
12 U.S.C. 161.
(c) Community development corporation (CDC) means a corporation
established by one or more insured financial institutions, or by
insured financial institutions and other investors, to make one or more
investments that meet the requirements of Sec. 24.3.
(d) Community development Project (CD Project) means a project to
make an investment that meets the requirements of Sec. 24.3.
(e) Eligible bank means, for purposes of Sec. 24.5, a national bank
that:
(1) Is well capitalized;
(2) Has a composite rating of 1 or 2 under the Uniform Financial
Institutions Rating System;
(3) Has a Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) rating of
``Outstanding'' or ``Satisfactory''; and
(4) Is not subject to a cease and desist order, consent order,
formal written agreement, or Prompt Corrective Action directive (see 12
CFR part 6, subpart B) or, if subject to any such order, agreement or
directive, is informed in writing by the OCC that the bank may be
treated as an ``eligible bank'' for purposes of this part.
(f) Low-income and moderate-income have the same meanings as ``low-
income'' and ``moderate-income'' in 12 CFR 25.12(n).
(g) Significant risk to the deposit insurance fund means a
substantial probability that any Federal deposit insurance fund could
suffer a loss.
(h) Small business means a business, including a minority-owned
small business, that meets the qualifications for Small Business
Administration Development Company or Small Business Investment Company
loan programs in 13 CFR 121.301.
(i) Well capitalized has the same meaning as well capitalized in 12
CFR 6.4.
Sec. 24.3 Public welfare investments.
A national bank may make an investment under this part if:
(a) The investment primarily benefits low- and moderate-income
individuals, low- and moderate-income areas, or other areas targeted
for redevelopment by local, state, tribal or Federal government
(including Federal enterprise communities and Federal empowerment
zones) by providing or supporting one or more of the following
activities:
(1) Affordable housing, community services, or permanent jobs for
low- and moderate-income individuals;
(2) Equity or debt financing for small businesses;
(3) Area revitalization or stabilization; or
(4) Other activities, services, or facilities that primarily
promote the public welfare;
(b) The bank demonstrates that it is not reasonably practicable to
obtain other private market financing for the proposed investment;
(c) The bank demonstrates the extent to which the investment
benefits communities otherwise served by the bank; and
(d) The bank demonstrates non-bank community support for or
participation
[[Page 49661]]
in the investment. Community support or participation may be
demonstrated in a variety of ways, including but not limited to:
(1) In the case of an investment in a CD entity with a board of
directors, representation on the board of directors by non-bank
community representatives with expertise relevant to the proposed
investment;
(2) Establishment of an advisory board for the bank's community
development activities that includes non-bank community representatives
with expertise relevant to the proposed investment;
(3) Formation of a formal business relationship with a community-
based organization in connection with the proposed investment;
(4) Contractual agreements with community partners to provide
services in connection with the proposed investment;
(5) Joint ventures with local small businesses in the proposed
investment; and
(6) Financing for the proposed investment from the public sector or
community development organizations.
Sec. 24.4 Investment limits.
(a) Limit on aggregate outstanding investments. A national bank's
aggregate outstanding investments under this part may not exceed 5
percent of its capital and surplus, unless the bank is at least
adequately capitalized and the OCC determines, by written approval of
the bank's proposed investment(s), that a higher amount will pose no
significant risk to the deposit insurance fund. In no case may a bank's
aggregate outstanding investments under this part exceed 10 percent of
its capital and surplus.
(b) Limited liability. A national bank may not make an investment
under this part that would expose the bank to unlimited liability.
Sec. 24.5 Public welfare investment self-certification and prior
approval procedures.
(a) Self-certification of public welfare investments. (1) Subject
to Sec. 24.4(a), an eligible bank may make an investment described in
Sec. 24.6(a) without prior notification to, or approval by, the OCC if
the bank follows the self-certification procedures prescribed in this
section.
(2) To self-certify an investment, an eligible bank shall submit,
within 10 working days after it makes an investment, a letter of self-
certification to the Director, Community Development Division, Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency, Washington, DC 20219.
(3) The bank's letter of self-certification must include:
(i) The name of the CDC, CD Project, or other entity in which the
bank has invested;
(ii) The date the investment was made;
(iii) The type of investment (equity or debt), the investment
activity listed in Sec. 24.6(a) that the investment supports, and a
brief description of the particular investment;
(iv) The amount of the bank's total investment in the CDC, CD
Project or other entity, and the bank's aggregate outstanding
investments under this part, including commitments and the investment
being self-certified;
(v) The percentage of the bank's capital and surplus represented by
the bank's aggregate outstanding investments under this part, including
commitments and the investment being self-certified;
(vi) A statement certifying compliance with the requirements of
Sec. 24.3 and Sec. 24.4; and
(vii) If a portion of the investment funds projects outside of the
areas in which the bank maintains its main office or branches, a
statement certifying that no more than 25 percent of the investment
funds projects in a state or metropolitan area other than the states or
metropolitan areas in which the bank maintains its main office or
branches.
(4) A national bank that is not an eligible bank but that is at
least adequately capitalized, and has a composite rating of at least 3
with improving trends under the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating
System, may submit a letter to the Community Development Division
requesting authority to self-certify investments. The Community
Development Division considers these requests on a case-by-case basis.
(b) Investments requiring prior approval. (1) If a national bank or
its proposed investment does not meet the requirements for self-
certification set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, the bank
shall submit a proposal for an investment to the Director, Community
Development Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency,
Washington, DC 20219.
(2) The bank's investment proposal must include:
(i) The name of the CDC, CD Project, or other entity in which the
bank intends to invest;
(ii) The date on which the bank intends to make the investment;
(iii) The type of investment (equity or debt), the investment
activity listed in Sec. 24.3(a) that the investment supports, and a
description of the particular investment;
(iv) The amount of the bank's total investment in the CDC, CD
Project or other entity, and the bank's aggregate outstanding
investments under this part (including commitments and the investment
being proposed);
(v) The percentage of the bank's capital and surplus represented by
the bank's aggregate outstanding investments under this part (including
commitments and the investment being proposed); and
(vi) A statement certifying compliance with the requirements of
Sec. 24.3 and Sec. 24.4.
(3) In reviewing a proposal, the OCC considers the following
factors and other available information:
(i) Whether the investment satisfies the requirements of Sec. 24.3
and Sec. 24.4;
(ii) Whether the investment is consistent with the safe and sound
operation of the bank; and
(iii) Whether the investment is consistent with the requirements of
this part and the OCC's policies.
(4) Unless otherwise notified in writing by the OCC, and subject to
Sec. 24.4(a), the proposed investment is deemed approved after 30
calendar days from the date on which the OCC receives the bank's
investment proposal.
(5) The OCC, by notifying the bank, may extend its period for
reviewing the investment proposal. If so notified, the bank may make
the investment only with the OCC's written approval.
(6) The OCC may impose one or more conditions in connection with
its approval of an investment under this part. All approvals are
subject to the condition that a national bank must conduct the approved
activity in a manner consistent with any published guidance issued by
the OCC regarding the activity.
Sec. 24.6 Activities eligible for self-certification.
(a) Eligible activities. In accordance with the process described
in Sec. 24.5(a), a bank may self-certify the following investments
without prior notice to, or approval by, the OCC:
(1) Investments in an entity that finances, acquires, develops,
rehabilitates, manages, sells, or rents housing primarily for low- and
moderate-income individuals;
(2) Investments that finance small businesses (including equity or
debt financing and investments in an entity that provides loan
guarantees) that are located in low- and moderate-income areas or that
produce or retain permanent jobs, the majority of which are held by
low- and moderate-income individuals;
(3) Investments that provide credit counseling, job training,
community
[[Page 49662]]
development research, and similar technical assistance services for
non-profit community development organizations, low- and moderate-
income individuals or areas, or small businesses located in low- and
moderate-income areas or that produce or retain permanent jobs, the
majority of which are held by low- and moderate-income individuals;
(4) Investments in an entity that acquires, develops,
rehabilitates, manages, sells, or rents commercial or industrial
property that is located in a low- and moderate-income area and
occupied primarily by small businesses, or that is occupied primarily
by small businesses that produce or retain permanent jobs, the majority
of which are held by low- and moderate-income individuals;
(5) Investments as a limited partner, or as a partner in an entity
that is itself a limited partner, in a project with a general partner
that is, or is primarily owned and operated by, a 26 U.S.C. 501(c) (3)
or (4) non-profit corporation and that qualifies for the Federal low-
income housing tax credit;
(6) Investments in low- and moderate-income areas that produce or
retain permanent jobs, the majority of which are held by low- and
moderate-income individuals;
(7) Investments in a national bank that has been approved by the
OCC as a national bank with a community development focus;
(8) Investments of a type approved by the Federal Reserve Board
under 12 CFR 208.21 for state member banks that are consistent with the
requirements of Sec. 24.3; and
(9) Investments of a type previously determined by the OCC to be
permissible under this part.
(b) Ineligible activities. Notwithstanding the provisions of this
section, a bank may not self-certify an investment if:
(1) The investment involves properties carried on the bank's books
as ``other real estate owned'';
(2) More than 25 percent of the investment funds projects in a
state or metropolitan area other than the states or metropolitan areas
in which the bank maintains its main office or branches; or
(3) The OCC determines, in published guidance, that the investment
is inappropriate for self-certification.
Sec. 24.7 Examination, records, and remedial action.
(a) Examination. National bank investments under this part are
subject to the examination provisions of 12 U.S.C. 481.
(b) Records. Each national bank shall maintain in its files
information adequate to demonstrate that it is in compliance with the
requirements of this part.
(c) Remedial action. If the OCC finds that an investment under this
part is in violation of law or regulation, is inconsistent with the
safe and sound operation of the bank, or poses a significant risk to a
Federal deposit insurance fund, the national bank shall take
appropriate remedial action as determined by the OCC.
Dated: September 13, 1996.
Eugene A. Ludwig,
Comptroller of the Currency.
[FR Doc. 96-23986 Filed 9-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-33-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23796 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Stability and Control of Medium and Heavy Vehicles During Braking
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 185 (Monday, September 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49691-49696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23796]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 92-29; Notice 11]
RIN 2127-AG06
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Stability and Control of
Medium and Heavy Vehicles During Braking
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, to
specify the location, labeling, color, activation protocol, and
photometric intensity of antilock brake system (ABS) malfunction
indicator lamps on the exterior of trailers and trailer converter
dollies. The purpose of the malfunction indicator lamp is to inform
drivers, and maintenance and inspection personnel, of malfunctions in a
trailer's ABS.
DATES: Effective dates. The amendments to 49 CFR 571.121 are effective
March 1, 1997.
Compliance dates. Compliance with the amendments to paragraph
S5.2.3.3 (b) will be required on and after March 1, 1998.
Incorporation by reference. The incorporation by reference of a
publication listed in the regulation is approved by the Director of the
Federal Register as of March 1, 1997.
Petitions for reconsideration. Any petitions for reconsideration of
this rule must be received by NHTSA no later than November 7, 1996.
[[Page 49692]]
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this rule should refer to
the above referenced docket numbers and should be submitted to:
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Mr. Robert M.
Clarke, Office of Crash Avoidance, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202)
366-5278.
For legal issues: Mr. Marvin L. Shaw, NCC-20, Rulemaking Division,
Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202)
366-2992.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Comments on the December NPRM
IV. Agency Decision
A. General Considerations
B. Location
C. Color
D. Activation Protocol
E. Intensity and Photometric Requirements
V. Costs
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
I. Background
On March 10, 1995, NHTSA published a final rule amending Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air brake systems, to
require medium and heavy vehicles to be equipped with an antilock brake
system (ABS) (60 FR 13216). Truck tractors will be required to be
equipped with ABS beginning March 1, 1997, and air-braked trailers and
single-unit trucks will be required to be so equipped beginning March
1, 1998. These vehicles also will be required to be equipped with
indicator lamps to alert their drivers of ABS malfunctions. Each truck
equipped to tow trailers, including a truck tractor, will be required
to be equipped with two in-cab warning lamps: one to indicate
malfunctions of its own ABS, and another to indicate ABS malfunctions
on units it tows. Trailers will be required to be equipped with an
electrical circuit capable of signaling a trailer ABS malfunction to
the cab of the towing unit.
NHTSA recognized that, during the initial transition period, there
is a high likelihood that new ABS-equipped trailers will frequently be
towed by older, non ABS-equipped tractors or trucks that will not have
the capability to receive ABS malfunction signals transmitted from
trailers. Accordingly, to provide drivers, and maintenance and
inspection personnel, with the ability to determine a malfunction with
the trailer ABS, the agency has required that trailers (including
converter dollies) also be required to be equipped with a separate
external ABS malfunction indicator. The March 10, 1995, final rule
specified an interim eight-year period, from March 1, 1998, to March 1,
2006, during which these external ABS malfunction indicator lamps must
be installed on trailers.1 The agency reasoned that, after that
time period, there would be sufficient new ABS-equipped truck tractors
and towing trucks fitted with in-cab trailer ABS malfunction warning
indicators to obviate the need for the separate trailer-mounted ABS
malfunction warning lamp. The agency intended the trailer-mounted lamps
to be visible to drivers using their outside rearview mirrors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 A final rule responding to petitions for
reconsideration extended this requirement until March 1, 2009 (61 FR
5949, February 15, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Petitions for Reconsideration and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NHTSA received 16 petitions for reconsideration to the March 10,
1995 final rule. Most of these petitions addressed testing and
implementation issues associated with the requirements for ABS. In
addition, Midland-Grau and the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
(TTMA) requested changes in the requirements for external trailer ABS
malfunction indicator lamps. Specifically, they petitioned NHTSA to
delete the requirement that the external malfunction indicator lamp on
a trailer be visible from the driver's seating position ``through the
rearview mirrors.'' (see S5.2.3.3). Midland-Grau stated that since
truck tractor manufacturers cannot control where the external lamp
would be located, requiring tractor manufacturers to ensure that the
lamp is visible from the cab of the truck tractor is unreasonable. TTMA
stated that since trailer manufacturers cannot control where mirrors
are located on tractors, requiring the ABS malfunction lamp on dollies
and trailers to be visible ``through the rearview mirrors'' is not
appropriate. That organization also stated that there is no good,
practical location for such a lamp on a dolly.
On December 13, 1995, NHTSA published two notices in response to
the petitions for reconsideration: (1) A final rule (60 FR 63965) that
amended portions of the standard dealing with ABS and stopping distance
requirements, and (2) a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (60 FR
64010) that proposed changing the requirements for the location, color,
and intensity of the external ABS malfunction lamps on trailers and
dollies.
On February 15, 1996, NHTSA issued another final rule (61 FR 5949)
that responded to 13 petitions for reconsideration to the December 13,
1995 final rule. Specifically, the agency amended the trailer ABS
electrical powering requirements and adopted a four-year delay in the
effective date on which truck tractors and trucks equipped to tow
trailers must be capable of receiving and displaying ABS malfunction
warning signals from trailers. Because of the delay in the requirement
for in-cab signaling, the agency extended the transition period during
which trailers must be equipped with the external ABS malfunction
indicator. Thus, these lamps must be equipped on trailers manufactured
on and after March 1, 1998, and before March 1, 2009.
III. Comments on the December NPRM
NHTSA received comments on the proposal to amend the external
trailer ABS malfunction indicator requirements from TTMA, Midland-Grau,
the American Trucking Associations (ATA), the American Society of
Safety Engineers (ASSE), Truck-Lite, Inc., and Grote Industries, Inc.
The commenters generally agreed with the need for the external trailer
ABS malfunction indicator lamp. Most commenters requested that the lamp
be located at the trailer's rear rather than at its front. The agency's
responses to specific comments about the lamp's location, labeling,
color, activation protocol, and photometric requirements are set forth
below.
IV. Agency Decision
A. General Considerations
After reviewing the comments and other available information, NHTSA
has decided to adopt requirements with respect to the location, color,
activation protocol, and photometric intensity of the external ABS
malfunction lamps on trailers and trailer converter dollies. The ABS
malfunction indicator lamp on a trailer will have to be mounted near
the rear of the left side of the trailer, no closer than 150 mm (5.9
inches) and not more than 600 mm (23.6 inches) from the rear red side
marker lamp. The ABS malfunction indicator lamp for a converter dolly
will have to be mounted on a permanent structure on the dolly at least
375 mm (14 inches) above the road surface. In all cases, the
malfunction indicator lamp must be yellow and be illuminated whenever
power is supplied to the ABS and there
[[Page 49693]]
is a malfunction. The lamps will also meet the requirements for
combination clearance side marker lamps specified by the Society of
Automotive Engineer's (SAE's) Recommended Practice J592 July 1972 or
JUN92 which is referenced in Standard No. 108. The specific details of
each requirement are discussed below
B. Location
In the December 1995 NPRM, NHTSA proposed that the trailer ABS
malfunction indicator lamp be located on the left side of each trailer,
as close to the front as practicable, and at a height as close as
practicable to 96 inches above the road surface. The proposed location
requirement was patterned after a previous agency proposal to require a
low air pressure warning lamp on trailers. (55 FR 4453, February 8,
1990) The proposed height was consistent with the mean driver eye
height, as reported in a University of Michigan study.2 Given
anticipated practicability problems for some trailers, such as flatbeds
and lowboys, the agency also proposed that the malfunction indicator
lamp could be located on the front of the trailer, as far leftward as
possible and at a height as close to 96 inches as practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``The Influence of Truck Driver Eye Position on the
Effectiveness of Retroreflective Traffic Signs,'' by Sivak,
Flannagan, and Gellatly, September 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck-Lite agreed with the proposal to locate the external ABS
indicator near the front of the trailer. TTMA, ATA, Midland-Grau, and
Grote recommended that this indicator be located at the rear of the
trailer near the red side marker lamp. They stated that such a location
would allow the indicator to be visible and readily detected when
activated, provided that the ABS malfunction indicator were yellow.
These commenters stated that such a location would be readily visible
to drivers who use the red side marker lamp as a visual location cue to
help them track the lateral position of their trailer when making
turns.
NHTSA has decided to require that the external trailer ABS
malfunction indicator lamp be located near the rear of the trailer. The
agency believes that this lamp will be readily seen by drivers using
their rearview mirrors, and during walkaround vehicle inspections. The
agency notes that this lamp will only activate in those rare situations
when the trailer ABS has malfunctioned. The external trailer ABS
malfunction indicator must be located near the rear of the left side of
a trailer when viewed from the rear of the trailer, no closer than 150
mm (5.9 inches) and not more than 600 mm (23.6 inches) from the rear
red side marker lamp. The agency selected this range to ensure a
standardized location of this lamp near the trailer rear, thereby
facilitating its being viewed by drivers, while providing flexibility
to trailer manufacturers. This requirement combines the suggestions of
Midland-Grau, TTMA, ATA, and Grote, concerning the specific location
requirements for the trailer ABS malfunction indicator relative to the
red rear side marker lamp.
This decision reflects several considerations. In this standardized
location, the lamp can be seen by drivers, as well as fleet maintenance
and roadside inspection personnel, during pre-trip and post-trip
inspections. Platform trailers, pole/logging trailers, and other
miscellaneous trailers typically lack a front face. Based on Table 1
below, these trailers account for approximately 25 percent of all
trailers. For such trailers, a front mounting position of the external
malfunction indicator would have been problematic. In contrast, an
external malfunction indicator can be mounted on the rear left of all
trailers, even platform and other trailers that may have had difficulty
complying with the proposal for locating the indicator by the trailer's
front face. Moreover, locating the lamp in the rear also reduces
installation costs and improves durability since less wire will be
needed between the ABS electronic control unit (ECU) and the light it
activates, compared to locating the indicator at the front of trailers.
Accordingly, NHTSA believes that requiring the indicator lamp to be
located on the rear left side will provide manufacturers sufficient
latitude and flexibility in equipping their trailers with this lamp.
Table 1.--U.S. Commercial Truck Fleet by Major Body Type * (1992)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Cargo body type 1992 fleet
population
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Platform................................................... 22.2
Van........................................................ 44.5
Auto Transport............................................. 1.5
Dump....................................................... 10.1
Grain Bodies............................................... 4.2
Garbage/Refuse............................................. 0.4
Livestock.................................................. 1.3
Pole/Logging............................................... 3.2
Tank/Dry Bulk.............................................. 2.0
Tank/Liquids or Gas........................................ 7.4
Others..................................................... 3.2
------------
Total................................................ 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Source: 1992 Truck Inventory and Use Survey, U.S. Census Bureau.
Truck-Lite was the only commenter to specifically address NHTSA's
proposal to require that a malfunction indicator lamp be placed on a
permanent structure of the dolly and be visible to a person standing on
the road surface near the location of the indicator. That commenter
agreed with the agency's proposal. Since the agency continues to
believe that the proposed location for dollies is appropriate, the
agency has decided to adopt the location requirement for dollies, as
proposed.
C. Color
In the December 1995 NPRM, NHTSA proposed that the external ABS
malfunction indicator be yellow. The agency reasoned that this color
was consistent with the requirements in Standard No. 101, Controls and
displays, which requires that in-vehicle ABS malfunction indicator
lamps be yellow. The agency further stated that selecting this color
would harmonize the requirement with the vehicle standards of the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the Economic
Commission for Europe (ECE) which specify red to indicate brake failure
and yellow to indicate ABS malfunction. While NHTSA recognized that
these color requirements are applicable to instrument panel lamps and
do not address ABS malfunction indicator lamps on the exterior of a
vehicle, the agency stated that it is desirable to have a uniform
protocol. The agency tentatively concluded that the same requirements
should be applied to external ABS malfunction lamps since they perform
the same function as in-vehicle ABS malfunction lamps. The agency
further concluded that a green status lamp on the trailer exterior
would be inconsistent with the already established convention, thereby
creating confusion among drivers.
TTMA, Midland-Grau, and Grote recommended that the external ABS
malfunction indicator lamp be yellow, provided that it was located at
the trailer's rear. These commenters believed a yellow color was
necessary to make it possible for drivers to distinguish this lamp from
the red rear side marker lamp. They stated that a yellow lamp would be
visible and readily detected, when activated, because the red rear side
marker lamp is now routinely seen by drivers using their rearview
mirrors. ATA stated, without explanation, that a yellow malfunction
indicator should not be mounted at the trailer's rear. ATA favored a
green status indicator, stating that the SAE Truck and Bus ABS Task
Force had recently issued a
[[Page 49694]]
recommended practice that ``status indicators'' on a vehicle's exterior
should be green and should illuminate when the ABS is operating
properly.
After reviewing the available information, NHTSA has decided to
require the external trailer ABS malfunction indicator lamp to be
yellow. The agency believes that yellow will minimize confusion, be
readily understandable by drivers, and be distinguishable from the red
rear side marker lamps.3 NHTSA believes that while a green light
is appropriate to indicate that a system is operating properly, it
would be potentially confusing to indicate that a system such as the
trailer ABS is malfunctioning. The commonly accepted convention for
indicating the readiness of a system is an activated green light. NHTSA
notes that there would be no prohibition against supplementing the
required yellow external malfunction indicator lamp on a trailer with a
green lamp on the ECU to indicate the trailer ABS's status. Such a
supplemental lamp would not have to conform to any of the color or
protocol requirements specified for the external trailer ABS
malfunction indicator lamp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Table I of Standard 108 includes a requirement for, on the
side of each trailer, a yellow clearance lamp at the front and a red
clearance lamp at the rear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TTMA, ATA, Midland-Grau, and Grote suggested that the trailer ABS
malfunction indicator lamp be labeled with the letters ``ABS'' to
distinguish this lamp from other, otherwise identical, yellow side
marker lamps. They suggested several ways to distinguish the yellow
side markers from the trailer ABS indicator, including a decal on the
lens itself; a permanent marking on the lens or its housing; or a
permanent decal or plaque affixed to the trailer structure, at a
location immediately adjacent to the lamp.
NHTSA has decided to require the yellow trailer ABS malfunction
indicator lamp to be identified with the letters ``ABS'' to distinguish
this lamp from the yellow side marker/clearance lamps. This
identification is intended to inform drivers and others making a pre-
trip inspection that this lamp functions as a trailer ABS malfunction
indicator. The agency has specified several acceptable methods of
permanently marking the lamp to provide manufacturers with flexibility
in complying with this requirement. Specifically, a manufacturer may
use any of the following ways to permanently identify the trailer ABS
malfunction indicator: marking the lens, marking the lens housing,
affixing a label or plaque to the trailer near the indicator, or
painting the trailer near the indicator.
NHTSA is also specifying minimum character size requirements for
the indicator lamp identification, which are based on generally
recognized human factors design principles.4 The agency based its
selection of the character sizes on its assumption that 15 feet was a
reasonable estimate of the distance between the driver or mechanic
during a pre-trip walk-around inspection of a trailer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Visual Display Character Size,'' Woodson, WE Human Factor
Design Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1981, pages 494-495.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Activation Protocol
In earlier comments and its petition for reconsideration, TTMA
requested the lamp to be lit continuously when the ABS is functioning
properly and to be extinguished when there is a malfunction in the ABS.
NHTSA addressed this issue in detail in the March 1995 final rule
on heavy vehicle ABS rulemaking. In that notice, the agency decided to
require that the ABS malfunction indicator lamp be lit when a
malfunction exists and not be lit when the antilock system is
functioning properly. S5.2.3.3 of Standard No. 121 further requires
that the trailer ABS malfunction indicator lamp be lit during the
check-of-lamp function only when the vehicle is stationary and power is
first supplied to the antilock system. This allows the ABS lamp on a
trailer that is moving to undergo the check of lamp function, without
the lamp cycling on and off whenever the brakes are applied. The agency
stated that such a requirement eliminates distractions for the driver
and for drivers of adjacent vehicles, created by the ABS lamp cycling
on and off with every brake application. The agency emphasized that in
the event of a malfunction in the trailer antilock system, the
malfunction indicator lamp would be lit whenever power is supplied to
the trailer antilock system, regardless of whether the vehicle is
stationary or moving. Accordingly, the agency decided to deny TTMA's
request in its petition for a change in the ABS malfunction indicator
lamp protocol and proposed no change to the protocol included in the
ABS final rule.
No commenter addressed the trailer ABS indicator's activation
protocol.
NHTSA continues to believe that the ABS malfunction indicator lamp
should follow the accepted convention of activating when a malfunction
exists and not activating when the antilock system is functioning
properly. Thus, this protocol, first contained in the March 10, 1995
final rule requirements, remains in effect.
E. Intensity and Photometric Requirements
In their original petition to the March 10, 1995 final rule, AAMA
and TTMA petitioned NHTSA to require that the external ABS malfunction
indicator lamp be subject to the same photometric 5 requirements
as those specified in Standard No. 108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Photometric values specify the amount of light emitted
by a lamp, when measured from a specified distance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA tentatively agreed with these petitioners in its December 13,
1995, final rule and proposed that the lamps meet the photometric
requirements for clearance, side marker, and identification lamps
specified by SAE Recommended Practice J592 JUN92 for clearance lamps,
which are referenced in Standard No. 108. Specifically, the agency
proposed that ABS malfunction indicator lamps meet the photometric
performance requirements specified in SAE J592 JUN92 for the luminous
intensity of side marker lamps. Those requirements specify minimum
intensity values at test points of 45 degrees along a horizontal axis
and 10 degrees along a vertical axis, when measured from a lamp
distance of at least three meters. In addition, the agency proposed
that the lamp be mounted on the trailer in such a manner that its beam
is directed toward the front of the trailer and rotated 90 degrees so
that its top and bottom become its sides. The agency believed that such
an orientation of the lamp would ensure that its widest light beam is
in a vertical plane just outboard of the side of the trailer, and hence
would be more likely to be visible by the driver through the tractor's
rearview mirrors.
Truck-Lite, TTMA, and Midland-Grau requested that conformance be
allowed to the July 1972 version of SAE J592 (as well as the June 1992
version), since that earlier version is referenced in Standard No. 108
and many currently manufactured and stocked lamps have been certified
as having met that version of the standard. These commenters also
stated that the agency's proposal to rotate the lamp 90 degrees was
inappropriate since the requirement would necessitate designing new
lamps for an extremely limited market. They suggested that such a
redesign would add costs for little apparent gain. Alternatively, they
requested the agency require the use of a combination clearance/side
marker lamp instead of a
[[Page 49695]]
simple side marker lamp, because the combination lamps, which have
``PC'' or ``P2'' marked on the lens or housing in accordance with SAE
J579c, Lighting Identification Code, have a uniform and wide diffused
beam pattern throughout the full 180 degree left and right range. Thus,
if this type lamp was used, rotating the lenses, or mounting the lamp
facing toward the front of the trailer would be unnecessary.
After reviewing the comments, NHTSA has amended the standard to
permit conformance to either the July 1972, or June 1992 version of SAE
J592. Additionally, the standard has been amended to require that a
combination clearance/side marker lamp with a ``PC'' or ``P2'' marked
on the lens or housing in accordance with SEA J759 Jan 95, Lighting
Identification Code, be used as the external trailer ABS warning lamp.
The agency agrees with the commenters that this change will provide
additional flexibility, without any detriment to safety. Based on the
available information concerning the light output pattern of
combination clearance/side marker lamps, the agency has decided that
rotating lamps is not necessary to achieve the intended function of
this lamp.
V. Costs
NHTSA has already evaluated the economic impact of requiring
trailers and dollies to be equipped with an external ABS malfunction
indicator lamp in the final rule on heavy vehicle ABS published on
March 10, 1995. The agency estimated that the unit cost of requiring an
ABS lamp on trailers and dollies is $9.43. Since this rule does not
require additional equipment, but only specifies location, color and
photometric intensity for the trailer ABS malfunction indicator lamp,
the rule should not have any impact on previously estimated costs or
benefits. The agency notes that there will be some nominal additional
costs associated with the labeling requirements. There will also be
some cost savings, compared to the December 1995 proposal, since
manufacturers will not have to redesign those trailers lacking a front
face on which to install a malfunction indicator lamp. Under the
proposal, a significant minority of trailers (approximately 25 percent)
would have needed a permanent structure attached to the trailer to
comply with the proposed requirement. Locating the lamp in the rear
also reduces installation costs and improves durability since less wire
will be needed between the ABS electronic control unit (ECU) and the
light it activates, compared to locating the indicator at the front of
trailers.
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
1. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulatory Planning and Review) and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking was not reviewed under E.O. 12866. NHTSA has
analyzed this proposal and determined that it is not ``significant''
within the meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. The impacts of the rule are so minimal as not
to warrant preparation of a full regulation evaluation. As noted above,
NHTSA has already evaluated the economic impact of requiring an
external ABS malfunction indicator lamp. For details, see the Final
Economic Assessment (FEA) titled, ``Final Rules FMVSS Nos. 105 & 121
Stability and Control While Braking Requirements and Reinstatement of
Stopping Distance Requirements for Medium and Heavy Vehicles,''
published in June 1994.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NHTSA has
evaluated the effects of this action on small entities. Based upon this
evaluation, I certify that the amendment will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Vehicle and
brake manufacturers typically do not qualify as small entities.
Further, aside from the relatively small cost impacts noted above, the
amendment will not affect costs or benefits beyond those addressed in
the (FEA) for the ABS final rule. Accordingly, no regulatory
flexibility analysis has been prepared.
3. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to
warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. No State laws are
affected.
4. National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has considered the environmental implications of this
rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and determined that the rule does not significantly affect the human
environment.
5. Civil Justice Reform
The rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under section 103(d)
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30111),
whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state
may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the same
aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal standard.
Section 105 of the Act (49 U.S.C. 30161) sets forth a procedure for
judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not require
submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative
proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles, Rubber.
In consideration of the foregoing, the agency is amending Standard
No. 121, Air Brake Systems, in Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 571 as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.121, as revised at 61 FR 27290 effective March 1,
1997, is amended by revising S5.2.3.3, to read as follows:
Sec. 571.121 Standard No. 121; Air brake systems.
* * * * *
S5.2.3.3 Antilock malfunction indicator.
(a) In addition to the requirements of S5.2.3.2, each trailer and
trailer converter dolly manufactured on or after March 1, 1998, and
before March 1, 2009, shall be equipped with an external antilock
malfunction indicator lamp that meets the requirements of S5.2.3.3 (b)
through (d).
(b)(1) The lamp shall be designed to conform to the performance
requirements of Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended
Practice J592 JUN92, or J592e, July 1972, Clearance, Side Marker, and
Identification Lamps, for combination, clearance, and side marker
lamps, which are marked with a ``PC'' or ``P2'' on the lens or housing,
in accordance with SAE J759 Jan 95, Lighting Identification Code. SAE
J592 June 92, SAE J592e July 1972, and SAE J759 January 1995, are
incorporated by reference and thereby are made part of this standard.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the material
[[Page 49696]]
incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Copies of the material may be inspected at NHTSA's Docket
Section, 400 Seventh Street, SW., room 5109, Washington, DC, or at the
Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,
Washington, DC.
(2) The color of the lamp shall be yellow.
(3) The letters ``ABS'' shall be permanently molded, stamped, or
otherwise marked or labeled in letters not less than 10 mm (0.4 inches)
high on the lamp lens or its housing to identify the function of the
lamp. Alternatively, the letters ``ABS'' may be painted on the trailer
body or dolly or a plaque with the letters ``ABS'' may be affixed to
the trailer body or converter dolly; the letters ``ABS'' shall be not
less than 25 mm (1 inch) high. A portion of one of the letters in the
alternative identification shall be not more than 150 mm (5.9 inches)
from the edge of the lamp lens.
( c) Location requirements. (1) Each trailer that is not a trailer
converter dolly shall be equipped with a lamp mounted on a permanent
structure on the left side of the trailer as viewed from the rear, no
closer than 150 mm (5.9 inches), and no farther than 600 mm (23.6
inches), from the red rear side marker lamp.
(2) Each trailer converter dolly shall be equipped with a lamp
mounted on a permanent structure of the dolly so that the lamp is not
less than 375 mm (14.8 inches) above the road surface when measured
from the center of the lamp with the dolly at curb weight. When a
person, standing 3 meters (9.8 feet) from the lamp, views the lamp from
a perspective perpendicular to the vehicle's centerline, no portion of
the lamp shall be obscured by any structure on the dolly.
(d) The lamp shall be illuminated whenever power is supplied to the
antilock brake system and there is a malfunction that affects the
generation or transmission of response or control signals in the
trailer's antilock brake system. The lamp shall remain illuminated as
long as such a malfunction exists and power is supplied to the antilock
brake system. Each message about the existence of such a malfunction
shall be stored in the antilock brake system whenever power is no
longer supplied to the system. The lamp shall be automatically
reactivated when power is again supplied to the trailer's antilock
brake system. The lamp shall also be activated as a check of lamp
function whenever power is first supplied to the antilock brake system
and the vehicle is stationary. The lamp shall be deactivated at the end
of the check of lamp function, unless there is a malfunction or a
message about a malfunction that existed when power was last supplied
to the antilock brake system.
* * * * * *
Issued on: September 11, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-23796 Filed 9-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23652 Minor Amendments to Inspection/Maintenance Program Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 185 (Monday, September 23, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49680-49682]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23652]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 51
[FRL-5610-4]
Minor Amendments to Inspection/Maintenance Program Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule changes a provision of the federal vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M) rules relating to motorist compliance
enforcement mechanisms for pre-existing programs. The current rule
limits the use of pre-existing enforcement mechanisms, other than
denial of vehicle registration, to those geographic areas previously
subject to the I/M program. This rule change allows states to employ
such effective pre-existing enforcement mechanisms as sticker
enforcement in any area in the state adopting an I/M program. This
amendment is consistent with the relevant requirements of the Clean Air
Act. These changes will not result in any change in health and
environmental benefits.
DATES: This rule will take effect November 22, 1996 unless EPA receives
adverse comments on a parallel proposal of this action, published
elsewhere in this Federal Register, by October 23, 1996. Should EPA
receive such comments, EPA will publish a subsequent document in the
Federal Register withdrawing this direct final rule prior to the
effective date. Anyone wishing to submit comments on the parallel
proposal should do so at this time.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in the
Public Docket No. A-91-75. The docket is located at the Air Docket,
Room M-1500 (6102), Waterside Mall SW, Washington, DC 20460. The docket
may be inspected between 8:30 a.m. and 12 noon and between 1:30 p.m.
until 5:30 p.m. on weekdays. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying docket material. Electronic copies of the preamble and the
regulatory text of this rulemaking are available on the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network
Bulletin Board System (TTN BBS) and the Office of Mobile Sources' World
Wide Web cite, http://ww.epa.gov/OMSWWW/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leila Cook, Office of Mobile Sources,
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann
Arbor, Michigan, 48105. Telephone (313) 741-7820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by the minor amendment to the I/M
rule are those which adopt, approve, or fund I/M programs. Regulated
categories and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local government.................... Local air quality agencies.
State government.................... State air quality agencies
responsible for I/M programs.
Federal............................. EPA.
government..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
that could potentially be regulated by this I/M amendment. Other types
of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To
determine whether your organization is regulated by this action, you
should carefully examine the applicability criteria of 40 CFR 51.361 of
the I/M rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (the Act), 42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published
in the Federal Register on November 5, 1992 (40 CFR part 51, subpart S)
rules relating to motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M)
programs (hereafter referred to as the I/M rule; see 57 FR 52950). EPA
here amends those rules to broaden the geographic area in which pre-
existing enforcement mechanisms can be employed.
Section 182(c)(3) of the Act establishes the statutory requirements
for enhanced I/M programs. Subsection (c)(3)(C)(iv) requires the use of
vehicle registration denial enforcement mechanisms except in certain
cases. The statute allows the use of alternative enforcement mechanisms
that are demonstrated to be more effective than vehicle registration
denial for any program in operation before enactment of the 1990
amendments of the Act.
In the 1992 I/M rules, EPA interpreted this statutory requirement
to allow the use of pre-existing alternative enforcement mechanisms
only in the same geographic area where the prior program had been
implemented using that alternative 40 CFR 51.361. That regulation did
not provide for the use of alternative enforcement mechanisms in
[[Page 49681]]
any areas within a state that had not previously had an I/M program,
even where an effective alternative enforcement mechanism was in place
elsewhere in the state. In addition, the 1992 I/M rule required pre-
existing alternative enforcement mechanisms to have been approved into
the SIP.
Based on experience implementing the I/M rule, EPA now believes
that the provisions limiting the geographic scope of pre-existing
enforcement mechanisms should be altered. EPA is amending 40 CFR 51.361
to allow, anywhere within a state, the use of more effective pre-
existing enforcement mechanisms that the state had previously used in
only some portion of the state. In states where a pre-existing
enforcement mechanism can be demonstrated to be more effective than
registration denial, it would be incongruous to allow the use of that
mechanism only in those areas that had previously employed the
mechanism, but require areas within the state newly implementing I/M to
use a registration denial system that had already been demonstrated to
be less effective within the state.
EPA believes that the amendment to section 51.361 is consistent
with the Act. The statute does not impose a geographic limitation on
the scope of applicability of pre-existing enforcement mechanisms. The
statute merely requires that the I/M program have been in place prior
to the 1990 amendments to the Act, and that the enforcement mechanism
be demonstrated to be more effective than registration denial. EPA
believes that where this demonstration can be made, expansion of the
program, including the pre-existing enforcement mechanism, to other
areas within the state is appropriate and consistent with the statute.
Further, EPA is removing the requirement in Sec. 51.361 that pre-
existing enforcement mechanisms have been approved into the SIP. The
statute requires only that such mechanism have been in operation prior
to the 1990 amendments to the Act, and says nothing about SIP approval.
Where a state can demonstrate that its pre-existing enforcement
mechanism is more effective than registration denial, EPA believes it
would be inconsistent with the statute to require use of the less
effective registration denial system merely because the program
previously in operation had not been approved into the SIP.
Administrative Requirements
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 605(b), I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and,
therefore, is not subject to the requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. A small entity may include a small government entity or
jurisdiction. A small government jurisdiction is defined as governments
of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts, with a population of less than 50,000. This
certification is based on the fact that the I/M areas impacted by this
rulemaking do not meet the definition of a small government
jurisdiction, that is, governments of cities, counties, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a
population of less than 50,000. This rule affects only the enforcement
mechanism states may include in their I/M programs. Furthermore, the
impact created by this action does not increase the pre-existing burden
which this proposal seeks to amend.
Unfunded Mandates Act
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule where the estimated costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, will be $100 million or more.
Under Section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objective 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 impacted by the rule.
To the extent that the requirements in this action would impose any
mandate at all as defined in Section 101 of the Unfunded Mandates Act
upon the state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, as
explained above, this rule is not estimated to impose costs in excess
of $100 million. Therefore, EPA has not prepared a statement with
respect to budgetary impacts. As noted above, this rule offers
opportunities to states that would enable them to lower economic
burdens from those resulting from the currently existing I/M rule.
Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
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. The rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that this amendment to the I/M rule is not a
significant regulatory action under the terms of Executive Order 12866
and has been waived from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review.
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
There are no information requirements in this final rule which
requires the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Effective Date
This rule will take effect on November 22, 1996, unless EPA
receives adverse comment on a parallel document proposing these same
changes published elsewhere in this Federal Register. EPA is using the
direct final rulemaking procedure in this case because EPA believes
that these amendments are noncontroversial and does not anticipate
receiving any adverse comment. Should EPA receive any such comments,
EPA will publish a subsequent document in the Federal Register
withdrawing this direct final rule prior to the effective date. EPA
will then publish another final rule responding to the comments
received and taking final action on the parallel proposal. Anyone
wishing to comment on the parallel proposal should do so at this time.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Motor vehicle pollution, Nitrogen oxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.
[[Page 49682]]
Dated: September 10, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 51 of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 51--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. Section 51.361 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (b)(1)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.361 Motorist compliance enforcement.
Compliance shall be ensured through the denial of motor vehicle
registration in enhanced I/M programs unless an exception for use of an
existing alternative is approved. An enhanced I/M area may use an
existing alternative if it demonstrates that the alternative has been
more effective than registration denial. An enforcement mechanism may
be considered an ``existing alternative'' only in states that, for some
area in the state, had an I/M program with that mechanism in operation
prior to passage of the 1990 Amendments to the Act. A basic I/M area
may use an alternative enforcement mechanism if it demonstrates that
the alternative will be as effective as registration denial. Two other
types of enforcement programs may qualify for enhanced I/M programs if
demonstrated to have been more effective than enforcement of the
registration requirement in the past: Sticker-based enforcement
programs and computer-matching programs. States that did not adopt an
I/M program for any area of the state before November 15, 1990, may not
use an enforcement alternative in connection with an enhanced I/M
program required to be adopted after that date.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) For enhanced I/M programs, the area in question shall have had
an operating I/M program using the alternative mechanism prior to
enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. While modifications
to improve compliance may be made to the program that was in effect at
the time of enactment, the expected change in effectiveness cannot be
considered in determining acceptability;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-23652 Filed 9-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.