issue-1996-09-25•Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-25
Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-25
issue-1996-09-25Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-25Regulation
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. 96-24591 Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria; Re-Establishment of Ground-Water Monitoring Exemption for Small Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Located in Either Dry or Remote Areas
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50410-50413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24591]
[[Page 50409]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 258
Re-Establishment of Ground-Water Monitoring Exemption for Small
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Located in Either Dry or Remote Areas;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 25, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 50410]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 258
[FRL-5615-8]
RIN 2050-AE24
Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria; Re-Establishment of
Ground-Water Monitoring Exemption for Small Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills Located in Either Dry or Remote Areas
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising
the criteria for municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs)by re-
establishing an exemption from ground-water monitoring for owners or
operators of certain small landfills. In order to qualify for the
exemption, the landfill must accept less than 20 tons of municipal
solid waste per day (based on an annual average), have no evidence of
ground-water contamination, and be located in either a dry or remote
location. This action codifies Sec. 3 of the Land Disposal Program
Flexibility Act of 1996 (LDPFA, P.L. 104-119, March 26, 1996), which
provides explicit authority for this ground-water monitoring exemption.
This action will ease burdens on certain small landfill owners and
local governments, without compromising groundwater quality.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on September 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Supporting materials are available for viewing in the RCRA
Information Center (RIC), located in Crystal Gateway I, 1235 Jefferson
Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, Virginia. The Docket
Identification Number is F-96-SDRF-FFFFF. The RIC is open from 9:00 am
to 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To
review docket materials, it is recommended that the public make an
appointment by calling 703 603-9230. The public may copy a maximum of
100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies
cost $0.15 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions on this rule,
contact the RCRA Hotline at 800 424-9346, TDD 800 553-7672 (hearing
impaired), or 703 412-9810 (Washington, DC metropolitan area).
For technical questions, contact Ms. Dana Arnold of the Office of
Solid Waste at 703 308-7279, or at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(5306W), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 24060.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Outline
I. Authority
II. Regulated Entities
III. Summary of Today's Action
IV. Background
A. Prior EPA Ground-Water Monitoring Requirements for Small
MSWLFs
B. The Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1996
V. Good Cause Exemption from Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking
Procedures
VI. Withdrawal of Proposed Rule on Alternative Ground-Water
Monitoring
VII. Impact Analysis
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Executive Order 12875 and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Considerations of Issues Related to Environmental Justice
VIII. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
I. Authority
This regulation is promulgated under the authority of sections
1008(a)(3), 2002(a), 4004(a), and 4010(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
(RCRA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6907(a)(3), 6912(a), 6944(a), and
6949a(c).
II. Regulated Entities
Entities potentially regulated by this action are public or private
owners or operators of municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) that
accept less than 20 tons of municipal solid waste and are located in
dry or remote areas. Regulated categories and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............................ Owners or operators of small
MSWLFs in dry or remote
locations.
Municipal Government................ Owners or operators of small
MSWLFs in dry or remote
locations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary of Today's Action
Today, EPA is revising the 40 CFR Part 258 criteria for MSWLFs by
re-establishing an exemption from ground-water monitoring for owners or
operators of small landfills that have no known ground-water
contamination and that are located in dry or remote areas. This rule
codifies Sec. 3 of the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1996
(P.L. 104-119, March 26, 1996), which amended section 4010(c) of RCRA
to exempt certain small MSWLFs from ground-water monitoring
requirements. This rule applies to owners or operators of new MSWLF
units, existing MSWLF units, and lateral expansions of existing MSWLF
units.
IV. Background
A. Prior EPA Ground-Water Monitoring Requirements for Small MSWLFs
On August 30, 1988, EPA proposed municipal solid waste landfill
criteria under Subtitle D of RCRA (53 FR 33314), which included minimum
federal criteria for location restrictions, facility design and
operation, ground-water monitoring, corrective action, financial
assurance, and closure and post-closure care requirements.
In the final MSWLF criteria (56 FR 50978, October 9, 1991), EPA
included an exemption for owners and operators of certain small MSWLF
units located in dry or remote areas (hereafter referred to as
``qualifying small MSWLFs'') from the design and ground-water
monitoring requirements. To qualify for the exemption, the landfill
must have met the following criteria: accepted less than 20 tons of
municipal solid waste per day (based on an annual average), had no
evidence of ground-water contamination, and either: (1) served a
community that experiences an annual interruption of at least three
consecutive months of surface transportation that prevents access to a
regional waste management facility, or (2) been located in an area that
annually receives 25 inches or less of precipitation and serve a
community that has no practicable waste management alternative. In
adopting this limited exemption, the Agency believed that it had
complied with the statutory requirement to protect human health and the
environment, taking into account the practicable capabilities of
landfill owners and operators, in this case owners or operators of
small MSWLFs.
This exemption was successfully challenged by the Sierra Club and
the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). In Sierra Club v. United
States Environmental Protection Agency, 992 F.2d 337 (D.C. Cir. 1993),
the U.S. Court of Appeals held that under RCRA section 4010(c), the
only factor EPA could consider in determining whether facilities must
monitor ground-water was whether such monitoring was ``necessary to
detect contamination,'' not whether such monitoring is ``practicable.''
Thus, the Court vacated the exemption for qualifying small MSWLFs as it
pertains to ground-water monitoring, and remanded that portion of the
final rule to the Agency for
[[Page 50411]]
further consideration. The Court did not require EPA to remove the
exemption from the design requirements.
On October 1, 1993, EPA rescinded the exemption from ground-water
monitoring for qualifying small MSWLFs (58 FR 51536). The Agency also
delayed the effective date of the MSWLF criteria for qualifying small
MSWLFs for two years (until October 9, 1995), to allow owners and
operators of such small MSWLFs adequate time to decide whether to
continue to operate in light of the Court's ruling, and to prepare
financially for the added costs if they decided to continue to operate.
The U.S. Court of Appeals decision did not preclude EPA from
issuing separate ground-water monitoring standards for these landfills,
taking into account size, location, and climate, as long as these
separate standards ensured that any ground-water contamination would be
detected. Therefore, EPA intended to use the additional two-year period
to determine if there were practical and affordable alternative
monitoring systems or approaches that would be adequate to detect
contamination. The Agency determined that there are alternative methods
and proposed alternative ground-water monitoring regulations in 1995
(60 FR 40799, August 10, 1995). The Agency subsequently extended the
effective date for qualifying small MSWLFs until October 9, 1997 to
provide EPA with time to finalize the alternative monitoring
requirements (60 FR 52337, October 6, 1995).
B. The Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1996
On March 26, 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Land
Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1996 (LDPFA), P.L. 104-119, which,
among other things, amended RCRA section 4010(c) to exempt certain
small MSWLFs located in either dry or remote areas from the ground-
water monitoring requirements. The LDPFA specifies that the ground-
water monitoring requirements do not apply to the owner or operator of
a new MSWLF unit, an existing MSWLF unit, or a lateral expansion of a
MSWLF unit, that disposes of less than 20 tons of MSW daily, based on
an annual average, if there is no evidence of ground-water
contamination from the unit or expansion and the unit or expansion
serves either a remote community (i.e., one that experiences an annual
interruption of at least 3 consecutive months of surface transportation
that prevents access to a regional MSW facility) or a dry community
(i.e., one that receives 25 inches or less of precipitation annually)
that has no practicable waste management alternative.
Today, EPA is implementing this amendment to RCRA section 4010(c)
by re-establishing in the Part 258 MSWLF criteria the exemption from
the ground-water monitoring requirements for owners or operators of
qualifying small MSWLFs. To do so, EPA is revising the introductory
text to Sec. 258.1(f)(1), which currently provides that qualifying
small MSWLFs are also exempt from the design requirements found in
subpart D of Part 258. The revision provides that the qualifying small
MSWLFs are exempt from the ground-water monitoring requirements of
subpart E. The rest of the exemption (i.e., Sec. 258.1(f)(1) (i) and
(ii)) is unchanged. EPA also is revising Sec. 258.1(f)(3) to specify
that, if the owner or operator of a qualifying small MSWLF has
knowledge of ground-water contamination, then the owner or operator
must notify the state Director and comply with the subpart E ground-
water monitoring and correction criteria, as well as the subpart D
design criteria.
The LDPFA also authorizes States to require MSWLF owners or
operators of qualifying small MSWLFs to conduct ground-water monitoring
in the specified instances described below. Under the LDPFA, a State
may require the owner or operator of a small MSWLF located in a dry or
remote area to conduct ground-water monitoring if necessary to protect
ground-water resources and ensure compliance with a State ground-water
protection plan. If the State finds a release from a solid waste
landfill unit, the State must require corrective action as appropriate.
The LDPFA also authorizes States to allow owners or operators of
qualifying small MSWLFs to use alternatives to ground-water monitoring
wells to detect releases.
In addition, the LDPFA authorizes a State to suspend the ground-
water monitoring requirements for any MSWLF, if the landfill operator
demonstrates that there is no potential for migration of hazardous
constituents from the unit to the uppermost aquifer during the active
life of the unit and the post-closure care period. The opportunity to
demonstrate that there is no migration applies to the operators of all
MSWLFs, not just to the operators of qualifying small MSWLFs. The MSWLF
rule already contains this ``no migration'' exemption provision. See 40
CFR 258.50(b). As required by the LDPFA, EPA intends to issue guidance
to facilitate small community use of this no migration exemption.
V. Good Cause Exemption From Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking
Procedures
The Administrative Procedure Act generally requires agencies to
provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing
a final rule. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b). Rules are exempt from this
requirement if the issuing agency finds good cause that notice and
comment are unnecessary. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b)(3)(B).
EPA has determined that providing prior notice and opportunity for
comment on the promulgation of this rule is unnecessary. As discussed
in Part IV of this preamble, the LDPFA amended RCRA section 4010(c) to
reinstate the small community landfill exemption and to authorize
states to require ground-water monitoring and corrective action at
small MSWLFs that otherwise would qualify for the exemption. The
statutory exemption and other provisions took effect when the President
signed the LDPFA on March 26, 1996. Promulgation of today's rule simply
implements the Congressional intent of section 3(b) of LDPFA to
``immediately reinstate'' the small community MSWLF exemption that was
once codified in 40 CFR Sec. 258.1(f). Because EPA is making no changes
to the exemption specifically provided by the LDPFA, it is unnecessary
to again provide notice and accept public comment.
For the same reasons, EPA believes there is good cause for making
the reinstatement of the small community MSWLF exemption in Part 258
immediately effective. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(d).
VI. Withdrawal of Proposed Rule on Alternative Ground-Water
Monitoring
On August 10, 1995 (60 FR 40799), EPA proposed requirements for
alternative ground-water monitoring systems or approaches to provide
owners and operators of qualifying small MSWLFs with flexibility in
meeting the ground-water monitoring requirements of RCRA section
4010(c) and EPA's implementing regulations. As a result of today's re-
establishment of the ground-water monitoring exemption into the Part
258 MSWLF criteria, many small landfills will no longer need this
flexibility because they will not be subject to the ground-water
monitoring requirements. Even if ground-water monitoring is necessary
at a qualifying small MSWLF, under the LDPFA, it is the State (or
Tribe), rather than EPA, that can allow the landfill operator to use
alternative ground-water monitoring techniques. Thus, it is not
necessary for EPA to promulgate alternative ground-
[[Page 50412]]
water monitoring requirements, and the Agency is withdrawing the
proposed alternative ground-water monitoring regulations published on
August 10, 1995.
VII. Impact Analysis
Under the LDPFA, the ground-water monitoring exemption for
qualified small MSWLFs are in effect regardless of EPA action. In
today's final rule, EPA is simply codifying this LDPFA provision in
order to enable affected entities to find all relevant requirements in
the Part 258 MSWLF criteria in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Therefore, any potential regulatory impacts have already been created
by Congressional action in enacting the LDPFA. Because the ground-water
monitoring exemption for qualified small MSWLFs is deregulatory in
nature, however, it provides regulatory relief to small entities.
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must determine whether a
regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to OMB review
and the other provisions of the Executive Order. A significant
regulatory action is defined as one that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or rights and obligations or recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
Executive Order 12866.
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of E.O. 12866 and therefore is not
subject to OMB review. In the proposed rule to establish alternative
ground-water monitoring requirements, EPA estimated the national annual
costs of ground-water monitoring requirements at qualifying small
MSWLFs to range from $7.2 million to $26.6 million per year (60 FR
40810, August 10, 1995). Today's action is deregulatory in nature and
will provide certain small entities with relief from the costs of
ground-water monitoring without adversely impacting human health or the
environment.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis that describes the impact of a proposed or final
rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions). However, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that today's final
rule will not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Today's rule is deregulatory in nature and does not
impose any new burdens on small entities. The effect of today's final
rule is to provide certain small entities with relief from ground-water
monitoring requirements and the costs associated with those
requirements. Therefore, this rule does not require a regulatory
flexibility analysis.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA's 1991 MSWLF regulations provided that owners or operators that
meet the criteria for exemptions from the ground-water monitoring and
design criteria must place documentation in the facility operating
record demonstrating that they qualified for the exemptions. The
information collection requirements for all of Part 258, including this
documentation requirement for small, dry or remote landfills, were
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The OMB approval number
for compliance with the Part 258 MSWLF criteria recordkeeping and
reporting requirements is 2050-0122.
D. Executive Order 12875 and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under Executive Order 12875, Federal agencies are charged with
enhancing intergovernmental partnerships by allowing State and local
governments the flexibility to design solutions to problems the
citizenry is facing. E.O. 12875 calls on Federal agencies to either pay
the direct costs of complying with Federal mandates or to consult with
representatives of State, local, or Tribal governments prior to formal
promulgation of the requirement. The Executive Order also provides for
increasing flexibility for State, Tribal, and local governments through
waivers.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments,
and the private sector. UMRA requires agencies to prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final
rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures by
State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
EPA has determined that today's final rule does not include a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or
more to either State, Tribal, and local governments in the aggregate,
or to the private sector. As previously discussed in this preamble, the
exemption from ground-water monitoring for qualifying small MSWLFs
reduces a regulatory burden and associated costs that these small
entities otherwise would be required to incur.
Prior to passage of the LDPFA, EPA had maintained dialogue with
States, Tribes, and local governments regarding ways of ensuring
appropriate flexibility while maintaining protection of human health
and the environment for small MSWLFs, particularly those in dry or
remote locations. The Agency believes that this consultation with
States, Tribes, and local governments satisfies the requirement of
Executive Order 12875.
E. Considerations of Issues Related to Environmental Justice
EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns and
is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to
enhance environmental quality for all residents of the United States.
The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population,
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income bears
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effects as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and
all people live in clean and sustainable communities.
The Agency believes that today's rule will not have a
disproportionately high or adverse environmental or economic impact on
any minority or low-income group, or on any other type of affected
community. The Agency believes that this rulemaking will enable some
minority and/or low-income communities to continue to be served by a
local landfill that otherwise would
[[Page 50413]]
close because it could not afford the cost of ground-water monitoring.
The Agency further believes that this rulemaking will not create
adverse impacts on human health and the environment because the ground-
water monitoring exemption is only available if there is no evidence of
ground-water contamination from the landfill, and States can require
both ground-water monitoring and corrective action as necessary to
protect ground-water resources.
VIII. 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).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258
Environmental protection, Corrective action, Ground-water
monitoring, Household hazardous waste, Liner requirements, Liquids in
landfills, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures,
Small quantity generators, State/Trial permit program approval and
adequacy, Waste disposal, Water pollution control.
Dated: September 19, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 258, is amended as follows:
PART 258--CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
1. The authority citation for part 258 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6907(a)(3), 6912(a), 6944(a) and 6949a(c);
33 U.S.C. 1345 (d) and (e).
2. Section 258.1 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (f)(1) and by revising paragraph (f)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 258.1 Purpose, scope, and applicability.
* * * * *
(f)(1) Owners or operators of new MSWLF units, existing MSWLF
units, and lateral expansions that dispose of less than twenty (20)
tons of municipal solid waste daily, based on an annual average, are
exempt from subparts D and E of this part, so long as there is no
evidence of ground-water contamination from the MSWLF unit, and the
MSWLF unit serves:
* * * * *
(3) If the owner or operator of a new MSWLF unit, existing MSWLF
unit, or lateral expansion has knowledge of ground-water contamination
resulting from the unit that has asserted the exemption in paragraph
(f)(1)(i) or (f)(1)(ii) of this section, the owner or operator must
notify the state Director of such contamination and, thereafter, comply
with subparts D and E of this part.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-24591 Filed 9-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24588 Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50238-50244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24588]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR PART 261
[SW-FRL-5615-5]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting a
petition submitted by the Texas Eastman Division of Eastman Chemical
Company (Texas Eastman) to exclude from hazardous waste control (or
delist), certain solid wastes. The wastes being delisted consists of
ash generated from the incineration of waste water treatment sludge at
its facility. This action responds to Texas Eastman's petition to
delist these wastes on a ``generator specific'' basis from the lists of
hazardous wastes. After careful analysis, EPA has concluded that the
petitioned waste is not hazardous waste when disposed of in Subtitle D
landfills. This exclusion applies only to the fluidized bed incinerator
(FBI) ash generated at Texas Eastman's Longview, Texas, facility.
Accordingly, this final rule excludes the petitioned waste from the
requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) when disposed of in Subtitle D
landfills.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this final rule is located at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
[[Page 50239]]
Texas 75202, and is available for viewing in the EPA library on the
12th floor from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for appointments. The
reference number for this docket is ``F-96-TXDEL-TXEASTMAN.'' The
public may copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the
first 100 pages, and at $0.15 per page for additional copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: For technical information concerning
this notice, contact Michelle Peace, Delisting Program (6PD-O), Region
6, Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas
75202, (214) 665-7430.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Authority
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition EPA to
remove their wastes from hazardous waste control by excluding them from
the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Secs. 261.31 and 261.32.
Specifically, Sec. 260.20 allows any person to petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through
265 and 268 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and
Sec. 260.22 provides generators the opportunity to petition the
Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator-specific'' basis from
the hazardous waste lists. Petitioners must provide sufficient
information to allow EPA to determine that the waste to be excluded
does not meet any of the criteria under which the waste was listed as a
hazardous waste. In addition, the Administrator must determine, where
he/she has a reasonable basis to believe that factors (including
additional constituents) other than those for which the waste was
listed could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste, that such factors
do not warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
B. History of this Rulemaking
Texas Eastman petitioned EPA to exclude from hazardous waste
control the ash produced from the incineration of sludge from their
waste water treatment plant. The ash is currently disposed in an on-
site hazardous waste landfill at Texas Eastman in Longview, Texas.
After evaluating the petition, EPA proposed, on June 25, 1996, to
exclude Texas Eastman's waste from the lists of hazardous waste under
Secs. 261.31 and 261.32. See 61 FR 32753. This rulemaking addresses
public comments received on the proposal and finalizes the proposed
decision to grant Texas Eastman's petition.
II. Disposition of Delisting Petition
Eastman Chemical Company--Texas Eastman Division, Longview, Texas,
75607
A. Proposed Exclusion
Texas Eastman petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists of hazardous
wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32, an annual volume of ash
generated from incineration of sludge from its wastewater treatment
plant. Specifically, in its petition, Texas Eastman requested that EPA
grant a standard exclusion for 7,000 cubic yards of incinerator ash
generated per calendar year. The FBI ash is listed for 56 EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers due to the ``derived-from'' and mixture rules. The waste
is listed as D001, D003, D018, D019, D021, D022, D027, D028, D029,
D030, D032, D033, D034, D035, D036, D038, D039, D040, F001, F003, F005,
K009, K010, U001, U002, U003, U019, U028, U031, U037, U044, U056, U069,
U070, U107, U108, U112, U113, U115, U117, U122, U140, U147, U151, U154,
U159, U161, U169, U190, U196, U211, U213, U226, U239, and U359. The
listed constituents of concern for these EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers
are shown in Table 1. See, part 261, Appendix VII.
Table 1.--Hazardous Waste Codes Associated With Wastewater Streams
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste code Basis for characteristic/listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D001......................... Ignitability.
D003......................... Reactivity.
D018......................... Benzene.
D019......................... Carbon Tetrachloride.
D021......................... Chlorobenzene.
D022......................... Chloroform.
D027......................... 1,4-Dichlorobenzene.
D028......................... 1,2-Dichloroethane.
D029......................... 1,1-Dichloroethylene.
D030......................... 2,4-Dinitrotoluene.
D032......................... Hexaclorobenzene.
D033......................... Hexachlorobutadiene.
D034......................... Hexachloroethane.
D035......................... Methyl ethyl ketone.
D036......................... Nitrobenzene.
D038......................... Pyridine.
D039......................... Tetrachloroethylene.
D040......................... Trichloroethylene.
F001......................... Tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride,
Trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride,
chlorinated fluorocarbons.
F002......................... Tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride,
Trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane,
chlorobenzene, 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2
trichfluoroethane, ortho-
dichlorobenzene, trichlorofluoromethane.
F003......................... Not applicable, waste is hazardous
because it fails the test for
characteristics of ignitability,
corrosivity, or reactivity.
F005......................... Toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon
disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine, 2-
ethoxyethanol, benzene, 2-nitropropane.
K009......................... Chloroform, formaldehyde, methylene
chloride, methyl chloride, paraldehyde,
formic acid.
K010......................... Chloroform, formaldehyde, methylene
chloride, methyl chloride, paraldehyde,
formic acid, chloroacetaldehyde.
U001......................... Acetaldehyde.
U002......................... Acetone.
U003......................... Acetonitrile.
U019......................... Benzene.
U028......................... Benzenetrichloride.
[[Page 50240]]
U031......................... n-Butyl alcohol.
U037......................... Chlorobenzene.
U044......................... Chloroform.
U056......................... Cyclohexane.
U069......................... Dibutyl phthlate.
U070......................... o-Dichlorobenzene.
U107......................... Di-n-octyl-phthlate.
U108......................... 1,4-Diethyleneoxide.
U112......................... Ethyl acetate.
U113......................... Ethyl acrylate.
U115......................... Ethlene oxide.
U117......................... Ethyl ether.
U122......................... Formaldehyde.
U140......................... Isobutyl alcohol.
U147......................... Maleic anhydride.
U151......................... Mercury.
U154......................... Methanol.
U159......................... Methyl ethyl ketone.
U161......................... Methyl isobutyl ketone.
U169......................... Nitrobenzene.
U190......................... Phthalic anhydride.
U196......................... Pyridine.
U211......................... Carbon Tetrachloride.
U213......................... Tetrahydrofuran.
U226......................... 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (methyl
chloroform).
U239......................... Xylene.
U359......................... Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Eastman petitioned EPA to exclude this annual volume of FBI
ash because it does not believe that the waste meets the criteria for
which it was listed. Texas Eastman also believes that the waste does
not contain any other constituents that would render it hazardous.
Review of this petition included consideration of the original listing
criteria, as well as the additional factors required by the HSWA of
1984. See, section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR
260.22(d)(2)-(4).
In support of its petition, which included the sampling and
analysis plan and ground water monitoring data from the landfill, Texas
Eastman submitted: (1) Descriptions of its wastewater treatment
processes and the incineration activities associated with the
petitioned waste; (2) results from total constituent analyses for the
Toxicity Characteristic (TC) metals listed in Sec. 261.24 (i.e., the TC
metals) antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, tin,
vanadium, and zinc from representative samples of the waste; (3)
results from the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP),
(SW-846 Method 1311) for the TC metals antimony, arsenic, barium,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel,
selenium, silver, thallium, tin, vanadium, and zinc from representative
samples of the waste; (4) results from the Multiple Extraction
Procedure (MEP), (SW-846 Method 1330) for antimony, arsenic, barium,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel,
selenium, silver, thallium, tin, vanadium, and zinc from representative
samples of the waste; (5) test results from the total constituent
analyses for dioxins/furans from representative samples of the waste;
(6) results from total oil and grease analyses from representative
samples of the waste; (7) test results and information regarding the
hazardous characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity;
(8) results from total constituent and TCLP analyses for 40 CFR Part
264 Appendix IX volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds from
representative samples of the waste; and (9) results from the Land
Disposal Restriction Analysis performed on the untreated ash. Texas
Eastman also provided total constituent analyses and for the biological
treatment sludge, scrubber water blowdown, influent wastewater and
waste liquid fuel associated with the generation of the FBI ash.
B. Summary of Response to Comments
The EPA received public comment on the June 25, 1996, proposal from
one interested party, Texas Eastman. The commenter provided a variety
of clarifications and corrections, primarily for the record, on various
items and details addressed in the proposed rule. The commenter also
recommended slight modifications to the proposed language for the
testing conditions detailed in the regulatory exclusion. Specifically,
Texas Eastman would like paragraph 5 of the verification testing
conditions revised so the data submittal for the initial testing will
occur 90 days after the receipt of the validated analytical results
instead of 90 days after the incineration of the wastewater treatment
sludge as stated in the proposed rule. Texas Eastman also expressed
concerns regarding the delisting levels of several constituents,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a) anthracene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, 1,4-dioxane,
and methylene chloride. Texas Eastman states that the delisting levels
are significantly lower than the Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs)
for the methods commonly used to analyze these constituents and that
the delisting level for methylene chloride, does not account for the
fact that it is a common laboratory contaminant.
Response: The EPA will revise the verification testing condition
language in paragraph as suggested by Texas Eastman to account for
laboratory analysis time, validation, and compilation of the data
collected. The EPA recognizes that determination of some organic
constituents using SW-846 analytical methods may be difficult. However,
delisting levels for the leachable organic concentrations are not set
at PQLs, because PQLs are matrix dependent. The EPA understands that
[[Page 50241]]
using current analytical methodologies, Texas Eastman may not be able
to obtain quantitation levels for some of the constituents below the
delisting levels set in paragraph 1 (B). For these constituents, EPA
will accept data that are reported as ``not detected'' or ``below the
detection limit'' as long as an appropriate analytical method is used,
the detection limit reported is reasonable for the analyzed matrix, and
that all of the required Quality Assurance/Quality Control information
is provided and is determined to be adequate. In the case for methylene
chloride, EPA can not allow the concentration of any constituent
detected in the waste to exceed the maximum allowable leachate
concentration, even common laboratory contaminants. The health-based
level for methylene chloride is 1.0 x 10-2 mg/l, so the maximum
allowable leachate concentration is 0.45, using the dilution
attenuation factor of 45. In the information provided to support the
Texas Eastman petition, methylene chloride did not appear at
concentrations above the delisting level in the leachate samples of the
waste.
C. Final Agency Decision
For reasons stated in both the proposal and this notice, EPA
believes that Texas Eastman's FBI ash should be excluded from hazardous
waste control. The EPA, therefore, is granting a final exclusion to
Eastman Chemical Company-Texas Eastman Division, located in Longview,
Texas, for its FBI ash. This exclusion applies to the waste described
in the petition, only if the requirements described in Table 1 of part
261 are satisfied. The maximum annual volume of FBI ash covered by this
exclusion is 7,000 cubic yards.
Although management of the waste covered by this petition is
relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction, the generator of the delisted
waste must either treat, store, or dispose of the waste in an on-site
facility, or ensure that the waste is delivered to an off-site storage,
treatment, or disposal facility, either of which is permitted, licensed
or registered by a State to manage municipal or industrial solid waste.
III. Limited Effect of Federal Exclusion
The final exclusion being granted today is issued under the Federal
(RCRA) delisting program. States, however, are allowed to impose their
own, non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more stringent than
EPA's, pursuant to section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent
requirements may include a provision which prohibits a Federally-issued
exclusion from taking effect in the State. Because a petitioner's waste
may be regulated under a dual system (i.e., both Federal (RCRA) and
State (non-RCRA) programs), petitioners are urged to contact the State
regulatory authority to determine the current status of their wastes
under the State law.
Furthermore, some States (e.g., Louisiana, Georgia, Illinois) are
authorized to administer a delisting program in lieu of the Federal
program, i.e., to make their own delisting decisions. Therefore, this
exclusion does not apply in those authorized States. If the petitioned
waste will be transported to and managed in any State with delisting
authorization, Texas Eastman must obtain delisting authorization from
that State before the waste can be managed as non-hazardous in the
State.
IV. Effective Date
This rule is effective September 25, 1996. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended Section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to
become effective in less than six months when the regulated community
does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the
case here because this rule reduces, rather than increases, the
existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes. These
reasons also provide a basis for making this rule effective
immediately, upon publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
V. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must conduct an ``assessment of
the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant'' regulatory
actions. This proposal to grant an exclusion is not significant since
its effect, if promulgated, would be to reduce the overall costs and
economic impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. This
reduction would be achieved by excluding waste generated at a specific
facility from EPA's lists of hazardous wastes, thereby enabling this
facility to treat its waste as non-hazardous. There is no additional
impact due to today's rule. Therefore, this proposal would not be a
significant regulation, and no cost/benefit assessment is required. The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has also exempted this rule from
the requirement for OMB review under Section (6) of Executive Order
12866.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612,
whenever an agency is required to publish a general notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the impact of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the
Administrator or delegated representative certifies that the rule will
not have any impact on any small entities.
This rule, if promulgated, will not have any adverse economic
impact on any small entities since its effect would be to reduce the
overall costs of EPA's hazardous waste regulations and would be limited
to one facility. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this proposed
regulation, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation, therefore,
does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated
with this proposed rule have been approved by OMB under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2050-0053.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995,
EPA generally must prepare a written statement for rules with Federal
mandates that may result in estimated costs to State, local, and tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. When such a statement is required for EPA
rules, under section 205 of the UMRA, EPA must identify and consider
alternatives, including the least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The
EPA must select that alternative, unless the Administrator explains in
the final rule why it was not selected or it is inconsistent with law.
Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may significantly
or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small
governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in the development
of EPA regulatory
[[Page 50242]]
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising them on compliance with the
regulatory requirements. The UMRA generally defines a Federal mandate
for regulatory purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon
state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. The EPA finds
that today's proposed delisting decision is deregulatory in nature and
does not impose any enforceable duty upon state, local or tribal
governments or the private sector. In addition, the proposed delisting
does not establish any regulatory requirements for small governments
and so does not require a small government agency plan under UMRA
section 203.
IX. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Hazardous Waste, Recycling, and Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6921(f).
Dated: September 17, 1996.
Jerry Clifford,
Deputy Regional Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended
as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
2. Tables 1, 2, and 3 of Appendix IX of part 261 are amended by
adding the following waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to
read as follows:
Appendix IX--Wastes Excluded Under Secs. 260.20 and 260.22.
Table 1.--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Texas Eastman........................... Longview, Texas............ Incinerator ash (at a maximum generation
of 7,000 cubic yards per calendar year)
generated from the incineration of
sludge from the wastewater treatment
plant (EPA Hazardous Waste No. D001,
D003, D018, D019, D021, D022, D027,
D028, D029, D030, D032, D033, D034,
D035, D036, D038, D039, D040, F001,
F002, F003, F005, and that is disposed
of in Subtitle D landfills after
September 25, 1996. Texas Eastman must
implement a testing program that meets
the following conditions for the
petition to be valid:
1. Delisting Levels: All leachable
concentrations for those metals must not
exceed the following levels (mg/l).
Metal concentrations must be measured in
the waste leachate by the method
specified in 40 CFR Sec. 261.24.
(A) Inorganic Constituents
Antimony--0.27; Arsenic--2.25; Barium--
90.0; Beryllium--0.0009; Cadmium--0.225;
Chromium--4.5; Cobalt--94.5; Copper--
58.5; Lead--0.675; Mercury--0.045;
Nickel--4.5; Selenium--1.0; Silver--5.0;
Thallium--0.135; Tin--945.0; Vanadium--
13.5; Zinc--450.0
(B) Organic Constituents
Acenaphthene--90.0; Acetone--180.0;
Benzene--0.135; Benzo(a)anthracene--
0.00347; Benzo(a)pyrene--0.00045;
Benzo(b) fluoranthene--0.00320; Bis(2
ethylhexyl) phthalate--0.27; Butylbenzyl
phthalate--315.0; Chloroform--0.45;
Chlorobenzene--31.5; Carbon Disulfide--
180.0; Chrysene--0.1215; 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene--135.0; 1,4-
Dichlorobenzene--0.18; Di-n-butyl
phthalate--180.0; Di-n-octyl phthalate--
35.0; 1,4 Dioxane--0.36; Ethyl Acetate--
1350.0; Ethyl Ether--315.0;
Ethylbenzene--180.0; Flouranthene--45.0;
Fluorene--45.0; 1-Butanol--180.0; Methyl
Ethyl Ketone--200.0; Methylene Chloride--
0.45; Methyl Isobutyl Ketone--90.0;
Naphthalene--45.0; Pyrene--45.0;
Toluene--315.0; Xylenes--3150.0
2. Waste Holding and Handling: Texas
Eastman must store in accordance with
its RCRA permit, or continue to dispose
of as hazardous all FBI ash generated
until the Initial and Subsequent
Verification Testing described in
Paragraph 4 and 5 below is completed and
valid analyses demonstrate that all
Verification Testing Conditions are
satisfied. After completion of Initial
and Subsequent Verification Testing, if
the levels of constituents measured in
the samples of the FBI ash do not exceed
the levels set forth in Paragraph 1
above, and written notification is given
by EPA, then the waste is non-hazardous
and may be managed and disposed of in
accordance with all applicable solid
waste regulations.
[[Page 50243]]
3. Verification Testing Requirements:
Sample collection and analyses,
including quality control procedures,
must be performed according to SW-846
methodologies. If EPA judges the
incineration process to be effective
under the operating conditions used
during the initial verification testing
described in Paragraph 4 below, Texas
Eastman may replace the testing required
in Paragraph 4 with the testing required
in Paragraph 5 below. Texas Eastman
must, however, continue to test as
specified in Paragraph 4 until notified
by EPA in writing that testing in
Paragraph 4 may be replaced by the
testing described in Paragraph 5.
4. Initial Verification Testing: During
the first 40 operating days of the FBI
incinerator after the final exclusion is
granted, Texas Eastman must collect and
analyze daily composites of the FBI ash.
Daily composites must be composed of
representative grab samples collected
every 6 hours during each 24-hour FBI
operating cycle. The FBI ash must be
analyzed, prior to disposal of the ash,
for all constituents listed in Paragraph
1. Texas Eastman must report the
operational and analytical test data,
including quality control information,
obtained during this initial period no
later than 90 days after receipt of the
validated analytical results.
5. Subsequent Verification Testing:
Following the completion of the Initial
Verification Testing, Texas Eastman may
request to monitor operating conditions
and analyze samples representative of
each quarter of operation during the
first year of ash generation. The
samples must represent the untreated ash
generated over one quarter. Following
written notification from EPA, Texas
Eastman may begin the quarterly testing
described in this Paragraph.
6. Termination of Organic Testing: Texas
Eastman must continue testing as
required under Paragraph 5 for organic
constituents specified in Paragraph 1
until the analyses submitted under
Paragraph 5 show a minimum of two
consecutive quarterly samples below the
delisting levels in Paragraph 1. Texas
Eastman may then request that quarterly
organic testing be terminated. After EPA
notifies Texas Eastman in writing it may
terminate quarterly organic testing.
7. Annual Testing: Following termination
of quarterly testing under either
Paragraphs 5 or 6, Texas Eastman must
continue to test a representative
composite sample for all constituents
listed in Paragraph 1 (including
organics) on an annual basis (no later
than twelve months after the date that
the final exclusion is effective).
8. Changes in Operating Conditions: If
Texas Eastman significantly changes the
incineration process described in its
petition or implements any new
manufacturing or production process(es)
which generate(s) the ash and which may
or could affect the composition or type
of waste generated established under
Paragraph 3 (by illustration {but not
limitation}, use of stabilization
reagents or operating conditions of the
fluidized bed incinerator), Texas
Eastman must notify the EPA in writing
and may no longer handle the wastes
generated from the new process as non-
hazardous until the wastes meet the
delisting levels set in Paragraph 1 and
it has received written approval to do
so from EPA.
9. Data Submittals: The data obtained
through Paragraph 3 must be submitted to
Mr. William Gallagher, Chief, Region 6
Delisting Program, U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, Mail
Code, (6PD-O) within the time period
specified. Records of operating
conditions and analytical data from
Paragraph 3 must be compiled,
summarized, and maintained on site for a
minimum of five years. These records and
data must be furnished upon request by
EPA, or the State of Texas, and made
available for inspection. Failure to
submit the required data within the
specified time period or maintain the
required records on site for the
specified time will be considered by
EPA, at its discretion, sufficient basis
to revoke the exclusion to the extent
directed by EPA. All data must be
accompanied by a signed copy of the
following certification statement to
attest to the truth and accuracy of the
data submitted:
Under civil and criminal penalty of law
for the making or submission of false or
fraudulent statements or representations
(pursuant to the applicable provisions
of the Federal Code, which include, but
may not be limited to, 18 USC 1001 and
42 USC 6928), I certify that the
information contained in or accompanying
this document is true, accurate and
complete.
[[Page 50244]]
As to the (those) identified section(s)
of this document for which I cannot
personally verify its (their) truth and
accuracy, I certify as the company
official having supervisory
responsibility for the persons who,
acting under my direct instructions,
made the verification that this
information is true, accurate and
complete.
In the event that any of this information
is determined by EPA in its sole
discretion to be false, inaccurate or
incomplete, and upon conveyance of this
fact to the company, I recognize and
agree that this exclusion of waste will
be void as if it never had effect or to
the extent directed by EPA and that the
company will be liable for any actions
taken in contravention of the company's
RCRA and CERCLA obligations premised
upon the company's reliance on the void
exclusion.
10. Notification Requirements: Texas
Eastman must provide a one-time written
notification to any State Regulatory
Agency to which or through which the
delisted waste described above will be
transported for disposal at least 60
days prior to the commencement of such
activities. Failure to provide such a
notification will result in a violation
of the delisting petition and a possible
revocation of the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Texas Eastman........................ Longview, Texas........ Incinerator ash (at a maximum generation of
7,000 cubic yards per calendar year) generated
from the incineration of sludge from the
wastewater treatment plant (EPA Hazardous Waste
No. K009 and K010, and that is disposed of in
Subtitle D landfills after September 25, 1996.
Texas Eastman must implement a testing program
that meets conditions found in Table 1. Wastes
Excluded From Non-Specific Sources for the
petition to be valid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Wastes Excluded From Commercial Chemical Products, Off-Specification Species, Container Residues, and
Soil Residues Thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Texas Eastman........................ Longview, Texas........ Incinerator ash (at a maximum generation of
7,000 cubic yards per calendar year) generated
from the incineration of sludge from the
wastewater treatment plant (EPA Hazardous Waste
No. U001, U002, U003, U019, U028, U031, U037,
U044, U056, U069, U070, U107, U108, U112, U113,
U115, U117, U122, U140, U147, U151, U154, U159,
U161, U169, U190, U196, U211, U213, U226, U239,
and U359, and that is disposed of in Subtitle D
landfills after September 25, 1996. Texas
Eastman must implement the testing program
described in Table 1. Wastes Excluded From Non-
Specific Sources for the petition to be valid.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-24588 Filed 9-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24523 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Washington; Revision to the State Implementation Plan Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50235-50238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24523]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[WA43-7116; FRL-5608-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Washington; Revision to the State Implementation Plan Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Programs
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is approving the Inspection and
Maintenance (I/M) State Implementation Plan (SIP), for Washington
State. On August 21, 1995, Washington submitted SIP revision requests
to the EPA to satisfy the requirements of sections 182(b)(4) and
182(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act, (1990) and Federal I/M rule 40 CFR part
51, subpart S. These SIP revisions will require vehicle owners to
comply with the Washington I/M program in the two Washington ozone
nonattainment areas classified as ``marginal'' and in the three carbon
monoxide nonattainment areas classified as ``moderate''. This revision
applies to the Washington counties of Clark, King, Pierce, Snohomish,
and Spokane.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective as of September 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of material submitted to EPA may be examined during
normal business hours at the following locations: EPA, Region 10,
Office of Air Quality, 1200 Sixth Avenue (OAQ-107), Seattle, Washington
98101, and the Washington State Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47600,
Olympia, WA 98504-7600.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Cooper, Office of Air
Quality, (OAQ-107), 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-6917.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Clean Air Act Requirements
The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or Act), requires States
to make changes to improve existing I/M programs or implement new ones.
Section 182(a)(2)(B) required any ozone nonattainment area which has
been classified as ``marginal'' (pursuant to section 181(a) of the Act)
or worse with an existing I/M program that was part of a SIP, or any
area that was required by the 1977 Amendments to the Act to have an I/M
program, to immediately submit a SIP revision to bring the program up
to the level required in past EPA guidance or to what had been
committed to previously in the SIP, whichever was more stringent. All
carbon monoxide nonattainment areas were also subject to this
requirement to improve existing or previously required programs to this
level. In addition, any ozone nonattainment area classified as moderate
or worse must implement a basic or an enhanced I/M program depending
upon its classification, regardless of previous requirements.
Congress directed the EPA in section 182(a)(2)(B) to publish
updated guidance for State I/M programs, taking into consideration
findings of the Administrator's audits and investigations of these
programs. The States were to incorporate this guidance into the SIP for
all areas required by the Act to have an I/M program. Ozone
nonattainment areas classified as ``serious'' or worse with populations
of 200,000 or more, and CO nonattainment areas with design values above
12.7 ppm and populations of 200,000 or more, and metropolitan
statistical areas with populations of 100,000 or more in the northeast
ozone transport region, were required to meet EPA guidance for enhanced
I/M programs.
The EPA has designated two areas as ozone nonattainment in the
State of Washington. The Puget Sound ozone nonattainment area is
classified as marginal and contains King, Pierce, and Snohomish
counties. The Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area is classified as
marginal and contains Clark county. Additionally, three areas in
Washington state are designated as CO nonattainment areas. Both the
Spokane Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment area (Spokane County) and the
Puget Sound Carbon Monoxide
[[Page 50236]]
Nonattainment area (King, Pierce, and portions of Snohomish Counties)
have design values greater than 12.7 ppm and are designated as
``moderate plus''. The Vancouver Air Quality Maintenance Area is a
``moderate'' carbon monoxide nonattainment area, with a design value
below 12.7 ppm. The central Puget Sound has an urbanized area
population of 1,793,612, and Spokane has an urbanized area population
of 266,709. Based on these nonattainment designations and populations,
a basic I/M program is required in the Vancouver and Puget Sound ozone
nonattainment area, while enhanced I/M programs are required in the
Puget Sound and Spokane carbon monoxide nonattainment areas.
By this action, the EPA is approving the submittal of the
Washington I/M SIP. The EPA has reviewed the State submittal against
the statutory requirements and for consistency with the EPA
regulations. A summary of the EPA's analysis is provided below. In
addition, a history and a summary to support approval of the State
submittal is contained in a TSD, dated May 10, 1996, which is available
from the Region 10 Office (address provided above).
II. I/M Regulation General SIP Submittal Requirements
The original I/M regulation was codified at 40 CFR part 51, Subpart
S, and required States to submit an I/M SIP revision which includes all
necessary legal authority and the items specified in 40 CFR 51.372
(a)(1) through (a)(8) by November 15, 1993. On September 18, 1995, the
EPA published a final regulation establishing the ``low enhanced'' I/M
requirements, pursuant to section 182 and 187 of the Act (40 CFR part
51). These low enhanced I/M requirements superseded the former enhanced
I/M requirements. The State has met the low enhanced I/M requirements
established by the September 18, 1995 rulemaking.
III. State Submittal
On August 21, 1995, the State of Washington submitted the I/M SIP
for its five carbon monoxide and ozone nonattainment areas. Public
hearings for the submittal were held in Vancouver, Bellevue, and
Spokane on June 6, 7, and 8, 1995, respectively.
The submittals provide for the continued implementation of I/M
programs in the Puget Sound, Spokane, and Vancouver areas. Inspection
and Maintenance programs have been running in the Puget Sound area
since 1982, in Spokane since 1985, and in Vancouver since 1993.
Washington's centralized, test only, biennial program meets the
requirements of EPA's low enhanced performance standard and other
requirements contained in the Federal I/M rule in the applicable
nonattainment counties. Testing will be overseen by the Washington
State Department of Ecology and its I/M contractor, Systems Control.
Other aspects of the Washington I/M program include: testing of 1968
and later light duty vehicles and trucks and heavy duty trucks, a test
fee to ensure the State has adequate resources to implement the
program, enforcement by registration denial, a repair effectiveness
program, contractual requirements for testing convenience, quality
assurance, data collection, reporting, test equipment and test
procedure specifications, public information and consumer protection,
and inspector training and certification. In addition, the low enhanced
I/M programs will include: a two-speed (2500 and idle) test or a loaded
idle test, and a program to evaluate on-road testing. An analysis of
how the Washington I/M program meets the EPA's I/M regulation was
provided in 61 FR 38086, published on July 23, 1996.
The criteria used to review the submitted SIP revision are based on
the requirements stated in Section 182 of the CAA and the most recent
Federal I/M regulations (September 18, 1995). EPA has reviewed the
Washington I/M SIP revision. The Washington regulations and
accompanying materials contained in the SIP represent an acceptable
approach to the I/M requirements and meet the criteria required for
approvability.
IV. Response to Comments
Comment: One commenter, which is an entity of the Federal
government, objected to an aspect of the I/M program regarding emission
inspections by fleet operators. Operators who chose to utilize the
fleet vehicle self-testing program must purchase certificate forms by
paying a fee of $12 per vehicle. The state regulation that establishes
vehicle testing requirements at WAC Sec. 173-422-160 waives the payment
of fees for state and local government fleets. The Federal entity
commented that the state requirements are impermissibly discriminatory
and an unconstitutional tax of the Federal government by the state. The
commenter also wrote that the $12 fee per vehicle certificate is
impermissible because the fee exceeds the state's administrative costs.
Response: The EPA does not agree that the state fee structure which
requires payment of a fee by Federal fleet operators impermissibly
discriminates against the Federal government or that the fee of $12 is
impermissibly high. The Ecology regulations at WAC 173-422-160
establish requirements for all fleet operators, including the
requirement for fleet operators to submit certificate forms of emission
self-testing for each vehicle, at a cost of $12 for each certificate.
The regulation specifically waives the payment for fleet forms only for
state and local government fleets.
The EPA interprets section 118 of the CAA requirement that Federal
agencies comply with air pollution requirements ``in the same manner
and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity'' to mean that
Federal entities must comply with any air pollution rule established
under the Act to no less an extent than nongovernmental entities. In
this case, the state regulation applies to all fleet operators, both
governmental and nongovernmental, and waives the fee requirement only
for state and local governments. Therefore, the EPA views the state as
requiring payment of fees by Federal entities in the same manner as
nongovernmental entities. The EPA believes that Congress has consented
to the imposition of the state fees on Federal entities in a situation
such as this by enacting section 118 of the CAA. In addition, EPA notes
that this is consistent with the result in U.S. v. South Coast Air
Quality Management District, 748 F.Supp. 732 (C.D. Calif. 1990), where
the Court wrote that a state permit fee requirement applying to both
Federal and private entities that exempts local and state government
agencies is consistent with section 118 of the CAA.
Under section 118(a) of the CAA, a Federal entity is required to
comply with ``any requirement to pay a fee or charge imposed by a State
or local agency to defray the costs of its air pollution regulatory
program.'' The fee of $12 per vehicle has been established by Ecology
under the authority of RCW 70.120.170(4), which requires Ecology to set
fees at an amount ``required to (i) compensate the contractor or
inspection facility owner, and (ii) offset the general fund appropriate
to the department to cover the administrative costs of the motor
vehicle emission inspection program.'' Ecology has written that it
established fleet self-testing fees to recoup the costs associated with
implementing the emission testing program, including the cost of
equipment audits, travel expenses, training and continued education,
printing and storing of forms, and the certification of the self-
testing fleet inspection personnel. The commenter has not submitted any
data to indicate
[[Page 50237]]
that the fee of $12 per vehicle is unreasonable and EPA concludes that
on its face the fee does not appear to be unreasonable. EPA is
approving the fee structure because the State has established the fee
consistent with the CAA and state law. Under section 110(k)(3) of the
CAA, EPA must approve any SIP revision submitted by a state that meets
all of the applicable requirements of the Act.
Comment: One Federal government entity commented that Ecology is
improperly requiring annual inspection of its fleet.
Response: Legislation enacted by the State of Washington at RCW
70.120.170(5) requires ``all units of local government and agencies of
the state'' to test the emissions of their vehicles annually. In
discussions with the Ecology about this comment, Ecology has agreed
that Federal entities are not subject to this requirement, and need
only meet the requirement to test emissions biennially, as required by
RCW 70.120.170(1).
V. Today's Action
The EPA is approving the Washington I/M SIP as meeting the
requirements of the CAA and the Federal I/M rule. All required SIP
items have been adequately addressed as discussed in this Federal
Register action.
Pursuant to Section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA), this final notice is effective upon the date of publication in
the Federal Register. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows EPA to waive
the requirement that a rule be published 30 days before the effective
date if EPA determines there is ``good cause'' and publishes the
grounds for such a finding with the rule. Under section 553(d)(3), EPA
must balance the necessity for immediate federal enforceability of
these SIP revisions against principles of fundamental fairness which
require that all affected persons be afforded a reasonable time to
prepare for the effective date of a new rule. United States v.
Gavrilovic, 551 F 2d 1099, 1105 (8th Cir., 1977). The purpose of the
requirement for a rule to be published 30 days before the effective
date of the rule is to give all affected persons a reasonable time to
prepare for the effective date of a new rule.
EPA is making this rule effective upon September 25, 1996 to
provide necessary rulemaking for the forthcoming Puget Sound Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide Redesignations. The State relies on the existence of an
approved I/M program as part of the carbon monoxide maintenance
demonstration. The WDOE will discontinue implementation of the
oxygenated fuel program in the Seattle-Tacoma-Everett Consolidated
Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) once approval of the carbon
monoxide maintenance plan becomes effective. As much time as possible
needs to be provided for State and local air authorities to notify fuel
distributors so that distribution plans can be modified in response to
these changes.
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.
VI. 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).
Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E)
of the CAA does not impose any new requirements on small entities.
Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical
area and does not impose any regulatory requirements on sources. I
certify that the approval of the redesignation request will not affect
a substantial number of small entities.
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. 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
[[Page 50238]]
appropriate circuit by November 25, 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, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
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.
Dated: September 6, 1996.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator.
PART 52--[AMENDED]
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
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)(61) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2470 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(61) SIP revisions received from WDOE on August 21, 1995, requiring
vehicle owners to comply with its I/M program in the two Washington
ozone nonattainment areas classified as ``marginal'' and in the three
carbon monoxide nonattainment areas classified as ``moderate''. This
revision applies to the Washington counties of Clark, King, Pierce,
Snohomish, and Spokane.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) July 26, 1995 letter from Director of WDOE to the Regional
Administrator of EPA submitting revisions to WDOE's SIP consisting of
the July 1995 Washington State Implementation Plan for the Motor
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program (including Appendices A
through F), adopted August 1, 1995, and a supplement letter and ``Tools
and Resources'' table dated May 10, 1996.
[FR Doc. 96-24523 Filed 9-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24522 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Louisiana; Correction of Classification; Approval of the Maintenance Plan; Redesignation of Pointe Coupee Parish to Attainment for Ozone
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24522]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[LA-34-1-7300; FRL-5615-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Louisiana;
Correction of Classification; Approval of the Maintenance Plan;
Redesignation of Pointe Coupee Parish to Attainment for Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Withdrawal of final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA published without prior proposal a Federal Register
notice approving a request from the State of Louisiana to remove Pointe
Coupee Parish, Louisiana, from the Baton Rouge serious ozone
nonattainment area, to reclassify the parish from serious to marginal,
and to redesignate it to attainment for ozone. The direct final
approval was published on July 22, 1996 (61 FR 37833).
The EPA subsequently received adverse comments on the action.
Accordingly, the EPA is withdrawing its direct final approval. All
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This withdrawal is effective on September 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: 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 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality,
7290 Bluebonnet Boulevard, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70810.
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: Lt. Mick Cote, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7219.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping, and Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, Designation of areas for air quality
planning purposes.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Therefore, the final rule appearing at 61 FR 37833, July 22, 1996,
which was to become effective September 20, 1996, is withdrawn.
Dated: September 18, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-24522 Filed 9-20-96; 9:44 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24512 Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Closure from the Oregon-California Border to Humboldt South Jetty, CA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50255-50256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24512]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 960126016-6121-04; I.D. 091796A]
Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; West
Coast Salmon Fisheries; Closure from the Oregon-California Border to
Humboldt South Jetty, CA
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Closure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the commercial salmon fishery in the area
from the Oregon-California border (42 deg.00'00'' N. lat.) to Humboldt
South Jetty, CA (40 deg.45'53'' N. lat.) was closed at 2400 hours local
time (l.t.), September 14, 1996. The Regional Director, Northwest
Region, NMFS (Regional Director), has determined that the commercial
quota of 6,000 chinook salmon has been reached. This action is
necessary to conform to the preseason announcement of the 1996
management measures and is intended to ensure conservation of chinook
salmon.
DATES: Effective at 2400 hours l.t., September 14, 1996, through 2400
hours
[[Page 50256]]
l.t., September 15, 1996, at which time the season remains closed under
the terms of the preseason announcement of the 1996 management
measures. Comments will be accepted through October 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to William Stelle, Jr., Regional
Director, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA
98115-0070, or Hilda Diaz-Soltero, Regional Director, Southwest Region,
NMFS, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4132.
Information relevant to this action has been compiled in aggregate form
and is available for public review during business hours at the
Northwest Regional Office or Southwest Regional Office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William L. Robinson, 206-526-6140, or
Rodney R. McInnis, 310-980-4030.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulations governing the ocean salmon
fisheries at 50 CFR 660.409(a)(1) state that when a quota for the
commercial or the recreational fishery, or both, for any salmon species
in any portion of the fishery management area is projected by the
Regional Director to be reached on or by a certain date, NMFS will, by
an inseason action issued under 50 CFR 660.411, close the commercial or
recreational fishery, or both, for all salmon species in the portion of
the fishery management area to which the quota applies as of the date
the quota is projected to be reached.
In the annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (61 FR
20175, May 6, 1996), NMFS announced that the 1996 commercial fishery in
the area between the Oregon-California border and Humboldt South Jetty,
CA, would open on September 1 and continue through September 15 or
attainment of the 6,000 chinook salmon quota, whichever occurred first.
The best available information on September 12, 1996, indicated
that catch and effort data and projections supported closure of the
commercial fishery in the area between the Oregon-California border and
Humboldt South Jetty, CA, at midnight, September 14, 1996.
The Regional Director consulted with representatives of the Pacific
Fishery Management Council, the California Department of Fish and Game,
and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding this closure.
The State of California will manage the commercial fishery in state
waters adjacent to this area of the exclusive economic zone in
accordance with this Federal action. As provided by the inseason action
procedures of 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice to fishermen of this action
was given prior to 2400 hours local time, September 14, 1996, by
telephone hotline number 206-526-6667 or 800-662-9825 and by U.S. Coast
Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz.
Because of the need for immediate action to stop the fishery upon
achievement of the quota, NMFS has determined that good cause exists
for this action to be issued without affording a prior opportunity for
public comment. This action does not apply to other fisheries that may
be operating in other areas.
Classification
This action is authorized by 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and is
exempt from review under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: September 19, 1996.
Gary C. Matlock,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-24512 Filed 9-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24511 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the Gulf of Alaska
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50256-50257]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24511]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 960129018-6018-01; I.D. 091896A]
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in
Statistical Area 620 of the Gulf of Alaska
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 620 of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is
necessary to prevent exceeding the 1996 pollock total allowable catch
(TAC) in this area.
[[Page 50257]]
EFFECTIVE DATE: 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), September 19,
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 620 was established by the
Final 1996 Harvest Specifications of Groundfish (61 FR 4304, February
5, 1996) as 12,840 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 620 soon will be reached. The Regional
Administrator established a directed fishing allowance of 11,340 mt,
and has set aside the remaining 1,500 mt as bycatch to support other
anticipated groundfish fisheries. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting
directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 620.
Maximum retainable bycatch amounts for applicable gear types may be
found 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 19, 1996.
Gary C. Matlock,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-24511 Filed 9-19-96; 5:04 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24510 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; ``Other Rockfish'' Species Group in the Eastern Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24510]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 960129018-6018-01; I.D. 091996A]
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; ``Other
Rockfish'' Species Group in the Eastern Regulatory Area of the Gulf of
Alaska
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Closure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is closing the directed fishery for the ``other
rockfish'' species group in the Eastern Regulatory Area of the Gulf of
Alaska. This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the ``other
rockfish'' species group total allowable catch (TAC) in the Eastern
Regulatory Area.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), September 22,
1996, until 2400 hrs, A.l.t., 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 50 CFR parts 620 and
679.
In accordance with Sec. 679.20(c)(3)(ii), the ``other rockfish''
species group TAC for the Eastern Regulatory Area was established by
the Final 1996 Harvest Specifications of Groundfish (61 FR 4304,
February 5, 1996) as 750 metric tons (mt).
The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator),
has determined, in accordance with Sec. 679.20(d)(1), that the ``other
rockfish'' species group TAC in the Eastern Regulatory Area soon will
be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator has established a
directed fishing allowance of 700 mt, with consideration that 50 mt
will be taken as incidental catch in directed fishing for other species
in the Eastern Regulatory Area. The Regional Administrator has
determined that the directed fishing allowance has been reached.
Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for the ``other
rockfish'' species group in the Eastern Regulatory Area.
Maximum retainable bycatch amounts for applicable gear types may be
found in the regulations at Sec. 679.20(e).
Classification
This action is taken under Sec. 679.20 and is exempt from OMB
review under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: September 19, 1996.
Gary C. Matlock,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-24510 Filed 9-19-96; 5:04 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24504 Assessment Rates for Specified Marketing Orders
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50229-50230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24504]
========================================================================
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. 187 / Wednesday, September 25, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 50229]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 922, 923, and 924
[Docket No. FV96-922-2 FIR]
Assessment Rates for Specified Marketing Orders
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
that establishes assessment rates for Marketing Order Nos. 922, 923 and
924 for the 1996-97 and subsequent fiscal periods. The Washington
Apricot Marketing Committee, Washington Cherry Marketing Committee, and
Washington-Oregon Fresh Prune Marketing Committee (Committees) are
responsible for local administration of the marketing orders which
regulate the handling of apricots and cherries grown in designated
counties in Washington, and prunes grown in designated counties in
Washington and in Umatilla County, Oregon. Authorization to assess
apricot, cherry and prune handlers enables the Committees to incur
expenses that are reasonable and necessary to administer the programs.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tershirra Yeager, Marketing Assistant,
Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division,
AMS, USDA, PO Box 96456, Room 2522-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456,
telephone (202) 720-5127, FAX (202) 720-5698, or Teresa L. Hutchinson,
Marketing Specialist, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Fruit and
Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, 1220 SW Third Avenue, room 369,
Portland, OR 97204, telephone (503) 326-2724, FAX (503) 326-7440. Small
businesses may request information on compliance with this regulation
by contacting: Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch,
Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, PO 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. 922 (7 CFR part 922), regulating the handling
of apricots grown in designated counties in Washington; Marketing Order
No. 923 (7 CFR part 923) regulating the handling of sweet cherries
grown in designated counties in Washington; and Marketing Order No. 924
(7 CFR part 924) regulating the handling of fresh prunes grown in
designated counties in Washington and in Umatilla County, Oregon,
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 of Agriculture (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, handlers in
designated areas 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
apricots, cherries, and prunes beginning April 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 handlers are 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 55 handlers of Washington apricots, 55
handlers of Washington sweet cherries, and 30 handlers of Washington-
Oregon fresh prunes subject to regulation under the marketing orders.
In addition, there are about 190 Washington apricot producers, 1,100
Washington sweet cherry producers, and 350 Washington-Oregon fresh
prune producers in the respective production areas. Small agricultural
producers have been defined by the Small Business Administration (13
CFR 121.601) as those having annual receipts of less than $500,000, and
small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual
receipts are less than $5,000,000. The majority of Washington apricot,
Washington cherry, and Washington-Oregon fresh prune producers and
handlers may be classified as small entities. Interested persons are
invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational
impacts of this action on small businesses.
The 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 in designated counties in
Washington and in Umatilla County, Oregon. They are familiar with the
Committees needs
[[Page 50230]]
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 Washington Apricot Marketing Committee met on May 16, 1996, and
unanimously recommended 1996-97 expenditures of $9,385 and an
assessment rate of $3.00 per ton of apricots. In comparison, last
year's budgeted expenditures were $9,594.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by
dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of apricots grown
in designated counties in Washington. Apricot shipments for the year
are estimated at 2,300 tons which should provide $6,900 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.
The Washington Cherry Marketing Committee met on May 17, 1996, and
unanimously recommended 1996-97 expenditures of $56,665 and an
assessment rate of $1.00 per ton of cherries. In comparison, last
year's budgeted expenditures were $55,393.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by
dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of cherries grown
in designated counties in Washington. Shipments for the year are
estimated at 30,000 tons which should provide $30,000 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.
The Washington-Oregon Fresh Prune Committee met on May 29, 1996,
and unanimously recommended 1996-97 expenditures of $6,645 and an
assessment rate of $1.00 per ton of fresh prunes. In comparison, last
year's budgeted expenditures were $10,018.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by
dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of fresh prunes
grown in designated counties in Washington and Umatilla County, Oregon.
Fresh prune shipments for the year are estimated at 2,700 tons which
should provide $2,700 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.
The Committees voted against having an assessment rate for their
respective programs for the 1995-96 fiscal year. Major expenditures
recommended by the Committees for the 1996-97 year include salary
expenses, and office expenses.
An interim final rule regarding this action was published in the
August 7, 1996, issue of the Federal Register (61 FR 40954). That rule
provided 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 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 consider recommendations for modification of the
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 Committee recommendations
and other available information to determine whether modification of
the assessment rates are needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken
as necessary. 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 recommendation 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 action 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 period began
on April 1, 1996, and the marketing orders require that the rates of
assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable apricots,
cherries and prunes handled during such fiscal period; (3) handlers are
aware of the actions which were recommended by the Committees at public
meetings and are 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
7 CFR Part 922
Apricots, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
7 CFR Part 923
Cherries, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
7 CFR Part 924
Plums, Prunes, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 922 is
amended as follows:
PART 922--APRICOTS GROWN IN DESIGNATED COUNTIES IN WASHINGTON
PART 923--SWEET CHERRIES GROWN IN DESIGNATED COUNTIES IN WASHINGTON
PART 924--FRESH PRUNES GROWN IN DESIGNATED COUNTIES IN WASHINGTON
AND IN UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR parts 922, 923,
and 924 which was published at 61 FR 40954 on August 7, 1996, is
adopted as a final rule without change.
Dated: September 19, 1996.
Robert C. Keeney,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-24504 Filed 9-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24503 Irish Potatoes Grown in Colorado; Assessment Rate
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50231-50232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24503]
[[Page 50231]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 948
[Docket No. FV96-948-2 FIR]
Irish Potatoes Grown in Colorado; 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
that established an assessment rate for the Colorado Potato
Administrative Committee, San Luis Valley Office (Area II) (Committee)
under Marketing Order No. 948 for the 1996-97 and subsequent fiscal
periods. The Committee is responsible for local administration of the
marketing order which regulates the handling of Irish potatoes grown in
Colorado. Authorization to assess potato handlers enables the Committee
to incur expenses that are reasonable and necessary to administer the
program.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective on September 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Sue Clark, Program Assistant,
Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division,
AMS, USDA, PO Box 96456, Room 2525-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456,
telephone 202-720-9918; FAX 202- 720-5698, or Dennis L. West, Marketing
Specialist, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable
Division, AMS, USDA, Green-Wyatt Federal Building, room 369, 1220
Southwest Third Avenue, Portland, OR 97204, telephone 503-326-2724; FAX
503-326-7440. Small businesses may request information on compliance
with this regulation by contacting: Jay Guerber, Marketing Order
Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, PO Box
96456, room 2525-S, Washington DC 20090-6456, telephone 202-720-2491;
FAX 202- 720-5698.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing
Agreement No. 97 and Order No. 948, both as amended (7 CFR part 948),
regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Colorado,
hereinafter referred to as the ``order.'' The order is effective under
the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C.
601-674), hereinafter referred to as the ``Act.''
The Department 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, Colorado
potato handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the
order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the
assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable
potatoes beginning September 1, 1996, and continuing until amended,
suspended, or terminated. This rule will not preempt any State or local
laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted
therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on
the petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the
petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States
in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or
her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the
Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not
later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory flexibility
Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the
economic impact of this rule on small entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in
that they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 285 producers of Colorado Area II potatoes
in the production area and approximately 118 handlers subject to
regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers have
been defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as
those having annual receipts of less than $500,000, and small
agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts
are less than $5,000,000. The majority of Colorado Area II potato
producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.
The Colorado potato marketing order provides authority for the
Committee, with the approval of the Department, to formulate an annual
budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer
the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of
Colorado Area II potatoes. They are familiar with the Committee's needs
and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are
thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment
rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public
meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to
participate and provide input.
In Colorado, both a State and a Federal marketing order operate
simultaneously. The State order authorizes promotion, including paid
advertising, which the Federal order does not. All expenses in this
category are financed under the State order. The jointly operated
programs consume about equal administrative time and the two orders
continue to split administrative costs equally.
The Committee met on May 23, 1996, and unanimously recommended
1996-97 expenditures of $60,999 and an assessment rate of $0.0030 per
hundredweight of potatoes. In comparison, last year's budgeted
expenditures were $62,328. The assessment rate of $0.0030 is the same
as last year's established rate. Major expenditures recommended by the
Committee for the 1996-97 year include $34,624 for salaries for the
Executive Director, Administrator, and Assistant Administrator, and
$3,000 for utilities. Budgeted expenses for these items in 1995-96 were
$36,978 and $3,000, respectively.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by
dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of Colorado area II
potatoes. Potato shipments for the year are estimated at 16,500,000
hundredweight which should provide $49,500 in assessment income. Income
derived from handler assessments, along with funds from the Committee's
authorized reserve, will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds
in the reserve will be kept within the maximum permitted by the order.
An interim final rule regarding this action was published in the
July 15, 1996, issue of the Federal Register (61 FR 36813). That
interim final rule added Sec. 948.216 to establish an assessment rate
for the Committee. That rule provided that interested persons could
file comments through August 14, 1996. No comments were received.
[[Page 50232]]
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 those meetings. The Department will
evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to
determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed.
Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's
1996-97 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods will be reviewed
and, as appropriate, approved by the Department.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including
the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other
available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as
hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of
the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined 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
September 1, 1996, and the marketing order requires that the rate of
assessment for each fiscal period apply to all assessable potatoes
handled during such fiscal period; (3) handlers are aware of this
action which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public
meeting and is similar to other assessment rate actions issued in past
years; and (4) an interim final rule was published on this action and
provided for a 30-day comment period, and no comments were received.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 948
Marketing agreements, Potatoes, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Note: This section will appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 948 is
amended as follows:
PART 948--IRISH POTATOES GROWN IN COLORADO
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR part 948 which
was published at 61 FR 36813 on July 15, 1996, is adopted as a final
rule without change.
Dated: September 19, 1996.
Robert C. Keeney,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-24503 Filed 9-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24473 Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Reform of Filing Requirements and Carrier Classifications
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50244-50246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24473]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 32, 43 and 64
[CC Docket No. 96-193; FCC 96-370]
Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Reform of
Filing Requirements and Carrier Classifications
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Order revises the Commission's rules to require only
annual Automated Reporting Management Information System (``ARMIS'')
reports and annual Cost Allocation Manual revisions. These changes were
required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Because the 1996 Act
did not specify how we should measure inflation in adjusting references
to carrier revenues, we also adopt interim rules to adjust those
references for inflation using a generally available inflation index.
The intended effect of this action is to
[[Page 50245]]
reduce the more frequent filings we previously required.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 25, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie Yates, Accounting and Audits
Division, Common Carrier Bureau at 202-418-0850.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order
implementing Sections 402(b)(2)(B) and 402(c) of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 adopted September 3, 1996 and released September 11, 1996.
The full text of this Commission Order is available for inspection and
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Public Reference Room
(Room 230), 1919 M St., N.W., Washington, D.C. The complete text of
this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy
contractor, International Transcript Service (202) 857-3800, 1919 M
St., N.W., Suite 246, Washington, D.C. 20554.
2. The Commission has not published a notice of proposed
rulemaking, as allowed by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) when the agency
determines, for good cause, that it is unnecessary to publish a
proposed rule and obtain comments from interested persons. The
Commission has determined that publication of a proposed rule is
unnecessary for the following reasons. The rule changes to require only
annual ARMIS reports and cost allocation manual revisions merely
implement the requirements of the 1996 Act and involve no discretionary
action by the Commission. The changes to revenue thresholds are
necessary to comply with the effective date of the statutory directive.
Providing prior notice and an opportunity to comment would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest.
3. Paperwork Reduction Analysis: Public reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 220 hours per
response, including the time frame for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the
burden, to the Federal Communications Commission, Records Management
Branch, Paperwork Reduction Project (3060-0511), Washington, D.C. 20554
and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project
(3060-0511), Washington, D.C. 20503.
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to Sections 402(b)(2)(B)
and 402(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104,
sec. 402(b)(2)(B) and 402(c), and Sections 1, 4, 201-205, 215, 218, 220
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 151(a),
154, 201-205, 215, 218 and 220, and Section 553(b)(B) of the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b)(B), Parts 32, 43,
and 64 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Parts 32, 43, and 64 are
amended, as set forth below.
It is further ordered that this Report and Order will be effective
September 25, 1996.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 32, 43 and 64
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Shirley S. Suggs,
Chief, Publications Branch.
Rule Changes
Parts 32, 43 and 64 of Title 47 of the CFR are amended as follows:
PART 32--UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMPANIES
1. The authority citation for Part 32 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154.
2. Section 32.11 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) (1) and
(a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 32.11 Classification of companies.
(a) * * *
(1) Class A. Companies having annual revenues from regulated
telecommunications operations that are equal to or above the indexed
revenue threshold.
(2) Class B. Companies having annual revenues from regulated
telecommunications operations that are less than the indexed revenue
threshold.
* * * * *
3. Section 32.9000 is amended by adding the definition of ``Indexed
revenue threshold for a given year'' in alphabetical order to read as
follows:
Sec. 32.9000 Glossary of terms.
* * * * *
Indexed revenue threshold for a given year means $100 million,
adjusted for inflation, as measured by the Department of Commerce Gross
Domestic Product Chain-type Price Index (GDP-CPI), for the period from
October 19, 1992 to the given year. The indexed revenue threshold for a
given year shall be determined by multiplying $100 million by the ratio
of the annual value of the GDP-CPI for the given year to the estimated
seasonally adjusted GDP-CPI on October 19, 1992. The indexed revenue
threshold shall be rounded to the nearest $1 million. The seasonally
adjusted GDP-CPI on October 19, 1992 is determined to be 100.69.
* * * * *
PART 43--REPORTS OF COMMUNICATION COMMON CARRIERS AND CERTAIN
AFFILIATES
1. The authority citation for Part 43 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154.
2. Section 43.21 is amended by revising the first two sentences of
paragraph (a), revising paragraph (c), revising the first two sentences
of paragraph (d), revising the introductory text of paragraph (f), and
adding new paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 43.21 Annual reports of carriers and certain affiliates.
(a) Communication common carriers having annual operating revenues
in excess of the indexed revenue threshold, as defined in Sec. 32.9000,
and certain companies (as indicated in paragraph (c) of this section)
directly or indirectly controlling such carriers shall file with the
Commission annual reports or an annual letter as provided in this
section. Except as provided in paragraphs (c), (e), (f), and (g) of
this section, each annual report required by this section shall be
filed not later than March 31 of each year, covering the preceding
calendar year. * * *
* * * * *
(c) Each company, not itself a communication common carrier, that
directly or indirectly controls any communication common carrier that
has annual operating revenues equal to or above the indexed revenue
threshold shall file annually with the Commission, not later than the
date prescribed by the Securities and Exchange Commission for its
purposes, two complete copies of any annual report Forms 10-K (or any
superseding form) filed with that Commission.
(d) Each miscellaneous common carrier (as defined by Sec. 21.2 of
this chapter) with operating revenues for a calendar year in excess of
the indexed revenue threshold shall file with the Common Carrier Bureau
Chief a letter showing its operating revenues for that year and the
value of its total
[[Page 50246]]
communications plant at the end of that year. Each record carrier with
operating revenues for a calendar year in excess of three-fourths of
the indexed revenue threshold shall file a letter showing selected
income statement and balance sheet items for that year with the Common
Carrier Bureau Chief. * * *
* * * * *
(f) Each local exchange carrier with annual operating revenues
equal to or above the indexed revenue threshold shall file, no later
than April 1 of each year, reports showing:
* * * * *
(g) Each local exchange carrier with operating revenues for the
preceding year that are equal to or above the indexed revenue threshold
shall file, no later than April 1 of each year, a report showing for
the previous calendar year its revenues, expenses, taxes, plant in
service, other investment and depreciation reserves, and such other
data as are required by the Commission, on computer media prescribed by
the Commission. The total operating results shall be allocated between
regulated and nonregulated operations, and the regulated data shall be
further divided into the following categories: State and interstate,
and the interstate will be further divided into common line, traffic
sensitive access, special access and nonaccess.
3. Section 43.22 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 43.22 Quarterly reports of communication common carriers.
Each designated interstate carrier with operating revenues for the
preceding year that are equal to or above the indexed revenue threshold
shall file, by March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31 of each
year, a report showing for the previous calendar quarter its revenues,
expenses, taxes, plant in service, other investment and depreciation
reserves, and such other data as are required by the Commission, on
computer media prescribed by the Commission. The total operating
results shall be allocated between regulated and nonregulated
operations, and the regulated data shall be further divided into the
following categories: State and interstate, and the interstate will be
further divided into the major services.
4. Section 43.41 is amended by revising the first sentence to read
as follows:
Sec. 43.41 Reports on Inside Wiring Services.
Each local exchange carrier with annual operating revenues equal to
or above the indexed revenue threshold shall file, within thirty (30)
days of its publication or release, a copy of any state or local
statute, rule, order, or other document that regulates, or proposes to
regulate, the price or prices the local exchange carrier charges for
inside wiring services. * * *
5. Paragraph (a) of section 43.43 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 43.43 Reports of proposed changes in depreciation rates.
(a) Each communication common carrier with annual operating
revenues equal to or above the indexed revenue threshold and which has
been found by this Commission to be a dominant carrier with respect to
any communications service shall, before making any change in the
depreciation rates applicable to its operated plant, file with the
Commission a report furnishing the data described in the subsequent
paragraphs of this section, and also comply with the other requirements
thereof.
* * * * *
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
1. The authority citation for Part 64 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154.
2. Section 64.903 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 64.903 Cost Allocation Manuals.
(a) Each local exchange carrier with annual operating revenues
equal to or above the indexed revenue threshold, as defined in
Sec. 32.9000 of this chapter, shall file with the Commission a manual
containing the following information regarding its allocation of costs
between regulated and nonregulated activities:
* * * * *
(b) Each carrier shall ensure that the information contained in its
cost allocation manual is accurate. Carriers must update their cost
allocation manuals at least annually, except that changes to the cost
apportionment table and to the description of time reporting procedures
must be filed at least 60 days before the carrier plans to implement
the changes. Annual cost allocation manual updates shall be filed on or
before the last working day of each calendar year. Proposed changes in
the description of time reporting procedures, the statement concerning
affiliate transactions, and the cost apportionment table must be
accompanied by a statement quantifying the impact of each change on
regulated operations. Changes in the description of time reporting
procedures and the statement concerning affiliate transactions must be
quantified in $100,000 increments at the account level. Changes in cost
apportionment tables must be quantified in $100,000 increments at the
cost pool level. The Chief, Common Carrier Bureau may suspend any such
changes for a period not to exceed 180 days, and may thereafter allow
the change to become effective or prescribe a different procedure.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-24473 Filed 9-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24471 Radio Broadcasting Services; Delta, CO
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50246-50247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24471]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-38; RM-8759]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Delta, CO
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document allots Channel 277C2 to Delta, Colorado, as that
community's second local FM service, in response to a petition for rule
making filed on behalf of Blink Communications, Inc. See 61 FR 10977,
March 18, 1996. Coordinates used for Channel 277C2 at Delta are 38-44-
24 and 108-04-00. With this action, the proceeding is terminated.
DATES: Effective October 28, 1996. The window period for filing
applications will open on October 28, 1996, and close on November 29,
1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)
418-2180. Questions related to the window application filing process
for Channel 277C2 at Delta, Colorado, should be addressed to the Audio
Services Division, (202) 418-2700.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 96-38, adopted September 6, 1996, and
released September 13, 1996. The full text of this Commission decision
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Service,
Inc., (202) 857-3800, located at 1919 M Street, NW., Room 246, or 2100
M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
[[Page 50247]]
Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 73--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C. 154,
as amended.
Sec. 73.202 [Amended]
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Colorado, is
amended by adding Channel 277C2 at Delta.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-24471 Filed 9-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24470 Radio Broadcasting Services; Elberton, GA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24470]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 95-165; RM-8703]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Elberton, GA
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Chase Communications, allots
Channel 286A to Elberton, Georgia, as the community's second local FM
channel. See 60 FR 56310, November 8, 1995. Channel 286A can be
allotted to Elberton in compliance with the Commission's minimum
distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 12.4
kilometers (7.7 miles) south, at coordinates 33-59-59 NL; 82-51-36 WL,
to avoid a short-spacing to Stations WCCP-FM, Channel 285A, Clemson,
South Carolina, and WHEL, Channel 286A, Helen, Georgia. With this
action, this proceeding is terminated.
DATES: Effective October 28, 1996. The window period for filing
applications will open on October 28, 1996, and close on November 29,
1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 95-165, adopted September 6, 1996, and
released September 13, 1996. The full text of this Commission decision
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service,
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC.
20037.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 73--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C. 154,
as amended.
Sec. 73.202 [Amended]
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Georgia, is
amended by adding Channel 286A at Elberton.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-24470 Filed 9-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24469 Radio Broadcasting Services; Coleman, Sebewaing and Tuscola, MI
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24469]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 95-7; RM-8561]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Coleman, Sebewaing and Tuscola, MI
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document substitutes Channel 268A for Channel 269A at
Tuscola, Michigan and modifies the license for Station WWBN
accordingly, in response to a proposal filed by Faircom Flint, Inc. See
60 FR 5157, January 26, 1995. The coordinates for Channel 268A at
Tuscola are 43-16-02 and 83-45-34. To accomodate the substitution at
Tuscola, we shall also substitute Channel 269A for Channel 268A at
Coleman, Michigan, and modify the license for Station WPRJ to specify
operation on Channel 269A at coordinates 43-48-41 and 84-27-57.
Canadian concurrence has been obtained for both allotments. The Notice
proposed to substitute Channel 281A for vacant Channel 267A at
Sebewaing, Michigan, or delete the channel if no interest was expressed
in retaining an allotment in the community. Since no interest has been
expressed for retention of a channel in Sebewaing, Michigan, we shall
delete the channel. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 28, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order, MM Docket No. 95-7, adopted September 6, 1996, and released
September 13, 1996. The full text of this Commission decision is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,
Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 73--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C. 154,
as amended.
Sec. 73.202 [Amended]
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Michigan, is
amended by removing Channel 269A and adding Channel 268A at Tuscola,
removing Channel 268A and adding Channel 269A at Coleman and removing
Sebewaing, Channel 267A.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-24469 Filed 9-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24468 Radio Broadcasting Services; Wellington, CO
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50247-50248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24468]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-51; RM-8764]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Wellington, CO
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document allots FM Channel 232C3 to Wellington, Colorado,
as that community's first local FM transmission service, in response to
a petition for rule making filed by Victor A. Michael, Jr. See 61 FR
3551, March 29, 1996. Coordinates used for Channel 232C3 at Wellington
are 40-53-57 North Latitude and 105-01-53 West
[[Page 50248]]
Longitude. With this action, the proceeding is terminated.
DATES: Effective October 28,1996. The window period for filing
applications will open on October 28, 1996, and close on November 29,
1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)
418-2180. Questions related to the window application filing process
for Channel 232C3 at Wellington, Colorado, should be addressed to the
Audio Services Division, (202) 418-2700.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 96-51, adopted September 6, 1996, and
released September 13, 1996. The full text of this Commission decision
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Service,
Inc., (202) 857-3800, located at 1919 M Street, NW., Room 246, or 2100
M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 73--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C. 154,
as amended.
Sec. 73.202 [Amended]
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Colorado, is
amended by adding Wellington, Channel 232C3.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-24468 Filed 9-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24422 Advance Notice of Arrivals, Departures, and Certain Dangerous Cargoes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50232-50235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24422]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 160
[CGD 94-089]
RIN 2115-AF19
Advance Notice of Arrivals, Departures, and Certain Dangerous
Cargoes
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has amended the requirements for notice of
arrival and departure by applying them to vessels over 300 gross tons
and eliciting added information. In addition, the Coast Guard amended
the requirement for all foreign vessels, regardless of the gross
tonnage, to give notice of arrival and departure anywhere within the
Seventh Coast Guard District. These changes are necessary for the Coast
Guard to implement more efficiently its programs for safety of vessels
and for protection of the marine environment. They should aid in the
identification and elimination of substandard ships from U.S. waters,
improve emergency response, and facilitate the enforcement of rules
governing Certificates of Financial Responsibility.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated, documents referred to in this
preamble are available for inspection or copying at the office of the
Executive Secretary, Marine Safety Council (G-LRA, 3406), U.S. Coast
Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001,
between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The telephone number is (202) 267-1477.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
CDR Dennis Haise, Operating and Environmental Standards Division,
Vessel and Facility Operating Standards Branch (202) 267-6451.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Regulatory History
On January 17, 1996, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking entitled Advance Notice of Arrivals, Departures, and Certain
Dangerous Cargoes in the Federal Register (61 FR 1183). The Coast Guard
received 5 letters commenting on the proposal. No public meeting was
requested, and none was held.
Background and Purpose
The Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 [86 Stat. 424], as
amended by the Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978 [92 Stat. 1271],
authorizes the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is
operating to require the receipt of notice from any vessel destined for
or departing from a port or place under the jurisdiction of the United
States. This notice may include any information necessary for the
control of the vessel and for the safety of the port or marine
environment. See 33 U.S.C. 1223; 33 CFR Part 160, Subpart C. In April,
1994, the Coast Guard established its Port-State-Control Program (PSCP)
to eliminate substandard ships from U.S. waters. It developed a
comprehensive risk-based targeting scheme to set boarding priorities
and used funds provided in the Coast Guard's 1994 appropriations act
for this purpose. See Senate Report Number 103-150. The primary factors
used in determining which vessels to board are the vessel's: flag,
owner, operator, classification (``class'') society, age, and operating
history. The PSCP's success hinges on the ability of the Coast Guard to
identify and examine those vessels that seem to pose the greatest risks
to life, property, and the environment. By making vessels provide added
information about arrival and departure, field units of the Coast Guard
will be able to efficiently target vessels and allocate inspection
resources.
Applying this rule to U.S. vessels as well will also help the
Captain of the Port (COTP) to effectively direct
[[Page 50233]]
inspection resources by applying similar criteria to insure that the
highest risk U.S. vessels are also inspected along with foreign vessels
posing similar risks.
As the Coast Guard continues enforcing financial responsibility for
water pollution under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, it is important
that only those vessels that have satisfactorily demonstrated their
ability to meet their responsibility to the U.S. resulting from their
discharge of oil or hazardous substances be permitted into U.S. waters.
A Certificate of Financial Responsibility (COFR) is required of
certain vessels over 300 gross tons, is issued by the Coast Guard, and
documents a vessel's compliance with U.S. law on financial
responsibility for water pollution. The current threshold of 1600 gross
tons for notice means that the Coast Guard gets no advance notice of
arrival for many vessels over 300 gross tons required to carry COFRs.
Reducing the tonnage threshold will enhance the ability of the COTP to
verify compliance by vessels over 300 gross tons with the requirements
for the carriage of COFRs.
In 1989, because of the large number of foreign vessels arriving at
the port of Miami without notice, in unsafe condition and without
proper manning, the Coast Guard amended 33 CFR Part 160 so that all
foreign vessels calling in the zone of the COTP Miami had to give
notice of arrival.
The COTP Miami runs a vigorous compliance program aimed at these
low-tonnage and often substandard ships. However, vessel operators have
been able to avoid the stricter requirements and potential enforcement
of the COTP Miami by changing their ports of call to other, nearby COTP
zones (such as those of Jacksonville, Savannah, Charleston, or Tampa).
To remove the incentive to avoid scrutiny by the COTP Miami, and to
improve the effectiveness of efforts by the Seventh Coast Guard
District to eliminate substandard ships from U.S. waters, the
requirement for notice of arrival by all commercial non-public foreign
vessels needs expansion to cover all COTP zones in the Seventh
District. The boundaries of the Seventh District appear at 33 CFR 3.35-
1(b); the District comprises South Carolina, Georgia, and most of
Florida, along with the island possessions of the U.S. pertaining to
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
One comment was received concerning the exemption of Oil Spill
Recovery Vessels (OSRVs) from the requirements of this rule based on
the premise that these vessels are normally in a standby status and
only get underway for actual spill response operations or for training.
The Coast Guard agrees with this position and has amended the rules to
exclude OSRVs from all reporting requirements except Sec. 160.215
(Notice of Hazardous Condition).
One comment suggested that the rule and the Port State Control
Program (PSCP) only focuses on foreign flag vessels and therefore U.S.
vessels should be exempt. The Coast Guard agrees that most of the
emphasis for this increase in reporting is because of PSCP and is
directed at foreign flag vessels, however, U.S. vessels are also
targeted for boarding based on their history of performance. Part of
the focus of this rulemaking is to allow the COTP to use this data to
better direct the use of limited resources. The Coast Guard bears the
responsibility to insure compliance with U.S. law by both foreign and
domestic vessels. There are provisions within the rule that permit
vessels operating exclusively within a COTP zone or on a fixed schedule
to forgo these requirements once the COTP has been informed of their
operations.
One of the comments suggested that the applicability be changed to
include those vessels of exactly 300 gross tons and higher. The
applicability in this rule mirrors that of the requirements for COFRs
and, therefore, has not been changed.
Another comment suggested that the rulemaking address tugs towing
barges if the barge is over 300 gross tons with both the tug and barge
being identified in the reporting process. Barges are exempt from the
notification process by the nature of their trade and because of the
size of the U.S. barge fleet. The reporting of all tugs and barges
would cause an excessive workload for both the Coast Guard and the
industry. However, a tug of over 300 gross tons on a voyage of 24 hours
or more will still have to comply with the advance notice of arrival
requirements.
One comment suggested that Sec. 160.207(c)(8) be changed to ``last
port of call'' vice ``Name of port or place of departure''. The Coast
Guard disagrees. This wording is explained in the definitions section
(Sec. 160.203) of the regulations and is clear as written.
One comment addressed changing Sec. 160.207(c)(10) to read
``Estimated date and time of arrival in U.S. waters and date and time
of arrival at a specific berth or anchorage''. The Coast Guard
disagrees. The requirement as written is clear and provides adequate
information to allow for directing resources. More specific information
would only cause a greater burden on the industry as specific data
would require more frequent changes.
One comment recommended adding the intent to bunker to the
notification requirements. The Coast Guard disagrees. Although this has
some merit, the COTP can require a 4 hour advance notice of transfer
under 33 CFR 156.118(b) for lightering or fueling operations if deemed
necessary in a particular port.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that
order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and
procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) [44 FR 11040
(February 26, 1979)]. The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of
this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under
paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is
unnecessary.
This rule, for the most part, would incorporate into an established
reporting regime what are becoming customary procedures. The items made
matters of notice are readily available to those from whom we seek
them. Modern electronic communication simplifies their reporting. Some
units of the Coast Guard already receive much of this information from
the shipping industry on a voluntary basis.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.], the
Coast Guard must consider whether this rule, if adopted, would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
``Small entities'' may include (1) small businesses and not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
Small businesses generally operate fewer vessels and would,
therefore, have fewer reports to make. As the notice can be spoken and
need follow no particular format, costs could be limited to those of a
brief telephone call. In the Seventh Coast Guard District, all foreign
vessels, regardless of size, have had to give notice since 1989, with
no reported economic impact.
In an effort to minimize the impacts of the reporting requirements,
current
[[Page 50234]]
Sec. 160.201 already contains several exemptions from the reporting
requirements. Notwithstanding the changes this rule would make to
Sec. 160.201(c)(1), these exemptions would remain.
Because it expects the impact of this rule to be minimal, the Coast
Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule, if adopted, would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Collection of Information
This rule contains collection-of-information requirements. The
Coast Guard has submitted the requirements to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3504(h) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), and OMB has approved them. The
section numbers are Secs. 160.207, 160.211, and 160.213, and the
corresponding approval number is OMB Control Number 2115-0557.
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that
this rule does not have sufficient implications for federalism to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this
rule and concluded that, under paragraph 2.B.2e(22) of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1B, this rule is categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation. A Determination of Categorical Exclusion
is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated
under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 160
Administrative practice and procedure, Harbors, Hazardous materials
transportation, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Waterways.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR Part 160 as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 160 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223, 1231; 49 CFR 1.46.
2. In 160.201, paragraphs (b), (c) introductory text, (c)(1), and
(c)(3)(i) through (c)(3)(iii) are revised, and paragraphs (c)(3)(iv)
through (c)(3)(x) are added to read as follows:
Sec. 160.201 Applicability and exceptions to applicability.
* * * * *
(b) This part does not apply to recreational vessels under 46
U.S.C. 4301 et seq. and, except Sec. 160.215, does not apply to:
(1) Passenger and supply vessels when they are employed in the
exploration for or in the removal of oil, gas, or mineral resources on
the continental shelf, and
(2) Oil Spill Recovery Vessels (OSRVs) when engaged in actual spill
response operations or during spill response exercises.
(c) Section 160.207 does not apply to the following:
(1) Each vessel of 300 gross tons or less, except a foreign vessel
of 300 gross tons or less entering any port or place in the Seventh
Coast Guard District as described by 3.35-1(b) of this chapter.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Name of the vessel;
(ii) Country of registry of the vessel;
(iii) Call sign of the vessel;
(iv) International Maritime Organization (IMO) international number
or, if the vessel does not have an assigned IMO international number,
the official number of the vessel;
(v) Name of the registered owner of the vessel;
(vi) Name of the operator of the vessel;
(vii) Name of the classification society of the vessel;
(viii) Each port or place of destination;
(ix) Estimated dates and times of arrivals at and departures from
these ports or places; and
(x) Name and telephone number of a 24-hour point of contact.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 160.203, new definitions, for ``gross tons'' and
``operator'', are added in alphabetical order, and the definition for
``public vessel'' is revised, to read as follows:
Sec. 160.203 Definitions.
* * * * *
Gross tons means the tonnage determined by the tonnage authorities
of a vessel's flag state in accordance with the national tonnage rules
in force before the entry into force of the International Convention on
Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969 (``Convention''). For a vessel
measured only under Annex I of the Convention, gross tons means that
tonnage. For a vessel measured under both systems, the higher gross
tonnage is the tonnage used for the purposes of the 300-gross-ton
threshold.
* * * * *
Operator means any person including, but not limited to, an owner,
a demise- (bareboat-) charterer, or another contractor who conducts, or
is responsible for, the operation of a vessel.
* * * * *
Public vessel means a vessel that is owned or demise- (bareboat-)
chartered by the government of the United States, by a State or local
government, or by the government of a foreign country and that is not
engaged in commercial service.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 160.207, paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) are revised,
and paragraphs (c) (6) through (11) are added, to read as follows:
Sec. 160.207 Notice of arrival: Vessels bound for ports or places in
the United States.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Name of the vessel;
(2) Country of registry of the vessel;
(3) Call sign of the vessel;
(4) International Maritime Organization (IMO) international number
or, if the vessel does not have an assigned IMO international number,
the official number of the vessel;
(5) Name of the registered owner of the vessel;
(6) Name of the operator of the vessel;
(7) Name of the classification society of the vessel;
(8) Name of the port or place of departure;
(9) Name of the port or place of destination;
(10) Estimated date and time of arrival at this port or place; and
(11) Name and telephone number of a 24-hour point of contact.
5. In Sec. 160.211, paragraph (a) introductory text and paragraphs
(a) (1)-(8) are revised and paragraphs (a) (9)-(16) are added to read
as follows:
Sec. 160.211 Notice of arrival: Vessels carrying certain dangerous
cargo.
(a) The owner, agent, master, operator, or person in charge of a
vessel, except a barge, bound for a port or place in the United States
and carrying certain dangerous cargo, shall notify the Captain of the
Port of the port or place of destination at least 24 hours before
entering that port or place of the:
(1) Name of the vessel;
(2) Country of registry of the vessel;
(3) Call sign of the vessel;
(4) International Maritime Organization (IMO) international number
or, if the vessel does not have
[[Page 50235]]
an assigned IMO international number, the official number of the
vessel;
(5) Name of the registered owner of the vessel;
(6) Name of the operator of the vessel;
(7) Name of the classification society of the vessel;
(8) Name of the port or place of departure;
(9) Name of the port or place of destination;
(10) Estimated date and time of arrival at this port or place;
(11) Name and telephone number of a 24-hour point of contact;
(12) Location of the vessel at the time of the report;
(13) Name of each of the certain dangerous cargoes carried;
(14) Amount of each of the certain dangerous cargoes carried;
(15) Stowage location of each of the certain dangerous cargoes
carried; and
(16) Operational condition of the equipment under Sec. 164.35 of
this chapter.
* * * * *
6. In Sec. 160.211(b), paragraph (b) is amended by removing the
reference ``(a)(8)'' and adding, in its place, the references ``(a)(4)
and (a)(8) through (16)''.
7. In Sec. 160.213, paragraph (a) introductory text and paragraphs
(a) (1)-(7) are revised and paragraphs (a) (8)-(15) are added to read
as follows:
Sec. 160.213 Notice of departure: Vessels carrying certain dangerous
cargo.
(a) The owner, agent, master, operator, or person in charge of a
vessel, except a barge, departing from a port or place in the United
States for any other port or place and carrying certain dangerous
cargo, shall notify the Captain of the Port or place of departure at
least 24 hours before departing, unless this notification was made
within 2 hours after the vessel's arrival, of the:
(1) Name of the vessel;
(2) Country of registry of the vessel;
(3) Call sign of the vessel;
(4) International Maritime Organization (IMO) international number
or, if the vessel does not have an assigned IMO international number,
the official number of the vessel;
(5) Name of the registered owner of the vessel;
(6) Name of the operator of the vessel;
(7) Name of the classification society of the vessel;
(8) Name of the port or place of departure;
(9) Name of the port or place of destination;
(10) Estimated date and time of arrival at this port or place;
(11) Name and telephone number of a 24-hour point of contact;
(12) Name of each of the certain dangerous cargoes carried;
(13) Amount of each of the certain dangerous cargoes carried;
(14) Stowage location of each of the certain dangerous cargoes
carried; and
(15) Operational condition of the equipment under Sec. 164.35 of
this chapter.
* * * * *
(8) In Sec. 160.213(b), paragraph (b) is amended by removing the
reference ``(a)(7)'' and add, in its place, the references ``(a)(4) and
(a) (8) through (15)''.
Dated: September 17, 1996.
J.C. Card,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Marine Safety and Environmental
Protection.
[FR Doc. 96-24422 Filed 9-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24302 Revision of Department of Transportation Acquisition Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50248-50251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24302]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
48 CFR Parts 1201, 1202, 1205, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1215,
1216, 1219, 1220, 1224, 1233, 1237, 1247, 1252, and 1253
RIN 2105-AC59
Revision of Department of Transportation Acquisition Regulations
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Transportation Acquisition
Regulation (TAR) to reflect restructuring and modified coverage that is
made necessary by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James F. Hawkins, Office of
Acquisition and Grant Management, M-61, 400 Seventh Street S.W.,
Washington, DC 20590: (202) 366-6688.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
Implementation of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA)
of 1994 resulted in changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR). The FAR was modified to provide additional coverage to implement
the Act and restructure parts of the FAR to accommodate the changes
(particularly Parts 10, 11, and 12). The Transportation Acquisition
Regulation (TAR) is being modified to reflect the restructuring and
modified coverage in the FAR. The TAR coverage restructures Parts 1210,
1211, and 1212, part title changes, deletes some prior coverage and
reflects an internal delegation to the United States Coast Guard. Part
1211 is being newly added and Parts 1201 and 1252 is being renumbered
to reflect the restructuring of the TAR.
B. Regulatory Analysis and Notices
This final rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866 of
the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It does not amend
a rule having substantial public interest and we expect no economic
impacts or Federalism impacts as a result of this rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposal is not expected to have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities because the basic policies
remain unchanged. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not
been performed.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no information collection requirements associated with
this rule.
E. Administrative Procedure Act
A general notice of proposed rulemaking was not published in the
Federal Register because that notice and public procedure are
unnecessary. This final rule revises agency specifies in the
Transportation Acquisition Regulation to conform to the restructuring
and revision of the document it supplements, the Federal Acquisition
Regulation. The Department has little discretion in adopting these
technical changes. We do not anticipate that we would receive
meaningful comments on these amendments.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1201, 1202, 1205, 1209, 1210,
1211, 1212, 1213, 1215, 1216, 1219, 1220, 1224, 1233, 1237, 1247,
1252, and 1253
Government procurement.
This final rule is issued pursuant to delegated authority under 49
CFR part 1.59(p). This authority has been redelegated to the Senior
Procurement Executive.
Issued this 12th day of September 1996, at Washington, DC.
David J. Litman,
Director of Acquisition and Grant Management.
Adoption of Amendments
Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1201, 1202,
1205, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1215, 1216, 1219, 1220, 1224, 1233,
1237, 1247, 1252, and 1253 are amended to read as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 1201, 1202, 1205, 1209,
1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1215, 1216, 1219, 1220, 1224, 1233, 1237, 1247,
1252, and 1253 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 41 U.S.C. 418(b); 48 CFR 3.1.
PART 1201--FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM
Subpart 1201.104-2--[Amended]
2. Subpart 1201.1 is amended by removing ``OST--Office of the
Secretary'' under 1201.104-2 and adding ``TASC--Transportation
Administrative Service Center'' and by redesignating Secs. 1201.102
through 1201.105 as follows:
[[Page 50249]]
1201.102 through 1201.105 [Redesignated as 1201.103 through 1201.106]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old section New section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1201.102.................................. 1201.103
1201.103.................................. 1201.104
1201.104.................................. 1201.105
1201.104-1................................ 1201.105-1
1201.104-2................................ 1201.105-2
1201.104-3................................ 1201.105-3
1201.105.................................. 1201.106
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In subpart 1201.470, Sec. 1201.403 is revised to read as
follows:
Subpart 1201.403--Individual Deviations
The authority of the agency head under (FAR) 48 CFR 1.403 and (TAR)
48 CFR chapter 12 is delegated to the Head of the Contracting Activity
or designee no lower than Senior Executive Service (SES)/Flag Officer
level. However, see Transportation Acquisition Manual (TAM) 1201.403.
The TAM is available through the Government Printing Office.
4. Subpart 1201.6 title is revised to read as follows:
Subpart 1201.6--Career Development, Contracting Authority and
Responsibilities
PART 1202--DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS
5. Section 1202.1, paragraph (i)(7) is revised to read as follows:
1202.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(7) Transportation Administrative Service Center/Office of the
Secretary (OST).
* * * * *
PART 1205--PUBLICIZING CONTRACT ACTIONS
6. Section 1205.101, paragraph (a)(2), is removed and paragraph
(a)2)(iii) is added to read as follows:
1205.101 Methods of disseminating information.
(a)(2)(iii) Contracting officers shall post solicitations expected
to exceed $25,000, if required in OA procedures.
PART 1209--CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS
Subpart 1209.4--[Removed]
7. Subpart 1209.4 (1209.406 through 1209.407-3) is removed and
Sec. 1209.507 is revised to read as follows:
1209.507 Solicitation provisions.
The contracting officer may insert the provision at (TAR) 48 CFR
1252.209-70, ``Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest'' in all
solicitations for negotiated acquisitions, when simplified acquisitions
procedures in (FAR) 48 CFR Part 13, are not used and when the
contracting officer believes the conditions enumerated in (FAR) 48 CFR
9.507-2 warrant inclusion.
PART 1210--MARKET RESEARCH--[RESERVED]
8. The heading of part 1210 is revised, Secs. 1210.004 through
1210.011-90 are removed and the subpart is reserved.
PART 1211--ACQUISITION AND DISTRIBUTION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS
9. Part 1211 is added to read as follows:
PART 1211--DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS
Subpart 1211.6--Priorities and Allocations
1211.602 General.
1211.204-90 Solicitation provision and contract clause (USCG).
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 41 U.S.C. 418(b); 48 CFR 3.1.
Subpart 1211.6--Priorities and Allocations
1211.602 General.
(c) The USCG is the only DOT OA delegated authority under the
Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) regulation (15 CFR
700) to assign priority ratings on contracts and orders placed with
contractors to acquire products, materials, and services in support of
USCG certified national defense related programs.
1211.204-90 Solicitation provision and contract clause (USCG).
(a) The contracting officer shall insert the USCG clause at (TAR)
48 CFR 1252.211-90, Bar Coding Requirement (also see (TAR) 48 CFR
1213.507-90(a)) when the bar coding of supplies is necessary for the
USCG.
(b) See (TAR) 48 CFR 1213.507-90 for a provision which is required
when the USCG clause at (TAR) 48 CFR 1252.211-90, Bar Coding
Requirement, is used with simplified acquisition procedures.
PART 1212--ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS--[RESERVED]
10. The heading of part 1212 is revised to read as set forth above,
subparts 1213.1 (Sec. 1213.107-90) and 1213.5 (Sec. 1213.5) are removed
and the part is reserved.
PART 1213--SMALL PURCHASE AND OTHER SIMPLIFIED PURCHASE PROCEDURES
1213.107-90 [Amended]
11. Section 1213.107-90 is amended by correcting the reference to
USCG provision ``1252.210-90'' to read ``1252.213-90'' and reference to
USCG clause ``1252.210-90(a)'' to read ``1252.211-90'' and revise the
words ``in small purchases'' to read ``with simplified acquisition
procedures''.
1213.507-90 [Amended]
12. Section 1213.507-90 is amended by correcting the reference to
USCG clause ``1252.210-90'' to read ``1252.211-90''.
PART 1215--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION
1215.407, 1215.804, and 1215.804-2 [Removed]
13. In part 1215, Secs. 1215.407, 1215.804, and 1215.804-2 are
removed.
14. The heading of Sec. 1215.804-6 is revised to read as follows:
1215.804-6 Instructions for submission of cost or pricing data or
information other than cost or pricing data.
PART 1216--TYPES OF CONTRACTS
15. In part 1216, subpart 1216.5 is added to read as follows:
Subpart 1216.5--Indefinite-Delivery Contracts
1216.505 Ordering.
(b)(4) Unless otherwise provided in OA procedures, the OA
Competition Advocate is designated as the OA Task and Delivery Order
Ombudsman.
(i) If any corrective action is needed after reviewing complaints
from contractors on task and delivery order contracts, the OA Ombudsman
shall provide a written determination of such action to the contracting
officer.
(ii) Issues that cannot be resolved within the OA, are to be
forwarded to the DOT Task and Delivery Order Ombudsman for review and
resolution.
PART 1219--SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS
16. Part 1219 title is revised to read as set forth above and
subpart 1219.7 title is revised to read ``Subcontracting with Small
Business, Small Disadvantaged Business and Women-Owned Small Business
Concerns''. The last sentence of Sec. 1219.201(c) is removed. Appendix
A following
[[Page 50250]]
Sec. 1219.006 is designated as Subpart A to Subpart 1219.10 and items
(4) and (6) are revised to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart 1219.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPDs product and service
Targeted industry categories code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(4) Maintenance, Repair, and Rebuilding of J028/J010
engines, turbines, components and weapons
equipment.
* * * * *
(6) ADP Support Equipment.................. 7035
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 1220--LABOR SURPLUS AREA CONTRACTING
17. Part 1220 title is revised to read as set forth above.
PART 1224--PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
18. In part 1224, Sec. 1224.000 is removed and Sec. 1224.103 is
added to subpart 1224.1 to read as follows:
1224.103 Procedures.
DOT's rules and regulations implementing the Privacy Act of 1974
are located at 49 CFR Part 10.
PART 1233--PROTESTS, DISPUTES, AND APPEALS
19. Section 1233.214 is amended by removing paragraph (d) and
redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as (c) and (d), revising the
introductory text of newly redesignated paragraph (c) and paragraph (d)
to read as follows:
1233.214 Alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
(c) The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA), Pub. L. 101-
552, authorizes and encourages agencies to use mediation, conciliation,
arbitration, and other techniques for the prompt and informal
resolution of disputes, and for other purposes. The DOTBCA Alternate
Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures are contained in 48 CFR chapter 63,
Section 6302.30, ADR Methods (Rule 30), and will be distributed to the
parties, if ADR procedures are used. These procedures may be obtained
from the DOTBCA upon request. ADR procedures may be used when:
* * * * *
(d) DOT's Dispute Resolution Specialist in accordance with the ADRA
is located in the DOT Office of the General Counsel, C-1. The Dispute
Resolution Specialist performs the functions set forth in the
Administrative Disputes Resolution Act for DOT operating
administrations on a non-reimbursable basis. The Dispute Resolution
Specialist may conduct any of the alternative means of dispute
resolution set forth in Title 5, U.S.C. Section 581(3), including
settlement negotiations under the auspices of a settlement judge,
conciliation, facilitation, mediation, fact finding, mini-trials, and
arbitration, or any combination of these methods.
PART 1237--SERVICE CONTRACTING
20. The heading of subpart 1237.1 is revised to read ``Service
Contracts--General'' (table of contents listing remains unchanged). New
subpart 1237.104, ``Personal Services Contracts'' and Sec. 1237.104-90,
``Delegation of Authority (USCG)'' are added to read as follows:
Subpart 1237.104--Personal Services Contracts
1237.104-90 Delegation of authority (USCG).
(a) Pub. L. 104-106, DOD Authorization Act of 1996, Section 733,
added Section 1091(A) to Title 10 of the United States Code, which
authorizes contracting authority for personal service contracts for
medical treatment facilities for the Coast Guard.
(b) The authority of the Secretary of Transportation under Pub. L.
104-106 to contract for personal service contracts for medical
treatment facilities for the Coast Guard is delegated to the HCA with
the authority to redelegate to contracting officers under procedures
established by the Head of Contracting Activity, who will address
applicable statutory limitations under Section 1091 of Title 10 U.S.C.
PART 1247--TRANSPORTATION
21. Section 1247.104-370 is amended by changing the reference to
section number ``1252.247-1'' to read ``1252.247-70''; by amending
1247.305-70 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) by revising the references
to section numbers ``1252.247-2,'' ``1252.247-3,'' ``1252.247-4,''
``1252.247-5,'' ``1252.247-6,'' and ``1252.247-7,'' to read ``1252.247-
71,'' ``1252.247-72,'' ``1252-247-73,'' ``1252-247-74,'' ``1252-247-
75,'' and ``1252.247-76,'' respectively; and by amending 1247.305-71 by
revising the reference to section number ``1252.247-8'' to read
``1252.247-77''.
PART 1252--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
1252.210-70 and 1252.210-71 and 1252.247-1 through 1252.247-8
[Redesignated as 1252.211-70 and 1252.211-71 and 1252.247-70 through
1252.247-77]
22. Sections 1252.210-70 and 1252.210-71 and 1252.247-1 through
1252.247-8 are redesignated as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Old section New section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1252.210-70............................... 1252.211-70
1252.210-71............................... 1252.211-71
1252.247-1................................ 1252.247-70
1252.247-2................................ 1252.247-71
1252.247-3................................ 1252.247-72
1252.247-4................................ 1252.247-73
1252.247-5................................ 1252.247-74
1252.247-6................................ 1252.247-75
1252.247-7................................ 1252.247-76
1252.247-8................................ 1252.247-77
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 1253--FORMS
In Appendix A to subpart 1253.3, the entries for 1252.210-70,
1252.210-71, 1252.247-1 through 1252.247-8 are removed and the
following new entries are added in numerical order.
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
[[Page 50251]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25SE96.000
[FR Doc. 96-24302 Filed 9-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-C
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-24124 Transportation of Hazardous Materials by Rail; Miscellaneous Amendments; Response to Petitions for Reconsideration
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50252-50255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24124]
[[Page 50252]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Parts 172, 173, 174 and 179
[Docket No. HM-216; Amdt Nos. 172-148, 173-252, 174-83, 179-52 ]
RIN 2137-AC66
Transportation of Hazardous Materials by Rail; Miscellaneous
Amendments; Response to Petitions for Reconsideration
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; editorial revisions and response to petitions for
reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 5, 1996, RSPA published a final rule which amended the
Hazardous Materials Regulations to incorporate a number of changes to
rail requirements based on rulemaking petitions from industry and RSPA
initiatives. The intended effect of the June 5, 1996 rule is to improve
safety and reduce costs to offerors and transporters of hazardous
materials. This final rule corrects errors in that final rule and
responds to petitions for reconsideration.
DATES: Effective date. This final rule is effective October 1, 1996.
The effective date for the final rule published under Docket HM-216 on
June 5, 1996 (61 FR 28666) remains October 1, 1996.
Compliance date. However, compliance with the regulations is
authorized from June 30, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth Romo, telephone (202) 366-8553,
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, Research and Special Programs
Administration, Washington DC, 20590-0001, or James H. Rader, telephone
(202) 632-3339, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance, Federal
Railroad Administration, Washington DC, 20590-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On June 5, 1996, RSPA issued a final rule under Docket HM-216 [61
FR 28666]. The final rule made changes to the HMR, applicable to rail
carriers, shippers, and tank car owners and lessors, based on petitions
for rulemaking submitted in accordance with 49 CFR 106.31 or agency
initiative. RSPA received several petitions for reconsideration to the
final rule concerning the voluntary compliance date of June 30, 1996,
which allowed rail shippers and carriers to discontinue use of the
RESIDUE placard. In a June 28, 1996 letter, RSPA denied these petitions
for reconsideration. This letter of denial was published in the Federal
Register on July 25, 1996 [61 FR 38643] and included a statement of
enforcement policy by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
In addition, RSPA received several other petitions for
reconsideration, as well as other correspondence identifying errors or
requesting clarification. This document incorporates editorial and
technical revisions RSPA has determined are necessary to correct or
clarify the final rule.
Because the amendments adopted herein clarify and relax certain
provisions of the June 5, 1996 final rule, and impose no new regulatory
burden on any person, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. For
these same reasons, these amendments are being made effective on the
same effective date of the June 5, 1996 final rule, without the usual
30-day delay following publication.
II. Summary of Regulatory Changes Made by Section
Listed below is a section-by-section summary of the changes.
Part 172
Section 172.102. Special Provision B65 is revised by correcting two
typographical errors. The ``Class DOT 105J'' reference should read
``Class DOT 105A'' and the wording ``safety relief device'' should read
``pressure relief device''.
Section 172.330. On July 3, 1996, The Chemical Manufacturers
Association's Vinyl Chloride Panel Transportation Committee (CMA-VCC)
filed a petition for reconsideration concerning the marking of tank
cars containing vinyl chloride. CMA-VCC claimed that revised marking
requirements adopted under Docket HM-216 are unduly burdensome because
they require addition of the word ``stabilized'' or ``inhibited'' as
part of the proper shipping name marked on the tank without a
corresponding increase in safety. Further, CMA-VCC states that the
remarking process is costly, primarily because the cars must be removed
from service. In some cases, entire fleets will have to be removed from
service over the next three months in order to achieve compliance. To
reduce the burden on the industry, CMA-VCC requests a five-year period
to comply with the rule. This five-year period coincides with the
regular service schedule for these cars.
In a final rule issued December 29, 1994 under Docket HM-215A [59
FR 67390], the proper shipping name for ``Vinyl chloride'' was amended
to add the word ``stabilized.'' A delayed compliance period provided
under Docket HM-215A authorizes use of either proper shipping name
(``Vinyl chloride'' or ``Vinyl chloride, stabilized'') until October 1,
1996. On or after that date, the word ``stabilized'' must appear as
part of the proper shipping name. Based on pre-Docket HM-216 marking
requirements in Sec. 173.314, after October 1, 1996, the word
``stabilized'' would have been required to appear as part of the proper
shipping name marking (provided such cars were marked after October 1,
1991; see Sec. 172.302(f)).
The Docket HM-216 notice of proposed rulemaking proposed a
reduction in the number of proper shipping names required to be marked
on tank cars and also proposed that only the ``key words'' of the
proper shipping name must be marked. Based on numerous comments,
including those from the emergency response community, opposing these
proposed changes in marking requirements, RSPA did not reduce the
number of proper shipping names required to be marked on tank cars, but
consolidated existing marking requirements into Sec. 172.330. Limited
relief was provided by adopting the proposal to require only key words
of the proper shipping name to be marked; however, the final rule
indicated that qualifying words, such as ``compressed,'' ``liquefied,''
``stabilized'' and ``inhibited'' were considered to be ``key words.''
After further consideration, RSPA believes that certain qualifying
words do not sufficiently enhance the effectiveness of this marking,
and the parenthetical example in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) creates confusion
as to which qualifying words in a proper shipping name must be
considered ``key words.'' Consequently, RSPA is amending paragraph
(a)(1)(ii) by removing the parenthetical wording ``(including words
such as `stabilized', `inhibited', `compressed', or `liquefied')''.
This change does not limit or prohibit the marking of additional words
on a tank car. A tank car may be marked with words such as
``liquefied'' or ``stabilized''.
Section 172.514. In the section heading and paragraphs (a) and (b),
the phrase ``other than a tank car'' is removed. Based on the removal
of the ``RESIDUE'' placard in the June 5, 1996 final rule, this phrase
is no longer necessary because placarding requirements for tank cars
are the same as for other bulk packagings.
[[Page 50253]]
Part 173
Section 173.314. In the paragraph (c) table, in Column (3), the
wording ``120A'' is corrected to read ``120'' for each commodity
authorized in this tank car class.
Part 174
Section 174.24. In Sec. 174.24, the first two sentences are revised
to clarify that no person may accept or transport a hazardous material
unless that person receives a shipping paper that contains the
information required by part 172 (i.e., the proper shipping
description, emergency response telephone number, and the shipper's
certification). The paragraph is further clarified to state that only
the initial carrier within the United States must receive and retain a
copy of the offeror's certified shipping paper.
Section 174.85. In paragraph (c), a separation requirement is
revised to clarify that a placarded tank car may not be used to
separate a tank car containing a residue of a hazardous material from a
locomotive or occupied caboose. This change makes consistent the
requirements of paragraph (c) with those contained in paragraph (d).
(Also see the preamble discussion in the final rule [61 FR 28666,
28670].)
Part 179
Section 179.15. In Sec. 179.15, several editorial changes are made,
and in paragraph (f)(1) a sentence is added to clarify that until
October 1, 1998, a tank car must have a nonreclosing pressure relief
device incorporating a rupture disc designed to burst at a pressure
corresponding to the new requirements in this final rule or to the old
requirements in effect on September 30, 1996.
A manufacturer of safety valves and safety vents for tank cars
opposed the pressure relief device amendment that would allow for an
increase in the start-to-discharge pressure from 30 percent to 33
percent of the tank burst pressure. This petitioner claimed that the
change would reduce the level of safety by 10 percent, and that the
change did not correspond to the ASME code as purported by RSPA. The
petitioner further stated that the ASME code primarily deals with
stationary pressure vessels where ``plants have maintenance departments
that give their stationary valves tender loving care,'' and that
``[t]ank cars, on the other hand, are frequently looked upon as someone
else's problem and their valves and fittings are given minimum
attention.''
RSPA and FRA disagree. Prior to adoption of the HM-216 amendment,
the HMR and several exemptions authorized an increase in the start-to-
discharge pressure setting on the pressure relief device for several
commodities, such as liquefied petroleum gas and anhydrous ammonia.
This change simply expands the requirement to all commodities,
including those that pose less risk in transportation. Further, the
start-to-discharge pressure setting on the pressure relief device in
the ASME code is partly based on the physical properties of the lading
at a reference temperature, static head, and gas padding pressure in
the tank. Because of the ASME code's wide use in stationary storage
tanks, cargo tanks, and IM portable tanks, RSPA proposed and adopted
the principal code for tank cars in Docket HM-216. Accordingly, the
start-to-discharge pressure of a pressure relief device on a tank car
is now based on the physical properties of the lading and not solely on
the tank specification. Since the lading, and not the tank
specification, ``drives'' the start-to-discharge pressure setting of
the pressure relief device, this provision is now in harmony with the
ASME code. Furthermore, the design of a tank car must account for the
dynamic train-action loads that are transmitted into the tank shell
(axial compression and bending moments). As such, tank wall thickness
is more of a function of the train-action loads as opposed to simply
lading retention. Therefore, a direct comparison between tank cars and
the ASME code is not totally possible, especially when comparing levels
of safety.
This petitioner also disagreed with RSPA and FRA's position that it
was better to remove the disc from the vent in order to examine the
disc for corrosion and damage. The petitioner explained that the
construction of the disc does not allow an inspector to determine the
condition of the disc and that removal of the disc can allow water and
vapor to enter the tank or for pollutants to escape from the tank.
Further, in order to disassemble the nonreclosing pressure relief
device an offeror would have to step outside of the loading platform
area, thus ``workers will be disinclined to take the discs out of the
vents to look at the vacuum support side, so no inspection of the disc
will take place.''
RSPA and FRA disagree. The preamble discussion in Docket HM-216
simply makes clear an offeror's responsibility--that each person who
offers a hazardous material for transportation in a tank car must
ensure that the ``tank car is in proper condition and safe for
transportation.'' The provision also requires a ``careful inspection of
the frangible [rupture] disc in non-reclosing pressure relief
devices.'' A rupture disc failure in transportation poses a potential
threat to human health and the environment. This threat is best
mitigated by the careful inspection of the disc to ensure its integrity
prior to transportation. A careful inspection does not simply mean a
cursory look at the top of the disc; defects can and do arise in any
material and on any surface, including the bottom side of the disc.
Since non-reclosing pressure relief devices account for a large number
of non-accident releases and railroad worker injuries, it simply cannot
be argued that a partial inspection of the disc will qualify the whole
disc for further use and help prevent such releases. Offerors must
acknowledge that the cost of using a non-reclosing pressure relief
device includes not just the purchase price, but also the cost of
inspection, maintenance, and repair prior to each shipment. In cases
where there is a concern about air and water vapors entering the tank
or pollutants discharged from the tank, it is RSPA and FRA's opinion
that the offeror should use a reclosing pressure relief device, as
opposed to a nonreclosing pressure relief device that allows for the
movement of unwanted vapors and pollutants into or out of the tank
after disc rupture.
Section 179.100-7. In Sec. 179.100-7, the minimum elongation
requirements for AAR TC 128, Gr. B and ASTM A 302, Gr. B are corrected
to read ``19'' and ``20'' respectively.
Section 179.201-4. A manufacturer of safety valves and safety vents
for tank cars asked RSPA to amend Sec. 179.201-4 to authorize the
finishing of as cast internal surfaces of stainless castings prior to
testing. Section 179.201-4 requires the use of a standard practice,
ASTM-262, for detecting the susceptibility to intergranular attack in
austenic stainless steels. ASTM-262 requires the surface of a test
specimen to conform to the actual surface of the casting used in
service. The standard further authorizes the finishing of the test
specimen surface to remove foreign material and to obtain a standard,
uniform finish, by polishing. As to the removal of surface
carburization, caused by carbonaceous binders in the sand, the ASTM-262
standard prohibits grinding and machining to remove the carburized
surface, except in tests undertaken to demonstrate such effects.
In 1988, this petitioner and the Association of American Railroads
(AAR) reviewed the ASTM-262 standard as it applies to carburized
surfaces. The review resulted in a 1988
[[Page 50254]]
amendment to Appendix M of the AAR Tank Car Manual that now allows for
the finishing, by grinding and machining, on all surfaces prior to
testing. Based on the recognized industry standard practice for
detecting the susceptibility to intergranular attack in austenic
stainless steel and these comments, RSPA is amending Sec. 179.201-4 to
authorize finishing, by machining or grinding, prior to testing.
Section 179.300-7. RSPA received one petition for reconsideration
relating to the use of steels for the construction of multi-unit tank
car tanks. The petitioner stated that the removal of steel
specifications A285 and A515 will cause an enormous disruption to users
of multi-unit tank car tanks and in particular to the chlorine
industry, which uses A285 for forge welding Class DOT 106A multi-unit
tank car tanks. The petitioner also asked RSPA to consider adding ASTM
A516 Gr 70 to the table, since this material is often used in the
construction of multi-unit tank car tanks under exemption (DOT-E 9157
and DOT-E 3216). RSPA agrees that the steel specifications in
Sec. 179.300-7 were inadvertently removed in the final rule. RSPA also
is adding ASTM A516 Gr. 70 to the table based on comments received.
III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This final rule is not considered a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and therefore, was not
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. The rule is not
considered a significant rule under the Regulatory Policies and
Procedures of the Department of Transportation [44 FR 11034].
The economic impact of this rule is expected to result in only
minimal costs to certain persons subject to the HMR and may result in
modest cost savings to a small number of persons subject to the HMR and
to the agency. Because of the minimal economic impact of this rule,
preparation of a regulatory impact analysis or a regulatory evaluation
is not warranted.
B. Executive Order 12612
The June 5, 1996 final rule, as amended herein, was analyzed in
accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive
Order 12612 (``Federalism''). Federal law expressly preempts State,
local, and Indian tribe requirements applicable to the transportation
of hazardous material that cover certain subjects and are not
substantively the same as Federal requirements. 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1).
These subjects are:
(1) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous
material;
(2) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and
placarding of hazardous material;
(3) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents
pertaining to hazardous material, and requirements respecting the
number, content, and placement of such documents;
(4) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the
unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; or
(5) The design, manufacturing, fabrication, marking, maintenance,
reconditioning, repairing, or testing of a package or container which
is represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in the
transportation of hazardous material.
This final rule preempts State, local, or Indian tribe requirements
concerning these subjects unless the non-Federal requirements are
``substantively the same'' (see 49 CFR 107.202(d)) as the Federal
requirements. RSPA lacks discretion in this area, and preparation of a
federalism assessment is not warranted.
Federal law (49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(2)) provides that if DOT issues a
regulation concerning any of the covered subjects, DOT must determine
and publish in the Federal Register the effective date of Federal
preemption. The effective date may not be earlier than the 90th day
following the date of issuance of the final rule and not later than two
years after the date of issuance. RSPA determined that the effective
date of Federal preemption for these requirements in the June 5, 1996
final rule would be October 1, 1996. The effective date of Federal
preemption for the changes made in this final rule will be December 24,
1996.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final rule responds to petitions for reconsideration and
agency review. It is intended to make editorial and technical
corrections, provide clarification of the regulations and relax certain
requirements. Therefore, I certify that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no new information collection requirements in this final
rule.
E. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading
of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 172
Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Labels,
Markings, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
49 CFR Part 173
Hazardous materials transportation, Packaging and containers,
Radioactive materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Uranium.
49 CFR Part 174
Hazardous materials transportation, Radioactive materials, Railroad
safety.
49 CFR Part 179
Hazardous materials transportation, Incorporation by reference,
Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR parts 172, 173, 174 and
179 are amended as follows:
PART 172--HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TABLE, SPECIAL PROVISIONS, HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS COMMUNICATIONS, EMERGENCY RESPONSE INFORMATION, AND
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
1. The authority citation for Part 172 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.
Sec. 172.102 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 172.102, in paragraph (c)(3), for Special Provision B65,
as amended at 61 FR 28675, effective October 1, 1996, the wording
``Class 105J'' is revised to read ``Class 105A'' and the wording
``safety relief device'' is revised to read ``pressure relief device''.
Sec. 172.330 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 172.330, in paragraph (a)(1)(ii), as revised at 61 FR
28676, effective October 1, 1996, the wording ``(including words such
as `stabilized', `inhibited', `compressed', or `liquefied')'' is
removed.
Sec. 172.514 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 172.514, the following changes are made:
a. In the section heading, the wording ``other than tank cars'' is
removed.
[[Page 50255]]
b. In paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) introductory text, the
wording ``, other than a tank car,'' is removed each place it appears.
PART 173--SHIPPERS--GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS AND
PACKAGINGS
5. The authority citation for Part 173 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5102-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.
Sec. 173.314 [Amended]
6. In Sec. 173.314, in the paragraph (c) table, as amended at 61 FR
28677, effective October 1, 1996, in Column 3, the wording ``120A'' is
revised to read ``120'' each place it appears.
PART 174--CARRIAGE BY RAIL
7. The authority citation for Part 174 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.
8. In Sec. 174.24, as revised at 61 FR 28677, effective October 1,
1996, the first two sentences are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 174.24 Shipping papers.
A person may not accept or transport a hazardous material by rail
unless that person receives a shipping paper that properly conveys the
information required by part 172 of this subchapter. Only an initial
carrier within the United States must receive and retain a copy of the
shipper's certification as required by Sec. 172.204 of this subchapter.
* * *
Sec. 174.85 [Amended]
9. In Sec. 174.85, in paragraph (c), as revised at 61 FR 28678,
effective October 1, 1996, the wording ``non-placarded rail car'' is
revised to read ``rail car other than a placarded tank car''.
PART 179--SPECIFICATIONS FOR TANK CARS
10. The authority citation for Part 179 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.
11. In Sec. 179.15, as added at 61 FR 28678, effective October 1,
1996, paragraph (f)(1) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 179.15 Pressure relief devices.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) Until October 1, 1998, a nonreclosing pressure relief device
must incorporate a rupture disc designed to burst at a pressure no less
than 100% of the tank test pressure but no more than 33% of the tank
burst pressure. After that date, a nonreclosing pressure relief device
must incorporate a rupture disc designed to burst at 33% of the tank
burst pressure.
* * * * *
Sec. 179.15 [Amended]
12. In addition, in Sec. 179.15, the following changes are made:
a. In the introductory text, the wording ``pressure relief system''
is revised to read ``pressure relief device, made of material
compatible with the lading,''.
b. In the paragraph (b) heading, the word ``valves'' is revised to
read ``devices''.
c. In paragraph (b)(2)(i), the wording ``start-to-discharge
pressure'' is revised to read ``start-to-discharge pressure of a
pressure relief device''.
d. In the paragraph (c) heading, the word ``systems'' is revised to
read ``devices''.
e. In paragraph (e) introductory text, at the end of the first
sentence, the wording ``nonreclosing pressure relief valve'' is revised
to read ``reclosing pressure relief valve''.
Sec. 179.100-7 [Amended]
13. In Sec. 179.100-7, in the paragraph (a) table, as revised at 61
FR 28679, effective October 1, 1996, the following changes are made:
a. In the first entry, ``AAR TC128, Gr. B'', in the third column,
the entry ``20'' is revised to read ``19''.
b. In the second entry, ``ASTM A 302, Gr. B'', in the third column,
the entry ``19'' is revised to read ``20''.
Sec. 179.201-4 [Amended]
14. In Sec. 179.201-4, as amended at 61 FR 28681, effective October
1, 1996, at the end of the paragraph, the wording ``ASTM Specification
A 262'' is revised to read ``ASTM Specification A 262, except that when
preparing the specimen for testing the carburized surface may be
finished by grinding or machining''.
15. In Sec. 179.300-7, as amended at 61 FR 28682, effective October
1, 1996, in the paragraph (a) table, the following entries are added in
numerical order to read as follows:
Sec. 179.300-7 Materials.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elongation in
Tensile 2 inches
strength (percent)
Specifications (psi) welded welded
condition condition \1\
\1\ (longitudinal)
(minimum) (minimum)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
ASTM A285 Gr. A........................... 45,000 29
ASTM A285 Gr. B........................... 50,000 20
ASTM A285 Gr. C........................... 55,000 20
ASTM A515 Gr. 65.......................... 65,000 20
ASTM A515 Gr. 70.......................... 70,000 20
ASTM A516 Gr. 70.......................... 70,000 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maximum stresses to be used in calculations.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC on September 16, 1996, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.
Kelley S. Coyner,
Deputy Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-24124 Filed 9-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.