issue-1996-05-03•Federal Register final rules — 1996-05-03
Federal Register final rules — 1996-05-03
issue-1996-05-03Federal Register final rules — 1996-05-03Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-9910 Establishment of the Administrative Review Board
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19982-19989]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9910]
[[Page 19981]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Labor
_______________________________________________________________________
41 CFR Part 50-203
Employment and Training Administration
20 CFR Part 601, et al.
Employment Standards Administration
20 CFR Part 702
Office of the Secretary
29 CFR Part 1, et al.
Wage and Hour Division
29 CFR Part 504, et al.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR 1978
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
41 CFR Part 60-1, et al.
_______________________________________________________________________
Establishment of the Administrative Review Board; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Rules and
Regulations
[[Page 19982]]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
41 CFR Part 50-203
Employment and Training Administration
20 CFR Parts 601, 617, 626, and 658
Employment Standards Administration
20 CFR Part 702
Office of the Secretary
29 CFR Parts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 22, 24, 32, and 96
Wage and Hour Division
29 CFR Parts 504, 507, 508, and 530
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1978
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
41 CFR Parts 60-1, 60-30, 60-250, and 60-741
Establishment of the Administrative Review Board
AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Employment Standards
Administration, Office of the Secretary, Wage and Hour Division,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of Federal
Contract Compliance Programs, Labor.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule amends the regulations to provide that the functions
performed by the Wage Appeals Board and the Board of Service Contract
Appeals will henceforth be performed by the Administrative Review
Board. This rule also amends the regulations to provide that when the
Administrative Review Board is reviewing administrative decisions which
were previously decided by either the Wage Appeals Board or the Board
of Service Contract Appeals it will follow the rules of practice and
procedure of the Board which would have decided the case prior to the
promulgation of this rule. This rule also amends the regulations to
provide that the functions previously performed by the Office of
Administrative Appeals in advising and assisting the Secretary and
other deciding officials of the Department of Labor will henceforth be
performed by the Administrative Review Board, which is now designated
to issue final agency decisions under a number of laws.
This rule is promulgated to consolidate within one entity the
authority delegated by the Secretary to decide administrative appeals
and matters under administrative review. This consolidation should
result in administrative efficiencies and cost savings.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David A. O'Brien, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room S-4309, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20210, Telephone (202) 219-4728
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 17, 1996, the Secretary of Labor
issued Secretary's Order 2-96 which establishes the Administrative
Review Board and transfers to it the authorities and responsibilities
previously delegated to the Wage Appeals Board and the Board of Service
Contract Appeals. Both the Wage Appeals Board and the Board of Service
Contract Appeals are eliminated by Secretary's Order 2-96. In addition
to those responsibilities, Secretary's Order 2-96 delegates to the
Administrative Review Board the Secretary of Labor's and other deciding
officials' authority to issue final agency decisions of administrative
appeals and of administrative review cases under certain laws, which
are enumerated in the Secretary's Order. Those enumerated laws are
those for which the Office of Administrative Appeals was previously
assigned the responsibility of advising and assisting the Secretary of
Labor and other agency officials in deciding administrative appeals and
matters of administrative review. The Office of Administrative Appeals
is eliminated by Secretary's Order 2-96.
The rules of practice and procedure for the conduct of an
administrative appeal or matter of administrative review brought to the
Administrative Review Board shall, until changed, continue to be the
rules that are currently prescribed for such an administrative appeal
or review.
Executive Order 12866
This rule is not classified as a ``rule'' under Executive Order
12866 on federal regulations, because it is a regulation relating to
agency organization, management or personnel. See section 3(d)(3) which
exempts this rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule
under section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601)
pertaining to regulatory flexibility do not apply to this rule. See 5
U.S.C. 601(2).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule is not subject to section 3504(h) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501) since it does not contain any new
collection of information requirements.
Publication in Final
The Department has determined that these amendments need not be
published as a proposed rule, as is generally required by the APA (5
U.S.C. 553), since this rulemaking merely reflects agency organization,
procedure, or practice. It is thus exempt from notice and comment by
virtue of section 553(b)(A).
Effective Date
This document will become effective upon publication pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d). The undersigned has determined that good cause exists
for waiving the customary requirement for delay in the effective date
of a final rule for 30 days following its publication. This
determination is based upon the fact that the rule is technical and
nonsubstantive, and merely reflects agency organization, practice and
procedure.
Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not classified as a ``rule'' under Chapter 8 of the
Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996, because it is a rule
pertaining to agency organization, procedure, or practice that does not
substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.
See 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C).
List of Subjects
20 CFR Part 601
Labor, Unemployment Compensation, Administrative Practice and
Procedure.
20 CFR Part 617
Labor, Unemployment Compensation, Administrative Practice and
Procedure.
20 CFR Part 626
Employment, Labor, Manpower training programs.
20 CFR Part 658
Labor, Manpower Training Programs, Administrative Practice and
Procedure.
20 CFR Part 702
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Insurance,
Longshoremen, Vocational rehabilitation, Workers' Compensation.
[[Page 19983]]
29 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Government contracts, Labor,
Wages.
29 CFR Part 2
Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees.
29 CFR Part 4
Administrative practice and procedure, Government contracts, Labor,
Wages, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
29 CFR Part 5
Administrative practice and procedure, Government contracts, Labor,
Wages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
29 CFR Part 6
Administrative practice and procedure, Government contracts, Labor,
Wages.
29 CFR Part 7
Administrative practice and procedure, Government contracts, Labor,
Wages.
29 CFR Part 8
Administrative practice and procedure, Government contracts, Labor,
Wages.
29 CFR Parts 22 and 24
Labor, Whistleblowing, Administrative practice and procedure.
29 CFR Part 32
Grant Programs, Civil Rights, Handicapped discrimination.
29 CFR Part 96
Labor, Nonprofit Organizations, Administrative practice and
procedure.
29 CFR Part 504
Aliens, Employment, Administrative practice and procedure.
29 CFR Part 507
Aliens, Employment, Administrative practice and procedure.
29 CFR Part 508
Aliens, Employment, Administrative practice and procedure.
29 CFR Part 530
Labor, Homeworkers, Administrative practice and procedure.
29 CFR Part 1978
Labor, Whistleblowing, Administrative practice and procedure.
41 CFR Part 50-203
Administrative practice and procedure, Government contracts,
Government procurement, Minimum wages.
41 CFR Part 60-1
Equal Employment Opportunity, Administrative practice and
procedure, Civil Rights, Government contracts.
41 CFR Part 60-30
Equal Employment Opportunity, Administrative practice and
procedure, Civil Rights, Government contracts.
41 CFR Part 60-250
Equal Employment Opportunity, Administrative Practice and
Procedure, Civil Rights, Government Contracts, Individuals With
Disabilities, Veterans.
41 CFR Part 60-741
Equal Employment Opportunity, Administrative Practice and
Procedure, Civil Rights, Government Contracts, Individuals With
Disabilities.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 20 CFR Parts 601, 617,
626, 658, and 702; and 29 CFR Parts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 22, 24, 32,
96, 504, 507, 508, 530, and 1978; and 41 CFR Parts 50-203, 60-1, 60-30,
60-250, and 60-741 are amended as follows:
TITLE 20
PART 601--ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
1. The authority citation for 20 CFR Part 601 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 26 U.S.C. Chapter 23; 29 U.S.C. 49k; 38
U.S.C. Chapters 41 and 42; 39 U.S.C. 3202(a)(1)(E) and 3202 note; 42
U.S.C. 1302; and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 4-75, 40 FR 18515.
2. Section 601.1 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 601.1 General.
* * * * *
(d) As used throughout this Part, the terms ``Secretary'' or
``Secretary of Labor'' shall refer to the Secretary of Labor, U.S.
Department of Labor, or his or her designee.
PART 617--TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR WORKERS UNDER THE TRADE
ACT OF 1974
3. The authority citation for 20 CFR Part 617 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 19 U.S.C. 2320, Secretary's Order No. 3-81, 46 FR
31117.
4. Section 617.3 is amended by revising paragraph (ff) to read as
follows:
Sec. 617.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
(ff) Secretary means the Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of
Labor, or his or her designee.
* * * * *
PART 626--INTRODUCTION TO THE REGULATIONS UNDER THE JOB TRAINING
PARTNERSHIP ACT
5. The authority citation for 20 CFR Part 626 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1579(a); sec. 6305(f), Pub. L. 100-418, 102
Stat. 1107; 29 U.S.C. 179i(e).
6. 20 CFR 626.5 is amended, in part, by revising the definition for
Secretary to read as follows:
Sec. 626.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
Secretary means the Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor,
or his or her designee.
* * * * *
PART 658--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE JOB SERVICE
SYSTEM
7. The authority citation for Part 658 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 49
et seq.; 38 U.S.C. chapters 41 and 42; 5 U.S.C. 301 et seq.;
sections 658.410, 658.411 and 658.413 also issued under 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.
8. Section 658.710 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 658.710 Decision of the Administrative Law Judge.
* * * * *
(d) If the case involves the decertification of an appeal to the
State agency, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge shall
contain a notice stating that, within 30 calendar days of the decision,
the State agency or the Administrator may appeal to the Administrative
Review Board, United States Department of Labor, by sending by
registered mail, return receipt requested, a written appeal to the
Administrative Review Board, in care of the Administrative Law Judge
who made the decision.
9. Section 658.711 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 658.711 Decision of the Administrative Review Board.
(a) Upon the receipt of an appeal to the Administrative Review
Board, United States Department of Labor, the Administrative Law Judge
shall certify the record in the case to the Administrative Review
Board, which shall make a decision to decertify or not on the basis of
the hearing record.
[[Page 19984]]
(b) The decision of the Administrative Review Board shall be final,
shall be in writing, and shall set forth the factual and legal basis
for the decision. Notice of the Administrative Review Board's decision
shall be published in the Federal Register, and copies shall be made
available for public inspection and copying.
PART 702--ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE
10. The authority citation for 20 CFR Part 702 is revised to read
as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 8171 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No.
6. of 1950, 15 FR 3174, 3 CFR, 1949-1953, Comp. p. 1004, 64 Stat.
1263; 33 U.S.C. 939; 36 D.C. Code 501 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1651 et
seq.; 43 U.S.C. 1331; Secretary's Order 1-93, 58 FR 21190.
Sec. 702.433 [Amended]
11. Section 702.433 is amended by substituting the words
``Administrative Review Board,'' for ``Assistant Secretary for
Employment Standards'' wherever they appear in paragraphs (e) and (f).
Sec. 702.434 [Amended]
12. Section 702.434 is amended by substituting the words
``Administrative Review Board,'' for ``Assistant Secretary for
Employment Standards'' wherever they appear in paragraphs (a), (b), or
(c).
TITLE 29
PART 1--PROCEDURES FOR PREDETERMINATION OF WAGE RATES
13. The authority citation for 29 CFR Part 1 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; R.S. 161, 64 Stat. 1267; Reorganization
Plan No. 14 of 1950, 5 U.S.C. appendix; 29 U.S.C. 259; 40 U.S.C.
276a-276a-7; 40 U.S.C. 276c; and the laws listed in appendix A of
this part.
Sec. Sec. 1.1, 1.6, 1.9 [Amended]
14. In 29 CFR Part 1 remove the words ``Wage Appeals Board'' and
add, in their place, the words ``Administrative Review Board'' in the
following places:
(a) Section 1.1(a);
(b) Section 1.6(e)(2);
(c) Section 1.9 in the section heading and in the text in two
places.
PART 2--GENERAL REGULATIONS
15. The authority citation for 29 CFR Part 2 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; Reorganization Plan No. 6 of 1950, 15
FR 3174, 64 Stat. 1263; 5 U.S.C. 552-556; Section 2.3 also issued
under 31 U.S.C. 952.
16. Subpart A of Part 2 is amended by adding Sec. 2.8 to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.8 Final agency decisions.
Final agency decision issued under the statutory authority of the
U.S. Department of Labor may be issued by the Secretary of Labor, or by
his or her designee under a written delegation of authority. The
Administrative Review Board, an organizational entity within the Office
of the Secretary, has been delegated authority to issue final agency
decisions under the statutes, executive orders, and regulations as
provided in Secretary's Order 2-96, published on May 3, 1996.
Sec. 2.12 [Amended]
17. In 29 CFR Part 2 remove the words ``Wage Appeals Board'' and
add, in their place, the words ``Administrative Review Board'' in the
following place:
(a) Section 2.12(d).
PART 4--LABOR STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL SERVICE CONTRACTS
18. The authority citation for 29 CFR Part 4 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 351 et seq., 79 Stat. 1034, as amended in
86 Stat. 789, 90 Stat. 2358; 41 U.S.C. 38 and 39; and 5 U.S.C. 301.
Secs. 4.1, 4.6, 4.11, 4.12, 4.55, 4.163, 4.187 [Amended]
19. In 29 CFR Part 4 remove the words ``Board of Service Contract
Appeals'' and add, in their place, the words ``Administrative Review
Board'' in the following places:
(a) Section 4.1b(a), in two places;
(b) Section 4.6(d)(2);
(c) Section 4.11(e), in two places;
(d) Section 4.12(d)(4)(iii);
(e) Section 4.12(f), in two places;
(f) Section 4.55(b), in two places;
(g) Section 4.163(c), in two places; and
(h) Section 4.187(a).
PART 5--LABOR STANDARDS PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTS COVERING
FEDERALLY FINANCED AND ASSISTED CONSTRUCTION (ALSO LABOR STANDARDS
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO NONCONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS SUBJECT TO THE
CONTRACT WORK HOURS AND SAFETY STANDARDS ACT)
20. The authority citation for 29 CFR Part 5 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 276a-276a-7; 40 U.S.C. 276c; 40 U.S.C. 327-
332; Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, 5 U.S.C. appendix; 5 U.S.C.
301; and the statutes listed in section 5.1(a) of this part.
Secs. 5.8, 5.11, 5.12 [Amended]
21. In 29 CFR Part 5 remove the words ``Wage Appeals Board'' and
add, in their place, the words ``Administrative Review Board'' in the
following places:
(a) Section 5.8(c);
(b) Section 5.11(c)(3);
(c) Section 5.11(d);
(d) Section 5.12(c);
(e) Section 5.12(d)(2)(iv)(C); and
(f) Section 5.12(d)(5), in two places.
Sec. 5.8 [Amended]
22. In 29 CFR Part 5 remove the words ``Board of Service Contract
Appeals'' and add, in their place, the words ``Administrative Review
Board'' in the following place:
(a) Section 5.8(c).
PART 6--RULES OF PRACTICE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS ENFORCING
LABOR STANDARDS IN FEDERAL AND FEDERALLY ASSISTED CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTS AND FEDERAL SERVICE CONTRACTS
23. The authority citation for 29 CFR Part 6 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 4 and 5, 79 Stat. 1034, 1035 as amended by 86
Stat. 789, 790, 41 U.S.C. 353 and 354; 5 U.S.C. 301; Reorg. Plan No.
14 of 1950, 64 Stat. 1267, 5 U.S.C. Appendix; 46 Stat. 1494, as
amended by 49 Stat. 1011, 78 Stat. 238, 40 U.S.C. 276a- 276a-7; 76
Stat. 357-359, 40 U.S.C. 327-332; 48 Stat. 948, as amended by 63
Stat. 108, 72 Stat. 967, 40 U.S.C. 276c.
Secs. 6.18, 6.19, 6.20, 6.21, 6.56, 6.57 [Amended]
24. In 29 CFR Part 6 remove the words ``Board of Service Contract
Appeals'' and add, in their place, the words ``Administrative Review
Board'' in the following places:
(a) Section 6.18(b)(3);
(b) Section 6.19(b)(1);
(c) Section 6.20, in two places;
(d) Section 6.21 (a) and (b);
(e) Section 6.56; and
(f) Section 6.57.
Secs. 6.32, 6.33, 6.34, 6.35 [Amended]
25. In 29 CFR Part 6 remove the words ``Wage Appeals Board'' and
add, in their place, the words ``Administrative Review Board'' in the
following places:
(a) Section 6.32(b)(4);
(b) Section 6.33(b)(1);
(c) Section 6.34, in two places; and
(d) Section 6.35, in two places.
Secs. 6.8, 6.43, 6.44, 6.46 [Amended]
26. In 29 CFR Part 6 remove the words ``Board of Service Contract
Appeals or Wage Appeals Board'' and add, in their place, the words
``Administrative Review Board'' in the following places:
(a) Section 6.8;
(b) Section 6.43(b)(3);
(c) Section 6.44(b); and
(d) Section 6.46.
[[Page 19985]]
Sec. 6.45 [Amended]
27. In 29 CFR Part 6 remove the words ``Board of Service Contract
Appeals'' and ``Wage Appeals Board'' and add, in their place, the words
``Administrative Review Board'' in the following place:
(a) Section 6.45.
PART 7--PRACTICE BEFORE WAGE APPEALS BOARD
28. The authority citation for 29 CFR Part 7 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Reorg. Plan No. 14 of 1950, 64 Stat. 1267; 5 U.S.C.
301, 3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 1007; sec. 2, 48 Stat. 948 as
amended; 40 U.S.C. 276c; secs. 104, 105, 76 Stat. 358, 359; 40
U.S.C. 330, 331; 65 Stat. 290; 36 FR 306, 8755.
29. The part heading for 29 CFR Part 7 is revised to read as
follows:
PART 7--PRACTICE BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD WITH REGARD
TO FEDERAL AND FEDERALLY ASSISTED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
Secs. 7.1, 7.3, 7.5, 7.7, 7.8, 7.15, 7.16 [Amended]
30. In 29 CFR Part 7 remove the words ``Wage Appeals Board'' and
add, in their place, the words ``Administrative Review Board'' in the
following places:
(a) Section 7.1(a); and
(b) Section 7.3;
(c) Section 7.5(a)(2);
(d) Section 7.7;
(e) Section 7.8 in the section heading;
(f) Section 7.15(a); and
(g) Section 7.16(a).
Sec. 7.16 [Amended]
31. In 29 CFR Part 7 remove the words ``Executive Secretary'' and
add, in their place, the words ``Executive Director'' in the following
place:
(a) Section 7.16(a).
32. Section 7.1 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 7.1 Purpose and scope.
(a) This part contains the rules of practice of the Administrative
Review Board when it is exercising its jurisdiction described in
paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *
PART 8--PRACTICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF SERVICE CONTRACT APPEALS
33. The authority citation for 29 CFR Part 8 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 4 and 5, 79 Stat. 1034, 1035, as amended by 86
Stat. 789, 790, 41 U.S.C. 353, 354; 5 U.S.C. 301; Reorg. Plan No. 14
of 1950, 64 Stat. 1267, 5 U.S.C. Appendix; 76 Stat. 357-359, 40
U.S.C. 327-332.
34. The part heading for 29 CFR Part 8 is revised to read as
follows:
PART 8--PRACTICE BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD WITH REGARD
TO FEDERAL SERVICE CONTRACTS
Secs. 8.1, 8.4, 8.6, 8.9, 8.10, 8.18 [Amended]
35. In 29 CFR Part 8 remove the words ``Board of Service Contract
Appeals'' and add, in their place, the words ``Administrative Review
Board'' in the following places:
(a) Section 8.1(a);
(b) Section 8.4(a)(2);
(c) Section 8.6 in the section heading;
(d) Section 8.9 in the section heading;
(e) Section 8.10(a); and
(f) Section 8.18.
Sec. 8.10 [Amended]
36. In 29 CFR Part 8 remove the words ``Executive Secretary'' and
add, in their place, the words ``Executive Director'' in the following
place:
(a) Section 8.10 (a).
Sec. 8.0 [Removed]
37. Section 8.0 is removed.
38. Section 8.1 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 8.1 Purpose and scope.
(a) This part contains the rules of practice of the Administrative
Review Board when it is exercising its jurisdiction described in
paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *
PART 22--PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES ACT OF 1986
39. The authority citation for 29 CFR Part 22 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 99-509, Secs. 6101-6104, 100 Stat. 1874, 31
U.S.C. 3801-3812.
40. Section 22.2 is amended by revising paragraph(c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 22.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(c) Authority head means the Secretary of Labor or his or her
designee.
* * * * *
PART 24--PROCEDURES FOR THE HANDLING OF DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS
UNDER FEDERAL EMPLOYEE PROTECTION STATUTES
41. The authority citation for 29 CFR Part 24 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300j-9(i); 33 U.S.C. 1367; 15 U.S.C. 2622;
42 U.S.C. 6971; 42 U.S.C. 7622; 42 U.S.C. 5851; 42 U.S.C. 9610.
42. Section 24.1 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and by adding
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 24.1 Purpose and scope.
(a) This part implements the several employee protection provisions
for which the Secretary of Labor has been given responsibility pursuant
to the following federal statutes: Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C.
300j-9(i); Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1367; Toxic
Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2622; Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42
U.S.C. 6971; Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7622; Energy Reorganization Act
of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5851; Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9610.
* * * * *
(c) Throughout this part, ``Secretary'' or ``Secretary of Labor''
shall mean the Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor, or his or
her designee.
PART 32--NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAP IN PROGRAMS AND
ACTIVITIES RECEIVING OR BENEFITTING FROM FEDERAL FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE
Subpart A--General Provisions
43. The authority for 29 CFR Part 32 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-112,
87 Stat. 394 (29 U.S.C. 794); sec. 111(a), Rehabilitation Act
Amendments of 1974, Pub. L. 93-516, 88 Stat. 1619 (29 U.S.C. 706);
secs. 119 and 122 of the Rehabilitation Comprehensive Services and
Developmental Disabilities Amendments of 1978, Pub. L. 95-602, 92
Stat. 2955; Executive Order 11914; 41 FR 17871.
44. Section 32.3 is amended by revising the term for Secretary to
read as follows:
Sec. 32.3 Definitions.
As used in this part, the term:
* * * * *
Secretary means the Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor,
or his or her designee.
* * * * *
PART 96--AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTS, CONTRACTS, AND OTHER
AGREEMENTS
45. The authority citation for 29 CFR Part 96 continues to read:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 7500 et seq.; OMB Circular No. A-128; OMB
Circular No. A-110; and OMB Circular No. A-133.
46. Section 96.603 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and
(b)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 96.603 Grants.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
[[Page 19986]]
(4) Filing exceptions to decision. The decision of the
administrative law judge shall constitute final agency action by the
Secretary of Labor, unless within 21 days after receipt of the decision
of the administrative law judge, a party dissatisfied with the decision
or any part thereof has filed exceptions with the Administrative Review
Board, United States Department of Labor, specifically identifying the
procedures or finding of fact, law, or policy with which the exception
is taken. Any exceptions not specifically urged shall be deemed to have
been waived. Thereafter, the decision of the administrative law judge
shall become the decision of the Secretary of Labor, unless the
Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, within
30 days of such filing, has notified the parties that the case has been
accepted for review.
(5) Review by the Administrative Review Board, United States
Department of Labor. Any case accepted for review by the Administrative
Review Board, United States Department of Labor, shall be decided
within 180 days of such acceptance. If not so decided, the decision of
the administrative law judge shall become the final decision of the
Secretary of Labor.
CHAPTER V--WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
PART 504-- ATTESTATIONS BY FACILITIES USING NONIMMIGRANT ALIENS AS
REGISTERED NURSES
47. The authority citation for 29 CFR Part 504 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(a), 1182(m) and Pub. L.
101-238, sec. 3(c)(1), 103 Stat. 2099, 2103; and sec. 341 (a) and
(b), Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057.
Sec. 504.445 [Amended]
48. In 29 CFR Part 504 remove the words ``Office of Administrative
Appeals, room S-4309'' and add, in their place, the words
``Administrative Review Board'' in the following place:
(a) Section 504.445(f).
PART 507-- ENFORCEMENT OF H-1B LABOR CONDITION APPLICATIONS
49. The authority citation for 29 CFR Part 507 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), 1182(n), and 1184, and
29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.; Pub. L. 102-232, 105 stat. 1733, 1748(8 U.S.C.
1182 note); and sec. 341 (a) and (b), Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat.
2057.
Sec. 507.845 [Amended]
50. In 29 CFR Part 507 remove the words ``Office of Administrative
Appeals, room S-4309'' and add, in their place, the words
``Administrative Review Board'' in the following place:
(a) Section 507.845(f).
PART 508--ATTESTATIONS FILED BY EMPLOYERS UTILIZING F-1 STUDENTS
FOR OFF-CAMPUS WORK
Subpart K--Enforcement of the Attestation Process for Attestations
Filed by Employers Utilizing F-1 Students in Off-campus Work
51. The authority citation for 29 CFR Part 508 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.; and sec. 221(a), Pub. L. 101-
649, 104 Stat. 4978, 5027 (8 U.S.C. 1184 note).
Sec. 508.1045 [Amended]
52. In 29 CFR Part 508 remove the words ``Office of Administrative
Appeals, room S-4309'' and add, in their place, the words
``Administrative Review Board'' in the following place:
(a) Section 508.1045(f).
PART 530--EMPLOYMENT OF HOMEWORKERS IN CERTAIN INDUSTRIES
Subpart A--Definitions
53. The authority citation for 29 CFR Part 530 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 11, 52 Stat. 1066 (29 U.S.C. 211) as amended by
sec. 9, 63 Stat. 910 (29 U.S.C. 211(d)); Secretary's Order No. 6-84,
49 FR 32473, August 14, 1984; and Employment Standards Order No. 85-
01, June 5, 1985.
54. Section 530.1 is amended by adding paragraph (l) to read as
follows:
Sec. 530.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
(l) As used throughout this part the terms ``Secretary'' or
``Secretary of Labor'' shall mean the Secretary of Labor, U.S.
Department of Labor, or his or her designee.
PART 1978--RULES FOR IMPLEMENTING 49 U.S.C. 31105, THE
WHISTLEBLOWER PROVISION OF THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE
ACT OF 1982 (STAA)
Subpart B--Rules of Procedure
55. The authority citation for 29 CFR Part 1978 is revised to read
as follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2); 29 U.S.C. 660(c)(2); 49 U.S.C.
31101 and 31105; Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-90, 55 FR 9033.
56. Section 1978.109 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) (1),
(2), (4) and (5) to read as follows:
Sec. 1978.109 Decision and orders.
* * * * *
(c) Final order. (1) Within 120 days after issuance of the
administrative law judge's decision and order, the Administrative
Review Board, United States Department of Labor, shall issue a final
decision and order based on the record and the decision and order of
the administrative law judge.
(2) The parties may file with the Administrative Review Board,
United States Department of Labor, briefs in support of or in
opposition to the administrative law judge's decision and order within
thirty days of the issuance of that decision unless the Administrative
Review Board, United States Department of Labor, upon notice to the
parties, establishes a different briefing schedule.
* * * * *
(4) Where the Administrative Review Board, United States Department
of Labor, determines that the named party has not violated the law, the
final order shall deny the complaint.
(5) The final decision and order of the Administrative Review
Board, United States Department of Labor, shall be served upon all
parties to the proceeding.
57. Section 1978.110 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c)
to read as follows:
Sec. 1978.110 Judicial review.
* * * * *
(b) A final order of the Administrative Review Board, United States
Department of Labor, shall not be subject to judicial review in any
criminal or other civil proceedings (49 U.S.C. 2305(d)(2)).
(c) The record of a case, including the record of proceedings
before the administrative law judge, shall be transmitted by the
Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, to the
appropriate court pursuant to the rules of such court.
58. Section 1978.111 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d)
(2) and (3) to read as follows:
Sec. 1978.111 Withdrawal of section 405 complaints, objections, and
findings; settlement
* * * * *
(c) At any time before the findings or order become final, a party
may withdraw his objections to the findings or order by filing a
written withdrawal with the administrative law judge or, if the case is
on review, with the Administrative Review Board, United States
Department of Labor. The judge or the Administrative Review Board,
United States Department of Labor, as the case may be, shall affirm any
portion
[[Page 19987]]
of the findings or preliminary order with respect to which the
objection was withdrawn.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Adjudicatory settlement. At any time after the filing of
objections to the Assistant Secretary's findings and/or order, the case
may be settled if the participating parties agree to a settlement and
such settlement is approved by the Administrative Review Board, United
States Department of Labor, or the ALJ. A copy of the settlement shall
be filed with the ALJ or the Administrative Review Board, United States
Department of Labor as the case may be.
(3) If, under paragraph (d) (1) or (2) of this section the named
person makes an offer to settle the case which the Assistant Secretary,
when acting as the prosecuting party, deems to be a fair and equitable
settlement of all matters at issue and the complainant refuses to
accept the offer, the Assistant Secretary may decline to assume the
role of prosecuting party as set forth in Sec. 1978.107(a). In such
circumstances, the Assistant Secretary shall immediately notify the
complainant that his review of the settlement offer may cause the
Assistant Secretary to decline the role of prosecuting party. After the
Assistant Secretary has reviewed the offer and when he or she has
decided to decline the role of prosecuting party, the Assistant
Secretary shall immediately notify all parties of his or her decision
in writing and, if the case is before the administrative law judge, or
the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor on
review, a copy of the notice shall be sent to the appropriate official.
Upon receipt of the Assistant Secretary's notice, the parties shall
assume the roles set forth in Sec. 1978.107(b).
TITLE 41
PART 50-203--RULES OF PRACTICE
Subpart A--Proceedings Under Section 5 of the Walsh-Healey Public
Contracts Act
59. The authority for 41 CFR Part 50-203 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 4, 49 Stat. 2038; 41 U.S.C. 38.
60. Sec. 50-203.1 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 50-203.1 Reports of breach or violation.
* * * * *
(b) A report of breach or violation may be reported to the nearest
office of the Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards
Administration or with the Administrator, Wage and Hour Division,
Employment Standards Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20210.
* * * * *
Sec. 50-203.1 [Amended]
61. In Sec. 50-203.1(d) remove the words ``a Regional Director of
the Wage and Hour Public Contracts Divisions'' and add, in their place,
``the Wage and Hour Division''.
Sec. 50-203.2 [Amended]
62. In Sec. 50-203.2 remove the word ``Deputy''.
Secs. 50-203.3; 50-203.8 [Amended]
63. In 41 CFR Part 50-203 remove the words ``the Examiner'' and
add, in their place, the words ``the administrative law judge'' in the
following places:
(a) Section 50-203.3(a); and
(b) Section 50-203.8(j).
Sec. 50-203.6 [Amended]
64. Section 50-203.6(b) is amended by removing the following
language from its first sentence: ``(or the Administrator holding the
hearing as provided in Sec. 50-203(m))''.
Sec. 50-203.11 [Amended]
65. In Sec. 50-203.11(a) remove the words ``Admininstrator of
Workplace Standards'' and add, in their place, the words
``Administrative Review Board''.
66. In Sec. 50-203.11 remove the word ``Administrator'' and add, in
its place, the words ``Administrative Review Board'' in the following
places:
(a) Section 50-203.11(d), in three places; and
(b) Section 50-203.11(e).
67. Section 50-203.11 is amended by revising paragraph (f), and by
removing paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 50-203.11 Review.
* * * * *
(f) If the respondent is found to have violated the Act, the
Administrative Review Board shall determine whether respondent shall be
relieved from the application of the ineligible list provisions of
section 3 of the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act (sec. 4, 49 Stat.
2039; 41 U.S.C. 37).
Secs. 50-203.2-50.203.11 [Amended]
68. In 41 CFR Part 50-203 remove the words ``Trial Examiner'' and
add, in their place, the words ``administrative law judge'' in the
following places:
(a) Section 50-203.2, in two places;
(b) Section 50-203.3(d);
(c) Section 50-203.3(e);
(d) Section 50-203.4(a);
(e) Section 50-203.4(b);
(f) Section 50-203.5, in four places;
(g) Section 50-203.6(a);
(h) Section 50-203.6(b);
(i) Section 50-203.6(c);
(j) Section 50-203.7(a);
(k) Section 50-203.7(b);
(l) Section 50-203.8(b);
(m) Section 50-203.8(d);
(n) Section 50-203.8(e), in two places;
(o) Section 50-203.8(h);
(p) Section 50-203.8(j);
(q) Section 50-203.8(k), in two places;
(r) Section 50-203.8(l), in two places;
(s) Section 50-203.9(a), in two places;
(t) Section 50-203.10, in the heading;
(u) Section 50-203.10(a), in three places;
(v) Section 50-203.10(b), in two places;
(w) Section 50-203.11(a), in two places;
(x) Section 50-203.11(d), in two places; and
Sec. 50-203.11 [Amended]
68a. In 41 CFR Part 50-203 remove the words ``Trial Examiner's''
and add, in their place, the words ``administrative law judge's'' in
the following places:
(a) Section 50-203.11(b);
(b) Section 50-203.11(e);
Sec. 50-203.8 [Amended]
69. In 41 CFR Part 50-203 remove the words ``Trial Examiners'' and
add, in their place, the words ``administrative law judges'' in the
following places:
(a) Section 50-203.8(b);
(b) Section 50-203.8(c);
70. In 41 CFR Part 50-203 remove the word ``examiners'' and add, in
its place, the words ``administrative law judges'' in the following
places:
(a) Section 50-203.8(b);
(b) Section 50-203.8(c);
71. Section 50-203.8 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 50-203.8 Hearing.
(a) The hearing for the purpose of taking evidence upon a formal
complaint shall be conducted by an administrative law judge. * * *
Sec. 50-203.8 [Amended]
72. Section 50-203.8 is amended by removing paragraph (m).
Sec. 50-203.10 [Amended]
73. In Sec. 50-203.10(a) remove the words ``Secretary of Labor''
and add, in their place, ``Administrative Review Board''.
Sec. 50-203.11 [Amended]
74. In Sec. 50-203.11(a) remove the words ``Administrator of
Workplace Standards'' and add, in their place, ``Administrative Review
Board''.
[[Page 19988]]
75. Section 50-203.12 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 50-203.12 Effective date.
The amendments to Subpart A shall become effective upon publication
in the Federal Register May 3, 1996; Provided, however, That in any
case where a hearing has begun or has been completed prior to said
publication, the proceeding shall be conducted pursuant to the rules of
practice in effect at the time the proceeding was initiated unless the
parties stipulate in writing or orally for the record that the
proceeding be conducted in accordance with Secs. 50-203.1 to 50-203.12.
Secs. 50-203.17, 50-203.18, 50-203.20 [Amended]
76. In Part 50-203 remove the words ``Presiding Officer'' and add,
in their place, the words ``administrative law judge'' in the following
places:
(a) Section 50-203.17(d);
(b) Section 50-203.18(a);
(c) Section 50-203.18(c), in two places;
(d) Section 50-203.18(d); and
(e) Section 50-203.20, in two places;
Secs. 50-203.18, 50-203.21 [Amended]
77. In Part 50-203 remove the word ``Secretary'' and add, in its
place, the words ``Administrative Review Board'' in the following
places:
(a) Section 50-203.18(d), in two places;
(b) Section 50-203.21(b) introductory text; and
(c) Section 50-203.21(d);
78. Section 50-203.17 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read
as follows:
Sec. 50-203.17 Hearings.
(a) Hearings held for the purpose of receiving evidence with regard
to prevailing minimum wages in the various industries shall be
conducted by an administrative law judge.
* * * * *
Sec. 50-203.19 [Amended]
79. In Sec. 50-203.19 remove the words ``Secretary or the Hearing
Examiner'' and add, in their place, ``administrative law judge''.
80. Section 50-203.21 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read
as follows:
Sec. 50-203.21 Decisions.
(a) Within 30 days after the close of the hearing, each interested
person at the hearing may file with the administrative law judge an
original and four copies of a statement containing proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law, together with reasons for such proposals.
The administrative law judge shall, immediately following the
termination of the thirty-day period provided for the filing of
proposed findings and conclusions, certify the complete record to the
Administrative Review Board.
* * * * *
Sec. 50-203.23 [Removed]
81. Section 50-203.23 is removed.
PART 60-1--OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS
82. The authority citation for 41 CFR Part 60-1 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: Sec 201, E.O. 11246 (30 FR 12319), as amended by E.O.
12086.
83. Part 60-1.3 of Subpart A is amended by revising the definition
for ``Secretary'' to read as follows:
Sec. 60-1.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Secretary means the Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor,
or his or her designee.
* * * * *
84. Part 60-1.26 of Subpart B is amended by revising paragraph (d)
to read as follows:
Sec. 60-1.26 Enforcement proceedings.
* * * * *
(d) Decision following administrative proceeding. If it is
determined after a hearing (or after the contractor waives a hearing)
that the contractor is violating the order or the regulations issued
thereunder, the Administrative Review Board, United States Department
of Labor, (in accordance with 41 CFR 60-30.30) shall issue an
Administrative order enjoining the violations and requiring the
contractor to provide whatever remedies are appropriate, and imposing
whatever sanctions are appropriate, or any of the above. In any event,
failure to comply with the Administrative order shall result in the
imposition of the sanctions contained in section 209 (a)(5) or (a)(6)
of the Executive Order.
* * * * *
PART 60-30--RULES OF PRACTICE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS TO
ENFORCE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11246
85. The authority citation for 41 CFR Part 60-30 is revised to read
as follows:
Authority: Executive Order 11246, as amended, 30 FR 12319, 32 FR
14303, as amended by E.O. 12086; 29 U.S.C. 793, as amended, and 38
U.S.C. 4212, as amended.
86. Section 60-30.27 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60-30.27 Recommended decision.
Within a reasonable time after the filing of briefs, the
Administrative Law Judge shall recommend findings, conclusions, and a
decision. These recommendations shall be certified, together with the
record for recommended decision, to the Administrative Review Board,
United States Department of Labor, for a final Administrative order.
The recommended findings, conclusions, and decision shall be served on
all parties and amici to the proceeding.
87. Section 60-30.28 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60-30.28 Exceptions to recommended decisions.
Within 14 days after receipt of the recommended findings,
conclusions, and decision, any party may submit exceptions to said
recommendation. These exceptions may be responded to by other parties
within 14 days of their receipt by said parties. All exceptions and
responses shall be filed with the Administrative Review Board, United
States Department of Labor. Service of such briefs or exceptions and
responses shall be made simultaneously on all parties to the
proceeding. Requests to the Administrative Review Board, United States
Department of Labor, for additional time in which to file exceptions
and responses shall be in writing and copies shall be served
simultaneously on other parties. Requests for extensions must be
received no later than 3 days before the exceptions are due.
88. Section 60-30.29 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60-30.29 Record.
After expiration of the time for filing briefs and exceptions, the
Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, shall
make a final decision, which shall be the final Administrative order,
on the basis of the record. The record shall consist of the record for
recommended decision, the rulings and recommended decision of the
Administrative Law Judge and the exceptions and briefs filed subsequent
to the Administrative Law Judge's decision.
89. Section 60-30.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60-30.30 Final Administrative Order.
After expiration of the time for filing, the Administrative Review
Board, United States Department of Labor, shall make a final
Administrative order which shall be served on all parties. If the
Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor,
[[Page 19989]]
concludes that the defendant has violated the Executive Order, the
equal opportunity clause, or the regulations, an Administrative order
shall be issued enjoining the violations, and requiring the contractor
to provide whatever remedies are appropriate, and imposing whatever
sanctions are appropriate, or any of the above. In any event, failure
to comply with the Administrative order shall result in the immediate
cancellation, termination and suspension of the respondent's contracts
and/or debarment of the respondent from further contracts.
90. Section 60-30.35 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60-30.35 Recommended decision after hearing.
Within 15 days after the hearing is concluded, the Administrative
Law Judge shall recommend findings, conclusions, and a decision. The
Administrative Law Judge may permit the parties to file written post-
hearing briefs within this time period, but the Administrative Law
Judge's recommendations shall not be delayed pending receipt of such
briefs. These recommendations shall be certified, together with the
record, to the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of
Labor, for a final Administrative order. The recommended decision shall
be served on all parties and amici to the proceeding.
91. Section 60-30.36 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60-30.36 Exceptions to recommendations.
Within 10 days after receipt of the recommended findings,
conclusions and decision, any party may submit exceptions to said
recommendations. Exceptions may be responded to by other parties within
7 days after receipt by said parties of the exceptions. All exceptions
and responses shall be filed with the Administrative Review Board,
United States Department of Labor. Briefs or exceptions and responses
shall be served simultaneously on all parties to the proceeding.
92. Section 60-30.37 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 60-30.37 Final Administrative order.
After expiration of the time for filing exceptions, the
Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, shall
issue a final Administrative order which shall be served on all
parties. Unless the Administrative Review Board, United States
Department of Labor, issues a final Administrative order within 30 days
after the expiration of the time for filing exceptions, the
Administrative Law Judge's recommended decision shall become a final
Administrative order which shall become effective on the 31st day after
expiration of the time for filing exceptions. Except as to specific
time periods required in this subsection, 41 CFR 60-30.30 shall be
applicable to this subsection.
PART 60-250--AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTORS AND
SUBCONTRACTORS FOR DISABLED VETERANS AND VETERANS OF THE VIETNAM
ERA
93. The authority citation for 41 CFR Part 60-250 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 4211 and 4212; 29 U.S.C. 793; Executive
Order 11758 (39 FR 2075, January 15, 1974; 3 CFR 1971-1975 Comp. p.
841).
Sec. 60-250.29 [Amended]
94. Part 60-250 in Subpart B is amended by removing paragraph
(b)(3) in Sec. 60-250.29.
PART 60-741--AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTORS AND
SUBCONTRACTORS FOR HANDICAPPED WORKERS
95. The authority citation for 41 CFR Part 60-741 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: Sec. 503, Pub. L. 93-1112, 87 Stat. 393 (20 U.S.C.
793), as amended by sec. 111, Pub. L. 93-516, 88 Stat. 1619 (29
U.S.C. 706) and E.O. 11758.
Sec. 60-741.29 [Amended]
96. Part 60-741 in Subpart B is amended by removing paragraph
(b)(3) in Sec. 60-741.29.
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 17th day of April 1996.
Robert B. Reich,
Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 96-9910 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-23-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11090 Amendment to the List of Proscribed Destinations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11090]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
22 CFR Part 126
[Public Notice 2346]
Amendment to the List of Proscribed Destinations
AGENCY: Department of State.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of State is amending the International Traffic
in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to reflect that it is no longer the policy
of the United States to deny licenses, other approvals, exports and
imports of defense articles and defense services, destined for or
originating in the Russian Federation. All requests for approval
involving items covered by the U.S. Munitions List will be reviewed on
a case-by-case basis.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 3, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gordon J. Stirling, Office of Arms Export and Export Control Policy,
Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State (202/647-
0397).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In connection with the President's policy
that U.S. laws and regulations be updated to reflect the end of the
Cold War, the Department of State is amending the ITAR to reflect that
it is no longer the policy of the United States, pursuant to
Sec. 126.1, to deny licenses, other approvals, exports and imports of
defense articles and defense services, destined for or originating in
the Russian Federation. Requests for licenses or other approvals for
Russia involving items covered by the U.S. Munitions List (22 CFR part
121) will no longer be presumed to be disapproved.
This amendment to the ITAR involves a foreign affairs function of
the United States and thus is excluded from the major rule procedures
of Executive Order 12291 (46 FR 13193) and the procedures of 5 U.S.C.
553 and 554. This final rule does not contain a new or amended
information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 808, as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (the ``Act''), the
Department of State has found for foreign policy reasons that notice
and public procedure under section 251 of the Act is impracticable and
contrary to the public interest.
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 126
Arms and munitions, Exports.
Accordingly, under the authority of Section 38 of the Arms Export
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) and Executive Order 11958, as amended, 22
CFR subchapter M is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 126 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 2, 38, 40, 42, and 71, Arms Export Control Act,
Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2780, 2791, and
2797); E.O. 11958, 41 FR 4311; E.O. 11322, 32 FR 119; 22 U.S.C.
2658; 22 U.S.C. 287c; E.O. 12918, 59 FR 28206.
Sec. 126.1 [Amended]
2. Section 126.1 is amended by removing ``Russia,'' from paragraph
(a).
Dated: April 23, 1996.
Lynn E. Davis,
Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-11090 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-25-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11087 Regulations Implementing Section 7 of the Negotiated Rates Act of 1993
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19859-19860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11087]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
49 CFR Parts 1051, 1053 and 1312
[Ex Parte No. MC-180 (Sub-No. 3)]
Regulations Implementing Section 7 of the Negotiated Rates Act of
1993
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board (Board).1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-88, 109
Stat. 803 (ICCTA), which was enacted on December 29, 1995, and took
effect on January 1, 1996, abolished the Interstate Commerce
Commission and transferred certain functions and proceedings to the
Board.
ACTION: Final Rule; Termination of Proceeding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board is rescinding the rules previously issued by the
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in this proceeding concerning the
off-bill discounting provisions of section 7 of the Negotiated Rates
Act of 1993 (NRA), and terminating the proceeding. The ICC Termination
Act of 1995 repealed and did not reenact the requirement that the ICC,
or any agency, issue or maintain regulations to carry out the remaining
requirements of section 7.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The action is effective on May 3, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Martin, (202) 927-6033 [TDD
for the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accord with section 7 of the NRA, Public
Law No. 103-180, the ICC adopted regulations relating to off-bill
discounting. Regs. Implementing Sec. 7 of the Negotiated Rates Act
1993, 9 I.C.C.2d 1263 (1993). The rules, which were published at 59 FR
2303 (Jan. 14, 1994), prohibited, except as to certain services, motor
common and contract carriers of property from providing ``off-bill
discounting.'' Off-bill discounting is a practice by which a carrier
provides a reduction in a tariff rate or contract rate
[[Page 19860]]
to a person who does not pay the freight charges for the services
involved.
Section 7 also contained other requirements beyond prohibiting off-
bill discounting. To implement these provisions, the regulations also
(1) made it unlawful to provide misleading or false billing information
to a carrier; and (2) required that freight bills disclose the rates
and reductions or allowances involved. 49 CFR 1051.
The ICC issued a further order, 59 FR 14570, March 19, 1994,
(served March 23, 1994) responding to inquiries it had received
concerning the rules. In that order, the ICC invited additional
questions and comments from interested parties, and it indicated that a
further decision would be forthcoming. A number of comments have been
filed.
Although it retained (with modifications) the other requirements of
section 7, the ICCTA repealed and did not reenact the former statutory
prohibition against off-bill discounting. See 49 U.S.C. 13708.
Moreover, the ICCTA repealed and did not reenact the requirement that
the ICC, or any agency, issue or maintain regulations to carry out the
remaining requirements of section 7. Id. Therefore, the regulations,
including the prohibition against off-bill discounting, are
rescinded.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Section 204(a) of the ICCTA provides that ``[t]he Board
shall promptly rescind all regulations established by the Interstate
Commerce Commission that are based on provisions of law repealed and
not substantively reenacted by this Act.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequently, further consideration of the comments is unnecessary,
and this proceeding is terminated.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Section 204(b)(3) of the ICCTA provides that, ``in the case
of a proceeding under a provision of law repeal[ed], and not
reenacted, by this Act such proceeding shall be terminated.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 1051
Buses, Freight, Motor Carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
49 CFR Part 1053
Motor contract carriers.
49 CFR Part 1312
Household goods freight forwarders, Motor carriers, Moving of
household goods, Pipelines, Tariffs, Water carriers.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 721(a); Sections 204(a) and 204(b)(3) of
the ICC Termination Act.
Decided: April 17, 1996,
By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Simmons, and
Commissioner Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble and under the authority
of 49 U.S.C. 721(a), title 49, chapter X of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as set forth below:
PART 1051--RECEIPTS AND BILLS
1. The authority citation for part 1051 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553, 49 U.S.C. 721(a), 13710, 14122.
Sec. 1051.2 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 1051.2, the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1) is
redesignated as the introductory text of paragraph (a) and paragraphs
(a)(1)(i) through (a)(1)(xi) are redesignated as paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(11), and paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) are removed.
PART 1053--[REMOVED]
3. Part 1053 is removed.
PART 1312--REGULATIONS FOR THE PUBLICATION, POSTING AND FILING OF
TARIFFS, SCHEDULES AND RELATED DOCUMENTS OF MOTOR, PIPELINE AND
WATER CARRIERS, AND HOUSEHOLD GOODS FREIGHT FORWARDERS
4. The authority citation for Part 1312 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553, 49 U.S.C. 721(a), 13702.
Sec. 1312.14 [Amended]
5. In Sec. 1312.14(a), paragraph (a)(4) is removed.
[FR Doc. 96-11087 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11049 Revisions to Uniform System of Accounts, Forms, Statements, and Reporting Requirements for Natural Gas Companies
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19832-19834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11049]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 284
[Docket No. RM95-4-002]
Revisions to Uniform System of Accounts, Forms, Statements, and
Reporting Requirements for Natural Gas Companies
Issued April 29, 1996.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; Order On Clarification.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 29, 1996, the Commission issued a notice adopting
specifications for the electronic filing of the Index of Customers and
discount transportation rate report. The electronic filing of these
reports was required by Order No. 581. In response to a request for
clarification, or in the
[[Page 19833]]
alternative rehearing, of the February 29 Notice filed by the National
Registry of Capacity Rights, Inc., the Commission agrees with the
Registry that several items in the electronic filing instruction
manuals should be modified, and indicates that the Commission's staff
will issue revised instruction manuals incorporating the modifications
in the near future.
DATES: Pipelines must implement the data sets for the Index of
Customers starting on April 1, 1996, and for the discount
transportation rate report, starting with the first filing after April
1, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard A. White, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426,
(202) 208-0491
Elizabeth A. Taylor, Office of Pipeline Regulation, 888 First Street,
N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, (202) 208-0826
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to publishing the full text of
this document in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides all
interested persons an opportunity to inspect or copy the contents of
the document during normal business hours in Room 2-A, 888 First
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
The Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS), an electronic
bulletin board service, provides access to the texts of formal
documents issued by the Commission. CIPS is available at no charge to
the user and may be accessed using a personal cumputer with a modem by
dialing (202) 208-1397 if dialing locally or 1-800 856-3920 if dialing
long distance. To access CIPS, set your communications software to
19200, 14400, 12000, 9600, 7200, 4800, 2400 or 1200bps, full duplex, no
parity, 8 data bits, and 1 stop bit. The full text of this document
will be available on CIPS indefinitely in ASCII and WordPerfect 5.1
format for one year. The complete text on diskette in WordPerfect
format may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, La
Dorn Systems Corporation, also located in Room 2-A, 888 First Street,
N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
The Commission's bulletin board system can also be accessed through
the FedWorld system directly by modem or through the Internet. To
access the FedWorld system by modem:
Dial (703) 321-3339 and logon to the FedWorld system.
After logging on, type: /go FERC
To access the FedWorld system, through the Internet:
Telnet to: fedworld.gov
Select the option: [1] FedWorld
Logon to the FedWorld system
Type: /go FERC
Or:
Point your Web Browser to: http://www.fedworld.gov
Scroll down the page to select FedWorld Telnet Site
Select the option: [1] FedWorld
Logon to the FedWorld system
Type: /go FERC
On February 29, 1996, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) issued a notice adopting specifications for the electronic
filing of the Index of Customers and discount transportation rate
report.1 The electronic filing of these reports was required by
Order No. 581.2 The National Registry of Capacity Rights, Inc.
(the Registry) has filed an emergency request for clarification, or in
the alternative, rehearing, of the February 29 Notice. The Registry
seeks clarification of several items in the electronic filing
instruction manuals adopted by the February 29 Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The notice, entitled ``Notice Adopting Electronic Filing
Specifications for Index of Customers and Discount Transportation
Rate Report,'' is unreported. (February 29 Notice). 61 FR 8870,
March 6, 1996.
\2\ Revisions to Uniform System of Accounts, Forms, Statements,
and Reporting Requirements for Natural Gas Companies, 60 FR 53019
(October 11, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Background
On September 28, 1995, the Commission issued Order No. 581,
amending its Uniform System of Accounts, its forms, and its reports and
statements for natural gas companies.3 These changes include
modifications to the Commission's electronic filing requirements.
Specifically, interstate pipelines transporting or storing gas under
subparts B and G of Part 284 of the Commission's regulations must now
provide an electronic Index of Customers on their electronic bulletin
boards (EBBs) through a downloadable file that is updated
quarterly.4 In addition, the discount rate report, previously
filed only on paper, will now be filed both on paper and
electronically.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id.
\4\ To be codified at 18 CFR 284.106(c) and 284.223(b). II FERC
Stats. & Regs. Paras. 24,866 and 24,943. The file must also be filed
with the Commission; however, no paper copies of the Index of
Customers are required to be filed.
\5\ To be codified at 18 CFR 284.7(c)(6). II FERC Stats. & Regs.
para.24,847.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Order No. 581 imposed new electronic filing requirements,
it did not include the final electronic filing specifications. The
final electronic filing specifications were formulated by the
Commission staff after several informal technical conferences with the
industry, and were issued in the February 29 Notice. The February 29
Notice included two appendices: Appendix A was the ``Instruction Manual
for Electronic Filing of the Index of Customers,'' and Appendix B was
the ``Instruction Manual for Electronic Filing of the Discount
Transportation Rate Report.''
On March 13, 1996, the Registry filed an emergency request for
clarification, or in the alternative, rehearing, of the February 29
Notice. The Registry requests clarification of four items in the
instruction manuals contained in Appendices A and B to the February 29
Notice. The clarifications sought are discussed below.
II. Discussion
First, the Registry seeks clarification of General Instruction 1(b)
of both the Instruction Manual for Electronic Filing of the Index of
Customers (Index of Customers instructions) and Instruction Manual for
Electronic Filing of the Discount Transportation Rate Report (discount
rate report instructions). Instruction 1(b) states, in part, that
``[i]f the respondent does not want to report a value for a specific
data item on the record, then the data item can be omitted * * *.''
6 The Registry seeks clarification that this phrase was not
intended to give respondents the discretion to choose whether to comply
with the reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Instruction Manual for Electronic Filing of the Index of
Customers at 4, and Instruction Manual for Electronic Filing of the
Discount Transportation Rate Report at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Registry is correct. The statement purporting to give
respondents discretion whether or not to comply with the reporting
requirements was made unintentionally. All respondents subject to
sections 284.106(c), and 284.223(b) of the Commission's regulations
must comply with the Index of Customers instructions. Similarly, all
respondents subject to section 284.7(c)(6) must comply with the
discount rate report instructions. Therefore, to avoid any confusion,
the passage the Registry quotes should be revised to read: ``If a data
element is not applicable, the data element must be omitted, * * *.''
Second, the Registry seeks confirmation that the OMB control number
listed on Appendices A and B
[[Page 19834]]
are valid OMB control numbers, and that no other OMB numbers are
needed, in light of the boilerplate language contained in the General
Information sections of the Appendices. Specifically, the language
states that ``You [referring to the respondent] shall not be penalized
for failure to respond to this collection of information unless the
collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.'' 7
The Registry is concerned that if another number is needed, but not
provided, then pipelines will not be required to comply with the new
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Instruction Manual for Electronic Filing of the Index of
Customers at 3, and Instruction Manual for Electronic Filing of the
Discount Transportation Rate Report at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collections of information by federal government agencies are
subject to the recently enacted Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.8
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 revises the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1980.9 The original act required that a data collection form
display a valid OMB control number. In addition to this requirement,
the new act requires that the OMB control number be displayed on the
front page of the form.10 Further, under the new rules, where the
collection is accomplished through electronic formats, the control
number must be placed near the title.11 In compliance with these
directives, the Index of Customers instructions and discount rate
report instructions display a valid OMB control number on the front
page immediately below the title. The OMB control number displayed
below the title is valid, and is displayed according to applicable law.
Further, no other OMB numbers are needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Secs. 3501-3520;
to be codified at 5 CFR Part 1320.
\9\ Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-511, 94 Stat.
2826, amended 1986, formerly codified at 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. These
former regulations are contained in the 1995 and earlier versions of
5 CFR Part 1320.
\10\ To be codified at 5 CFR 1320.3(f)(1).
\11\ To be codified at 5 CFR 1320.3(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the Registry suggests that in the Index of Customers
instructions, ``General Information,'' more detailed language be used
in the ``Purpose'' section. Specifically, the Registry proposes that
the sentence, ``[t]he instructions herein will provide the format for
the electronic dissemination of the data on the respondent's EBB, * *
*'' be clarified to indicate that the dissemination of the data is by
means of a downloadable file in the tab-delimited format, through the
respondent's EBB.
The ``Purpose'' section of the Index of Customers instructions
reads in its entirety:
This data submission is required under 18 CFR Sec. 284.106(c)
and Sec. 284.223(b), which state that each calendar quarter an
interstate pipeline must file with the Commission an index of all of
its firm transportation and storage customers under contract as of
the first day of the calendar quarter. The pipeline must also post
an electronic format of this information on its electronic bulletin
board (EBB). The instructions herein will provide the format for the
electronic dissemination of the data on the respondent's EBB, as
well as the electronic file submitted to the Commission.12
\12\ Instruction Manual for Electronic Filing of the Index of
Customers at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``Purpose'' section states explicitly that the Index of
Customers instructions apply to the file to be posted on the pipeline's
EBB. Since the body of the instructions make very clear that a tab-
delimited file format is to be used, there is no reason to add to the
``Purpose'' section the reference to the tab format that the Registry
seeks.
However, there is nothing in the purpose section or the body of
instructions that indicates that the file is to be downloadable, as
required by the regulations referenced in the ``Purpose'' section,
sections 284.106(c) and 284.223(b). To be aware of this fact, the
reader would have to refer to the regulations themselves. To ensure
that there is no confusion, the ``Purpose'' section should be clarified
to include the fact that the file must be downloadable from the
pipeline's EBB. Therefore, the last sentence of the ``Purpose'' section
will be changed to read: ``The instructions herein will provide the
format for the electronic dissemination of the data on the respondent's
EBB in a downloadable file, as well as for the electronic file
submitted to the Commission.''
Finally, because the Index of Customers instructions and discount
rate report instructions, which are Appendices A and B, respectively,
to the order, each have three subappendices that are also entitled
``Appendices'' A, B, and C, the Registry suggests that the
subappendices be retitled to something other than ``appendices'' to
prevent confusion. While the subappendices to the instruction manuals
have titles that are the same as the titles of the appendices to the
order, we do not anticipate that confusion will arise. The instruction
manuals are disseminated through the Commission's public reference
division, or from the bulletin board, as stand-alone documents. In
other words, they will no longer be entitled, ``Appendix A'' and
``Appendix B.'' Thus, the only appendices associated with these
electronic filing specifications will be Appendices A, B, and C of each
instruction manual.
In addition to the above matters raised by the Registry, the
Commission's staff has identified other minor matters in the Index of
Customers instructions and discount rate report instructions that
require clarification and/or modifications. These additional changes,
and the changes discussed in this order, will be incorporated in a
revised Index of Customers instruction manual and discount rate report
instruction manual to be issued in the near future by the staff.13
\13\ See 75 FERC para. 61,009 (1996), where the Commission
authorized staff to issue further electronic and paper filing
specifications related to the forms modified by Order Nos. 581 and
582.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the Commission.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-11049 Filed 5-02-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11040 Suspension of Community Eligibility
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19857-19859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11040]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 64
[Docket No. FEMA-7640]
Suspension of Community Eligibility
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), that are suspended on the effective dates listed within
this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management
requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the
required floodplain management measures prior to the effective
suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will be withdrawn by
publication in the Federal Register.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of each community's suspension is
the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of the following
tables.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to determine whether a particular community was
suspended on the suspension date, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional
Office or the NFIP servicing contractor.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Shea Jr., Division Director,
Program Implementation Division, Mitigation Directorate, 500 C Street,
SW., Room 417, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3619.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management
aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding.
Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under
the National Flood Insurance Program, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., unless an
appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures
with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this
document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with
program regulations, 44 CFR part 59 et seq. Accordingly, the
communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third
column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in
the community. However, some of these communities may adopt and submit
the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management
measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual
suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will
continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice
withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the
Federal Register.
In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has identified
the special flood hazard areas in these communities by publishing a
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the FIRM if one has been
published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct
Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in
connection with a flood) may legally be provided for construction or
acquisition of buildings in the identified special flood hazard area of
communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than
a year, on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's initial flood
insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section
202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a),
as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal
assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date
shown in the last column. The Acting Associate Director finds that
notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and
unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been
adequately notified.
Each community receives a 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
addressed to the Chief Executive Officer that the community will be
suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met
prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications have
been made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR
Part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact
assessment has been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Acting Associate Director has determined that this rule is
exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022,
prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body
adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective
enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the
statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the communities unless they take
remedial action.
Regulatory Classification
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action underthe
criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not involve any collection of information for
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications
under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, October 26, 1987, 3 CFR, 1987
Comp., p. 252.
[[Page 19858]]
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12778, October 25, 1991, 56 FR 55195, 3 CFR, 1991
Comp., p. 309.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:
PART 64--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.
Sec. 64.6 [Amended]
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec. 64.6 are
amended as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date certain
federal assistance
Community Effective date of Current effective map no longer
State and location No. eligibility date available in
special flood
hazard areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region III
Pennsylvania:
German, township of, 421627 March 1, 1977, May 6, 1996.............. May 6, 1996.
Fayette County. Emerg.; April 16,
1991, Reg.; May 6,
1996, Susp.
Region IV
Georgia:
Jasper County, 130519 January 24, 1995, ......do................. Do.
unincorporated areas. Emerg.; May 6, 1996,
Reg.; May 6, 1996,
Susp.
Telfair County, 130166 November 9, 1994, ......do................. Do.
unincorporated areas. Emerg.; May 6, 1996,
Reg.; May 6, 1996,
Susp.
North Carolina: 370032 June 30, 1976, ......do................. Do.
Asheville, city of, Emerg.; July 16,
Buncombe County. 1980, Reg.; May 6,
1996, Susp.
Region V
Indiana: Warrick County, 180418 April 11, 1975, ......do................. Do.
unincorporated areas. Emerg.; May 17,
1982, Reg.; May 6,
1996, Susp.
Michigan:
Allen Park, city of, 260217 March 23, 1973, ......do................. Do.
Wayne County. Emerg.; February 17,
1982, Reg.; May 6,
1996, Susp.
Dearborn, city of, Wayne 260220 March 9, 1973, ......do................. Do.
County. Emerg.; April 20,
1979, Reg.; May 6,
1996, Susp.
Dearborn Heights, city 260221 January 12, 1973, ......do................. Do.
of, Wayne County. Emerg.; May 2, 1983,
Reg.; May 6, 1996,
Susp.
Selma, township of, 260757 April 7, 1986, ......do................. Do.
Wexford County. Emerg.; September
30, 1988, Reg.; May
6, 1996, Susp.
Taylor, city of, Wayne 260728 November 25, 1986, ......do................. Do.
County. Emerg.; November 25,
1986, Reg.; May 6,
1996, Susp.
Region VI
Oklahoma:
Pauls Valley, city of, 400246 December 9, 1976, ......do................. Do.
Garvin County. Emerg.; September
17, 1980, Reg.; May
6, 1996, Susp.
Stillwater, city of, 405380 April 30, 1971, ......do................. Do.
Payne County. Emerg.; June 22,
1973, Reg.; May 6,
1996, Susp.
Region VII
Colorado: Lafayette, city of, 080026 August 7, 1975, ......do................. Do.
Boulder County. Emerg.; March 18,
1980, Reg.; May 6,
1996, Susp.
Region I
Maine: Lyman, town of, York 230195 July 23, 1975, May 20, 1996............. May 20, 1996.
County. Emerg.; May 15,
1991, Reg.; May 20,
1996 Susp.
Region X
Washington: King County, 530071 October 13, 1972, ......do................. Do.
unincorporated areas. Emerg.; September
29, 1978, Reg.; May
20, 1996, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Rein.--Reinstatement; Susp.--Suspension.
[[Page 19859]]
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, ``Flood
Insurance.'')
Issued: April 25, 1996.
Richard W. Krimm,
Acting Associate Director, Mitigation Directorate.
[FR Doc. 96-11040 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-05-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11031 Airworthiness Directives; Jetstream Aircraft Limited HP137 Mk1, Jetstream Series 200, and Jetstream Models 3101 and 3201 Airplane; Correction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11031]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-CE-27-AD; Amendment 39-9443; AD 95-24-13]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Jetstream Aircraft Limited HP137 Mk1,
Jetstream Series 200, and Jetstream Models 3101 and 3201 Airplane;
Correction
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action makes a correction to Airworthiness Directive (AD)
95-24-13 concerning Jetstream Aircraft Limited (JAL) HP137 Mk1,
Jetstream Series 200, and Jetstream Models 3101 and 3201 airplanes,
which published in the Federal Register on December 22, 1995 (60 FR
246). That publication incorrectly references the number of aileron
mounting spigot nut assemblies to be replaced on the wings of the
airplanes. The AD currently requires ``replacing the securing nut
assemblies and split pins with new special nut assemblies (Part No.
SL5022 (Qty. 2))''. The intent of the AD is to require replacement of 2
special nut assemblies on each wing, for a total of 4 nut assemblies.
The Final Rule AD did not specify ``each wing'', and stated that only 2
nut assemblies rather than 4 nut assemblies are required. This action
corrects the AD to reflect this change.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 17, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations was approved previously by the Director of the Federal
Register as of January 17, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Dorenda Baker, Program Officer,
Brussels Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Europe, Africa, and Middle
East Office, c/o American Embassy, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium; telephone
(322) 508.2715; facsimile (322) 230.6899; or Mr. Jeffrey Morfitt,
Project Officer, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, FAA, 1201 Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;
telephone (816) 426-6934; facsimile (816) 426-2169.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 17, 1995, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) issued AD 95-24-13, Amendment 39-9443 (60 FR 246,
December 22, 1995), which applies to JAL HP 137 Mk1, Jetstream series
200, and Jetstream Models 3101 and 3201 airplanes. This AD requires
inspecting (one-time) the threaded portion of the aileron mounting
spigots for cracks, replacing any cracked spigots, and replacing the
securing nut assemblies with newly designed special nut assemblies and
new split pins.
Need for the Correction
The AD incorrectly references the quantity of special nut
assemblies, inferring that a quantity of 2 assemblies be replaced
without indicating that the 2 assemblies on each wing (left wing and
right wing) should be replaced.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the publication of December 22, 1995 (60 FR 246) of
Amendment 39-9443; AD 95-24-13, which was the subject of FR Doc. 95-
66485, is corrected as follows:
Sec. 39.13 [Corrected]
On page 66486, in the third column, section 39.13, paragraph (a),
line 1 through line 4, replace ``Inspect the mounting spigots for
cracks using both visual and fluorescent dye penetrant methods in
accordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS * * *'' with ``Inspect
the left and right wing mounting spigots for cracks using both visual
and fluorescent dye penetrant methods in accordance with the
ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS * * *''.
On page 66486, in the third column, section 39.13, paragraph
(a)(2), line 1 through line 5, replace ``Prior to further flight,
replace the securing nut assemblies and split pins with new special nut
assemblies (Part No. SL45022 (Qty. 2)), * * *'' with ``Prior to further
flight, replace the securing nut assemblies and split pins on both
wings with new special nut assemblies (Part No. SL45022 (Qty. of 2 on
each wing, total Qty. of 4 nut assemblies needed)), * * *''.
Action is taken herein to clarify this requirement of AD 95-24-13
and to add this AD correction to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 39.13). The effective date remains January 17,
1996.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on April 17, 1996.
Michael Gallagher,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 96-11031 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11025 Modification of Class E Airspace; Alliance, OH, Salem, OH, and Youngstown, OH
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19816-19817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11025]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AGL-15]
Modification of Class E Airspace; Alliance, OH, Salem, OH, and
Youngstown, OH
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E5 airspace at Youngstown-Warren
Regional Airport, Youngstown, OH and revises the exclusionary language
in the Class E5 airspace designations for Alliance, OH and Salem, OH,
due to the closing of the Youngstown Executive Airport, Youngstown, OH,
on August 15, 1995. The intent of this action is to provide adequate
controlled airspace for the existing procedures at Youngstown, OH and
to modify the airspace designations at Alliance and Salem, OH, to
reflect the closure of Youngstown Executive Airport.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, June 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Cibic, Air Traffic Division, Operations Branch, AGL-530, Federal
Aviation Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois
60018, telephone (847) 294-7568.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On February 6, 1996, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to modify the Class E5
airspace area at Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport, Youngstown, OH,
and to modify the language for the Class E5 airspace designations for
Alliance, OH and Salem, OH.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments objecting to the proposal was received. Class E airspace
designations for airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above
ground level are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA order 7400.9C dated
August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
[[Page 19817]]
71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) modifies the Class E5 airspace at Youngstown-Warren
Regional Airport, Youngstown, Ohio and revises the language for the
Class E5 airspace designations for Alliance, OH and Salem, OH. The
closing of the Youngstown Executive Airport, Youngstown, OH on August
15, 1995 and deletion of the airport's VOR Runway 11/29 Standard
Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) require this modification to
ensure that the procedures at Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport are
contained within controlled airspace and that the Alliance and Salem,
OH, Class E airspace designations are appropriately identified.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
AGL OH E5 Alliance, OH [Revised]
Alliance, Miller Airport, OH
(Lat. 40 deg.58'54'' N, long. 81 deg.02'31'' W)
Sebring, Tri-City Airport, OH
(Lat. 40 deg.54'21'' N, Long. 81 deg.00'00'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.2-mile radius of Miller Airport and within a 6.2-mile
radius of the Tri-City Airport.
* * * * *
AGL OH E5 Salem, OH [Revised]
Salem Airpark Incorporated Airport, OH
(Lat. 40 deg.56'53'' N, long. 80 deg.51'43'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of the Salem Airpark, Inc. Airport,
excluding that airspace within the Alliance, OH, Youngstown Elser
Metro Airport, OH, Class E Airspace areas.
* * * * *
AGL OH E5 Youngstown Warren Regional Airport, OH [Revised]
(Lat. 41 deg.15'32'' N, long. 80 deg.40'34'' W)
Youngstown, Landsdowne Airport, OH
(Lat. 41 deg.07'50'' N, long. 80 deg.37'10'' W)
Youngstown VORTAC
(Lat. 41 deg.19'52'' N, long. 80 deg.40'29'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.9-mile radius of the Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport
and within 3.1 miles each side of the Youngstown VORTAC 358 deg.
radial extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 10 mile north of the
VORTAC, and within the 6.2-mile radius of the Landsdowne Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on April 1, 1996.
Maureen Woods,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division.
[FR Doc. 96-11025 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11024 Establishment of Class E Airspace; Richlands, VA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19817-19818]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11024]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AEA-14]
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Richlands, VA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Richlands, VA. The
development of a Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument
Approach Procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 25 at Tazewell County Airport
has made this action necessary. The intended effect of this action is
to provide adequate controlled airspace for Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) operations at Tazewell County Airport.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, June 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Frances T. Jordan., Airspace Specialist, System Management Branch,
AEA-530, Air Traffic Division, Eastern Region, Federal Aviation
Administration, Federal Building #111, John F. Kennedy International
Airport, Jamaica, New York 11430, telephone: (718) 553-4521.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On January 8, 1996, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by establishing a Class E
airspace area at Tazewell County Airport, Richlands, VA (61 FR 551).
The development of a GPS SIAP at Tazewell County Airport has made this
action necessary.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C,
dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) establishes a Class E airspace area at Richlands, VA. The
development of a GPS SIAP at Tazewell County Airport has made this
action necessary. The intended effect of this action is to provide
adequate Class E airspace for aircraft executing the GPS RWY 25 SIAP at
the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 10034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it
[[Page 19818]]
is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995 and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
AEA VA E5 Richlands, VA [New]
Tazewell County Airport, VA
(Lat. 37 deg.03'49'' N, Long. 81 deg.47'54'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6-mile radius of Tazewell County Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Jamaica, New York on April 10, 1996.
John S. Walker,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Eastern Region.
[FR Doc. 96-11024 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11014 Fees for Applications for Contract Market Designation, Leverage Commodity Registration and Registered Futures Association and Exchange Rule Enforcement and Financial Reviews
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19830-19832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11014]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION
17 CFR Parts 1, 5 and 31
Fees for Applications for Contract Market Designation, Leverage
Commodity Registration and Registered Futures Association and Exchange
Rule Enforcement and Financial Reviews
AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
ACTION: Final schedule of fees.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission periodically adjusts fees charged for certain
program services to assure that they accurately reflect current
Commission costs. In this regard, the staff recently reviewed the
Commission's actual costs of processing applications for contract
market designation (17 CFR part 5, appendix B), audits of leverage
transaction merchants (17 CFR part 31, appendix B) and registered
futures association and exchange rule enforcement and financial reviews
(17 CFR part 1, appendix B). The following fee schedule for fiscal 1996
reflects the actual costs to the Commission of providing those services
during fiscal years 1993, 1994 and 1995. Accordingly, the Commission
will change the fees as follows: Applications for contract market
designation for a futures contract will be reduced from $9,600 to
$8,300; contract market designation for an option contract will be
increased from $1,600 to $1,800; contract markets that simultaneously
submit designation applications for a futures and an option on that
futures contract will be reduced from a combined fee of $10,000 for
both to $9,200 for both; and leverage commodity registration will be
maintained at $4,500. In addition, the Commission will publish the
schedule of fees for registered futures association and exchange rule
enforcement and financial reviews.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Contract Market Designation and Leverage Commodity
Registration May 3, 1996. Registered Futures Association and Exchange
Rule Enforcement and Financial Reviews July 2, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerald P. Smith, Special Assistant to
the Executive Director, Office of the Executive Director, Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20581, telephone number 202-418-5156.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission periodically reviews the
actual costs of providing services for which fees are charged and
adjusts these fees accordingly. In connection with its most recent
review, the Commission has determined that fees for contract market
designations should be adjusted. Also, this release announces the
fiscal 1996 schedule of fees for registered futures association and
exchange rule enforcement and financial reviews and maintains leverage
commodity registration fees.
Background Information
I. Computation of Fees
The Commission has established fees for certain activities and
functions performed by the Commission.1 In calculating the actual
cost of processing applications for contract market designation,
registering leverage commodities, and performing registered futures
association and exchange rule enforcement and financial reviews, the
Commission takes into account personnel costs (direct costs), and
benefits and administrative costs (overhead costs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Section 237 of the Futures Trading Act of 1982 (7 U.S.C.
16a) and 31 U.S.C. 9701. For a broader discussion of the history of
Commission fees, see 52 FR 46070 (Dec. 4, 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission first determines personnel costs by extracting data
from the agency's Management Accounting Structured Code (MASC) system.
Employees of the Commission record the time spent on each project under
the MASC system. The Commission then adds an overhead factor that is
made up of two components--benefits and general and administrative
costs. Benefits, which include retirement, insurance and leave, are
based on a government-wide standard established by the Office of
Management and Budget in Circular A-76. General and administrative
costs include the
[[Page 19831]]
Commission's costs for space, equipment, utilities, etc. These general
and administrative costs are derived by computing the percentage of
Commission appropriations spent on these non-personnel items. The
overhead calculations fluctuate slightly due to changes in government-
wide benefits and the percentage of Commission appropriations applied
to non-personnel costs from year to year. The actual overhead factor
for prior fiscal years were 93% in 1993, 95% in 1994 and 92% in 1995.
Once the total personnel costs for each fee item (contract market
designation, rule enforcement review, etc.) have been determined for
each year the overhead factor is applied and the costs for fiscal years
1993, 1994 and 1995 are averaged. This results in a calculation of the
average annual cost over the three-year period.
II. Applications for Contract Market Designation
On August 23, 1983 the Commission established a fee for Contract
Market Designation. 48 FR 38214. This fee was based upon a three-year
moving average of the actual costs expended and the number of contracts
reviewed during that period of time. The fee charged was reviewed again
in fiscal 1985 and every year thereafter to determine the fee for the
current year. In fiscal 1985 the overwhelming majority of designation
applications was for futures contracts as opposed to option contracts.
Therefore, the proposed fee covered both futures and option designation
applications. In fiscal 1992 the Commission reviewed its data on the
actual costs for reviewing designation applications for both futures
and option contracts and determined that the cost of reviewing a
futures contract designation application was much higher than the cost
of reviewing an option contract. It also determined that, when
designation applications for both a futures contract and an option on
that futures contract are submitted simultaneously, the cost for review
of the option contract designation application was even lower than the
individual cost of reviewing the futures contract plus the option
contract.
The Commission staff reviewed the actual costs of processing
applications for contract market designation for a futures contract for
fiscal years 1993, 1994 and 1995 and found that the average cost over
the three year period was $8,313. The review of actual cost of
processing applications for contract market designation for an option
contract for fiscal years 1993, 1994 and 1995 revealed that the average
costs over the same three year period was $1,876. Accordingly, the
Commission has determined that the fee for applications for contract
market designation for a futures contract will be reduced to $8,300 and
the fee for applications for contract market designation as an option
contract will be increased to $1,800 in accordance with the
Commission's regulations (17 CFR part 5, appendix B). In addition, the
combined fee for contract markets simultaneously submitting designation
applications for a futures contract and an option contract on that
futures contract will be reduced to $9,200.
III. Leverage Commodity Registration
No new applications for leverage commodity registration were
received by the Commission in fiscal years 1993, 1994 or 1995.
Accordingly, the Commission will maintain the present fee of $4,500 for
leverage commodity registration.
IV. Registered Futures Association and Exchange Rule Enforcement and
Financial Reviews
Under the formula adopted in 1993 (58 FR 42643, August 11, 1993,
which appears in 17 CFR part 1, appendix B), the Commission calculates
the rule enforcement and financial review fees based on its actual
costs, as well as actual exchange trading volume. The formula for
calculating the rule enforcement and financial review fee is 0.5a +
0.5vt = current fee. In the formula, ``a'' equals the average annual
costs, ``v'' equals the percentage of total volume across exchanges
over the last three years and ``t'' equals the average annual cost for
all exchanges.
To determine the fee, first the staff calculates actual costs for
the last three fiscal years. The average annual costs for that time
period for rule enforcement reviews and financial reviews for each
exchange are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1993-1995
average annual
Exchange costs for review
services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Board of Trade................................ $264,915.17
Chicago Mercantile Exchange........................... 243,452.97
Coffee, Sugar and Cocoa Exchange...................... 64,169.59
New York Mercantile/COMEX Exchange.................... 240,870.26
New York Cotton/New York Futures Exchange............. 58,606.03
Kansas City Board of Trade............................ 17,129.09
Minneapolis Grain Exchange............................ 23,196.63
Philadelphia Board of Trade........................... 2,622.61
-----------------
Total........................................... 914,962.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the staff calculates the trading volume for the past three
fiscal years to determine the cumulative volume for each exchange and
its percentage of total volume across all exchanges during that same
period. The trading volume figures for that period are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
FY 1993-1995 of total
Exchange cumulative volume
volume across
exchanges
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Board of Trade................... 604,202,447 42.6254
Chicago Mercantile Exchange.............. 530,733,388 37.4423
Coffee, Sugar and Cocoa Exchange......... 34,865,386 2.4597
New York Mercantile/COMEX Exchange....... 223,922,964 15.7974
New York Cotton/New York Futures Exchange 16,103,681 1.1361
Kansas City Board of Trade............... 4,888,383 0.3449
[[Page 19832]]
Minneapolis Grain Exchange............... 2,644,863 0.1866
Philadelphia Board of Trade.............. 107,875 0.0076
------------------------------
Total.............................. 1,417,468,987 100.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the staff calculates the current fees by applying the
appropriate exchange data to the formula. The following is an example
of how the rule enforcement and financial review fees for exchanges are
calculated.
Example: The Minneapolis Grain Exchange (MGE) average annual
cost is $23,196.63 and its percentage of total volume over the last
three years is 0.1866. The annual average total cost for all
exchanges during that same time period is $914,962.35. As a result,
the MGE fee for fiscal 1996 is:
(.5)($23,196.63)+(.5)(.001866)($914,962.35) = current fee or
$11,598.32 + $853.69 = $12,452.01
As stated in 1993 when the formula was adopted, if the calculated
fee using this formula is higher than actual costs, the exchange pays
actual costs. If the calculated fee using the formula is less than
actual costs then the exchange pays the calculated fee. No exchange
will pay more than actual costs. Also, if an exchange has no volume
over the three-year period it pays a flat 50% of actual costs.
The National Futures Association (NFA) is a registered futures
association which is responsible for regulating the practices of its
members. In its oversight role, the Commission performs rule
enforcement and financial reviews of the NFA. The Commission's average
annual cost for reviewing the National Futures Association during
fiscal years 1993 through 1995 is $255,333.91. The National Futures
Association will continue to be charged 100% of its actual costs.
Based upon this formula the fees for all of the exchanges and the
NFA for fiscal 1996 are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange/NFA 1996 fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Board of Trade................................ $264,915.17
Chicago Mercantile Exchange........................... 243,452.97
Coffee, Sugar and Cocoa Exchange...................... 43,337.95
New York Mercantile/COMEX Exchange.................... 192,708.42
New York Cotton/New York Futures Exchange............. 34,480.14
Kansas City Board of Trade............................ 10,142.47
Minneapolis Grain Exchange............................ 12,452.01
Philadelphia Board of Trade........................... 1,346.08
National Futures Association.......................... 255,333.91
-----------------
Total........................................... 1,058,169.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As in the calculation of fees in previous years, the fiscal 1996
fee for the Chicago Board of Trade includes the MidAmerica Commodity
Exchange.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq,
requires agencies to consider the impact of rules on small businesses.
The fees implemented in this release affect contract markets (also
referred to as ``exchanges'') and registered futures associations. The
Commission has previously determined that contract markets are not
``small entities'' for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq, 47 FR 18618 (April 30, 1982). Registered futures
associations also are not considered ``small entities'' by the
Commission. Therefore, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act do not apply to contract markets or registered futures
associations. Accordingly, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission,
certifies that the fees implemented herein do not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, D.C., on April 29, 1996, by the
Commission.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 96-11014 Filed 5-02-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11007 Suspension of United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement Implementing Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19834-19835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11007]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Customs Service
19 CFR PART 10
[T.D. 96-35]
RIN 1515-AB93
Suspension of United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement
Implementing Regulations
AGENCY: Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends the Customs Regulations implementing the
duty preference provisions of the United States-Canada Free-Trade
Agreement (CFTA) to reflect that operation of the CFTA was suspended,
by agreement of the Governments of the United States and Canada, as a
result of the entry into force of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) on January 1, 1994. The CFTA implementing regulations
in question remain in effect only with regard to merchandise imported
from Canada that was entered or withdrawn from warehouse for
consumption prior to the entry into force of the NAFTA.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myles Harmon, Office of Regulations
and Rulings (202-482-7000).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 2, 1988, the United States and Canada entered into the
United
[[Page 19835]]
States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement (CFTA), the objectives of which
included the elimination of Customs duties and other barriers to trade
in goods and services between the two countries. The provisions of the
CFTA were adopted by the United States with the enactment of the United
States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement Implementation Act of 1988, Pub. L.
100-449, 102 Stat. 1851, and the CFTA went into effect on January 1,
1989. Regulations setting forth the basic legal and procedural
requirements for obtaining preferential duty treatment on imported
merchandise under the CFTA are contained in Secs. 10.301 through 10.311
of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 10.301 through 10.311).
On December 17, 1992, the United States, Canada and Mexico entered
into the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). As in the case of
the CFTA, the stated objectives of the NAFTA include the elimination of
barriers to trade in goods and services between the territories of the
three countries. The provisions of the NAFTA were adopted by the United
States with the enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement
Implementation Act, Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057, and the NAFTA went
into effect on January 1, 1994. Interim regulations implementing the
Customs-related provisions of the NAFTA were published in the Federal
Register as T.D. 94-1 on December 30, 1993 (58 FR 69460), and final
NAFTA implementing regulations were published as T.D. 95-68 on
September 6, 1995 (60 FR 46334); the majority of those NAFTA
regulations are set forth in part 181 of the Customs Regulations (19
CFR part 181).
In view of the similarity between the objectives of the CFTA and
those of the NAFTA, the United States and Canada recognized that, in
principle, there would be no need to continue the operation of the CFTA
upon accession to, and entry into force of, the NAFTA. Accordingly, by
an exchange of letters dated December 30, 1993, the Governments of the
United States and Canada formally agreed, subject to certain
transitional arrangements not involving preferential duty treatment, to
suspend the operation of the CFTA upon the entry into force of the
NAFTA, with the suspension to remain in effect for such time as the two
Governments are Parties to the NAFTA.
Customs believes that the present CFTA implementing regulations are
unclear as regards their applicability because they do not reflect the
fact that the operation of the CFTA has been suspended as a result of
the entry into force of the NAFTA. On the other hand, Customs notes
that those regulations must be retained because they continue to have
application to Customs transactions involving merchandise imported from
Canada that was entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption
during the period in which the CFTA was in effect (that is, from
January 1, 1989, through December 31, 1993).
In order to address the considerations mentioned above, this
document revises Sec. 10.301 (Scope) to include references both to the
suspension of the CFTA and to the circumstances in which the CFTA
regulations continue to have application.
Inapplicability of Public Notice and Comment Procedures and Delayed
Effective Date Requirements
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a), public notice and
comment procedures are inapplicable to this final rule because it is
within the foreign affairs function of the United States. In addition,
for the above reason and because this regulatory amendment involves no
substantive change but rather merely conforms the regulations to
present law, it is determined that good cause exists under the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for dispensing with a 30-day delayed
effective date.
Executive Order 12866
Because this document involves a foreign affairs function it is not
subject to the provisions of E.O. 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Since the amendment is not subject to the notice and public
procedure requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553, it is not subject to the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Drafting Information
The principal author of this document was Francis W. Foote, Office
of Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs Service. However, personnel
from other offices participated in its development.
List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 10
Alterations, Bonds, Customs duties and inspection, Exports,
Imports, Preference programs, Repairs, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Trade agreements.
Amendment to the Regulations
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 10 of the Customs
Regulations (19 CFR part 10) is amended as set forth below.
PART 10--ARTICLES CONDITIONALLY FREE, SUBJECT TO A REDUCED RATE,
ETC.
1. The authority citation for part 10 continues to read in part as
follows:
Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 20, Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1321, 1481, 1484, 1498, 1508,
1623, 1624, 3314;
* * * * *
2. Section 10.301 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 10.301 Scope and applicability.
The provisions of Secs. 10.302 through 10.311 of this part relate
to the procedures for obtaining duty preferences on imported goods
under the United States-Canada Free-Trade Agreement (the Agreement)
entered into on January 2, 1988, and the United States-Canada Free-
Trade Agreement Implementation Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 1851). The United
States and Canada agreed to suspend operation of the Agreement with
effect from January 1, 1994, to coincide with the entry into force of
the North American Free Trade Agreement (see part 181 of this chapter)
and, accordingly, the provisions of Secs. 10.302 through 10.311 of this
part apply only to goods imported from Canada that were entered for
consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, during the
period January 1, 1989, through December 31, 1993. In situations
involving goods subject to bilateral restrictions or prohibitions, or
country of origin marking, other criteria for determining origin may be
applicable pursuant to Article 407 of the Agreement.
Michael H. Lane,
Acting Commissioner of Customs.
Approved: March 29, 1996.
John P. Simpson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 96-11007 Filed 5-02-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11006 Disclosure or Production of Customs Information Pursuant to Legal Process
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19835-19841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11006]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
19 CFR Part 103
[T.D. 96-36]
RIN 1515-AB58
Disclosure or Production of Customs Information Pursuant to Legal
Process
AGENCY: Customs Service, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends the Customs Regulations by adopting final
rules that clarify the procedures to be followed when subpoenas or
other demands of courts and other authorities,
[[Page 19836]]
except Congress, are issued to compel the disclosure or production of
Customs information, i.e., documents, information, or employee
testimony, for use in federal, state, local, and foreign proceedings.
The procedures will be applicable to current and former Customs
employees and to litigants who seek to compel Customs employees to
disclose or produce Customs information. Specifically, the amendments
will place in the Office of the Chief Counsel the authority to make
determinations concerning the disclosure of such information to ensure
the more efficient use of Customs personnel resources in responding to
requests in a timely manner. The amendments also restructure the
general organizational scheme of Part 103 of the Customs Regulations to
clarify their application.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew McConkey, Office of the Chief
Counsel (202) 927-6900.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Customs enforces some 600 laws for 60 agencies while facilitating
the flow of merchandise in international commerce. In addition to
maintaining records relevant to its enforcement functions, Customs also
maintains information that has a bearing on other law enforcement
provisions. Many of the records Customs maintains contain confidential
business information subject to the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1905,
which prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of such information by an
officer or employee of the United States.
Regulations pertaining to Customs release of information, i.e.,
documents, information, or employee testimony, subpoenaed for use in
judicial proceedings are found at Sec. 103.17 of the Customs
Regulations (19 CFR 103.17). But while Sec. 103.17 provides some
procedures regarding the disclosure of information, e.g., the testimony
of employees, and the production of documents pursuant to a subpoena
duces tecum in cases both where the agency is and is not a party to a
legal proceeding, it does not adequately describe the procedures for
determining whether and how the information should be released in
response to such demands.
On September 6, 1994, Customs published a document in the Federal
Register (59 FR 46007) proposing to amend the Customs Regulations to
clarify the procedures to be followed when subpoenas or other demands
of courts and other authorities, except Congress, are issued to compel
the disclosure or production of Customs information for use in various
proceedings. The procedures would be applicable to current and former
Customs employees and to litigants who seek to compel Customs employees
to disclose or produce Customs information. Specifically, the proposed
amendments sought to place in the Office of the Chief Counsel the
responsibility to make determinations concerning the disclosure of such
information to ensure the more efficient use of Customs personnel
resources in responding to requests in a timely manner. The amendments
also proposed to restructure the general organizational scheme of part
103 of the Customs Regulations to clarify their application. The notice
proposed to revise two sections (Secs. 103.0 and 103.17), renumber five
sections (Secs. 103.14 through 103.18), and create six new sections
(Secs. 103.22 through 103.27) of the Customs Regulations. The notice
also solicited comments concerning these changes.
The comments received and Customs responses to them are set forth
below.
Discussion of Comments
Two comments were received--one from a Bar Association, the other
from a group of undergraduate business students--that raised three
areas of concern: (1) Centralizing decisions over the disclosure
process; (2) agency assertion of privilege and the role of discovery;
and (3) the omission of in camera disclosure provisions. We address
these concerns in turn.
Centralizing Decisions Over the Disclosure Process
Comment: Both commenters protested the concept of centralized
decision-making concerning the disclosure process as likely to increase
the inefficiency of a bureaucracy given that centralization requires
the central decision-maker to find the information demanded, analyze
it, etc. These commenters argue that the offices having the information
demanded are in closer contact with the information and should have the
authority to decide whether to comply with demand.
Customs Response: As a general proposition, Customs believes that
it is appropriate to fix the responsibility for legal review of
subpoena issues within one office. It was, perhaps, misleading to state
in the proposed rule that the transferring of responsibility for legal
review of subpoena issues to the Office of Chief Counsel was a
centralizing move. Decisions concerning the disclosure or production of
Customs information pursuant to legal process are now handled by the
Disclosure Law Branch of the Office of Regulations and Rulings, which
has offices only at Customs Headquarters in Washington, D.C. By placing
the decision-making process regarding subpoena demands for information
in the Office of the Chief Counsel, the amendments to the regulations
actually serve to decentralize the processing of such information
demands, as the Office of the Chief Counsel has a field presence
throughout the United States. Thus, the processing of subpoena demands
should be handled more efficiently than when all such demands were
handled by the one office in Washington, D.C.
Agency Assertion of Privilege and the Role of Discovery
Comment: Stating that the proposed regulations are not as even-
handed as the present regulations in allowing for privilege claims, a
commenter proposed adding language to Sec. 103.21(e), which concerns
disclosure of information to government law enforcement or regulatory
agencies, and Sec. 103.26, which concerns procedures in the event of a
demand for Customs information in a state or local criminal proceeding,
to reflect disclosure limitations, i.e., scope of privileges, contained
in Sec. 103.12, which concerns Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
exemptions from disclosure. The commenter states that these two
regulatory provisions should be more explicit as to what information
can be turned over and on whose authority and suggests that language be
added to more appropriately apprise Customs field personnel of their
duty to refer certain matters to Customs Headquarters.
Customs Response: Customs does not agree with the commenter.
Sections 103.21(e) and 103.26 are located in subpart B of the Customs
Regulations, which concerns disclosure of Customs information pursuant
to legal process for use in legal proceedings; however, the disclosure
limitations of concern (Sec. 103.12) are located in subpart A of the
regulations, which concerns disclosure of Customs information pursuant
to various disclosure laws. This means that the exemptions available
under provisions in subpart A are not available under provisions in
subpart B. On a separate note, the Office of the Chief Counsel does not
process information requests under subpart A, only those under subpart
B. Accordingly, no change to the proposed regulations is made based on
this comment.
Comment: A commenter stated that the provisions of Sec. 103.21(f)
are inadequate to protect the orderly functioning of the discovery
process in
[[Page 19837]]
that they allow the Government to frustrate discovery requests solely
by asserting that regulation as the reason for objection to discovery
requests, compelling parties to resort to judicial intervention to
resolve matters of asserted privilege. The commenter stresses the point
that if the Government wishes to assert a non-disclosure privilege in
any action before the Court of International Trade (CIT) (particularly
in discovery), then such privilege should be asserted by its attorneys
with specific references to the discovery request and which privilege
is claimed, i.e., executive, statutory, or evidentiary. Accordingly, to
make it clear that non-government attorneys should not have to make
special discovery requests of the Chief Counsel's office to carry on
discovery against the United States nor have to resort to the Court to
enforce discovery demands, the commenter suggests that language be
added to Sec. 103.21(f) indicating this.
Customs Response: Customs believes that Sec. 103.21(f) need not be
changed. Section 103.21(f) is not a substantive provision, but rather a
statement of purpose, that is not subject to the general prohibition
provisions contained at Sec. 103.22, which only pertain to proceedings
in which Customs is not a party (emphasis added).
In the notice of proposed rulemaking, it was stated, regarding
paragraph (f) of Sec. 103.21, that this paragraph serves to limit the
scope of the proposed regulations by providing that it is not intended
to impede or restrict the appropriate disclosure of any information to
certain federal attorneys and judges in connection with Customs cases--
i.e., when the Customs Service is a party--referred by the Department
of the Treasury to the Department of Justice for prosecution or
defense. The comment presumes that the regulatory provision proposed by
Customs will control when the agency is a party before an Article III
court, which cannot be; the Court's rules of procedure will, of course,
control such a proceeding. Accordingly, no change to this regulatory
provision is made based on this comment; however, the heading of
Sec. 103.22 is revised to reflect the fact that the procedures
thereunder only pertain when the Customs Service is not a party to the
litigation or proceeding.
Omission of In Camera Disclosure Provisions
Comment: A commenter stated that the provisions of current
Sec. 103.17(d), which provide for in camera review of documents, are
not extended to certain other criminal actions. While the commenter
believes that proposed Sec. 103.21(f) confers the right of in camera
inspection on judges of the CIT, he states that such an extension is
not evident in the provisions of proposed Sec. 103.26, which pertains
to criminal proceedings in other federal courts. Accordingly, the
commenter suggests that Customs amend its regulations to allow for
turnover of its information to state and local law enforcement
officers.
Customs Response: Although the comment seems to present two
different issues in camera disclosure to judges and disclosure to law
enforcement personnel), Customs does not agree that in camera
inspection of records and documents in state or local criminal
proceedings is not present in Sec. 103.26. Regarding in camera
disclosure of Customs documents to any court (State or Federal, whether
civil or criminal), it is within the inherent power of a court of
competent jurisdiction to order in camera disclosure of Customs
documents. Regarding disclosure to state and local law enforcement
officers, as provided at Sec. 103.21(e), nothing in this subpart is
intended to impede the appropriate disclosure of information, in
keeping with the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) and the Trade Secrets Act
(18 U.S.C. 1905), by Customs to federal, state, local, and foreign law
enforcement or regulatory agencies. Nevertheless, because of the
concern expressed over Customs perceived ability to withhold records
from a court of competent jurisdiction, Customs has no hesitation in
adding the former in camera provisions of Sec. 103.17(d) as new
Sec. 103.21(i). Accordingly, a provision is added to the final
regulations providing that nothing in new subpart B authorizes Customs
personnel to withhold records from a federal court, whether civil or
criminal, pursuant to its order for such records appropriately made,
for purposes of in camera inspection of the records to determine the
propriety of claimed exemption(s) from disclosure.
Other Matters
Three other procedural changes to the proposed regulations are made
and a referencing (typographical) error is corrected at this time. The
first procedural change, a change to Sec. 103.22(d), increases the
processing time from 5 days to 10 days. This change is made because
Customs wishes to ensure that demands for Customs information can be
met by available staff. The second and third procedural changes, to
Sec. 103.23(b), add two subparagraphs to provide for two additional
circumstances where disclosure will not be made: failure to make proper
service upon the United States (Sec. 103.23(b)(10)), and failure to
comply with federal, state, or local rules of discovery
(Sec. 103.23(b)(11)). Although these grounds for not authorizing
disclosure are readily contained in both civil and criminal rules of
procedure throughout the United States, the presence of either of these
facts at the agency level will help the Office of the Chief Counsel to
summarily respond to such requests. The typographical error concerns a
reference in Sec. 103.25 to Sec. 103.22; it should read Sec. 103.24 to
reflect the statement in the BACKGROUND portion of the notice that the
new Sec. 103.25 concerns ``the preceding section'' i.e., Sec. 103.24.
Unrelated to subpoenas, this document also amends Sec. 103.6,
concerning the initial handling of requests for information pursuant to
the FOIA, to reflect that the initial determination regarding such
requests for information maintained in the field shall be made by the
appropriate director of a service port, or in the case of records of
the Office of Investigations, the appropriate special agent in charge.
The regulations currently do not distinguish between records of the
Office of Investigations and other records regarding who shall make the
initial determination concerning their release.
Conclusion
Based on the comments received and further consideration by
Customs, Customs has decided to finalize the amendments proposed with
the following changes: In Sec. 103.21, a new paragraph (i) is added to
continue authorizing in camera inspections by any court; in
Sec. 103.22(d), the processing time of requests is increased from five
to ten days; and in Sec. 103.23(b), subparagraphs (10) and (11) are
added providing additional circumstances where disclosure will not be
made: where there is a failure to make proper service upon the United
States, and where there is a failure to comply with federal, state, or
local rules of discovery. Further, the heading of Sec. 103.22 is
revised to make it clear that the procedures thereunder only pertain
when the Customs Service is not a party to the litigation or proceeding
and the referencing (typographical) error in Sec. 103.25 to Sec. 103.22
is corrected to reference Sec. 103.24. Also, references to certain
Customs field organization designations, i.e., district directors and
regional commissioners, are revised to reference port directors to
account for Customs reorganization. Lastly, certain editorial changes
are made to make clear the relationship between (1) the Office
[[Page 19838]]
of the Chief Counsel, (2) its field counsel, (3) Customs employees
served with demands, and (4) the official in charge of the originating
component.
Inapplicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order
12866
Pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and based upon the information set forth above, it
is certified that the regulations will not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, these regulations
are not subject to the regulatory analysis or other requirements of 5
U.S.C. 603 and 604. Further, this document does not meet the criteria
for a ``significant regulatory action'' as specified in E.O. 12866.
List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 103
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Courts, Freedom of Information, Law enforcement, Privacy,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Subpoenas.
Amendment to the Regulations
For the reasons set forth above, part 103, Customs Regulations (19
CFR part 103), is amended as set forth below:
PART 103--AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
1. The table of contents of part 103 is revised to read as set
forth below to reflect the amendments that follow:
Sec.
103.0 Scope.
Subpart A--Production of documents/disclosure of information pursuant
to the FOIA
103.1 Public reading rooms.
103.2 Information available to the public.
103.3 Publication of information in the Federal Register.
103.4 Public inspection and copying.
103.5 Specific requests for records.
103.6 Grant or denial of initial request.
103.7 Administrative appeal of initial determination.
103.8 Time extensions.
103.9 Judicial review.
103.10 Fees for services.
103.11 Specific Customs Service records subject to disclosure.
103.12 Exemptions.
103.13 Segregability of records.
Subpart B--Production or disclosure in Federal, State, Local, and
Foreign proceedings
103.21 Purpose and definitions.
103.22 Procedure in the event of a demand for Customs information
in any federal, state, or local civil proceeding or administrative
action.
103.23 Factors in determining whether to disclose information
pursuant to a demand.
103.24 Procedure in the event a decision concerning a demand is not
made prior to the time a response to the demand is required.
103.25 Procedure in the event of an adverse ruling.
103.26 Procedure in the event of a demand for Customs information
in a state or local criminal proceeding.
103.27 Procedure in the event of a demand for Customs information
in a foreign proceeding.
Subpart C--Other Information Subject to Restricted Access
103.31 Information on vessel manifests and summary statistical
reports.
103.32 Information concerning fines, penalties, and forfeitures
cases.
103.33 Release of information to foreign agencies.
103.34 Sanctions for improper actions by Customs officers or
employees.
Secs. 103.31, 103.33, 103.34 [Amended]
2. The general authority citation for part 103 is revised and
specific authority citations for Secs. 103.31, 103.33, and 103.34 are
added to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1624; 31
U.S.C. 9701. Section 103.31 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1431;
Section 103.33 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1628; Section 103.34 also
issued under 18 U.S.C. 1905.
3. Section 103.0 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 103.0 Scope.
This part governs the production/disclosure of agency-maintained
documents/information requested pursuant to various disclosure laws
and/or legal processes. Thus, the extent of disclosure of requested
information may be dependent on whether the request is pursuant to the
provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), as amended (5
U.S.C. 552), the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), and/
or under other statutory or regulatory authorities, as required by
administrative and/or legal processes. The regulations for this part
contain a discussion of applicable fees for the search, duplication,
review, and other tasks associated with processing information requests
pursuant to the FOIA, and also provide for the appeal of agency
decisions and sanctions for the improper withholding and/or the
untimely release of requested information. As information obtained by
Customs is derived from a myriad of sources, persons seeking
information should consult with a disclosure law officer, the director
of a service port, or the local public information officer before
invoking the formal procedures set forth in this part. These
regulations supplement the regulations of the Department of the
Treasury regarding public access to records, which are found at 31 CFR
part 1, and, in the event of any inconsistency between these
regulations and those of the Department of the Treasury, the latter
shall prevail. For purposes of this part, the Office of the Chief
Counsel is considered a part of the United States Customs Service.
Secs. 103.1-103.13 [Amended]
4. Sections 103.1 through 103.13 are designated as subpart A and a
new heading for subpart A is added to read as follows:
Subpart A--Production of documents/disclosure of information under
the FOIA
5. In Sec. 103.6, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 103.6 Grant or denial of initial request.
(a) Officers designated to make initial determinations--(1) Service
ports. The appropriate director of a service port, or in the case of
records of the Office of Investigations, the appropriate special agent
in charge (SAC), shall make any initial determination of a request for
a record which is maintained, respectively, at that service port or
under the SAC's jurisdiction.
* * * * *
Secs. 103.14, 103.15, 103.16, 103.18 [Redesignated as Secs. 103.31,
103.34, 103.32, 103.33]
6. Sections 103.14, 103.15, 103.16, and 103.18 are redesignated as
Secs. 103.31, 103.34, 103.32, and 103.33, respectively, and designated
as subpart C and a new heading for subpart C is added to read as
follows:
Subpart C--Other Information Subject to Restricted Access
Sec. 103.17 [Removed]
7. Section 103.17 is removed.
8. A new subpart B, consisting of Secs. 103.21 through 103.27, is
added to read as follows:
Subpart B--Production or disclosure in Federal, State, Local, and
Foreign proceedings
Sec. 103.21 Purpose and definitions.
(a) Purpose. (1) This subpart sets forth procedures to be followed
with respect to the production or disclosure of any documents contained
in Customs files, any information relating to material contained in
Customs files, any testimony by a Customs employee, or any information
acquired by any person as part of that person's performance of
[[Page 19839]]
official duties as a Customs employee or because of that person's
official status, hereinafter collectively referred to as
``information'', in all federal, state, local, and foreign proceedings
when a subpoena, notice of deposition (either upon oral examination or
written interrogatory), order, or demand, hereinafter collectively
referred to as a ``demand'', of a court, administrative agency, or
other authority is issued for such information.
(2) This subpart does not cover those situations where the United
States is a party to the action. In situations where the United States
is a party to the action, Customs employees are instructed to follow
internal Customs policies and procedures.
(b) Customs employee. For purposes of this subpart, the term
``Customs employee'' includes all present and former officers and
employees of the United States Customs Service.
(c) Customs documents. For purposes of this subpart, the term
``Customs documents'' includes any document (including copies thereof),
no matter what media, produced by, obtained by, furnished to, or coming
to the knowledge of, any Customs employee while acting in his/her
official capacity, or because of his/her official status, with respect
to the administration or enforcement of laws administered or enforced
by the Customs Service.
(d) Originating component. For purposes of this subpart, the term
``originating component'' references the Customs official, or the
official's designee, in charge of the office responsible for the
collection, assembly, or other preparation of the information demanded
or that, at the time the person whose testimony is demanded acquired
the information in question, employs or employed the person whose
testimony is demanded.
(e) Disclosure to government law enforcement or regulatory
agencies. Nothing in this subpart is intended to impede the appropriate
disclosure of information by Customs to federal, state, local, and
foreign law enforcement or regulatory agencies, in accordance with the
confidentiality requirements of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), the
Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905), and other applicable statutes.
(f) Disclosure to federal attorneys and the Court of International
Trade. Nothing in this subpart is intended to restrict the disclosure
of Customs information requested by the Court of International Trade,
U.S. Attorneys, or attorneys of the Department of Justice, for use in
cases which arise under the laws administered or enforced by, or
concerning, the Customs Service and which are referred by the
Department of the Treasury to the Department of Justice for prosecution
or defense.
(g) Disclosure of non-Customs information. Nothing in the subpart
is intended to impede the appropriate disclosure of non-Customs
information by Customs employees in any proceeding in which they are a
party or witness solely in their personal capacities.
(h) Failure of Customs employee to follow procedures. The failure
of any Customs employee to follow the procedures specified in this
subpart neither creates nor confers any rights, privileges, or benefits
on any person or party.
(i) In camera inspection of records. Nothing in this subpart
authorizes Customs personnel to withhold records from a federal court,
whether civil or criminal, pursuant to its order for such records
appropriately made, for purposes of in camera inspection of the records
to determine the propriety of claimed exemption(s) from disclosure.
Sec. 103.22 Procedure in the event of a demand for Customs information
in any federal, state, or local civil proceeding or administrative
action.
(a) General prohibition against disclosure. In any federal, state,
or local civil proceeding or administrative action in which the Customs
Service is not a party, no Customs employee shall, in response to a
demand for Customs information, furnish Customs documents or testimony
as to any material contained in Customs files, any information relating
to or based upon material contained in Customs files, or any
information or material acquired as part of the performance of that
person's official duties (or because of that person's official status)
without the prior written approval of the Chief Counsel, as described
in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Employee notification to Counsel. Whenever a demand for
information is made upon a Customs employee, that employee shall
immediately prepare a report that specifically describes the testimony
or documents sought and notify the Assistant Chief Counsel or Associate
Chief Counsel for the area where the employee is located. If the
employee is located at Headquarters or outside of the United States,
the employee shall immediately notify the Chief Counsel. The Customs
employee shall then await instructions from the Chief Counsel
concerning the response to the demand.
(c) Requesting party's initial burden. A party seeking Customs
information shall serve on the appropriate Customs employee the demand,
a copy of the Summons and Complaint, and provide an affidavit, or, if
that is not feasible, a statement that sets forth a summary of the
documents or testimony sought and its relevance to the proceeding. Any
disclosure authorization for documents or testimony by a Customs
employee shall be limited to the scope of the demand as summarized in
such affidavit or statement. The Chief Counsel may, upon request and
for good cause shown, waive the requirements of this paragraph.
(d) Requesting party's notification requirement. The demand for
Customs information, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (c) of
this section, shall be served at least ten (10) working days prior to
the scheduled date of the production of the documents or the taking of
testimony.
(e) Counsel notification to originating component. Upon receipt of
a proper demand for Customs information, one which complies with the
provisions of paragraph (c) of this section, if the Chief Counsel
believes that it will comply with any part of the demand, it will
immediately advise the originating component.
(f) Conditions for authorization of disclosure. The Chief Counsel,
subject to the provisions of paragraph (h) of this section, may
authorize the production of Customs documents or the appearance and
testimony of a Customs employee if:
(1) Production of the demanded documents or testimony, in the
judgment of the Chief Counsel, are appropriate under the factors
specified in Sec. 103.23(a) of this subpart; and
(2) None of the factors specified in Sec. 103.23(b) of this subpart
exist with respect to the demanded documents or testimony.
(g) Limitations on the scope of authorized disclosure. (1) The
Chief Counsel shall authorize the disclosure of Customs information by
a Customs employee without further authorization from Customs officials
whenever possible, provided that:
(i) If necessary, Counsel has consulted with the originating
component regarding disclosure of the information demanded;
(ii) There is no objection from the originating component to the
disclosure of the information demanded; and
(iii) Counsel has sought to limit the demand for information to
that which would be consistent with the factors specified in
Sec. 103.23 of this part.
(2) In the case of an objection by the originating component, the
Chief Counsel shall make the disclosure determination.
[[Page 19840]]
(h) Disclosure of commercial information. In the case of a demand
for commercial information or commercial documents concerning
importations or exportations, the Chief Counsel shall obtain the
authorization of the Assistant Commissioner (Field Operations) or his/
her designee prior to the Chief Counsel authorizing the production/
disclosure of such documents/information.
Sec. 103.23 Factors in determining whether to disclose information
pursuant to a demand.
(a) General considerations. In authorizing disclosures pursuant to
a proper demand for Customs information, one which complies with the
provisions of Sec. 103.22(c), the Chief Counsel should consider the
following factors:
(1) Whether the disclosure would be appropriate under the relevant
substantive law concerning privilege;
(2) Whether the disclosure would be appropriate under the rules of
procedure governing the case or matter in which the demand arose; and,
(3) Whether the requesting party has demonstrated that the
information requested is:
(i) Relevant and material to the action pending, based on copies of
the summons and complaint that are required to be attached to the
subpoena duces tecum or other demand;
(ii) Genuinely necessary to the proceeding, i.e., a showing of
substantial need has been made;
(iii) Unavailable from other sources; and,
(iv) Reasonable in its scope, i.e., the documents, information, or
testimony sought are described with particularity.
(4) Whether consultation with the originating component requires
that the Chief Counsel make a separate determination as to the
disclosure of the information requested.
(b) Circumstances where disclosure will not be made. Among the
demands in response to which disclosure will not be authorized by the
Chief Counsel are those demands with respect to which any of the
following factors exist:
(1) Disclosure would violate a treaty, statute (such as the Privacy
Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1905, or the
income tax laws, 26 U.S.C. 6103 and 7213), or a rule of procedure, such
as the grand jury secrecy rule, Fed.R.Crim.Proc. rule 6(e) (18
U.S.C.App.);
(2) Disclosure would violate a specific regulation;
(3) Disclosure would reveal classified or confidential information;
(4) Disclosure would reveal a confidential source or informant;
(5) Disclosure would reveal investigatory records compiled for law
enforcement purposes, interfere with enforcement proceedings, or
disclose investigative techniques and procedures;
(6) Disclosure would improperly reveal confidential commercial
information without the owner's consent (e.g., entry information);
(7) Disclosure relates to documents which were produced by another
agency or entity;
(8) Disclosure would unduly interfere with the orderly conduct of
Customs business;
(9) Customs has no interest, records, or other official information
regarding the matter in which disclosure is sought;
(10) There is a failure to make proper service upon the United
States; or
(11) There is a failure to comply with federal, state, or local
rules of discovery.
Sec. 103.24 Procedure in the event a decision concerning a demand is
not made prior to the time a response to the demand is required.
If response to a demand is required before the instructions from
the Chief Counsel are received, the U.S. Attorney, his/her assistant,
or other appropriate legal representative shall be requested to appear
with the Customs employee upon whom the demand has been made. The U.S.
Attorney, his/her assistant, or other appropriate legal representative
shall furnish the court or other authority with a copy of the
regulations contained in this subpart, inform the court or other
authority that the demand has been or is being, as the case may be,
referred for the prompt consideration of the Chief Counsel, and shall
respectfully request the court or authority to stay the demand pending
receipt of the requested instructions.
Sec. 103.25 Procedure in the event of an adverse ruling.
If the court or other authority declines to stay the demand in
response to a request made in accordance with Sec. 103.24 pending
receipt of instructions, or rules that the demand must be complied with
irrespective of instructions rendered in accordance with Secs. 103.22,
103.23, 103.26, or 103.27 of this subpart not to produce the documents
or disclose the information sought, the Customs employee upon whom the
demand has been made shall, pursuant to this subpart, respectfully
decline to comply with the demand. See, United States ex rel. Touhy v.
Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951).
Sec. 103.26 Procedure in the event of a demand for Customs
information in a state or local criminal proceeding.
Port directors, special agents in charge, and chiefs of field
laboratories may, in the interest of federal, state, and local law
enforcement, upon receipt of demands of state or local authorities, and
at the expense of the State, authorize employees under their
supervision to attend trials and administrative hearings on behalf of
the government in any state or local criminal case, to produce records,
and to testify as to facts coming to their knowledge in their official
capacities. However, in cases where a defendant in a state or local
criminal case demands testimony or the production of Customs documents
or information, authorization from the Chief Counsel is required as
under Sec. 103.22 of this subpart. No disclosure of information under
this section shall be made if any of the factors listed in
Sec. 103.23(b) of this subpart are present.
Sec. 103.27 Procedure in the event of a demand for Customs
information in a foreign proceeding.
(a) Required prior approval for disclosure. In any foreign
proceeding in which the Customs Service is not a party, no Customs
employee shall, in response to a demand, furnish Customs documents or
testimony as to any material contained in Customs files, any
information relating to or based upon material contained in Customs
files, or any information or material acquired as part of the
performance of that person's official duties (or because of that
person's official status) without the prior approval of the Chief
Counsel, as described in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Employee notification to Counsel. Whenever a demand in a
foreign proceeding is made upon a Customs employee concerning pre-
clearance activities within the territory of the foreign country, that
employee shall immediately notify the appropriate Associate Chief
Counsel responsible for the pre-clearance location. All other demands
in a foreign proceeding shall be reported by Customs employees to the
Chief Counsel. The Customs employee shall then await instructions from
the Chief Counsel concerning the response to the demand.
(c) Counsel notification to originating component. Upon receipt of
a proper demand for Customs information, one which complies with the
provisions of Sec. 103.22(c), if the Chief Counsel believes that it
will comply with any part of the demand, it will immediately advise the
originating component.
[[Page 19841]]
(d) Conditions for authorization of disclosure. The Chief Counsel,
subject to the terms of paragraph (e) of this section, may authorize
the disclosure of Customs documents or the appearance and testimony of
a Customs employee if:
(1) Production of the demanded documents or testimony, in the
judgment of the Chief Counsel, are appropriate under the factors
specified in Sec. 103.23(a) of this subpart; and
(2) None of the factors specified in Sec. 103.23(b) of this subpart
exist with respect to the demanded documents or testimony.
(e) Limitations on the scope of authorized disclosure.
(1) The Chief Counsel shall authorize the disclosure of Customs
information by a Customs employee without further authorization from
Customs officials whenever possible, provided that:
(i) If necessary, Counsel has consulted with the originating
component regarding disclosure of the information demanded;
(ii) There is no objection from the originating component to the
disclosure of the information demanded; and
(iii) Counsel has sought to limit the demand for information to
that which would be consistent with the factors specified in
Sec. 103.23 of this part.
(2) In the case of an objection by the originating component, the
Chief Counsel shall make the disclosure determination.
William F. Riley,
Acting Commissioner of Customs.
Approved: December 14, 1995.
Dennis M. O'Connell,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 96-11006 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10999 Radar-Observer Endorsement for Operators of Uninspected Towing Vessels
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10999]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
46 CFR Parts 10 and 15
CGD 94-041]
RIN 2115-92
Radar-Observer Endorsement for Operators of Uninspected Towing
Vessels
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Reopening of comment period on interim rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is reopening the period for public comment on
its interim rule requiring a radar-observer endorsement for operators
of uninspected towing vessels. It would like public help in clarifying
certain issues.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA/3406) [CGD 94-041], U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-09001, or
may be delivered to room 3406 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 3
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is (202) 267-1477.
The Executive Secretary maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments will become part of this docket and will be
available for inspection or copying at room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LCDR Don Darcy, Project Manager, Marine Safety and Environmental
Protection, Office of Maritime Personnel Qualifications (G-MOS-1) (202)
267-0221.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 26, 1994, the Coast Guard
published an interim rule requiring a radar-observer endorsement, with
appropriate training, for licensed masters, mates, and operators of
radar-equipped uninspected towing vessels 8 meters (approximately 26
feet) or more in length [59 FR 53754]. This rule requires every
licensed person to hold either an endorsement as a radar-observer or,
if he or she holds a valid license issued before February 15, 1995, a
certificate from a radar-operation course. In response to comments from
members of the regulated public, the Coast Guard published an amendment
to the interim rule on February 14, 1995 [60 FR 8308], which changed
the date by which the radar-observer endorsement or the radar-operation
course certificate would be required: from February 15, 1995, to June
1, 1995. The effective date of the interim rule remained and remains
June 1, 1995.
Further evaluation of the interim rule by the Coast Guard revealed
certain issues that require clarification. Therefore, the Coast Guard
has decided to reopen the comment period.
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments. There
is no need to refile comments already submitted. Persons submitting
comments should include their names and addresses, identify this
rulemaking [CGD 94-041] and the specific section of the interim rule to
which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment.
Please submit two copies of all comments and attachments in an unbound
format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. Persons wanting acknowledgment of receipt of
comments should enclose stamped, self-addressed postcards or envelopes.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. It may change the interim rule in view of the comments.
Although the Coast Guard invites comments on any feature of the
interim rule, it specifically invites comments on the following:
Section 10.305(c)(2)(iii)(C). Should the Coast Guard require the
determination of the course and speed of another vessel for inland
routes?
Section 10.305(c)(2)(iii)(D). Should the Coast Guard require the
determination of the time and distance of closest point of approach of
a crossing, meeting, overtaking, or overtaken vessel for inland routes?
On most inland routes, towing vessels have a one-person watch in the
wheelhouse and may compromise the safety of the tow if they were
required to do this.
Section 10.480(f). Currently an endorsement as radar observer
issued under this section is valid for five years after the month of
issuance of the certificate of training from a course approved by the
Coast Guard. Should there be a 2 year window of acceptability to the
renewal date of the license to bring the two dates together and
eliminate an expensive license transaction? This would make the normal
validity of the endorsement 5 years, but not to exceed 7 years.
Dated: April 25, 1996.
Joseph J. Angelo,
Director for Standards, Marine Safety and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 96-10999 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10998 Safety Zone; Dana Point, CA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19841-19842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10998]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA; 96-007]
RIN 2115-AA97
Safety Zone; Dana Point, CA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Temporary final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the
navigable waters of the United States offshore from Capistrano Beach to
San Mateo Point, California in the vicinity of the 3rd Annual Dana
Point Challenge (offshore powerboat race) on May 19, 1996. The safety
zone boundaries are as follows: commencing at latitude 33 deg.26.0' N,
117 deg.42.0' W; thence to 33 deg.27.0' N, 117 deg.41.3' W; thence
33 deg.24.0' N, 117 deg.37.0' W; thence to 33 deg.23.2' N,
117 deg.38.0' W; thence returning to the point of beginning. This
safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of contestant and
spectator vessels involved with the 3rd Annual Dana Point Challenge.
Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This safety zone is in effect on May 19, 1996, from 10
a.m. PDT until 4 p.m. PDT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Mark T. Cunningham, Chief,
Port Safety and Security Division, Marine Safety Office Los Angeles-
Long Beach, 165 N. Pico Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90802; (310) 980-4454.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, a notice of
proposed rule making was not published for this regulation and good
cause exists for making it effective in less than 30 days after Federal
Register publication. Publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking
and delay of its effective date would be contrary to the public
interest since the details of the safety zone boundaries and marine
event permit were not finalized until a date fewer than 30 days prior
to the event date.
[[Page 19842]]
Discussion of Regulation
This regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of contestant and
spectator vessels involved with the 3rd Annual Dana Point Challenge
powerboat race. The planned course of the race is approximately one
mile offshore and extends from Capistrano Beach to San Mateo Point,
California. Many spectator vessels (estimated 500-600 in 1995) have
previously attended this event. In past years, contestants
(approximately 20-25) had to speed around spectator vessels which had
wandered into the race lanes. By deterring the large amount of expected
spectator vessel traffic from entering into the designated race lanes,
the risk of high speed collisions can be greatly reduced from that of
previous Dana Point Challenges. This safety zone will be enforced by
U.S. Coast Guard personnel. The Coast Guard Auxiliary, the Dana Point
Harbor Patrol and the Dana Point Challenge event staff will assist in
the enforcement of the safety zone. Persons and vessels are prohibited
from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within the Safety
Zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port of his designated
representative.
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 been exempted from review 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 (44 FR 11040;
February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this
regulation to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under
paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Transportation is unnecessary.
Collection of Information
This regulation contains no collection of information requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this regulation under the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and has determined
that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environmental Assessment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this
regulation and concluded that under section 2.B.2. of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1B it will have no significant environmental impact
and it is categorically excluded from further environmental
documentation. An environmental analysis checklist has been completed
and a Marine Event permit has been issued.
List of Subject in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security Measures, Waterways.
Regulation
In consideration of the foregoing, Subpart F of Part 165 of Title
33, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:
PART 165--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 33 CFR part 165 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g),
6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
2. A new section 165.T11-057 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T1157 Safety Zone: Dana Point, CA
(a) Location. The following area constitutes a safety zone on the
navigable waters in the vicinity of Capistrano Beach and San Mateo
Point, California, specifically:
North-West corner: 33 deg.26.0' N, 117 deg.42.0' W;
North-East corner: 33 deg.27.0' N, 117 deg.41.3' W;
North-East corner: 33 deg.24.0' N, 117 deg.37.0' W;
North-West corner: 33 deg.23.2' N, 117 deg.38.0' W.
This area measures approximately five nautical miles by one
nautical mile. (Datum: NAD 83)
(b) Effective Date. This safety zone is effective at 10 A.M. PDT
and terminates at 2 P.M. PDT on May 19, 1996 unless canceled earlier by
the Captain of the Port.
(c) Regulations. The general regulations governing safety zones
contained in 33 CFR 165.23 apply. No person or vessel may enter or
remain within the safety zone without the permission of the Captain of
the Port Los Angeles-Long Beach, California or his designated
representative.
Dated: April 24, 1996.
E. E. Page,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Los Angeles-Long Beach,
California.
[FR Doc. 96-10998 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10983 Employers' Contributions and Contribution Reports
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20070-20082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10983]
[[Page 20069]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Railroad Retirement Board
_______________________________________________________________________
20 CFR Part 345
Employers' Contributions and Contribution Reports; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Rules and
Regulations
[[Page 20070]]
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD
20 CFR Part 345
RIN 3220-AA79
Employers' Contributions and Contribution Reports
AGENCY: Railroad Retirement Board.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Railroad Retirement Board hereby revises its regulations
under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act in order to implement
amendments to that Act in 1988 to provide for employers under the RUIA
to pay unemployment contributions on the basis of an experience rating
system. Prior to amendment, all employers paid contributions at the
same rate.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Secretary to the Board, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North
Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas W. Sadler, Assistant General
Counsel, Railroad Retirement Board, Bureau of Law, Chicago, Illinois
60611; (312) 751-4513, TDD (312) 751-4701.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Benefits under the Railroad Unemployment
Insurance Act (RUIA) are funded by contributions paid by employers, as
defined in section 1(a) of the RUIA and part 301 of this chapter. For
calendar years through 1990, all employers, with the exception of
commuter railroads, paid contributions at the same rate. Title VII of
Public Law 100-647 amended section 8(a) of the RUIA to provide for a
contribution rate based upon an employer's experience. The experience
rating system provided by section 8(a) of the RUIA is phased in
beginning with calendar year 1991. For 1991 and 1992, a transitional
rate of contribution applies to each employer. Effective January 1,
1993, each employer will have an experience-based rate of contribution.
A ``new employer'' rate of contribution will be computed for an
employer that first pays compensation after December 31, 1989.
The experience rating system that goes into effect January 1, 1993
is based upon recommendations made by the Railroad Unemployment
Compensation Committee (RUCC), which was established by Section 504 of
the Railroad Retirement Solvency Act of 1983 (Public Law 98-76). The
RUCC was required to review all aspects of the unemployment insurance
system under the RUIA, including the method by which benefit costs
under the RUIA were funded. In its report dated June 29, 1984, the RUCC
recommended that railroad unemployment insurance contributions be put
on an experience rating system utilizing what is termed a ``reserve-
benefit ratio method'' of measuring experience. The methodology
contemplates that each employer will pay contributions at a rate
consisting of a basic rate, plus 0.65 percent to cover the
administrative expenses incurred by the Railroad Retirement Board, plus
the amount of any surcharge that becomes applicable when the balance to
the credit of the railroad unemployment insurance account declines to
certain specified levels.
The basic rate referred to above consists of three components. The
first component is the allocated-experience rate and is based upon
benefit payments that are charged to each employer. The purpose of this
rate is to ensure that each employer is ultimately responsible for the
cost of benefits paid to its own employees. The second component is the
unallocated-experience element, which covers benefit payments that are
not chargeable to any employer. Its purpose is to ensure that
responsibility for benefit charges that, by law, cannot be allocated to
a single employer is fairly shared. The third component covers risk-
shared benefit payments, that is, benefits that are chargeable to a
base year employer but the contributions to cover the cost of those
benefits cannot be collected immediately because of the imposition of a
maximum contribution rate. Risk-sharing picks up the income that
otherwise would be lost because of the maximum rate of contribution.
Eventually, the lost income will be paid by the employers that were at
the maximum rate because the reserve-ratio component assures that, over
time, each employer will contribute amounts equal to all benefit
payments charged to it.
This rule consists of five subparts. Subpart A contains some
general provisions and definitions. Subpart B revises part 345 as it
read prior to this revision and sets forth the requirements for filing
reports of contributions and the manner in which contributions are to
be collected.
Subpart C implements the provisions of section 8(a)(17) and (18) of
the RUIA, which require the Board to establish individual employer
records and to prescribe regulations relating to the establishment and
discontinuance of joint employer records. Subpart C also prescribes the
regulations required by section 8(a)(19) of the RUIA, relating to the
establishment of employer records in the event of mergers,
consolidations, or other changes in employer identity, including
changes resulting from a sale or transfer of assets, reincorporation,
or abandonment.
Subpart D explains the experience rating system under the RUIA and
the methods that the Board will follow in computing each employer's
rate of contribution under the experience rating system. This subpart
also explains the computation of new employer contribution rates.
Subpart E explains how the Board will charge base year employers
with benefit payments made under the RUIA, the handling of adjustments
to those charges, and the process for notifying base year employers of
the charges.
Section By Section Analysis
Subpart A--General Provisions and Definitions
Section 345.101 sets forth the general requirement that employers
(except for a local lodge or division of a railway labor organization)
covered under the RUIA must pay a contribution on compensation paid to
their employees in order to fund unemployment and sickness benefits
payable under that statute. It revises previous Sec. 345.1.
Section 345.102 provides that where an employee is employed by two
or more employers (other than a subordinate unit of a railway
organization) the employers may prorate the amount of contributions due
based upon the amount of compensation paid to the employee. It
simplifies the provisions previously found in Sec. 345.2(b).
Section 345.103 provides that an employer's rate of contributions
shall be based upon his ``experience'' as defined in Subpart D. It
revises the present Sec. 345.2(a).
Section 345.105 is a new section and sets forth the statutory
exception that exempts employee representatives, as defined in part 205
of this chapter, from paying contributions on their salaries. It also
provides that contributions are the sole obligation of the employer and
may not be deducted from the employee's wages.
Section 345.106 is a new section and contains definitions relevant
to this part.
Subpart B--Reporting and Collecting Contributions
Section 345.110 follows Sec. 345.4 of the previous regulation and
provides that the reports of compensation filed under part 209 of this
chapter shall be used to establish an employee's compensation record
under the RUIA.
Section 345.111 is essentially the same as previous Sec. 345.5 and
provides for the filing of quarterly contribution
[[Page 20071]]
reports by employers. It eliminates annual reports and provides that an
affiliated group of employers may file a consolidated quarterly
contribution report.
Section 345.112 provides that an employer's final contribution
report shall be filed within 60 days after the last payment of wages.
It is essentially the same as previous Sec. 345.6.
Section 345.113 provides that the contribution report must be filed
by a responsible officer of the employer. It is the same as previous
Sec. 345.7.
Section 345.114 provides that the quarterly contribution report
must be filed on a form approved by the Board unless the failure to use
such form was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.
It follows previous Sec. 345.8.
Section 345.115 provides that an employer shall file the quarterly
contributions report with the Chief Financial Officer on or before the
last day of the month following the end of the quarter. It is
essentially the same as the present Sec. 345.9 except that the
provisions for waiving interest or penalty resulting from a late report
are found in Secs. 345.122 and 345.123, respectively.
Section 345.116 simplifies previous Sec. 345.10 and provides that
payment or deposit of contributions due shall be in accordance with
instructions provided by the Board.
Section 345.117 permits rounding to the nearest cent when paying
contributions. It reflects a provision found in the RUIA and is
identical to the previous Sec. 345.11.
Section 345.118 provides that an employer who underpays or overpays
his contributions may take an interest free adjustment on the
contribution report due after discovery of the error. It is essentially
the same as previous Sec. 345.12, except that it contains a
clarification providing that if an employer fails to adjust an
underpayment in accordance with the section, he shall be liable for
interest on the underpayment from the time the adjustment should have
been made until the underpayment is made.
Section 345.119 provides that if an employer cannot adjust an
overpayment of contributions as provided for in Sec. 345.118, he may
claim a refund for the overpayment. No claim for refund shall be
honored if filed more than three years after the contribution report
containing the error was required to be filed, or more than two years
after payment of the erroneous contribution, whichever is later. This
section follows previous Sec. 345.13, but clarifies that no interest
shall be paid on the refund and that any claim for refund shall be
offset by any contributions due the Board by the employer claiming the
refund. However, where the overpayment of contributions is the result
of Board error in computing an employer's contribution rate under
Subpart D, the Board will pay interest in accord with section 6621 of
the Internal Revenue Code.
Section 345.120 revises previous Sec. 345.14 and provides that if
any contribution is not paid when due, the Board may assess the amount
due (whether or not the deficiency is adjustable as an underpayment
under Sec. 345.118). The assessment is the creation of an account
receivable by the Chief Financial Officer. The amount assessed may be
collected, after notice and demand, by any remedy available under law,
but must be collected within 10 years after assessment. In collecting
an assessment, the Board may use any remedy available under the
Internal Revenue Code for collecting railroad retirement taxes.
Section 345.121 is the same as previous Sec. 345.15, which permits
the Board to make an assessment of contributions (jeopardy assessment)
before the return of contributions is due in order to protect the
interest of the United States.
Section 345.122 follows previous Sec. 345.15, which provides that
interest of one percent a month, or fraction thereof, shall accrue on
contributions not paid on time or not adjusted in a timely manner under
Sec. 345.118. Because the interest provision in the RUIA is really a
penalty provision, that is, it assesses a fixed rate regardless of the
market rate of interest, a new provision is added that permits the
Chief Financial Officer to waive interest when equity warrants.
Section 345.123 follows previous Sec. 345.19 and provides for
penalties for delinquent and false contribution reports.
Section 345.124 is a new section and provides that an employer may
seek administrative review of any determination made by the Chief
Financial Officer with regard to amounts due under this part. A request
for review, however, does not stay the employer's obligation to make or
continue to file reports as required under this part.
Section 345.125 revises previous Sec. 345.24 to alleviate the
burden on employers to keep supporting records back to 1939. Under the
regulation, an employer must keep records that support his contribution
reports for five calendar years after the date the report was required
to be filed.
Section 345.126 is identical to previous Sec. 345.18 and provides
that any amount due from an employer under this part is a lien on the
employer's property in favor of the United States.
Subpart C--Individual Employer Records
Section 345.201 provides that effective January 1, l990, the Board
will establish a ``record'' for each employer composed of the
employer's contribution and benefit ``experience'' and his share of the
system ``experience'' to determine the employer's experience-based
contribution rate.
Section 345.202 provides that two or more employers under common
control may consolidate their respective employer records and be
treated as one employer.
Section 345.203 provides that in the event of a merger of two
employers, the surviving employer's record shall consist of the
combination of the individual employer records of the employers
participating in the merger.
Section 345.204 embodies the so-called ``successor employer rule''
and provides that in the case of sale or transfer of assets by an
employer, the record of the selling employer shall be transferred to
the purchaser. If less than substantially all the assets are sold or
transferred, the record shall be transferred in accordance with the
agreement of sale, subject to Board approval.
Section 345.205 provides that a reorganization that does not
involve a merger does not affect the employer records of the entities
involved in the reorganization.
Section 345.206 provides that an employer who first pays
compensation after December 31, 1989, shall continue to maintain an
employer record during the period of inactivity.
Section 345.207 provides that in the case of an employer who
permanently ceases operations (defunct employer), that employer's net
cumulative contribution balance and net cumulative benefit balance
shall be transferred to the system unallocated charge balance, that is,
the employer's ``experience'' is spread among all employers.
Section 345.208 provides that the Board shall publish annually
notice of the system unallocated charges and credits.
Subpart D--Contribution Rates
Section 345.301 provides that effective January 1, l993, each
employer's contribution rate will be computed based upon his benefit
and
[[Page 20072]]
contribution experience as computed under this subpart.
Section 345.302 defines the words and phrases used in computing
experience-rated contributions.
Section 345.303 sets forth in a step-by-step manner the computation
of the experience rate.
Section 345.304 provides that new employers, as defined therein,
shall have a phased-in experience rate and sets forth the computation
of this rate.
Section 345.305 provides that annually the Board shall notify each
employer of his contribution rate as computed under this subpart and of
the components that make up that rate.
Section 345.306 provides that upon request the Board will make
available to each employer the data used to determine the employer's
contribution rate.
Section 345.307 provides a procedure under which an employer may
protest his rate. Such procedure may include a hearing, and any final
decision of the Board is subject to judicial review. During pendency of
the appeal, the employer shall pay at the protested rate. Should the
employer prevail in the protest, he will be refunded the overpaid
contributions or may take a credit in the amount of the overpayment
against future contributions due as provided for in Sec. 345.118 of
this part.
Subpart E--Benefit Charging
Section 345.401 provides that all benefits paid to an employee for
his or her days of unemployment or sickness will be charged to the base
year employer of the employee.
Section 345.402 provides that unemployment benefits paid for days
of unemployment resulting from a strike or work stoppage will not be
charged to the employee's base year employer, but shall be charged to
the system unallocated charge balance.
Section 345.403 explains how benefits paid are charged if the
employee had more than one base year employer.
Section 345.404 provides that benefits previously charged shall be
adjusted if later recovered by the Board because they were erroneously
paid. However, no adjustment shall be made where recovery of the
benefits has been waived, or to the extent that recovery is not made
because the debt is determined uncollectible or because it was
compromised.
Section 345.405 provides that the Board will notify an employer
when a claim for benefits is made and when such benefits are paid. In
addition, each quarter the Board will provide each employer with a
report of its cumulative benefit balance.
Section 345.406 provides that the cumulative benefit balance of a
defunct employer shall be added to the system unallocated charge
balance.
On August 18, 1995, the Board published this rule as a proposed
rule (60 FR 43300), inviting comments on or before October 17, 1995. No
comments were received.
In reviewing the proposed rule prior to its publication as a final
rule, clarification of certain provisions, as enumerated below, was
found necessary.
The second sentence of Step 1 of Sec. 345.302(j), which explains
the computation of the pooled charge ratio, was changed to remove: ``,
345.304, or 345.308 * * *, whichever is applicable''. A ``pooled
charge'' is added only to the contribution rate computed under
Sec. 345.303 and is not added to a new employer rate of computation, as
computed under Sec. 345.304, except to the extent that a new employer
rate, as phased in, reflects its experience with respect to periods
after the period during which it has an initial contribution rate, as
computed in Sec. 345.304(b). Also, there is no Sec. 345.308.
The first sentence of Sec. 345.302(k), relating to computation of
pooled credits, was amended to add the language ``, as computed under
Sec. 345.303 of this part,'' to clarify that a new employer is not
entitled to a pooled credit since a new employer's rate is computed
under the special provisions of Sec. 345.303(b) and not under the
regular formula found in Sec. 345.303(a), which provides for the
application of the pooled credit at Step 3.
The first sentence of Sec. 345.302(n), relating to surcharge rates,
was amended to add the language ``, as computed under Sec. 345.303 of
this part,'' to clarify that a surcharge rate, when applicable, will be
added only at Step 6 of Sec. 345.303(a) and not to the rate, if any, as
computed under Sec. 345.304(b).
The Labor Member of the Railroad Retirement Board does not support
the authority contained in Sec. 345.118(c)(3) of the regulation for the
payment of interest, under certain circumstances, to railroad employers
who have overpaid their contributions due under the Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Act. There is no express statutory language in
the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act authorizing the payment of
interest, but rather, the authority is derived from a provision in the
Internal Revenue Code, which is incorporated by reference. The Labor
Member is of the opinion that the regulation should follow the current
regulation of the Railroad Retirement Board, which does not provide for
the payment of interest. In addition to the lack of express statutory
authority for the payment of interest, the Labor Member believes that
it is inequitable to authorize the payment of interest to railroad
employers who have overpaid their contributions when there is no
authority for the Railroad Retirement Board to pay interest to
beneficiaries who have been underpaid benefits under the Railroad
Retirement and Railroad Unemployment Insurance Acts.
The Board has determined that this is not a major rule under
Executive Order No. 12866; therefore no regulatory impact analysis is
required. The information collection requirements contained in this
rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under
control numbers 3220-0008 and 3220-0012.
List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 345
Railroad employers, Railroad unemployment benefits.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 20, chapter II of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
1. Part 345 is revised to read as follows:
PART 345--EMPLOYERS' CONTRIBUTIONS AND CONTRIBUTION REPORTS
Subpart A--General Provisions and Definitions
Sec.
345.101 Requirement for contribution.
345.102 Multiple employer limitation.
345.103 Rate of contribution.
345.104 Employees and employee representatives not liable.
345.105 Definitions.
Subpart B--Reporting and Collecting Contributions
345.110 Reports of compensation of employees.
345.111 Contribution reports.
345.112 Final contribution reports.
345.113 Execution of contribution reports.
345.114 Prescribed forms for contribution reports.
345.115 Place and time for filing contribution reports.
345.116 Payment of contributions.
345.117 When fractional part of cent may be disregarded.
345.118 Adjustments.
345.119 Refunds.
345.120 Assessment and collection of contributions or
underpayments of contributions.
345.121 Jeopardy assessment.
345.122 Interest.
345.123 Penalty for delinquent or false contribution reports.
345.124 Right to appeal.
345.125 Records.
345.126 Liens.
[[Page 20073]]
Subpart C--Individual Employer Records
345.201 Individual employer record defined.
345.202 Consolidated employer records.
345.203 Merger or combination of employers.
345.204 Sale or transfer of assets.
345.205 Reincorporation.
345.206 Abandonment.
345.207 Defunct employer.
345.208 System records.
Subpart D--Contribution Rates
345.301 Introduction.
345.302 Definition of terms and phrases used in experience-rating.
345.303 Computation of rate.
345.304 New-employer contribution rates.
345.305 Notification and proclamations.
345.306 Availability of information.
345.307 Rate protest.
Subpart E--Benefit Charging
345.401 General rule.
345.402 Strikes or work stoppages.
345.403 Multiple base year employers.
345.404 Adjustments.
345.405 Notices to base year employers.
345.406 Defunct employer.
Authority: 45 U.S.C. 362(l).
Subpart A--General Provisions and Definitions
Sec. 345.101 Requirement for contribution.
Every employer, as defined in part 301 of this chapter, shall pay
to the Railroad Retirement Board a contribution with respect to the
compensation paid to an employee in any calendar month for service by
such employee (except for service to a local lodge or division of a
railway labor organization). For the purposes of this part, the term
``compensation'' is defined in part 302 of this chapter. The
compensation subject to contribution is the gross amount of
compensation paid to an employee for service in any month, not to
exceed the amount of the monthly compensation base (MCB), as defined in
part 302 of this chapter. The amount of contribution payable by each
employer is to be computed and paid pursuant to the provisions of this
part.
Sec. 345.102 Multiple employer limitation.
(a) The contributions required by this part shall not apply to any
amount of the aggregate compensation paid to such employee by all such
employers in such calendar month which is in excess of the MCB; and
(b) Each employer (other than a subordinate unit of a national-
railway-labor-organization employer) shall be liable for that portion
of the contribution with respect to such compensation paid by all such
employers which the compensation paid by the employer to such employee
bears to the total compensation paid in such month by all such
employers to such employee.
(c) In the event that the compensation paid by such employers to
the employee in such month is less than the MCB, each subordinate unit
of a national-railway-labor-organization employer shall be liable for
such portion of any additional contribution as the compensation paid by
such employer to such employee in such month bears to the total
compensation paid by all national-railway-labor-organization employers
to such employee in such month.
Sec. 345.103 Rate of contribution.
(a) Each employer will have an experience-rated rate of
contribution computed by the Board under the provisions of section
8(a)(1)(C) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. See Subpart D of
this part.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section the rate of
contribution applicable to an employer that first becomes subject to
this part after December 31, 1989, will be computed by the Board in
accordance with section 8(a)(1)(D) of the Railroad Unemployment
Insurance Act. See Subpart D of this part.
Sec. 345.104 Employees and employee representatives not liable.
The amount of contributions for which an employer is liable under
this part shall not be deducted from an employee's compensation, and
the Board will not recognize any agreement under which an employee
assumes liability for such contributions. Employee representatives
under part 205 of this chapter are not employees for purposes of the
Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act and are not liable for payment of
contributions under this part.
Sec. 345.105 Definitions.
(a) Chief Financial Officer. References in this part to the Board's
Chief Financial Officer mean the Chief Financial Officer, Railroad
Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611. The
Chief Financial Officer shall be responsible for assessing, collecting,
and depositing contributions due from employers under this part.
(b) Monthly compensation base. For the purposes of this part, the
monthly compensation base (MCB) is the maximum monthly amount of
compensation per employee that is subject to contribution pursuant to
this part. On or before December 1 of each year, the Board will compute
the amount of the MCB in accordance with section 1(i) of the Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Act and part 302 of this chapter, and will
publish notice of the amount so computed in the Federal Register within
10 days after such computation has been made. Information as to the
amount of the MCB should be requested from the Board's Chief Financial
Officer.
(c) Month defined. (1) For the purposes of this part, if the date
prescribed for filing a report or paying a contribution is the last day
of a calendar month, each succeeding calendar month or fraction thereof
during which the failure to file or pay the contribution continues
shall constitute a month.
(2) If the date prescribed for filing the report or paying the
contribution is a date other than the last day of a calendar month, the
period that terminates with the date numerically corresponding thereto
in the succeeding calendar month and each such successive period shall
constitute a month. If, in the month of February, there is no date
corresponding to the date prescribed for filing the report or paying,
the period from such date in January through the last day of February
shall constitute a month. Thus, if a report is due on January 30, the
first month shall end on February 28 (or 29 if a leap year), and the
succeeding months shall end on March 30, April 30, etc.
(3) If a report is not timely filed or a contribution is not timely
paid, the fact that the date prescribed for filing the report or paying
the contribution, or the corresponding date in any succeeding calendar
month, falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday is immaterial in
determining the number of months.
(d) Reference to forms. Any reference in this part to any
prescribed reporting or other form of the Board includes a reference to
any other form of the Board prescribed in substitution for such
prescribed form.
(e) Showing reasonable cause. For purposes of this part if an
employer exercised ordinary business care and prudence and was
nevertheless unable to file the return within the prescribed time, then
the delay is due to reasonable cause. A failure to pay any amount due
under this part within the prescribed time will be considered to be due
to reasonable cause to the extent that the employer has made a
satisfactory showing that he exercised ordinary business care and
prudence in providing for payment but nevertheless was unable to pay on
time.
[[Page 20074]]
Subpart B--Reporting and Collecting Contributions
Sec. 345.110 Reports of compensation of employees.
The provisions of part 209 of this chapter shall be applicable to
the reporting of compensation under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance
Act to the same extent and in the same manner as they are applicable to
the reporting of compensation under the Railroad Retirement Act.
Sec. 345.111 Contribution reports.
(a) General. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, every employer shall, for each calendar quarter of each year,
prepare a contribution report, in duplicate, on Form DC-1.
(2) Contribution reports of employers who are required by State law
to pay compensation on a weekly basis shall include with respect to
such compensation all payroll weeks in which all or the major part of
the compensation falls within the period for which the reports are
required.
(b) Compensation to be reported on Form DC-1. Employers shall enter
on the employer's quarterly contribution report, prior to any additions
or subtractions, the amount of creditable compensation appearing on
payrolls or other disbursement documents for the corresponding quarter
as the amount of creditable compensation from which the contribution
payable for that quarter is to be computed.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 3220-0012)
Sec. 345.112 Final contribution reports.
Upon termination of employer status, as determined under part 301
of this chapter, the last contribution report of the employer shall be
so indicated by checking the box on the Form DC-1 entitled ``Final
Report''. Such contribution report shall be filed with the Board on or
before the sixtieth day after the final date for which there is payable
compensation with respect to which contribution is required. The period
covered by each such contribution report shall be plainly written
thereon, indicating the final date for which compensation is payable.
There shall be executed as part of each such final contribution report
a statement giving the address at which compensation records will be
kept and the name of the person keeping the records.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 3220-0012)
Sec. 345.113 Execution of contribution reports.
Each contribution report on Form DC-1 shall be signed by:
(a) The individual, if the employer is an individual;
(b) The president, vice president, or other duly authorized
officer, if the employer is a corporation; or
(c) A responsible and duly authorized member or officer having
knowledge of its affairs if the employer is a partnership or other
unincorporated organization.
Sec. 345.114 Prescribed forms for contribution reports.
Each employer's contribution report, together with any prescribed
copies and supporting data, shall be filled out in accordance with the
instructions and regulations applicable thereto. The prescribed forms
may be obtained from the Board. An employer will not be excused from
making a contribution report for the reason that no form has been
furnished to such employer. Application should be made to the Board for
the prescribed forms in ample time to have the contribution report
prepared, verified, and filed with the Board on or before the due date.
Contribution reports that have not been so prepared will not be
accepted and shall not be considered filed for purposes of Sec. 345.115
of this part. In case the prescribed form has not been obtained, a
statement made by the employer disclosing the period covered and the
amount of compensation with respect to which the contribution is
required may be accepted as a tentative contribution report if
accompanied by the amount of contribution due. If filed within the
prescribed time, the statements so made will relieve the employer from
liability for any penalty imposed under this part for the delinquent
filing of the contribution report provided that the failure to file a
contribution report on the prescribed form was due to reasonable cause
and not due to willful neglect, and provided further, that within 30
days after receipt of the tentative report such tentative report is
supplemented by a contribution report made on the proper form.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 3220-0012)
Sec. 345.115 Place and time for filing contribution reports.
Each employer shall file its contribution report with the Chief
Financial Officer, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street,
Chicago, Illinois, 60611. The employer's contribution report for each
quarterly period shall be filed on or before the last day of the
calendar month following the period for which it is made. If such last
day falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a national legal holiday, the report
may be filed on the next following business day. If mailed, reports
must be postmarked on or before the date on which the report is
required to be filed.
Sec. 345.116 Payment of contributions.
(a) The contribution required to be reported on an employer's
contribution report is due and payable to the Board without assessment
or notice, at the time fixed for filing the contribution report as
provided for in Sec. 345.115 of this part.
(b) An employer shall deposit the contributions required under this
part in accord with instructions issued by the Railroad Retirement
Board. At the direction of the Board, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall credit such contributions to the Railroad Unemployment Insurance
Account in accord with section 10 of the Railroad Unemployment
Insurance Act and to the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Administration
Fund in accord with section 11 of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance
Act.
Sec. 345.117 When fractional part of cent may be disregarded.
In the payment of employers' contributions to the Board a
fractional part of a cent shall be disregarded unless it amounts to
one-half cent or more, in which case it shall be increased to one cent.
Sec. 345.118 Adjustments.
(a) In general. If more or less than the correct amount of an
employer's contribution is paid with respect to any compensation,
proper adjustments with respect to the contributions shall be made,
without interest, in subsequent contribution payments by the same
employer, as provided for in this section.
(b) Compensation adjustment. A compensation adjustment is the
amount of any adjustment reported by an employer on Form BA-4. See part
209 of this chapter.
(c) Adjustment of contributions. (1) All adjustments of
contributions based on compensation adjustments shall be accounted for
by the employer on the contribution report for the same quarter in
which the Form BA-4 reflecting the compensation adjustments is filed
with the Board.
(2) If less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for
any previous calendar quarter or calendar year because of an error that
does not
[[Page 20075]]
constitute a compensation adjustment as defined in paragraph (b) of
this section, the employer shall adjust the error by--
(i) Reporting the additional contribution on the next report filed
after discovery of the error; and
(ii) Paying the amount thereof to the Board at the time such report
is filed.
(3) If more than the correct amount of contributions is paid for
any previous calendar quarter or calendar year because of an error that
does not constitute a compensation adjustment as defined in paragraph
(b) of this section, the employer shall adjust the error by applying
the excess payment as a credit against the contribution due on the next
report filed after discovery of the error. However, if the overpayment
cannot be adjusted because the employer is no longer required to file a
report or because the overpayment to be adjusted exceeds the amount of
contribution due on the employer's next report, the employer may file
for a refund of the amount which cannot be adjusted as provided for in
this section. If the overpayment is the result of an incorrect
contribution rate as determined by the Board, the employer may file for
a refund of the amount of overpayment or may take an adjustment as
provided for in this section.
(d) Limitations on adjustments. No overpayment shall be adjusted
under this section after the expiration of three years from the time
the contribution report was required to be filed, or two years from the
time the contribution was paid, whichever of such periods expires the
later, or if no contribution report was filed, two years from the time
the contribution was paid. Any underpayment not adjusted within the
time limits as set forth in paragraph (c) of this section shall be
adjusted on the employer's next contribution report or reported
immediately on a supplemental return. Interest shall accrue on such
underpayment as provided for in Sec. 345.122 of this part from the time
the adjustment should have been made under paragraph (c) of this
section to date of payment. However, no underpayment shall be adjusted
under this section after the receipt from the Board of formal notice
and demand.
Sec. 345.119 Refunds.
(a) In general. If more than the correct amount of the employer's
contribution is paid with respect to any compensation and the
overpayment may not be adjusted in accordance with Sec. 345.118 of this
part, the amount of the overpayment shall be refunded in accordance
with this section.
(b) When permitted. A claim for refund may be made only when the
overpayment cannot be adjusted in accordance with the procedure set
forth in Sec. 345.118.
(c) Form of claim. A claim for refund shall be directed to the
Chief Financial Officer and shall set forth all grounds in detail and
all facts alleged in support of the claim, including the amount and
date of each payment to the Board of the contribution to the Board, and
the period covered by the contribution report on which such
contribution was reported.
(d) Claim by fiduciary. If an executor, administrator, guardian,
trustee, or receiver files a claim for refund, evidence to establish
the legal authority of the fiduciary shall be annexed to the claim
filed by such fiduciary under this section.
(e) Time limit. No refund shall be allowed after the expiration of
three years from the time the contribution report was required to be
filed or two years from the time the contribution was paid, whichever
of such periods expires the later, or if no contribution report was
filed, two years from the time the contribution was paid.
(f) Interest. Interest shall be payable on any contribution
refunded at the overpayment rate provided for in section 6621 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 from the date of the overpayment to a
date preceding the date of the refund check by not more than 30 days.
(g) Refunds reduced by underpayments. Any overpayment claimed or a
refund under this section shall be reduced by the amount of any amount
of any contributions previously assessed under Sec. 345.120 of this
part, which has not already been collected.
Sec. 345.120 Assessment and collection of contributions or
underpayments of contributions.
(a) If any employer's contribution is not paid to the Board when
due or is not paid in full when due, the Board may, as the
circumstances warrant, assess the contribution or the deficiency and
any interest or penalty applicable under this part (whether or not the
deficiency is adjustable as an underpayment under Sec. 345.118 of this
part).
(b) The amount of any such assessment will be collected in
accordance with the applicable provisions of law. If any employer
liable to pay any contribution neglects or refuses to pay the same
within ten days after notice and demand, the Board may collect such
contribution with such interest and other additional amounts as are
required by law, by levy, by administrative offset as authorized by 31
U.S.C. 3716 and in accordance with the procedures set forth in part 367
of this chapter, or by a proceeding in court, but only if the levy is
made or proceeding begun:
(1) Within 10 years after assessment of the contribution; or
(2) Prior to the expiration of any period, including extension
thereof, for collection agreed upon by the Chief Financial Officer and
the employer.
(c) All provisions of law, including penalties, applicable with
respect to any tax imposed by the provisions of the Railroad Retirement
Tax Act and the regulations thereunder, insofar as not inconsistent
with the provisions in this part, shall be applicable with respect to
the assessment and collection of contributions under this part.
Sec. 345.121 Jeopardy assessment.
(a) Whenever in the opinion of the Board it becomes necessary to
protect the interests of the Government by effecting an immediate
reporting and collection of an employer's contribution, the Board will
assess the contribution whether or not the time otherwise prescribed by
law for filing the contribution report and paying such contribution has
expired, together with all penalties and interest thereon. Upon
assessment, such contribution, and any penalty, and interest provided
for under this part shall be immediately due and payable, and the Board
shall thereupon issue immediately a notice and demand for payment of
the contribution, penalty, and interest.
(b) The collection of the whole or any part of the amount of the
jeopardy assessment may be stayed by filing with the Board a bond in an
amount equal to the amount with respect to which the stay is desired,
and with such sureties as the Board may deem necessary. Such bond shall
be conditioned upon the payment of the amount (together with interest
and any penalties thereon) the collection of which is stayed, at the
time at which, but for the jeopardy assessment, such amount would be
due. In lieu of surety or sureties the employer may deposit with the
Board bonds or notes of the United States, or bonds or notes fully
guaranteed by the United States as to principal and interest, having a
par value not less than the amount of the bond required to be
furnished, together with an agreement authorizing the Board in case of
default to collect or sell such bonds or notes so deposited.
Sec. 345.122 Interest.
(a) Rate. If the employer's contribution is not paid to the Board
[[Page 20076]]
when due and is not adjusted under Sec. 345.118 of this part, interest
accrues at the rate of 1 percent per month, or fraction of a month.
Interest on past due contributions from the due date thereof until the
date paid will be assessed after payment of the contributions, and
notice and demand made upon the employer for payment thereof, in any
case in which payment of the contribution is made before assessment
under Sec. 345.120.
(b) Waiver of interest. The Chief Financial Officer may waive, in
whole or in part, any interest imposed by paragraph (a) of this section
if in his or her judgment--
(1) There was a reasonable cause and not willful neglect for the
late filing, late payment or underpayment, such as: the serious illness
or death of an individual with the sole authority to execute the return
and payment; fire, casualty, or natural disaster at the place where the
railroad unemployment insurance records are kept; or reasons outside
the employer's control, such as, the failure of the employer's bank to
comply with the employer's filing and payment instructions;
(2) The amount of interest attributed to the delinquency is totally
disproportionate to the period of the delay and the amount of
contributions paid; and
(3) The employer's past record for timely compliance with railroad
unemployment insurance reporting and payment requirements warrants such
action considering such factors as the number and extent of delays
associated with late reports, payments, and underpayments.
Sec. 345.123 Penalty for delinquent or false contribution reports.
(a) Delinquent reports. Unless waived under paragraph (b) of this
section, the failure to file a contribution report on or before the due
date shall cause a penalty to accrue of five percent of the amount of
such contribution if the failure is for not more than one month, with
an additional five percent for each additional month or fraction
thereof during which such failure continues, not exceeding 25 percent
in the aggregate.
(b) Waiver of penalty. The Chief Financial Officer may waive all or
a portion of the penalty imposed under paragraph (a) of this section
consistent with the criteria applicable to waiver of interest as
provided for in Sec. 345.122(b) of this part.
(c) Penalty on net amount. For the purpose of paragraph (a) of this
section the amount of contribution required to be shown on Form DC-1
shall be reduced by the amount of any part of the contribution that is
paid on or before the date prescribed for the payment of the
contribution and by the amount of any credit against the contribution
that may be claimed upon the DC-1.
(d) False reports. If a fraudulent contribution report is made, a
penalty equal to 50 percent of the amount of any underpayment shall be
imposed on the employer.
Sec. 345.124 Right to appeal.
(a) Except as otherwise provided, an employer may seek
administrative review of any determination with respect to any
contribution, interest, or penalty made under this part by filing a
request for reconsideration with the Chief Financial Officer within 30
days after the mailing of notice of such determination. An employer
shall have a right to appeal to the Board from any reconsideration
decision under this section by filing notice of appeal to the Secretary
to the Board within 14 days after the mailing of the decision on
reconsideration. Upon receipt of a notice of an appeal the Board may
designate one of its officers or employees to receive evidence and
report to the Board under the procedures set forth in part 319 of this
chapter.
(b) Request for reconsideration. Any appeal filed under this part
shall not relieve the employer from filing any reports or paying any
contribution required under this part nor stay the collection thereof.
Upon the request of an employer, the Board may relieve the employer of
any obligation required under this part pending an appeal. Unless
specifically provided by the Board, such relief shall not stay the
accrual of interest on any disputed amount as provided for in
Sec. 345.122 of this part.
Sec. 345.125 Records.
Every employer subject to the payment of contributions for any
calendar quarter shall, with respect to each such quarter, keep such
permanent records as are necessary to establish the total amount of
compensation payable to its employees, for a period of at least five
calendar years after the date the contribution report to which the
compensation relates was required to be filed, or the date the
contribution is paid, whichever is later. The record should be in such
form as to contain the information required to be shown on the
quarterly contribution report. All records required by the regulations
in this part shall be kept at a safe and convenient location accessible
to inspection by the Board or any of its officers or employees, or by
the Inspector General of the Railroad Retirement Board. Such records
shall be at all times open for inspection by such officers or
employees.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 3220-0012)
Sec. 345.126 Liens.
If any employer, after demand, neglects or refuses to pay a
contribution required under this part, the amount of such contribution
(including any interest, penalties, additional amount, or additions to
such contribution, together with any costs that may accrue in addition
thereto) shall be a lien in favor of the United States upon all
property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to
such employer.
Subpart C--Individual Employer Records
Sec. 345.201 Individual employer record defined.
Effective January 1, 1990, the Board will establish and maintain a
record, hereinafter known as an Individual Employer Record, for each
employer subject to this part. As used in this subpart, ``Individual
Employer Record'' means a record of each employer's benefit ratio;
reserve ratio; 1-year compensation base; 3-year compensation base;
unallocated charge; reserve balance; net cumulative contribution
balance; and cumulative benefit balance. See Sec. 345.302 of this part
for a definition of these terms. Whenever a new employer begins paying
compensation with respect to which contributions are payable under this
part, the Board will establish and maintain an individual employer
record for such employer.
Sec. 345.202 Consolidated employer records.
(a) Establishing a consolidated employer record. Two or more
employers that are under common ownership or control may request the
Board to consolidate their individual employer records into a joint
individual employer record. Such joint individual employer record shall
be treated as though it were a single employer record. A request for
such consolidation shall be made to the Director of Unemployment and
Sickness Insurance, and such consolidation shall be effective
commencing with the calendar year following the year of the request.
(b) Discontinuance of a consolidated employer record. Two or more
employers that have established and maintained a consolidated employer
record will be permitted to discontinue such consolidated record only
if the
[[Page 20077]]
individual employers agree to an allocation of the consolidated
employer record and such allocation is approved by the Director of
Unemployment and Sickness Insurance.
Sec. 345.203 Merger or combination of employers.
In the event of a merger or combination of two or more employers,
or an employer and non-employer, the individual employer record of the
employer surviving the merger (or any person that becomes an employer
as the result of the merger or combination) shall consist of the
combination of the individual employer records of the entities
participating in the merger.
Sec. 345.204 Sale or transfer of assets.
(a) In the event property of an employer is sold or transferred to
another employer (or to a person that becomes an employer as the result
of the sale or transfer) or is partitioned among two or more employers
or persons, the individual employer record of such employer shall be
prorated among the employer or employers that receive the property
(including any person that becomes an employer by reason of such
transaction or partition), in accordance with any agreement among the
respective parties (including an agreement that there shall be no
proration of the employer record). Such agreement shall be subject to
the approval of the Board.
(b) There shall be no transfer of the employer record where an
employer abandons a line of track in accordance with the provisions of
the Interstate Commerce Act and the applicable regulations thereunder,
and a new entity, found by the Board to be an ``employer'' under part
301 of this chapter, is formed to operate or continue service over such
line; the Board will assign to such entity a new-employer contribution
rate in accordance with section 8(a)(1)(D) of the RUIA and Sec. 345.304
of this part.
Sec. 345.205 Reincorporation.
The cumulative benefit balance, net cumulative contribution
balance, 1-year compensation base, and 3-year compensation base of an
employer that reincorporates or otherwise alters its corporate identity
in a transaction not involving a merger, consolidation, or unification
will attach to the reincorporated or altered identity.
Sec. 345.206 Abandonment.
If an employer abandons property or discontinues service but
continues to operate as an employer, the employer's individual employer
record shall continue to be calculated as provided in this subpart
without retroactive adjustment.
Sec. 345.207 Defunct employer.
If the Board determines that an employer has permanently ceased to
pay compensation with respect to which contributions are payable under
this part, the Board will, on the date of such determination, transfer
the employer's net cumulative contribution balance as a subtraction
from, and the cumulative benefit balance as an addition to, the system
unallocated charge balance and will cancel all other accumulations of
the employer. The Board's determination that an employer is defunct
will be based on evidence indicating that the employer has ceased all
operations as an employer and has terminated its status as an employer.
In making its determination, the Board will consider evidence as
described in part 202 of this chapter with respect to termination of
employer status under the Railroad Retirement Act. Mere failure of an
employer to pay contributions due under this part does not indicate
that such employer is defunct.
Sec. 345.208 System records.
Effective January 1, 1990, the Board will establish and maintain
records necessary to determine pooled charges, pooled credits, and
unallocated charges for the experience rating system and will publish a
notice with respect thereto no later than October 15 of each year. See
Sec. 345.302 of this part for the definition of these terms.
Subpart D--Contribution Rates
Sec. 345.301 Introduction.
(a) General. Effective January 1, 1993, each employer that is
subject to this part will have an experience-rated rate of contribution
computed as set forth in Sec. 345.303 of this part. A transitional rate
of contribution applies to each such employer for 1991 and 1992, in
accordance with section 8(a)(1)(B) of the RUIA. An employer that first
becomes subject to section 8 of the RUIA after December 31, 1989 will
have a ``new-employer'' contribution rate as computed in Sec. 345.304
of this part. An employer's experience-rated contribution rate will be
not less than 0.65 percent nor more than 12.5 percent. Not later than
October 15 of each year, the Board will notify each employer of its
experience-rated contribution rate for the following calendar year.
(b) Components of an experience-rated contribution rate. An
employer's experience-rated contribution rate for each calendar year
beginning with 1993 will be based upon the following charges:
(1) An allocated charge based upon the amount of benefits paid to
employees of such employer; this charge is explained in subpart E of
this part;
(2) An unallocated charge based upon a proportionate share of the
system unallocated charge balance, the computation of which is
explained in Sec. 345.302(p) of this part;
(3) A pooled charge, also referred to as risk-sharing, to cover the
cost of benefit payments that are chargeable to a base year employer
but are not captured by the contribution rate assigned to such employer
because it is paying contributions at the maximum rate of contribution;
the formula for computing the pooled charge is set forth in
Sec. 345.302(j) of this part;
(4) A surcharge of 1.5, 2.5, or 3.5 percent, or a pooled credit,
depending on the balance to the credit of the Account as of June 30 of
a given year; and
(5) An addition of 0.65 percent to the rate of contribution to
cover the expenses incurred by the Board in administering the RUIA.
(c) Maximum rate of contribution. Notwithstanding any provision of
this part, an employer's contribution rate for any calendar year shall
be limited to 12 percent, except when a surcharge of 3.5 percent is in
effect with respect to that calendar year. If a 3.5 percent surcharge
is in effect, the maximum contribution limit with respect to that
calendar year is 12.5 percent. The surcharge rate for a calendar year
will be 3.5 percent when the balance to the credit of the Account is
less than zero. The Board will compute the surcharge rate in accordance
with Sec. 345.302(n) of this part.
Sec. 345.302 Definition of terms and phrases used in experience-
rating.
(a) Account. The Railroad Unemployment Insurance Account
established by section 10 of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act
(RUIA) and maintained by the Secretary of the Treasury in the
unemployment trust fund established pursuant to section 904 of the
Social Security Act. Benefits paid under the RUIA for an employee's
days of unemployment or days of sickness are paid from this Account.
(b) Benefit ratio. This ratio is computed for each employer as of
any given June 30 by dividing all benefits charged to the employer
under subpart E of this part during the 12 calendar quarters ending on
such June 30 by the employer's three-year compensation base as of such
June 30, as computed under paragraph (q) of this section. The
[[Page 20078]]
ratio is computed to four decimal places.
(c) Benefits. Benefits are money payments paid or payable by the
Board to a qualified employee with respect to his or her days of
unemployment or days of sickness, as provided by the RUIA.
(d) Compensation. This term has the meaning given in part 302 of
this chapter.
(e) Contributions. Contributions are the money payments paid or
payable by an employer subject to this part with respect to the
compensation paid or payable to employees of such employer.
(f) Cumulative benefit balance. An employer's cumulative benefit
balance as of any given June 30 is determined by adding:
(1) The net amount of the benefits charged to the employer under
subpart E on or after January 1, 1990, and
(2) The cumulative amount of the employer's unallocated charges on
and after January 1, 1990, as computed under paragraph (r) of this
section.
(g) Fund. The Railroad Unemployment Insurance Administration Fund
established by section 11 of the RUIA and maintained by the Secretary
of the Treasury in the unemployment trust fund established pursuant to
section 904 of the Social Security Act. The costs incurred by the Board
in administering the RUIA are paid from the Fund.
(h) Net cumulative contribution balance. The Board will determine
an employer's net cumulative contribution balance as of any given June
30, as follows:
(1) Step 1. Compute the sum of all contributions paid by the
employer pursuant to this part after December 31, 1989; add that
portion of the tax, if any, imposed under 26 U.S.C. 3321(a) that is
attributable to the surtax rate under section 7106(b) of the Railroad
Unemployment Insurance and Retirement Improvement Act of 1988 (Pub. L.
100-647) and any repayment taxes paid by the employer pursuant to 26
U.S.C. 3321(a) after the outstanding balance of loans made under
section 10(d) of the RUIA before October 1, 1985, plus interest, has
been paid;
(2) Step 2. Subtract an amount equal to the amount of such
contributions deposited, pursuant to section 8(i) of the RUIA, to the
credit of the Fund; and
(3) Step 3. Add an amount equal to the aggregate amount by which
such contributions were reduced in prior calendar years as a result of
pooled credits, if any, under paragraph (k) of this section.
(i) One-year compensation base. An employer's one-year compensation
base is the aggregate amount of compensation with respect to which the
employer is liable for contributions under this part in the four
calendar quarters ending on such June 30.
(j) Pooled charge ratio. The pooled charge ratio, when applicable,
is a pro-rata increase in the rate of contribution assigned to each
employer that is not already paying contributions at the maximum rate.
A pooled charge will become applicable to each such employer during a
calendar year when the Account loses income because one or more other
employers are paying contributions at the maximum rate (12 or 12.5
percent) rather than at the higher experience-based rate that their
benefit charges would otherwise require. The pooled charge ratio thus
picks up the cost of benefits paid to employees of employers whose rate
of contribution is capped at the maximum rate. The pooled charge ratio
for a calendar year is the same for all employers whose rate is less
than the maximum and is computed as follows:
(1) Step 1. For each employer paying contributions at the maximum
contribution limit under Sec. 345.301(c) of this part, compute the
amount of contributions that such employer would have paid if its
experience-based rate were applied to its one-year compensation base as
of the preceding June 30 and by then deducting from such amount the
amount derived by applying the maximum contribution rate to the same
one-year compensation base. For the purposes of this computation, the
experience-based rate is the rate computed for such employer under
Sec. 345.303 of this part.
(2) Step 2. After the amount is computed for each employer in
accordance with Step 1 of this paragraph (j), add the amounts for all
such employers. The aggregate amount so computed represents the amount
of contributions not collected by the Account because of the maximum
contribution limit.
(3) Step 3. For each employer whose experience-based rate of
contribution, as computed at Step 3 of Sec. 345.303(a) of this part, is
less than zero, the percentage rate by which the employer's rate was
raised in order to bring that rate to the minimum rate of zero is
multiplied by the employer's 1-year compensation base. The total of the
amounts so computed is subtracted from the aggregate amount computed in
Step 2 of this paragraph (j).
(4) Step 4. Divide the net aggregate amount computed at Step 3 of
this paragraph (j) by the system compensation base as of the preceding
June 30, excluding from such base the one-year compensation base of
each employer whose experience-based contribution rate, computed at
Step 6 of Sec. 345.303(a) of this part, exceeds the maximum
contribution limit. The result is the pooled charge ratio for the
current calendar year. This ratio is computed to four decimal places.
(k) Pooled credit ratio. Effective January 1, 1991, and on the
first of each subsequent calendar year, the Board will reduce each
employer's rate of contribution, as computed under Sec. 345.303 of this
part, by the amount of the pooled credit ratio, if any, applicable to
such calendar year. This ratio is computed by reference to the accrual
balance to the credit of the Account as of the preceding June 30. The
Board will determine the amount of the pooled credit ratio, as follows:
(1) Step 1. First, the Board computes the accrual balance to the
credit of the Account as of the close of business on the preceding June
30 in the same manner as under Step 1 of paragraph (n) of this section.
There will be a pooled credit ratio for the calendar year if that
balance is in excess of the greater of $250 million or of the amount
that bears the same ratio to $250 million as the system compensation
base as of that June 30 bears to the system compensation base as of
June 30, 1991, as computed in accordance with paragraph (o) of this
section.
(2) Step 2. If there is such an excess amount, divide that excess
amount by the system compensation base as of the June 30 preceding the
calendar year. The result is the pooled credit ratio applicable to each
employer for the calendar year involved in the computation. This ratio
is computed to four decimal places.
(l) Reserve balance. An employer's reserve balance is computed as
of any given June 30 by subtracting its cumulative benefit balance as
of such June 30 from its net cumulative contribution balance as of such
June 30. An employer's net cumulative benefit balance is computed under
paragraph (f) of this section and its net cumulative contribution
balance under paragraph (h) of this section. An employer's reserve
balance may be either positive or negative, depending upon whether its
net cumulative contribution balance exceeds its cumulative benefit
balance.
(m) Reserve ratio. This ratio is computed for each employer as of
any given June 30 by dividing its reserve balance as of June 30 by its
one-year compensation base as of such June 30. An employer's reserve
balance is computed under paragraph (l) of this section and its one-
year compensation base under paragraph (i) of this section.
[[Page 20079]]
This ratio is computed to four decimal places; it may be either a
positive or negative figure, depending on whether the employer's
reserve balance is a positive or negative figure.
(n) Surcharge rate. Effective January 1, 1991, and on the first of
each subsequent calendar year, the Board will add to each employer's
rate of contribution, as computed under Sec. 345.303 of this part, a
surcharge rate of 1.5, 2.5, or 3.5 percent if the accrual balance to
the credit of the Account, as of the preceding June 30, falls within
the range of balances set forth in Steps 1 and 2 of this paragraph (n).
The Board will determine which surcharge rate, if any, is in effect for
a calendar year by means of the following computation:
(1) Step 1. First, the Board computes the accrual balance to the
credit of the Account as of the close of business on the preceding June
30. Such balance will include any amounts in the Account attributable
to loans made under section 10(d) of the Act before October 1, 1985,
but not the obligation of the Account to repay such loans with
interest. For this purpose, the Account will be deemed to include any
balance to the credit of the Fund that exceeds $6 million. The
surcharge rate, as specified in Step 2 of this paragraph (n), will
apply if that balance is less than the greater of $100 million or of
the amount that bears the same ratio to $100 million as the system
compensation base as of that June 30 bears to the system compensation
base as of June 30, 1991, as computed in accordance with paragraph (o)
of this section.
(2) Step 2. If the balance to the credit of the Account is less
than the greater of the amounts referred to in the last sentence of
Step 1 of this paragraph (n), but is equal to or more than the greater
of $50 million or of the amount that bears the same ratio to $50
million as the system compensation base as of that June 30 bears to the
system compensation base as of June 30, 1991, then the surcharge rate
for the calendar year shall be 1.5 percent. If the balance to the
credit of the Account is less than the greater of the amounts referred
to in this Step 2, but greater than or equal to zero, then the
surcharge rate for the calendar year shall be 2.5 percent. If the
balance to the credit of the Account is less than zero, the surcharge
rate for the calendar year shall be 3.5 percent.
(o) System compensation base. The system compensation base as of
June 30 of each year is the total of the amounts of the one-year
compensation bases of all base year employers, computed in accordance
with paragraph (i) of this section. Not later than October 15 of each
year, the Board will compute the amount of the system compensation base
and will publish notice of such amount in the Federal Register as soon
as practicable thereafter.
(p) System unallocated charge balance. This balance, as computed
initially for the period January 1 through June 30, 1990 and updated as
of June 30 of each subsequent calendar year, represents the net amount
of expenditures from, and income to, the Account that cannot be
allocated as benefit charges, or adjustments, to the cumulative benefit
balances of individual base year employers. The Board computes this
balance, as of June 30 of each year, as follows:
(1) Step 1. Compute the aggregate amount of all interest paid by
the Account on loans from the Railroad Retirement Account after
September 30, 1985, pursuant to section 10(d) of the RUIA, during the
12-month period ending on June 30;
(2) Step 2. Add the amount of unemployment benefits paid by reason
of strikes or work stoppages growing out of labor disputes and the
cumulative benefit balance of any defunct employer;
(3) Step 3. Add the aggregate amount of any other benefit payment
that is not chargeable to a base year employer pursuant to subpart E of
this part and any other expenditure not chargeable to the Fund;
(4) Step 4. Subtract the aggregate amount of income to the Account
received as a proportionate part of the earnings of the unemployment
trust fund, computed in accordance with section 904(e) of the Social
Security Act, and all income to the Account received as fines or
penalties collected under the RUIA;
(5) Step 5. Subtract the aggregate amount of all transfers from the
Fund to the Account pursuant to section 11(d) of the RUIA;
(6) Step 6. Subtract the aggregate amount of any other cash receipt
to the Account that cannot be treated as an adjustment to the benefit
charges of a base year employer;
(7) Step 7. Subtract the net cumulative contribution balance of any
defunct employer, calculated as of the date on which the Board
determines that such employer is defunct. After the Board has computed
the amount of the system unallocated charge balance as of June 30 of
each year, the Board will publish notice of such amount in the Federal
Register on or before October 15 of such year.
(q) Three-year compensation base. An employer's three-year
compensation base as of any given June 30 is the aggregate amount of
compensation with respect to which the employer is liable for
contributions under this part in the 12 calendar quarters ending on
such June 30.
(r) Unallocated charge. An employer's unallocated charge as of any
given June 30 is the amount that, as of such June 30, bears the same
ratio to the system unallocated charge balance as the employer's 1-year
compensation base bears to the system compensation base. The system
unallocated charge balance is computed under paragraph (p) of this
section and the system compensation base under paragraph (o) of this
section.
Sec. 345.303 Computation of rate.
(a) With respect to compensation in a calendar year that begins
after December 31, 1992, the Board will compute, by October 15, 1992,
and by October 15 of each subsequent year, a contribution rate for each
employer (other than a new employer) in accordance with the following
8-step process:
(1) Step 1. Compute the employer's benefit ratio as of the
preceding June 30;
(2) Step 2. Compute the employer's reserve ratio as of the
preceding June 30 and subtract it from the benefit ratio;
(3) Step 3. Subtract the pooled credit ratio (if any) for the
calendar year;
(4) Step 4. Multiply the Step 3 result by 100, in order to obtain a
percentage rate, and then round such rate to the nearest 100th of one
percent. If the rate so computed is zero or less than zero, the
percentage rate will be deemed zero at this point;
(5) Step 5. Add 0.65 (the administrative charge) to the percentage
rate computed through Step 4.
(6) Step 6. Add the surcharge rate (if any) for the calendar year;
(7) Step 7. Add the pooled charge ratio (if any) for the calendar
year, as computed to four decimal places and multiplied by 100;
(8) Step 8. If the rate computed through Step 7 is greater than 12
percent (or 12.5 percent if a surcharge of 3.5 percent is in effect for
the calendar year), reduce the percentage rate so computed to 12
percent or 12.5 percent, if appropriate.
(b) The percentage rate computed under paragraph (a) of this
section is the employer's rate of contribution for the calendar year in
question.
(c)(1) Any computation that is to be made under this section on the
basis of a 12-quarter period ending on a given June 30 shall be made on
the basis of a period beginning on January 1, 1990, or on the first day
of the first calendar quarter that begins after the date on which the
employer first began to pay compensation subject to this part, or on
July 1 of the third calendar year
[[Page 20080]]
preceding that June 30, whichever date is later, and ending on that
June 30.
(2) The amount computed under paragraph (c)(1) of this section
shall be increased to an amount that bears the same ratio to the amount
so computed as 12 bears to the number of calendar quarters on which the
computation is based.
Sec. 345.304 New-employer contribution rates.
(a) An employer whose coverage under the RUIA becomes effective
after December 31, 1989, is considered a ``new employer'' for the
purposes of this part and will be assigned a contribution rate as
computed under this section. The Board shall determine where an
employer is a new employer and, if so, the effective date of its
coverage under the RUIA and its rate of contribution with respect to
compensation paid to employees on and after such effective date.
(b) Initial contribution rate. The rate of contribution with
respect to compensation paid in calendar months before the end of the
first full calendar year that the employer is subject to this section
shall be the average contribution rate paid by all employers during the
three calendar years preceding the calendar year before the calendar
year in which the compensation is paid. The Board will compute the
average contribution rate by dividing the aggregate contributions paid
by all employers during those three calendar years by the aggregate
compensation with respect to which such contributions were paid and by
then multiplying the resulting ratio, as computed to four decimal
points, by 100.
(c) Second contribution rate. The rate of contribution with respect
to compensation paid in months in the second full calendar year shall
be the smaller of the maximum contribution limit under the RUIA or the
percentage rate computed as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03MY96.047
(d) Third contribution rate. The rate of contribution with respect
to compensation paid in months in the third full calendar year shall be
the smaller of the maximum contribution limit under the RUIA or the
percentage rate computed as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03MY96.048
(e) Subsequent calendar years. The rate of contribution with
respect to months after the third full calendar year shall be
determined under Sec. 345.303 of this part.
(f) Meaning of symbols. For the purpose of the formulas in
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, ``R'' is the applicable
contribution rate being computed; ``A2'' is the contribution rate that
would have been determined under paragraph (b) of this section if the
employer's second calendar year had been its first full calendar year;
``A3'' is the contribution rate that would have been determined under
paragraph (b) of this section, if the employer's third calendar year
had been such employer's first full calendar year; ``B'' is the
contribution rate for the employer as determined under Sec. 345.303 of
this part for the employer's second full calendar year; and ``C'' is
the contribution rate for the employer as determined under Sec. 345.303
of this part for the employer's third full calendar year.
(g) Special rule for certain computations. For purposes of
computing ``B'' and ``C'' in the formulas in this section, the
percentage rate computed under Sec. 345.303 shall not be reduced under
Step 8 of that section; and any computations that, under Sec. 345.303,
are to be made on the basis of a 4-quarter or 12-quarter period ending
on a given June 30 shall be made on the basis of a period commencing
with the first day of the first calendar quarter that begins after the
date on which the employer first began paying compensation subject to
this part and ending on that June 30, and the amount so computed shall
be increased to an amount that bears the same ratio to the amount so
computed as four or twelve, as appropriate, bears to the number of
calendar quarters in the period on which the computation was based.
Sec. 345.305 Notification and proclamations.
(a) Quarterly notifications to employers. Not later than the last
day of any calendar quarter that begins after March 31, 1990, the Board
will notify each employer of its cumulative benefit balance and its net
cumulative contribution balance as of the end of the preceding calendar
quarter, as computed in accordance with Sec. 345.302(f) and (h) of this
part as of the last day of such preceding calendar quarter rather than
as of a given June 30 if such last day is not a June 30.
(b) Annual notifications to employers. Not later than October 15,
1990, and October 15 of each year thereafter, the Board will notify
each employer of its benefit ratio, reserve ratio, one-year
compensation base, three-year compensation base, unallocated charge,
and reserve balance as of the preceding June 30, as computed in
accordance with this part, and of the contribution rate applicable to
the employer for the following calendar year as computed under the
applicable section of this part.
(c) Proclamations. Not later than October 15, 1990, and October 15
of each year thereafter, the Board shall proclaim--
(1) The balance to the credit of the Account as of the preceding
June 30 for purposes of computing the pooled credit ratio and the
surcharge rate of contribution;
(2) The balance of any advances to the Account under section 10(d)
of the RUIA after September 30, 1985, that has not been repaid with
interest as provided in such section as of September 30 of that year;
(3) The system compensation base as of that June 30;
(4) The system unallocated charge balance as of that June 30; and
(5) The pooled credit ratio, the pooled charge ratio, and the
surcharge rate of contribution, if any, applicable in the following
calendar year.
(d) Publication and notice. As soon as practical after the Board
has determined and proclaimed the amounts specified in paragraph (c) of
this section, the Board will publish notice of such amounts in the
Federal Register. The notifications to employers under paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section will be sent to the employer official
designated to receive them.
Sec. 345.306 Availability of information.
Upon request of an employer subject to this part, the Board will
make available to such employer any information that is necessary to
verify the accuracy of its rate of contribution, as determined by the
Board, including information necessary to verify the accuracy of the
data maintained by the Board in the employer's individual employer
record.
Sec. 345.307 Rate protest.
(a) Request for reconsideration. An employer may appeal a
determination of a contribution rate computed under this part by filing
a request for reconsideration with the Director of Unemployment and
Sickness Insurance within 90 days after the date on which the Board
notified the employer of its rate of contribution for the next ensuing
calendar year. Within 45 days of the receipt of a request for
reconsideration the Director shall issue a decision on the protest.
(b) Appeal to the Board. An employer aggrieved by the decision of
the Director of Unemployment and Sickness Insurance under paragraph (a)
of this section may appeal to the Board. Such
[[Page 20081]]
appeal shall be filed with the Secretary to the Board within 30 days
after the date on which the Director notified the employer of the
decision on reconsideration. The Board may decide such appeal without a
hearing or, in its discretion, may refer the matter to a hearings
officer pursuant to part 319 of this chapter.
(c) Decision of the Board final. Subject to judicial review
provided for in section 5(f) of the RUIA, the decision of the Board
under paragraph (b) of this section is final with respect to all issues
determined therein.
(d) Waiver of time limits. A request for reconsideration or appeal
under this section shall be forfeited if the request or appeal is not
filed within the time prescribed, unless reasonable cause, as defined
in this part, for failure to file timely is shown.
(e) Rate pending review. Pending review of the protested rate, the
employer shall continue to pay contributions at such rate. Any
adjustment in the contributions paid at such rate as the result of an
appeal shall be in accordance with Sec. 345.118 of this part.
Subpart E--Benefit Charging
Sec. 345.401 General rule.
Effective January 1, 1990, all benefits paid to an employee for his
or her days of unemployment or days of sickness will be charged to the
base year employer of such employee, except as hereinafter provided in
this part. The Board will make the charge by adding the gross amount of
the benefits payable to an employee on the basis of a claim for
benefits to that employee's base year employer's cumulative benefit
balance. The benefit charge does not depend on whether the employee
receiving the benefit payment is a current employee of the base year
employer.
Sec. 345.402 Strikes or work stoppages.
If benefits are payable to an employee for days of unemployment
resulting from a strike or work stoppage growing out of a labor
dispute, the Board will charge the benefit payment to the system
unallocated charge balance, not to the cumulative benefit balance of
the employee's base year employer. For the purposes of this section,
the phrase ``strike or work stoppage growing out of a labor dispute''
does not include an employee's protected refusal to work under section
212(b) of the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (45 U.S.C. 441(b)).
Sec. 345.403 Multiple base year employers.
(a) General rules for benefit charging. All benefits paid to an
employee who had more than one base year employer shall be charged to
the cumulative benefit balances of such employers, as follows:
(1) If the employer at the time of the claim is the same as the
last employer in the base year, benefits will be charged in reverse
chronological order, but the amount charged to each base year employer
shall not exceed the amount of compensation paid by such employer to
the employee in the base year;
(2) In all other cases, benefits will be charged in the same ratio
as the compensation paid to such employee by the employer bears to the
total of such compensation paid to such employee by all such employers
in the base year; benefit charging in accordance with this method shall
apply whether the base year employment was with successive employers or
with concurrent employers.
(b) Excess benefit payments. If, in applying the rule in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section, there remain benefit payments, in whole or in
part, that cannot be charged to any base year employer, the amount of
benefits paid in excess of those chargeable under paragraph (a)(1)
shall be charged to the system unallocated charge balance.
(c) Board records as basis for charging multiple base year
employers. Where an employee has more than one base year employer, the
Board will use records compiled on the basis of employer reports filed
under Sec. 345.110 of this part for the purpose of determining whether
the employer at the time of the claim for benefits is the last employer
in the base year and for other purposes related to benefit charging
under this subpart. If, in a particular case, such records do not
contain all the data necessary to determine the charge, the Board will
request the necessary data from the base year employers who may be
liable for the charge.
Sec. 345.404 Adjustments.
(a) Recovery of benefits charged to base year employer. Where the
Board recovers a benefit payment that it had previously charged, in
whole or in part, to one or more base year employers, the Board will
subtract the amount of the recovery from the cumulative benefit
balances of the employers of the employee to whom such amount was paid
as a benefit in proportion to the amount by which each such employer's
cumulative benefit balance was increased as a result of the payment of
the benefit.
(b) Recovery of other benefit payments. Where the Board recovers a
benefit payment that was not charged, in whole or in part, to any base
year employer, or was made before January 1, 1990, the Board will treat
the amount of the recovery as a subtraction from the system unallocated
charge balance.
(c) Payment of interest or other debt collection-related charges.
The Board will not adjust a base year employer's cumulative benefit
balance to reflect payment by a debtor of interest or other charges
assessed by the Board under Sec. 200.7 of this chapter with respect to
the collection of a debt arising from a benefit payment charged to such
employer and later found to be recoverable by the Board.
(d) Limitations. The Board will adjust a base year employer's
cumulative benefit balance only when the Board actually recovers, by
cash payment or setoff, a debt that represents a benefit payment that
was charged, in whole or in part, to such employer. No adjustment shall
be made--
(1) If the Board waives recovery of a debt in accordance with part
340 of this chapter, or
(2) If the Board finds that a debt is uncollectible, or
(3) To the extent of the amount not recovered by the Board by
reason of a compromise settlement of a debt.
Sec. 345.405 Notices to base year employers.
(a) Prepayment notification. When the Board receives an employee's
claim for unemployment or sickness benefits, the Board will give the
employee's base year employer notice of the claim and an opportunity to
provide information to the Board with respect to the employee's
eligibility for benefits for the period of time covered by the claim.
(b) Notice of claim determination. After the base year employer has
had an opportunity to provide information in accordance with the
prepayment notification process described in paragraph (a) of this
section, the office of the Board that is adjudicating the employee's
claim for benefits will determine whether to pay or to deny benefits on
the claim. Such office will send notice to the base year employer
showing what determination was made on the claim. If benefits are found
to be payable, the amount of the payment will be charged to the
cumulative benefit balance of the base year employer in accordance with
the provisions of this subpart. If the base year employer disagrees
with the payment of benefits, it may request reconsideration in
accordance with part 320 of this chapter.
(c) Quarterly notice of benefit charges. As soon as practical
following the end of each calendar quarter, the Board will send to each
employer a report of its cumulative benefit balance computed as
[[Page 20082]]
of the end of such quarter. The computation of such balance will
reflect the following:
(1) The total amount of unemployment and sickness benefit payments
made after December 31, 1989, that have been charged to the employer as
the base year employer of the employees who received the benefits;
minus
(2) The total amount realized in recovery of such benefits; plus
(3) The total amount of the unallocated charges assigned to such
base year employer after December 31, 1989; minus
(4) The total amount realized in recovery of such unallocated
charges.
Sec. 345.406 Defunct employer.
Whenever the Board determines, pursuant to Sec. 345.207 of this
part, that an employer is defunct, the Board will add the amount of
such employer's benefit charges, as shown in its cumulative benefit
balance, to the system unallocated charge balance.
Dated: April 26, 1996.
By Authority of the Board.
For The Board.
Beatrice Ezerski,
Secretary to the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-10983 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10978 Requirements for Labeling of Retail Containers of Charcoal
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19818-19830]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10978]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1500
Requirements for Labeling of Retail Containers of Charcoal
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, the Commission
issues a rule to change the required labeling for retail containers of
charcoal intended for cooking or heating. The labeling addresses the
potentially lethal carbon monoxide hazard associated with burning
charcoal in confined spaces. The amendments, which include a pictogram,
make the label more noticeable and more easily read and understood and
increase the label's ability to motivate consumers to avoid burning
charcoal in homes, tents, or vehicles.
DATES: The amended rule becomes effective November 3, 1997.1
\1\ The Commission voted 2-1 to issue this rule. Chairman Ann
Brown and Commissioner Thomas H. Moore voted in the majority.
Commissioner Mary Sheila Gall voted in the minority. Each
commissioner issued a separate statement concerning this vote.
Copies of the statements can be obtained from the Commission's
Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20207, telephone (301) 504-
0800.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Toro, Division of Regulatory
Management, Office of Compliance, Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Washington, D.C. 20207; telephone (301)504-0400 ext. 1378. Copies of
documents relating to this rulemaking may be obtained from the Office
of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20207, telephone (301)504-0800.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
1. Relevant Statutes and Regulations. Since its creation in 1973,
the Consumer Product Safety Commission (``Commission'' or ``CPSC'' has
administered the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (``FHSA''), 15 U.S.C.
1261-1278. Prior to that time, the FHSA was administered by the Food
and Drug Administration (``FDA'').
The FHSA defines ``hazardous substance'' as including any
``substance or mixture of substances which (i) is toxic * * * if [it]
may cause substantial personal injury or substantial illness during or
as a proximate result of any customary or reasonably foreseeable
handling or use * * *.'' Section 2(f)(1)(A) of the FHSA, 15 U.S.C.
1261(f)(1)(A). Hazardous substances are misbranded if they do not bear
the labeling required by section 2(p)(1) of the FHSA, 15 U.S.C.
1261(p)(1).
Section 3(b) of the FHSA, 15 U.S.C. 1262(b), authorizes the
Commission to issue regulations establishing variations from or
additions to the labeling required under section 2(p)(1) if the
Commission finds that the requirements of section 2(p)(1) are not
adequate for the protection of the public health and safety in view of
the special hazard presented by any particular hazardous substance.
Rulemaking under section 3(b) is conducted under the informal notice
and comment procedure provided in 5 U.S.C. 553.
In addition, section 3(a) of the FHSA, 15 U.S.C. 1262(a),
authorizes the Commission to issue regulations declaring products to be
hazardous substances if the Commission finds they meet the definition
of hazardous substance in section 2(f)(1)(A). The purpose of this
authority is to avoid or resolve uncertainty as to the application of
the FHSA. 15 U.S.C. 1262(a).
In 1971, the Food and Drug Administration (``FDA'') issued a rule
under section 3(a) of the FHSA to declare charcoal in containers for
retail sale and intended for cooking or heating to be a hazardous
substance. 36 FR 14,729 (August 11, 1971); 21 CFR Sec. 191.5. At the
same time, FDA issued a rule under section 3(b) of the FHSA to require
a statement on such packages of charcoal that would warn of the
potentially deadly hazard of CO poisoning from charcoal when used in a
confined area. Id. at Sec. 191.7. These rules are currently codified at
16 CFR Secs. 1500.12(a)(1) and 1500.14(b)(6), respectively. The
currently required label is as follows:
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03MY96.049
[[Page 19819]]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
The current label is required to appear on both the front and back
panels of bags of charcoal, in the upper 25% of the panels, at least 2
inches below the seam, at least 1 inch above any other reading material
or design element of the bag, and in specified minimum type sizes.
2. Nature of the hazard. [6, Tab B] 2 CO is produced by the
incomplete combustion of fuels such as charcoal. The level of CO
produced from burning charcoal may accumulate to toxic levels in closed
environments. CO is a colorless, odorless gas which reduces the blood's
ability to carry oxygen by reacting with hemoglobin to form
carboxyhemoglobin (COHb). Individuals' reactions to CO exposure vary
depending on several factors, including age, health status, and smoking
habits. Due to the nonspecific symptoms that can be associated with CO
poisoning (e.g., fatigue, lethargy, dizziness, diarrhea, or nausea),
misdiagnoses of both acute and chronic CO poisonings can be expected.
Additionally, CO is odorless, which may contribute to individuals
frequently being unaware of their exposure to CO. High levels of COHb
in the blood can cause death.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Numbers in brackets indicate the number of a document as
listed in the List of Relevant Documents in Appendix 1 to this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Petition from Barbara Mauk. On October 12, 1990, CPSC received a
letter from Barbara Mauk petitioning the Commission to amend the
current label on bags of charcoal. [1] In this letter, the petitioner
described an incident that occurred when she and her son were camping 1
year previously. Her son died from CO poisoning, and she was
hospitalized and treated for CO poisoning, after she brought a still-
warm charcoal grill inside her camper. The petition (No. HP 91-1)
requested that the current label on bags of charcoal be revised to
state that: (1) charcoal produces CO (and, if applicable, other lethal
or toxic fumes), (2) charcoal produces fumes until the charcoal is
completely extinguished, and (3) CO has no odor.
On December 22, 1992, the Commission voted to grant the petition as
to the statements that charcoal produces CO and that CO has no odor,
and to deny the petition as to adding statements that charcoal produces
these fumes until the charcoal is completely extinguished. [2] The
Commission also voted to improve the label's precautionary language,
specifically with reference to ventilation. In this regard, it was
thought that the current label's statement that charcoal should not be
used for indoor cooking or heating unless ventilation is provided is
dangerously misleading. Consumers may assume erroneously that measures
such as opening a door or cracking a window would provide adequate
ventilation. Further, consumers are unlikely to be able to supply the
exhaust hoods, ducting, and powerful positive exhaust fans that are
needed to provide adequate ventilation.
4. Subsequent actions by the Commission. In 1993, the Commission's
staff became aware of data that indicated that a pictogram is needed to
communicate the safety message to those who do not read English. [6,
Tab E(1)] Further, an article, discussed below in section B of this
notice, reported that 73% of the victims in one area over an 11-year
period were members of ethnic minorities, many of whom were Hispanic or
Asian immigrants who could not speak English. [3]
On April 22, 1994, the staff met with members of the charcoal
industry to present the staff's recommendations for revising the
warning label. Industry members indicated a willingness to revise the
warning label, but raised a number of concerns. [6, Tab F] These
concerns were considered in further developing the label.
On June 1, 1994, the Commission directed the staff to prepare, for
the Commission's consideration, a draft notice of proposed rulemaking
(``NPR'') to amend the labeling currently required for packages of
charcoal to warn of the dangers of burning charcoal indoors. The label
to be developed by the staff would: (1) clarify the dangers of burning
charcoal indoors; (2) remove the possibly misleading statement that
implies that charcoal can be safely burned indoors with
``ventilation;'' (3) add color to the signal word panel; (4) include a
pictogram, if feasible; (5) include a Spanish safety message if a
pictogram is not feasible; and (6) include additional features
recommended by the staff to make the safety messages more conspicuous
and understandable.
On April 13, 1995, staff met with industry members again to present
the results of pictogram tests and staff's recommendations for revising
the warning label on packages of charcoal. [6, Tab F] The changes to
the recommended warning label reflected, for the most part, concerns
industry representatives raised at the April 1994 meeting. After
considering the comments made at the April 1995 meeting, the staff
recommended a revised label to the Commission. The staff also described
possible variations of that label for the Commission's consideration.
The proposed label, and the main reasons that various features of the
label were chosen, are described in section D of this notice. The
proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on August 10, 1995,
with a request for public comments, to be submitted no later than
October 24, 1995. 60 FR 40785. The comments received on the proposal,
and the Commission's responses to the comments, are described below in
Section E of this notice.
B. CO Poisoning Incidents
The Commission's Division of Hazard Analysis examined available
data concerning CO poisoning incidents. That Division estimates that
there was an average of about 28 non-fire CO-related deaths per year
associated with charcoal grills and hibachis from 1986 to 1992.3
(The annual estimate of non-fire CO deaths fluctuates, with no
discernible pattern. The estimates ranged from 20 in 1987 and 1990 to
38 in 1992.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ As noted above, CO is produced as a product of incomplete
combustion. The term ``non-fire'' means that the CO was not produced
by a conflagration or other unintended combustion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data from the CPSC's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System
(``NEISS'') indicate that there was an average of about 300 emergency-
room-treated injuries involving charcoal grills and hibachis annually
from 1991 to 1994. [6, Tab C] After the Commission considered the
proposed rule, the Commission's Hazard Analysis staff reviewed eight
additional incident reports involving CO deaths and injuries associated
with the indoor use of charcoal. These incidents were for the years
1994 to the present. [15] The factors identified in these recent
incidents were very similar to those previously reported.
There were 14 victims reported in the additional incidents: 9 died
and 5 recovered. Where a victim's membership in an ethnic minority was
reported, Hispanics continued to be the group reported most often. The
data indicated that the Hispanic victims either spoke little or no
English. The circumstances indicated that the victims were unaware of
the potential lethal effects of burning charcoal indoors.
Most of the incidents involved a charcoal grill. Information on the
safety labeling on packages of charcoal was not available. However, the
Commission's Office of Compliance has no record of opening a case based
on a violation of the charcoal special labeling
[[Page 19820]]
requirement, and there is no reason to believe that the packages of
charcoal involved in these incidents did not bear labels warning of the
CO hazard.
Many of the incidents occurred when victims burned charcoal in
their homes or in vehicles. Most of the incidents occurred when victims
used charcoal to keep warm. Most of the incidents occurred during the
fall and winter.
An article by Hampson, N.B. et al. (1994), reports that 79 victims
were treated for CO poisoning resulting from burning charcoal indoors
in the Seattle, Washington, area between October 1982 and October 1993.
[3] Fifty-eight (73%) of the victims were members of ethnic minorities,
many of whom were Hispanic or Asian immigrants who could not speak
English. [3] There was no information available, however, documenting
whether they could read English.
C. The Pictogram
The CPSC staff, a charcoal manufacturer, and Dr. Neil B. Hampson of
Washington State each developed a pictogram. [6, Tab E(2)] Each
pictogram was tested according to ANSI Z535.3, American National
Standard for Criteria for Safety Symbols. The pictogram developed by
CPSC staff obtained the highest percentage of correct responses in the
first round of testing. This pictogram achieved 56% correct responses,
with 4% critical confusion. (Critical confusion is where the message
conveyed is the opposite of the intended message.) Based on findings
from the test results, the three pictograms were revised and presented
for a second round of testing. The revised pictogram developed by a
charcoal manufacturer obtained the highest percentage of correct
responses in this round of testing (74% correct responses, with no
critical confusion).
The ANSI Z535.3 test method recommends that, to be selected, a
pictogram should either obtain 85% correct responses with no more than
5% critical confusion or be paired with other features, such as a
verbal message. [10] For the reasons discussed below in responding to
comments on the proposal, the Commission concludes that it is
appropriate to use the pictogram that scored highest in the tests
described above.
D. The Proposed Label
The Commission's Human Factors staff concluded that, as a matter of
optimum label design, it would be desirable for the label to be
consistent with the ANSI Z535.4, American National Standard for Product
Safety Signs and Labels. [6, Tab E(1)] In meetings before the
Commission considered the proposal, however, the industry pointed out
that this optimum label would require the bag to have a minimum of four
colors: red, orange, black, and white. The industry stated that many of
the printing presses for charcoal bags have the capability of printing
only six colors, and that presses capable of printing more than six
colors are very expensive. Generally, most bags already have at least
six colors, and the presently-used colors often do not include one or
more of the colors that would be required by the ``optimum'' label
described above. Industry members stated that customers may consider
the color scheme of a product to be part of its brand identification.
For the reasons given by the industry, the Commission proposed a
label that did not use the colors specified by ANSI, but will still be
conspicuous. [13] Thus, the revised label will not change the present
requirement that the label shall be in a ``color sharply contrasting
with the background'' and that the borderline shall be ``heavy.''
Examples of color combinations that the Commission's staff considers to
be sharply contrasting, in order of expected visual efficiency, are:
black on white; black on yellow; white on black; dark blue on white;
white on dark red, green, or brown; black on orange; dark green and red
on white; white on dark gray; and black on light gray. [9] Examples of
colors that may not be considered sharply contrasting are: black on
dark blue or dark green, dark red on light red, light red on reflective
silver, and white on light gray or tan. See 16 CFR 1500.121(d).
To make the label easier to read and understand, the Commission
proposed that the messages be presented concisely and in an outline
form, be presented in a horizontal format, be left-justified with a
ragged right margin, be in upper and lower case lettering, be in the
appropriate point-type, have an acceptable strokewidth-to-height ratio,
and have sufficient space between lines of text. [6, Tab E(1)]
When the minimum specified type sizes are laid out in the
configuration specified in the revised label, the label is 2 inches
high. The revised label is taller than the currently required label.
The current label also is required to be at least 2 inches from the top
seam. If this required distance were to remain the same, the bottom
edge of the taller revised label would have to be lower on the bag.
This could interfere with existing graphics, which would then have to
be redesigned. This could require additional modifications to printing
plates and increase the cost of the label revision, without providing
any identifiable safety benefit. Therefore, the Commission proposed to
change the minimum allowable distance from the top seam to the label
from 2 inches to 1 inch. This would allow the taller label to be
printed without affecting other printing lower on the bag.
The Commission proposed to retain the current requirements that the
label must be on both the front and back panels of the bag and in the
upper quarter of the panels.
For the reasons stated above and elsewhere in this notice, the
Commission is revising the label required on packages of charcoal to
appear and read as follows:
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
[[Page 19821]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03MY96.050
BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
E. Comments on the Proposal
The Commission received seven comments in response to the notice of
proposed rulemaking. The issues raised by the comments are summarized
below, along with the Commission's responses.
Issue: Pictogram
Comment: Slash vs. ``X.'' Several commenters addressed the use in
the proposed revised label of an ``X'' overlaying the pictogram to
indicate that the actions depicted in the pictogram are prohibited. A
commenter argued that this aspect of the pictogram is not consistent
with any international standard or to ANSI Z535.3 ``Criteria for Safety
Symbols,'' in which prohibited actions are characterized by a single
slash in a circle. Another commenter stated that a single slash ending
at the edges of the circle across three separate pictograms for each at
risk location may be more universally recognized and effective than an
X. The commenter believed this would be more in line with global
marketing standards. This commenter noted that the pictogram was tested
using a population largely made up of Hispanics, and questions whether
the same results would have been obtained with other ethnic groups.
Response: The Commission's Human Factors staff conducted a two-
phase study to determine which pictogram most clearly conveyed the
safety message to the at-risk population. Three pictograms were tested
in the first phase, all of which incorporated a circle with the ANSI-
recommended diagonal slash through the image. The most effective
pictogram was understood by only 56% of the subjects, with 4% critical
confusion. (Critical confusion means that the subjects' response was
the opposite of the correct response.)
The test subjects' responses during the test sessions and
debriefing revealed that some of the subjects thought that the slash
applied to only those items in the circle that actually intersected
with the slash. Other subjects did not understand that the slash was a
prohibition symbol. Subjects recommended the use of an ``X'' to better
communicate the prohibition message. Although the slash is commonly
used to communicate the message of ``no'' or ``don't,'' it was clearly
not effective with some Latin American subjects.
Consistent with ANSI Z535.3, the second round of testing
incorporated design lessons drawn from the results of the first round
of testing. The slash was replaced by an ``X,'' and several minor
design changes were made to the pictograms. The measured comprehension
improved significantly.
Based on the data, Human Factors concluded that using the ``X'' in
place of the slash is fully justified because:
1. The highest comprehension score using a slash was 56% with 4%
critical confusion. All three pictograms tested in the second round
using the ``X'' scored significantly better than the best slash
pictogram tested in the first round. The pictogram ultimately selected
was identified correctly by 74% of the test subjects, with 0% critical
confusion.
2. The primary objective for developing and selecting the pictogram
design was to maximize the effectiveness of the prohibition message, to
never burn charcoal inside a house, tent, or vehicle. Effectiveness was
defined and empirically measured by assessing the explicit
understandability of the pictogram by a sample of at-risk charcoal
users. This is precisely the primary criterion described in ANSI
Z535.3-1991. Section A.1 of ANSI Z535.3-1991 states, ``In the following
procedure, the primary criterion for determining symbol effectiveness
is that of understandability; in other words, that the symbol clearly
conveys the intended message to the appropriate test group.'' Based on
the Commission's primary objective, to maximize effectiveness, and
ANSI's endorsement of that goal, the use of the ``X'' is justified.
3. Although ANSI clearly defines the slash as the preferred design
to designate prohibition, Section 7.4 of ANSI Z535.3-1991 supports the
search for new and more effective designs. Section 7.4 endorses this
rationale of flexibility and continuous refinement by stating ``If a
new symbol has been tested and found to be acceptable, it and the
results of the testing procedure may be forwarded to the ANSI Z535
Committee for consideration for inclusion in a revision of the present
standard.'' The Commission intends to submit the results of this work
to ANSI so that they may consider the merits of supporting alternate
symbol designs for ethnic or other special populations.
The empirically validated pictogram that was ultimately selected
for the new labeling requirement meets the original CPSC objective of
maximizing effectiveness and is consistent with the principles for
designing labels specified in ANSI Z535.3. Regarding the comment that
the label should be universal and not ethnically sensitive, the label
is designed to be effective for all charcoal users.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that the X symbol is a more
effective communicator of the behavior to be prohibited than is the
slash. Accordingly, no change in the proposed revised label is
warranted in this regard.
Comment: Effectiveness of the pictogram. Commenters contended that
the pictogram fails to satisfy recognized standards of effectiveness.
The commenters state that the ANSI standard requires 85% correct
responses with a maximum of 5% critical confusion, while the CPSC-
proposed pictogram received 74% correct responses with no critical
confusion. One company believes that 74% is significantly different
from 85% and expressed serious concern about a pictogram which failed
recognized
[[Page 19822]]
standards of effectiveness not by 1 or 2%, but by 11%. The fact that
the proposed pictogram had no critical confusion, whereas ANSI allows
up to 5%, is irrelevant to this commenter.
Response: These commenters are incorrect in stating that the CPSC-
tested pictogram does not meet the effectiveness criteria of ANSI.
The particular number of correct responses obtained in the test of
a label depends on the particular test methodology used. Therefore,
there is no precise way to define acceptable and unacceptable scores.
ANSI Z535.3, section A.2.7, states ``A criterion of 85% correct
responses with a maximum of 5% critical confusion is suggested for
acceptance of a given symbol.'' Section A.2.7 of ANSI Z535.3, however,
states that symbols which fail to meet the 85% level should be used
with a supplementary word message, or be supplemented by specialized
training. Thus, ANSI Z535.3 clearly recognizes that scores less than
85% may still be used in certain circumstances.
CPSC's label incorporates the features that ANSI recommends for
labels scoring less than 85% correct responses. Although the pictogram
was tested alone, the recommended label contains both the pictogram and
a written message. Additionally, the CPSC's staff met with the charcoal
industry regarding an information and education campaign to warn
consumers about the dangers of burning charcoal indoors.
The Human Factors staff chose to use an experimental methodology
that was extremely rigorous and that therefore may have biased the
measured comprehension scores downward. This was done to maximize
confidence in the measured scores, and to minimize possible criticism
about inflating the scores through using a less stringent method. The
following factors may tend to lower the percentage of correct responses
in CPSC's tests compared to that which might be obtained using other
test methodologies that would also be acceptable under ANSI Z535.3:
1. ANSI Z535.3 endorses both open-ended testing and multiple-choice
testing. The Human Factors staff chose to use open-ended testing as it
is the most demanding assessment process to measure comprehension. Both
ANSI and the Commission recognize that this rigorous methodology may
negatively influence scores. ANSI Z535.3, Section A.2.6, states ``It
should be stressed that different techniques may not give comparable
results.''
2. The criteria used to select subjects were strongly biased toward
selecting an at-risk sample. Fifty percent of the subjects were
Hispanics who did not read English and were at or below the government
standard for poverty. The remaining half were of no specified ethnicity
who did read English and were below the median income. No middle or
upper income people were included in the test. The Human Factors staff
chose to pursue this methodology in order to assess the pictogram in
the worst-case situation. The objective was to ensure that the selected
pictogram communicates the hazard to the populations that are at
greatest risk. More correct responses might have been obtained if the
sample tested had represented the general population.
3. In order to reduce the possible learning effect associated with
viewing the pictograms in succession, the pictograms were presented out
of context, that is, on a white sheet of paper. They were separated
from each other by pictograms associated with other hazards. Had the
pictograms been tested in context, on bags of charcoal, it is likely
that higher comprehension scores would have been obtained. [15, Tab
D(1), Cahill, 1975]
Furthermore, the International Organization for Standardization
(``ISO''), issued an international standard, ISO 9186, Procedures for
the Development and Testing of Public Information Symbols, that
recommends testing methodologies to evaluate symbols intended to be
used internationally. These methodologies are intended to test the
common effectiveness of symbols for populations of different countries;
the tests were not developed to evaluate labeling in the U.S. Section
5.5.7 of ISO 9186 states, ``If the comprehension score * * * exceeds
66%, then this variant may be used to define the standard image
content.'' Later in the same section, ``For critical referents (e.g.
safety symbols), the 66% criterion should be rigorously adhered to.''
Although ISO 9186 was not designed specifically to test a label such as
the one at issue here, it does show that an acceptance criterion for
understandability of less than 74% has been adopted by a well-known
standards organization.
As noted above, a commenter states that an effectiveness score of
74% is significantly different from the 85% threshold described in the
ANSI standard. The commenter is correct if he is referring to
``significantly different'' in a technical statistical sense; the
difference between 74% and 85% in this test is statistically
significant at the commonly used 95% confidence level. However, the
difference is not significantly statistically different at a 96%
confidence level. [16] More importantly, for the reasons explained
above, this issue is not central to whether the CPSC test scores are
adequate.
The commenter also states that critical confusion is irrelevant.
The Commission disagrees with this conclusion. An individual who is
critically confused, and thus believes that the pictogram means that it
is appropriate to burn charcoal indoors, may be more likely to create
the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning than someone who merely does not
know what the pictogram means. This principle is reflected in the ANSI
standard, which states, at Section A.2.7, ``Where several symbols are
evaluated for a given referent, the symbol that both meets the above
criteria, and performs best in terms of highest percentage of correct
answers and lowest percentage of critical confusion should be
selected.''
Comment: Size of the test group. A commenter contended that the 50-
member test group was too small for this type of testing. According to
the commenter, a minimum of 100-150 subjects should be used.
Response: The number of test subjects used by the Commission is
consistent with ANSI Z535.3, which suggests a minimum of 50 subjects as
the ``best balance between statistical reliability and ease of
testing.'' [10] Thus, in the absence of any specific reason why the
information obtained by using 50 subjects is unreliable, the Commission
concludes that an adequate number of persons were tested.
Comment: Label ``clutter.'' A commenter contended that the
pictogram is small and cluttered compared to the size of the label and
does not conform to an ANSI standard pictogram format, which depicts
one message icon per enclosed symbol.
Response: The selected pictogram conforms to the general principles
described in ANSI Z535.3. A pictogram with only one icon, a house, was
tested in the first round. A number of subjects did not generalize that
pictogram to include vehicles and tents, which are extremely dangerous
places to use charcoal improperly. Subjects suggested including a
vehicle and tent to communicate the message ``Never burn charcoal
inside homes, vehicles, or tents.'' The proposed pictogram includes all
three elements. According to ANSI Z535.3, the intent of the testing
procedure is ``to choose a symbol which best conveys the message.''
Thus, the pictogram selected conforms to the ANSI testing procedure.
Any perception of ``clutter'' could be reduced by making the
pictogram larger. However, this would increase the
[[Page 19823]]
minimum height of the label. The Commission believes the minimum
allowable label height will effectively communicate the desired
messages. The Commission is not requiring a larger label for the
reasons propounded by the industry and discussed below.
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission concludes that the
label will be sufficiently effective.
Comment: Lack of pictogram specificity may discourage charcoal use.
A commenter contends that the pictogram does not identify the danger
associated with charcoal misuse and does not convey what CO is. The
commenter fears that rather than simply warning users about the danger
of using charcoal in confined areas, the pictogram may discourage
charcoal grilling. The commenter also asked what message was received
by the 26% who did not respond correctly.
Response: Admittedly, a pictogram may not be a feasible way to
explicitly communicate the invisible hazard of CO. However, most people
will get the intended concept that they should not burn charcoal inside
homes, vehicles, or tents, even if they will not learn from the
pictogram alone that the hazard is CO. This is shown by the 74% rate of
correct responses for the selected pictogram. Additionally, the
pictogram and the words together convey the complete message.
The remaining 26% of the subjects, who did not give correct
responses, either omitted part of the intended message or completely
missed the concept. However, none of these subjects were left with the
impression that they should not use charcoal or not use it for
grilling. Thus, there is no reason to conclude that the pictogram will
cause any reduction in charcoal sales. The issue of whether the entire
label will cause any reduction in sales is discussed later in this
section.
Issue: Label Proportional to Package
Comment: Keep specified label size as a minimum only. In the
proposal, the Commission specified a minimum required size for the
label and solicited comment on whether to require that bags that are
larger than the smallest bags on the market bear labels that are larger
than the minimum. Two manufacturers commented that if larger warning
labels are required on larger bags, artwork lower on the bags may have
to be changed. Therefore, the commenters recommended that the size be
specified as a minimum, as proposed.
Response: The Commission agrees that requiring larger labels on
larger bags is likely to increase the cost of the rule in some cases by
requiring additional changes to the graphics on the bags. Further, the
Commission lacks data from which to conclude that any benefits of
larger labels on large bags would justify these increased costs.
Accordingly, the Commission is not requiring that the size of the
required labeling increase in proportion to the size of the bag.
Issue: Layout of Label
Comment: Label format. A commenter stated that CPSC's proposed
label arrangement does not conform exactly to ANSI Z535.4 ``Product
Safety Signs and Labels'' guidelines. The commenter mentioned that the
label should be divided into two halves, one half being the pictogram/
graphic panel and the other half being the signal word and word message
panel. Alternatively, the signal word could be centered above the
pictogram and word message panels.
Response: While ANSI Z535.4 provides an example of a label
configuration as described by the commenter, ANSI maintains that
``actual * * * layout * * * may vary depending on application
requirements.'' [10] The differences between the label finally adopted
and ANSI's example were necessary to accomplish the goals of: making
the type size of the safety messages consistent, to the extent
feasible, with that currently specified in Sec. 1500.14(b)(6);
incorporating a legible pictogram; and not unduly increasing the height
of the label. Accordingly, this comment provides no basis for changing
or rejecting the revised label.
Issue: Responsibility of Users
Comment: Fault of users. A commenter asked how many people involved
in the CO events had even ``bothered'' to read the existing warning
label. The commenter also asked how many were under the influence of
alcohol or drugs and would not have seen or paid any attention to a
warning label of any kind.
Response: Information on whether the victims had actually read the
label was not available. Some victims attempted to supply ventilation,
however. In most of the incidents, drug or alcohol use was not
reported.
Issue: Label Language
Comment: Specificity of warning. A commenter stated that the
sentence ``NEVER burn charcoal inside homes, vehicles or tents'' is too
specific. The commenter suggests that the addition of the words ``such
as'' would prevent the public from concluding that it would be safe to
burn charcoal in a confined space other than a home, vehicle, or tent.
Response: The CPSC incident data show that people primarily use
charcoal as a heat source inside homes and, secondarily, in vehicles
and tents. Thus, the label is intended to address use in those areas.
The commenter provides no data showing that other locations are likely
to be involved in this type of incident. Adding words that cannot be
shown to be beneficial is undesirable, since people are more likely to
read a label message if it is short and concise. Additional wording
also could have possible adverse effects on the label's height or
lettering size. Accordingly, the Commission declines to adopt the
suggestion.
Comment: Understanding the term ``carbon monoxide.'' A comment
stated that the label statement that charcoal ``gives off carbon
monoxide'' may be ambiguous to those with minimal education or limited
knowledge of English. For example, the commenter suggested that such
users might think that CO was associated with charcoal ashes. The
commenter suggests that the term ``gas'' be used to link the statement
to the warning hazard.
Response: The Commission has no reason to believe that persons with
a limited command of English would interpret that ashes, or anything
other than a gas or fumes, would be ``given off'' by charcoal. The
charcoal does not ``give off'' ash, but rather becomes ash. In
addition, some consumers are aware that CO is deadly and would
therefore be motivated to comply with the label for that additional
reason. The addition of the word ``gas'' is not likely to be of further
benefit. Thus, no change in the label language in this regard is
needed.
Comment: Spanish and/or English. A commenter notes that the summary
data indicate that Hispanics are at higher risk than the general
population. The commenter states that this problem could be better
addressed if the label's text were in both English and Spanish.
Response: The Commission's staff previously recommended that if the
pictograms tested did not adequately communicate the safety message,
then the message should be presented in both English and Spanish. As
noted above, however, the Commission concludes that the pictogram does
adequately convey the message. Furthermore, according to the clinical
psychologist who administered the test--who regularly works with low-
income Hispanics--many in the target population are unable to read
either English or Spanish. [6, Tab E(2)] Therefore, a safety message in
Spanish instead of a pictogram would not reach
[[Page 19824]]
those Hispanics who do not read Spanish. Additionally, while the
largest single group of minority victims identified in the CPSC data is
Hispanic, others--most notably Asian immigrants who do not read English
or Spanish--would not be informed by a label in either language.
Accordingly, a pictogram appears to be the most effective measure
to address those who do not read English. The Commission does not
believe that a label that combines both English and Spanish warning
statements with a pictogram is warranted. For the reasons discussed
above, the Commission cannot conclude in this case that such a label
would be significantly more effective than one combining a pictogram
and a warning statement in English. Furthermore, including both
languages and a pictogram on the label would increase the size of the
label, with potential additional costs to the industry.
Comment: Children of illiterate immigrants. A commenter suggested
that the Commission overlooked the fact that children of persons
illiterate in English play an important role in the family because the
children can read English and often act as the family's interpreters.
Accordingly, the commenter concluded that the label should consist of a
pictogram and an English language warning that could be understood by
the 12 through 18 year old children of illiterate immigrants. The
commenter suggested an expanded version of the Commission's proposed
label. The commenter suggests the label should be ``comprehensible by a
child with a reading level corresponding to approximately the sixth
grade.''
Response: The Commission is not aware of any data showing that the
children of illiterate immigrants act as interpreters of the warning
label on packages of charcoal. Nevertheless, the revised label for
packages of charcoal, issued below, is written at the seventh grade
level, as is the commenter's suggested label. Thus, most if not all of
the teenagers referred to by the commenter would be able to read the
revised label.
The additional wording suggested by the commenter would not
necessarily increase safe behavior compared to the revised label.
Further, the additional wording could decrease the likelihood that the
label would be read by the user. Accordingly, the Commission is not
adopting this commenter's suggested wording change.
Comment: Other toxic products. A commenter believes that the
current labeling language is very clear; that labeling refers to
``toxic fumes.'' The commenter argues that because toxic fumes other
than carbon monoxide may be emitted from burning charcoal, the current
labeling should not be revised.
Response: Although charcoal produces combustion by-products other
than CO, CO production is the most significant hazard. A specific
reference to CO will better communicate the nature of that hazard,
since many people already are familiar with the lethal potential of CO.
Further, the safety message conveyed by the label addressing the CO
hazard may address the hazard of any other toxic fumes produced by
charcoal. Thus, the current labeling language is being revised to
address only the CO hazard.
Comment: ``Burning'' charcoal. A commenter suggests that the term
``burning charcoal'' implies that a flame must be present in order to
present the hazard. However, smoldering coals are equally dangerous.
The commenter suggests referring to ``lit or partially lit,'' instead
of ``burning,'' charcoal.
Response: Charcoal is a familiar product. Most people know that,
when charcoal is lit, flames are produced initially and that the flames
eventually subside, resulting in glowing charcoal. It is unlikely that
consumers would think that the phrase ``burning charcoal'' suggests
that charcoal is not burning unless it produces a flame. Accordingly,
replacing the word ``burning'' with the longer phrase ``lit or
partially lit'' is not warranted.
Comment: Burn time. A commenter stated that, although the proposed
warning is much more explicit than the previous warning, it still gives
no real indication about how long charcoal ``burns'' and gives off CO
after it no longer seems to be burning. Even with the proposed warning,
some people may still bring CO releasing charcoal into an enclosed area
thinking that it is no longer dangerous.
Response: Information available to the Commission indicates that
most users who are killed or injured by this CO hazard are
intentionally using charcoal indoors as a heat source and are unaware
of the danger. Thus, the revised warning label is intended to address
this primary scenario.
Further, it would be difficult to tell consumers how to determine
when the charcoal is completely extinguished. In addition, it is likely
that adding the sort of information suggested by this commenter would
dilute the label's ability to communicate the primary hazard.
Accordingly, the Commission is not adopting this suggestion.
Comment: First-aid instruction on label. A commenter suggested
that, as with other potentially fatal products, it would help save
lives if the warning label also described what to do in the case of CO
poisoning.
Response: The labeling requirements for charcoal under 16 CFR
1500.14(b)(6) specifically state that they supplement the labeling
required for hazardous household substances by section 2(p)(1) of the
FHSA. Section 2(p)(1) requires that the label bear an instruction for
first-aid treatment when ``necessary or appropriate.''
First-aid instructions in labels for packages of charcoal would be
useful only after the users have disregarded or failed to read the
label's warning to not burn charcoal inside. Before a label's first-aid
instruction would be useful under these circumstances, a person would
have to suspect that the symptoms being experienced or observed are
caused by fumes given off by the burning charcoal. The incident data
available to the Commission do not show that consumers realize the
cause of the symptoms being experienced. Thus, the Commission lacks
data at this time from which to conclude that it is necessary or
appropriate to require first-aid instructions for CO poisoning on
packages of charcoal.
Issue: Conspicuousness of Label
Comment: Contrasting colors. A commenter urges the CPSC to set more
concrete requirements for the conspicuousness and legibility of the
warning label. The commenter suggests dark lettering on a white
background with the word ``WARNING'' and the pictogram ``X'' in red.
Response: The Commission agrees that it is important that the
revised label be conspicuous and legible. Accordingly, the Commission
has adopted a number of requirements to achieve these goals. More than
two colors are not necessary to achieve conspicuousness. To enhance the
conspicuousness of the label, the revised label contains: contrasting
colors as specified in 16 CFR 1500.121(d)(1), a pictogram, and an
easily read type size. Other enhancements, including a concise safety
message, make the safety messages easily understood.
Requiring the use of red, white, and a dark color in the label
would, in some cases, require either the redesign of the bag's graphics
or machinery that can print a higher number of colors. As discussed
below in Section G of this notice, the purchase of such additional
equipment could increase the initial, one-time expenses of the rule by
more than 5 times. It also could introduce ongoing expenses that will
not be caused by the rule as adopted. The
[[Page 19825]]
Commission cannot conclude that any increase in effectiveness that
might occur as the result of using these additional colors would
warrant the substantial additional cost of such a rule. Accordingly,
the Commission has not adopted this suggestion.
Issue: Placement of Label
Comment: Margin to seam. A commenter argued that allowing only 1
inch between the top of the warning and the seam of the bag is not
enough. The commenter noted that many people open the bag by tearing
under the seam. This practice could result in tearing through the
warning and rendering it unreadable to the next user of the charcoal
left in the bag. The commenter also stated that because people roll the
top part of the bag down to keep it closed after removing some of the
charcoal, a third warning should be required toward the bottom of the
bag. The commenter argued that, with the present proposal, only the
person who first opens a bag of charcoal has a good chance of seeing
the warning.
Response: The Commission agrees that the revised label could be
obliterated by ripping the bag. However, many bags are constructed so
the top seam can be neatly opened. In any event, the consumer is likely
to see the label before opening the bag. As to the lack of visibility
due to rolling the top of the bag for storage, the label would become
visible again when the bag is unrolled for use. There are no data
showing that the increased costs of placing the warning labels lower on
the bag, or adding another warning label, to address these concerns
would be justified.
Comment: Location of label's borderline. A commenter requested
clarification in the final rule that it is the label's heavy borderline
that should be at least 1 inch ``below the seam and at least 1 inch
above any reading material * * *.'' Otherwise, the commenter expressed
the concern that the rule could be interpreted as applying the 1-inch
clearances to the lettering within the borderline.
Response: The Commission concludes this comment has merit, and the
final rule has been clarified in this regard.
Issue: Typography
Comment: Boldface type and capital letters. A commenter stated that
if boldface type is intended for any part of the label, it should be
clearly specified in the final rule. Also capital letters should be
specified for the statement of hazard, if that is the intent.
Response: The Commission agrees, and this has been clearly
specified in the final rule.
Issue: Effectiveness of Labeling
Comment: Effectiveness of old label. A commenter asked whether the
incidents involving charcoal were occurring as a result of the existing
warning on the label or in spite of the warning? If the latter is true,
the commenter recommends that the Commission consider other
alternatives to address these incidents.
Response: The available information is insufficient to show how the
current label affects users. However, the label currently required is
dangerously misleading since it may imply to the user that it is safe
to burn charcoal indoors. The label needs to be modified to correct
this flaw. Further, for the reasons stated above, the label should be
modified to better address the hazard. Thus, in either of the
situations described by the commenter, it is appropriate to revise the
label.
Comment: Benefits (effectiveness) of new labels. A commenter
contends that the Commission should not impose significant changes in
the labeling requirements for packages of charcoal unless data exist in
the record showing that persons who would burn charcoal indoors with
the current label would not do so with the revised label. Another
company was concerned about the most likely potential benefit to
society instead of the maximum potential benefit, which was estimated
at $134 million.
Response: The Commission is unable to obtain data sufficient to
quantify the effectiveness of the new warning label. However, as
described above, there are several problems with the current label.
The new warning label addresses the deficiencies of the current
label. The revised label eliminates the potentially misleading
statement that implies that consumers can safely burn charcoal indoors
if ventilation is provided. In addition, the label's arrangement and
wording more closely follow principles established by labeling experts
that are intended to make labels more effective. Finally, the new label
incorporates a pictogram, which is likely to make the label more
effective for the at-risk populations that do not read English.
Therefore, the revised label will inform people about the risks of
burning charcoal indoors better than the present label.
The new label need not be very much more effective than the current
label in order to justify its costs.4 The estimated one-time cost
to industry of revising the label is $1 million. If this is viewed as
an investment that will save a life in the future, the benefits of the
rule would exceed its costs if the label revisions avert only one death
within 32 years of the change. (This assumes a value of $5 million for
saving a statistical life and a 5% discount rate. A 10% discount rate
would produce positive net benefits if the death was averted during the
next 16 years.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Commission is always interested in ensuring that the
costs of its rules are reasonable in relation to their expected
benefits. For the reasons given below, the Commission believes that
is the case here. However, in this type of proceeding, there is no
statutory requirement that costs and benefits must be determined or
balanced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Making some assumptions may help to visualize the extremely low
degree to which the revised label would need to be effective in
preventing deaths to be cost-effective. One assumption is that the
average estimated number of deaths per year for the 7-year period 1986-
1992 would continue if the label is not changed. Under this assumption
(and with the 5% discount rate, $5 million per life scenario described
above), the label's revision would be cost-effective if it were only
about \1/10\ of one percent effective in reducing deaths.
Issue: Loss of Sales
Comment: Loss of sales. One commenter is more concerned about the
potential for the rule to induce a loss in sales of charcoal than about
any increase in printing costs. Another commenter also is concerned
about a loss of sales, believing that a label change is not justified
by the record.
Response: Seventy-four percent of the pictogram test subjects
understood that the pictogram indicates that they should not burn
charcoal in homes, tents, and vehicles. However, none of the subjects
thought that the pictogram meant that charcoal should not be burned or
should not be used for grilling. This indicates that there should be no
measurable negative impact on sales of charcoal.
Issue: Effective Date
Comment: Length of delay. One company recommends that the effective
date of the final rule be 12 to 18 months after its publication, as
proposed, assuming the final rule is published in January or February
of 1996. Another company requests at least a 30-month effective date
because the company holds up to a 3-year supply of preprinted bags.
According to this commenter, any effective date less than 30 months
should apply only to bags printed, rather than filled, on or after
[[Page 19826]]
the effective date. One commenter recommends that the new rule should
go into effect no later than 12 months from October 1995 so that, by
next winter, charcoal bags will have the new warning label.
Response: An effective date of October 1996, requested by one
commenter, will not allow sufficient time to change over to the new
label. On the other hand, the final rule was not published by February
1996, as assumed by the first commenter, a charcoal manufacturer. The
staff contacted this commenter, who stated that an 18-month effective
date would not be a problem if the rule was published by June 1996.
With publication of the rule in April 1996, and an 18-month effective
date, 26 months from the proposal in August 1995 will have elapsed when
the rule goes into effect. By then, many firms are likely to have
eliminated or substantially reduced their inventories of preprinted
bags in anticipation of these new requirements. This should minimize
bag inventory loss by any company, including the commenter who
requested a 30-month effective date. The Commission is choosing an 18-
month effective date, which will provide sufficient time to deplete
most existing noncomplying inventory. This will eliminate or mitigate
adverse economic consequences from inventory loss.
Issue: Size of Label for Small Packages
Comment: Smaller labels. A commenter stated that its smallest
package of charcoal (2.5 lb., 6 inches wide) should be subject to
different minimum label-size requirements (1\1/2\ inches high and 5\1/
2\ inches wide). The commenter indicated that a label that is a minimum
of 1\1/2\ inches high and 5\1/2\ inches wide is needed on this package
to keep the label from running over the sides of the package and
detracting from its appearance. The commenter recommended that this
could be accomplished by moving the signal word panel over the message
panel, and by slightly decreasing the size of the lettering, the
spacing between the safety messages, and the size of the pictogram.
Response: The Commission agrees that the final rule should allow a
label of the size requested on the smallest-size package of charcoal.
The Commission believes this will not unduly compromise the label's
conspicuousness or legibility, and will allow the consumer to see the
entire label on these small bags. However, the proposed configuration
of the label should be maintained by simply making the label smaller.
Using labels of more than one configuration could cause confusion for
consumers. Accordingly, the final rule should allow the smallest
package of charcoal to have a label that is a minimum of 1\1/2\ inches
high and 5\1/2\ inches wide.
Issue: Scope of the Requirement
Comment: Coverage of charcoal for restaurants and other commercial
establishments. A comment suggests that packages supplied to
restaurants and other commercial establishments should not be excluded
from the labeling requirement. The commenter argues that this would put
workers and patrons at risk.
Response: The terms of the rule itself do not limit the locations
to which it will apply. The Commission intends that all packages of
charcoal that are sold at retail and can be regulated under the FHSA
will be subject to the revised requirements. However, the FHSA does not
grant jurisdiction for the Commission to regulate products used only in
commercial establishments.
Under the FHSA, the Commission can, except for toys, regulate only
hazardous substances that are ``intended, or packaged in a form
suitable, for use in the household.'' FHSA Sec. 2(p), 15 U.S.C.
1261(p). Thus, the only packages of charcoal that would not be subject
to the revised labeling requirement are those that are not sold at
retail or are, e.g., in packages that are so large they are not
intended or suitable for use in the household. If it is impractical for
charcoal manufacturers to provide different packages for home and
commercial use, the rule will have the effect of ensuring that packages
of charcoal used in restaurants and other commercial establishments
will have the revised labeling. To the extent that separate packages
are produced, the Commission lacks the authority to take actions solely
to protect workers in commercial establishments or to take actions to
protect consumers from risks that could be adequately reduced by
actions taken under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. 15
U.S.C. 2080(a). However, the Commission is not aware of any incident of
CO poisoning from charcoal used in a restaurant or similar
establishment.
Comment: Lump charcoal. A commenter stated that perhaps ``lump''
charcoal should not be subject to the labeling requirement. The
commenter speculated that the non-charcoal ingredients in briquet-type
charcoal may contribute to the hazard in the reported cases. The
commenter also speculates that the victims from less developed
countries may be familiar with the safe use of lump charcoal and that
the incidents could be the result of the misleading current labeling
regarding ventilation.
Response: Although there are some differences between lump charcoal
and charcoal briquets, they both present a serious CO hazard if
misused. The CPSC staff performed an experiment comparing the emissions
levels of CO production from both lump and briquet charcoal. The
experiment showed that similar masses of lump and briquet charcoal
produced similar amounts of CO. Although lump charcoal produced about
half of the amount of CO as did an equal volume of charcoal briquets,
the level of CO production from lump charcoal was still well above that
which could produce dangerous concentrations. Thus, there is no basis
for excluding lump charcoal from the scope of the amended rule.
Comment: Other carbon-producing products. A commenter stated that
the rule should apply to ``[a]ny carbon based or carbon producing
product whose end use is combustion and is intended for household use *
* * includ[ing] wood chips, wood chunks, wood logs, coals, products
produced from biomass, etc.'' The commenter argued that these products
also produce CO.
Response: The other products cited by this commenter have not been
shown to be used in confined areas. Such use is needed to create the
hazard addressed by the revised label. These other products produce
enough smoke that it is not feasible to use them in homes, vehicles,
tents, or any confined area. Thus, there is no basis for expanding the
scope of the rule to include these products.
F. Effective Date
The rule applies only to filled containers of charcoal. Marketers
of charcoal, however, have indicated that it is not unusual to have an
inventory of printed bags that would take 1 or 2 years to use up. One
commenter indicated that it has up to 3 years or more of a supply of
preprinted bags in storage. These marketers would prefer that the
revised requirement relate to the date the bag or other container was
printed, so that all existing inventories could be used. However, it
would be impractical for the Commission to determine whether a bag was
printed before the effective date when the bag might not be filled for
some time after that date. Accordingly, the Commission has decided that
the rule will apply to all containers of subject charcoal that are
filled on or after the effective date.
In order to address the marketers' concern about inventories,
however, the
[[Page 19827]]
revised rule will not become effective until sufficient time has passed
for the industry to use up most of its current inventory of printed
bags. The Commission estimates that this will have occurred by 18
months after the final rule is issued, or November 3, 1997. This also
will provide time to revise the plates needed to print the new label,
revise any other plates that may be affected on the bag, conduct
consumer acceptance tests if needed, print new bags, and incorporate
the new bags into production. [15, Tab E] Of course, as the Commission
stated at the time it proposed the revised label, manufacturers who
order additional printing of bags between now and the effective date of
the rule should limit the quantities ordered so that large numbers of
bags will not remain unfilled at the effective date and have to be
discarded or stickered with the new label.
Some manufacturers may wish to voluntarily use the revised label
before the effective date of the final rule. For such firms, the
Commission will, until further notice published in the Federal
Register, consider labels complying with the final rule as complying
with the current requirements of 16 CFR 1500.14(b)(6). (The Commission
previously allowed use of the proposed label before the effective date.
Specific authority for such use is not needed at this time, because
labels that comply with the proposed rule will also comply with the
final rule.)
G. Economic and Product Information [6, Tab G; 15, Tab E]
Charcoal is a solid carbon material made from wood subjected to
extremely high temperature. It is available in lump, briquet, and
powdered forms. To produce charcoal briquets, charcoal is ground, mixed
with other ingredients, and compressed. Lump and briquet charcoal is
used as a fuel in cooking and in specialized scientific, industrial,
and horticultural applications. Recreational cooking consumes
approximately 80-90% of charcoal production. Specialized uses account
for the remainder.
It is estimated that approximately 824,000 tons of charcoal
briquets were sold in 1995. Charcoal briquet sales doubled between 1967
and 1977, were relatively flat during the 1980's, and have risen since
1991. The rising popularity of gas grills may explain the flattening of
sales during the 1980's. Charcoal briquet sales account for
approximately 80-90% of the annual production of charcoal. Lump
charcoal sales are a very small percentage (less than 4%, according to
industry sources) of the annual production of charcoal. Imports
comprise less than 1% of the domestic sales of charcoal.
Supermarkets and hardware, discount, drug, and garden supply stores
sell charcoal to consumers in a variety of types and packages. Three
major types of charcoal briquets are available. One is the standard
briquet. Another is the ``instant-light'' briquet, which is impregnated
with a flammable substance. The third is a ``flavor additive'' briquet
which is produced with an aromatic wood such as hickory or mesquite.
Standard briquets generally are sold in multi-walled (multi-layered) 5,
10, 20, and 40-pound paper bags. The instant-light briquets are
available in similar 2\1/2\, 4, 5, 8, and 15-pound bags. Briquets are
also available in single-use, wax impregnated, ``light-the-bag''
packages. Lump charcoal, which is pure charcoal, is marketed as a
natural product and is available in packaging similar to briquets.
Charcoal also may be sold in other sizes of bags or in corrugated
boxes, depending upon marketing considerations. Based on an informal
study of the market in and around Washington, D.C., the retail price of
charcoal ranges from approximately $.25 to $.75 per pound, depending on
package size, although the retail price of some specialty charcoals may
be higher.
Approximately 10 companies manufacture lump and briquet charcoal in
the United States. Several companies import charcoal. According to
industry representatives, the top five domestic charcoal manufacturers
control an estimated 90-95% of the market, with the leading company
controlling approximately 50%. Manufacturers provide lump charcoal and
charcoal briquets under an estimated 250 different brand names, most of
which are private or ``store'' brands. Relatively few are nationally or
regionally marketed brands.
According to the Barbecue Industry Association (``BIA''), 71
million households owned barbecue grills in 1993. [5] In addition, the
BIA estimates that 58% of grill owners (41 million households) own a
charcoal grill. The peak season for cooking on a grill is from the
start of Daylight Savings Time through Labor Day. However, 52% of
grills are used throughout the year. The number of ``barbecuing
events'' each year (including gas and charcoal fuels) more than doubled
over a 10-year period, with an estimated 2.6 billion occurrences in
1993.
According to a BIA-sponsored National Family Opinion survey
conducted in the summer of 1993, gas grill owners indicated that they
use their grill about twice as often as charcoal grill owners. [5] This
ratio may not apply year round, since there may be a greater relative
use of gas grills in the winter. If it is assumed that this 2:1 ratio
applies year round, however, the number of barbecuing events attributed
to charcoal is approximately 870 million in 1993. This results in an
estimated exposure of 21 such events per year per household owning a
charcoal grill.
It is estimated that approximately 824,000 tons of charcoal
briquets were sold in the U.S. in 1995. [15, Tab E] This amounts to
about 1.6 billion pounds of briquets, or 160 million bags with an
average weight of 10 pounds. In 1993, there were an estimated 870
million charcoal barbecuing events. Dividing the approximately 809,000
tons of charcoal briquets sold that year by the number of events, the
average amount of charcoal used was about 1.9 pounds per event. If each
household that owns a charcoal grill barbecues 21 times a year, each
such household uses 40 pounds of charcoal briquets per year, or the
equivalent of four 10-lb bags.
As noted above, there are approximately 28 deaths and 300 CO-
related emergency room-treated injuries associated with the use of
charcoal each year. Id. Thus, there was approximately one death for
every 1.5 million households owning charcoal grills (or 0.68 deaths per
million such households). Also, there was one CO injury for every
136,667 households owning charcoal grills (or 7.3 injuries per million
such households). Additionally, the estimated 160 million bags of
charcoal briquets sold in 1995 were associated with approximately one
death for every 5.7 million charcoal briquet bags (0.18 deaths per
million bags). Further, there was one CO injury for about every 0.5
million bags (1.9 injuries per million bags).
The Commission estimates that changing the labeling requirements
for packages of charcoal has the potential for substantial benefits to
society. Based on the CPSC's injury cost model, the average annual
societal cost of an injury from charcoal-related CO poisoning is
approximately $10,000. The annual societal cost of these injuries is
approximately $3 million, given the estimated 300 such injuries per
year.
Additionally, there are an estimated 28 deaths per year from
charcoal-related CO poisonings. Assuming a statistical value of life of
$5 million, these injuries and deaths cost society about $143 million
annually. The avoidance of these injuries and deaths represents the
maximum potential benefits to society of the new labeling requirements.
[[Page 19828]]
If the Commission had mandated the ``optimum'' warning label
described above, which includes additional color requirements, the
costs to industry of changing labels would have included both one-time,
start-up expenses and continuous, ongoing expenses. Start-up expenses
include the cost of new printing equipment, printing plates, artwork,
and negatives. Ongoing expenses would relate to any additional colors
used in the warning label.
Industry representatives indicated that the aggregate start-up
expenses for the ``optimum'' label could have amounted to as much as $6
million. Further, the ongoing costs for the added colors that label
would have required could have been around $4 million per year.
However, the Commission eased the current requirements for the
label placement on bags of charcoal, and did not mandate additional
colors. This will allow continued use of current printing equipment.
Therefore, the costs of the revision that is being adopted are
estimated to be no more than $1 million in start-up expenses, with no
ongoing expenses.
Besides the costs of making changes to charcoal bags, loss of bag
stocks would be incurred if the effective date does not allow for a
substantial reduction in old inventory of unfilled bags. As discussed
above, the effective date of the revised labeling rule will be 18
months after publication of the final rule. This should allow almost
all firms to use up existing inventories of printed bags. As the
Commission stated in the proposal, ``manufacturers who order additional
printing of bags between now and the effective date of the rule should
limit the quantities ordered so that large numbers of bags will not
have to be discarded or stickered with the new label.'' 60 FR at 40790.
Packagers who followed that advice will in effect have had 26 months to
deplete their inventories of preprinted bags.
Only one industry member has indicated that it has more than 2
years inventory. If any preprinted bags remain unfilled at the
effective date, the costs of not using these bags and of discarding
them are not expected to be significant.
No estimates are available of the effectiveness of the revised
label in reducing charcoal-related CO injuries and deaths. However, if
the one-time cost to industry of revising the label ($1 million) is
viewed as an ``investment'' for saving a life in the future, the
benefits of the rule would exceed its costs if the label revisions
avert one death within 32 years of the change. (This assumes a value of
$5 million for saving a statistical life and a 5% discount rate. A 10%
discount rate would produce positive net benefits if the death was
averted during the next 16 years.) Given the present death rate of 28
per year, it is reasonable to believe that such levels of effectiveness
will be achieved.
H. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
When an agency undertakes a rulemaking proceeding, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires the agency to
prepare initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses describing
the impact of the rule on small businesses and other small entities.
The purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as stated in section
2(b) (5 U.S.C. 602 note), is to require agencies, consistent with their
objectives, to fit the requirements of regulations to the scale of the
businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to
the regulations. Section 605 of the Act provides that an agency is not
required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis if the head of an
agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission's Directorate for Economic Analysis examined the
potential effects of the revised rule on small entities. [15, Tab E]
Businesses affected by label-change costs may include charcoal
manufacturers (approximately 10 firms), bag suppliers, and firms that
own a charcoal brand name (proprietary or private label brands).
Industry representatives predict that the bulk of the costs of
developing new labels will fall initially on the charcoal
manufacturers. As noted above, these costs may include those associated
with the development or purchase of new printing plates, artwork, and
negatives.
Several private label manufacturers have indicated that they will
be disproportionately affected by a label change. These firms package
charcoal under a large number of brand names, which may require
hundreds of plate changes. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the
Commission proposed to ease the margin requirements of the current
regulation (i.e., allowing the label to be at least 1 inch, instead of
at least 2 inches, below the seam of the bag) and proposed continued
use of contrasting colors as opposed to use of ANSI colors, which were
originally considered. Easing of the margin requirements and use of
contrasting colors will substantially reduce the cost of the label
change. The costs may be further mitigated if the firms are able to
pass them through to their customers or if their plates are near the
end of their service life. Costs for small firms are not expected to be
significant, due to the relatively small number of brands handled by
such firms.
The rule should not require firms to buy new printing presses. Most
manufacturers will have enough time to use up existing supplies of
printed bags. Bags filled with charcoal before the effective date are
not subject to the revised requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Commission certifies
that the rule will not have significant economic effects on a
substantial number of small entities.
I. Environmental Considerations
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, and in
accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations and
CPSC's procedures for environmental review, the Commission has assessed
the possible environmental effects associated with the rule to revise
the warning labels for packages of charcoal. [15, Tab E] Analysis of
the potential impact of this rule indicates that it will have no
significant effects on the environment since the effective date enables
almost all firms to deplete existing stocks of empty bags. (Some firms
have indicated that, depending on the time of the year, they may have
as much as a 2-year supply of filled and empty bags.) As previously
noted, bags filled before the effective date will not be affected by
the revised rule. Even if some old inventory of bags remains, as one
commenter contends, the environmental consequences are expected to be
insignificant.
Therefore, because the revised rule would have no significant
impact on the environment, neither an environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is required.
J. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Commission concludes that the
labeling required by section 2(p)(1) of the FHSA for packages of
charcoal is not adequate for the protection of the public health and
safety, in view of the special hazard of CO poisoning presented by
using charcoal in a confined area. The Commission finds that the
additional label requirements in the revised label issued below are
necessary for the protection of the public health and safety. These
requirements are issued under the authority of section 3(b) of the
FHSA, 15 U.S.C. 1262(b).
Effective date: The final rule is effective November 3, 1997.
[[Page 19829]]
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1500
Consumer protection, Hazardous materials, Hazardous substances,
Imports, Infants and children, Labeling, Law Enforcement, Toys.
For the reasons given above, the Commission amends 16 CFR part 1500
as follows:
PART 1500--HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND ARTICLES; ADMINISTRATION AND
ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 1500 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1261-1278.
2. Section 1500.14 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (b)(6)
(i) and (ii) as paragraphs (b)(6)(i) (A) and (B).
3. In Sec. 1500.14, newly designated paragraph (b)(6)(i)(A) is
amended by Nonvember 3, 1997 after ``products''.
4. Section 1500.14 is further amended in newly designated paragraph
(b)(6)(i)(B), by adding ``packaged before November 3, 1997 after
``charcoal''.
5. Section 1500.14 is further amended by adding a new paragraph
(b)(6)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 1500.14 Products requiring special labeling under section 3(b) of
the act.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii)(A) Because inhalation of the carbon monoxide produced by
burning charcoal indoors or in confined areas can cause serious injury
or death, containers of such products packaged on or after [insert date
that is 18 months after publication] shall bear the following
borderlined label.
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03MY96.051
BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
(B) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(6)(ii)(C) of this section,
the following requirements apply to bags of charcoal subject to
paragraph (b)(6)(ii)(A) of this section. The label specified in
paragraph (b)(6)(ii)(A) of this section shall appear within a heavy
borderline, in a color sharply contrasting to that of the background,
on both the front and back panels in the upper 25 percent of the panels
of the bag, and with the outer edge of the borderline at least 2.54 cm
(1 inch) below the seam and at least 2.54 cm (1 inch) above any other
reading material or design elements. The signal word ``WARNING'' shall
be in bold capital letters in at least 7.14 mm (\9/32\ inch) type. The
remaining text of the warning statement shall be in at least 4.763 mm
(\3/16\ inch) type. The phrase ``CARBON MONOXIDE HAZARD'' shall be in
bold. This phrase and the word ``NEVER'' shall be in all capital
letters. The lettering shall have a strokewidth-to-height ratio of 1:6
to 1:8. The label shall be at least 50.8 mm (2 inches) high and 147.5
mm (5\3/16\ inches) wide. The label's lettering, spacing between the
bottom of the letters of one line and the top of the letter of the next
line, and pictogram shall have the size relation to each other and to
the remainder of the label shown in paragraph (b)(6)(ii)(A) of this
section.
(C) For bags of charcoal subject to paragraph (b)(6)(ii)(A) of this
section that are 6 inches or less wide, the minimum label height may be
reduced to 38 mm (1.5 inches) and the minimum width may be reduced to
139.7 mm (5.5 inches). The signal word ``WARNING'' shall be in capital
letters in at least 6.32 mm (0.249 inch) type. The remaining text of
the warning shall be in at least 4.23 mm (0.166 inch) type. All other
requirements of paragraphs 6(b)(ii) (A) and (B) of this section shall
apply to these bags.
Dated: April 29, 1996.
Sadye E. Dunn,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Appendix 1--List of Relevant Documents
(Note: This list of relevant documents will not be printed in the
Code of Federal Regulations.)
1. Petition HP 91-1 from Barbara Mauk.
2. Letter to Barbara Mauk from Sadye E. Dunn, CPSC, January 28,
1993.
3. Hampson, N.B. et al., JAMA (January 5, 1994).
4. Cost information from industry.
a. The Clorox Company (Kingsford), P.O. Box 493, Pleasanton, CA
94566.
b. King and Spalding, representing Royal Oak Enterprises, Inc.,
1730 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.
c. Hickory Specialties, Inc., P.O. Box 1669, Brentwood, TN
37024.
5. Barbecue Industry Association survey. Barbecue Industry
Association, 710 East Ogden, Suite 113, Naperville, IL 60563.
6. Briefing package dated July 6, 1995, with Tabs A-H.
TAB A--Background Information on Charcoal Labeling in Briefing
Package memo dated May 18, 1994, accompanied by FDA's Notices of
Proposed and Final Rulemaking dated September 2, 1970, and August
11, 1971, and Petition for Amending Labeling Requirements for
Charcoal Intended for Household Use, dated October 12, 1990.
TAB B--Memorandum from Laureen E. Burton of Directorate for Health
Sciences to Sharon R. White, entitled ``Carbon Monoxide Toxicity
Review for the Charcoal Labeling Project,'' dated March 8, 1994.
TAB C--Memorandum from Leonard Schachter, Directorate for
Epidemiology, Division of Hazard Analysis to Sharon R. White,
entitled ``Charcoal Labeling Project,'' dated December 12, 1994.
TAB D--Memorandum from Charles M. Jacobson, Office of Compliance and
Enforcement to Susan E. Womble, entitled ``Compliance Experience
with Current FHSA Labeling Requirements for Charcoal Briquets,''
dated April 30, 1992.
TAB E--1. Memorandum from Sharon R. White of Directorate for
Epidemiology,
[[Page 19830]]
Division of Human Factors, to The File entitled, ``Proposed
Revisions to Labeling Requirements for Packages of Charcoal'' dated
June 15, 1995.
2. Memorandum from George Sweet of Directorate for Epidemiology,
Division of Human Factors to Sharon R. White entitled, ``Pictogram
Testing for Warning Labels on Charcoal Bags,'' dated June 12, 1995.
TAB F--Logs of Industry Meetings on (1) April 22, 1994, and (2)
April 13, 1995.
TAB G--Memorandum from Mary F. Donaldson of Directorate of Economic
Analysis to Sharon R. White, entitled ``Economic Analysis of a
Revision to Charcoal Labeling,'' dated June 22, 1995.
TAB H--Draft Federal Register Notice--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
7. Letter from James C. Stephen, President, Weber-Stephen
Products Co., to Sharon R. White, CPSC, May 11, 1995.
8. Letter from Harleigh Ewell, CPSC, to James C. Stephen,
President, Weber-Stephen Products Co., June 29, 1994.
9. Woodson, W.; Tillman, B.; and Tillman, P., 1992.
10. ANSI Z535.3-1991, American National Standard, Criteria for
Safety Symbols.
11. Perry, E., and Neily, M. (1985). Burning Charcoal Briquettes
in a Fireplace. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington,
DC.
12. Letter from Leonard S. Gryn, Executive Vice President,
Weber-Stephen Products Co., to Harleigh Ewell, CPSC, July 5, 1995.
13. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 60 FR 40785 (August 10,
1995).
14. Comments on proposed rule, Nos. CH96-1-1 through CH96-1-7.
15. Briefing package, consisting of a briefing memorandum from
Sharon White, Project Manager, to the Commission, March ____, 1996,
and Tabs B and D-E:
TAB B--Memorandum from Leonard Schachter, CPSC Directorate for
Epidemiology and Health Sciences, to Sharon R. White, entitled
``Deaths and Injuries Associated with Charcoal,'' dated November 28,
1995.
TAB C--1. Memorandum from Sharon R. White, CPSC Directorate for
Engineering Sciences, to File, entitled ``Responses to Comments on
the Proposed Rule on the Labeling Requirements for Packages of
Charcoal,'' dated February 28, 1996.
2. Memorandum from Mary F. Donaldson, CPSC Directorate for Economic
Analysis, to Sharon R. White, entitled ``Response to Comments,
Proposed Rule Amending Labeling on Packages of Charcoal,'' dated
February 28, 1996.
3. Memorandum from Rikki Khanna, CPSC Directorate for Engineering
Sciences, to Sharon R. White, entitled ``Responses to Comment on
Proposed Rule for Labeling of Retail Containers of Charcoal (REF:
CH96-1-3),'' dated February 9, 1996.
4. Memorandum from Mary F. Toro of the Office of Compliance,
Division of Regulatory Management, entitled Charcoal Labeling
Package--Comments on the NPR dated December 13, 1995.
5. Memorandum from Kimberly Long of Directorate for Epidemiology and
Health Sciences to Sharon R. White, entitled ``Comments to Proposed
Rule Amending Package Labeling of Charcoal, FR., Vol. 60, No. 154,
August 10, 1995, pp. 40785,'' dated December 6, 1995.
TAB E--Memorandum from Mary F. Donaldson, CPSC Directorate for
Economic Analysis, to Sharon R. White, entitled ``Economic Analysis
of a Revision to Charcoal Labeling,'' dated December 8, 1995.
16. Memorandum from Mary Ann Danello, Ph.D,. Associate Executive
Director for Epidemiology and Health Sciences, ``Corrected Response
to Comments for Proposed Rule Amending Package Labeling of Charcoal,
FR, Vol. 60, No. 154, August 10, 1995, pp. 4078ff,'' dated April 3,
1996.
[FR Doc. 96-10978 Filed 5-02-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10961 Warning Statements for Products Containing or Manufactured With Chlorofluorocarbons and Other Ozone-Depleting Substances
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20096-20102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10961]
[[Page 20095]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VII
Department of Health and Human Services
_______________________________________________________________________
Food and Drug Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
21 CFR Parts 101, 201, 369 et al.
Warning Statements for Products Containing or Manufactured With
Chlorofluorocarbons and Other Ozone-Depleting Substances; Interim Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Rules and
Regulations
[[Page 20096]]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Parts 101, 201, 369, 501, 740, and 801
[Docket No. 93N-0442]
Warning Statements for Products Containing or Manufactured With
Chlorofluorocarbons and Other Ozone-Depleting Substances
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Interim rule; opportunity for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing interim
regulations governing warning statements for products containing or
manufactured with chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) and other ozone-depleting
substances. The amendments prescribe specific warning statements and
additional labeling statements for physicians and patients. These
additional statements direct patients to consult their physicians
before discontinuing use of a prescription medical product because of
concerns about the product's effect on the environment and public
health. The interim rule also provides warning statements for over-the-
counter (OTC) drug and device products and directs patients to consult
their physicians, health professional, or suppliers with questions
about the products. In addition, the interim rule revises certain
regulations concerning foods, cosmetics, and animal foods in a self-
pressurized container with a CFC propellant in order to be consistent
with current statutory requirements. FDA is issuing these regulations
as an interim rule with opportunity for public comment.
DATES: Interim rule effective May 17, 1996; comments by August 1, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, rm. 1-23, 12420 Parklawn Dr.,
Rockville, MD 20857.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne H. Mitchell, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (HFD-7), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-594-1049.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On February 11, 1993 (58 FR 8136), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) issued final regulations requiring, among other things, a
warning statement on all products containing or manufactured with
specific ozone-depleting substances. In general, the EPA regulations
require each container or product containing or manufactured with
CFC's, halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform to bear the
following warning statement (58 FR 8136 at 8165):
Warning: Contains [or Manufactured with, if applicable] [insert
name of substance], a substance which harms public health and
environment by destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere.
EPA issued the rule under section 611 of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7671(j)), which requires the warning statements on all products
containing or manufactured with CFC's on or after May 15, 1993. In
promulgating the rule, EPA noted that several comments had argued that
certain prescription medical products, such as metered-dose inhalers,
should be exempt from the labeling requirements because they are
essential to the health of patients. The comments indicated that a
warning statement might lead some patients to avoid their medication
because of concerns about the product's effect on the environment or
alarm over the words ``harms public health.'' EPA stated that it
understood the importance of such products to patients as well as the
need to ``tailor the labeling requirement to avoid unduly alarming
patients,'' but also stated that it lacked the authority to exempt
prescription medical products from the labeling requirement (see 58 FR
8136 at 8155). Consequently, EPA indicated that the statutorily
required warning statement could appear on supplemental printed
material intended for physicians rather than patients, provided that
the supplemental printed material intended for patients contain similar
warning language without the words ``warning'' and ``harms public
health'' (see 58 FR 8136 at 8156). EPA also indicated that
manufacturers of prescription medical products could supplement this
information with additional information for patients. EPA anticipated
that FDA would provide the specific additional language (see 58 FR 8136
at 8156). On June 29, 1993 (58 FR 34812, corrected on July 29, 1993, 58
FR 40656), FDA published a notice in the Federal Register setting out
alternative labeling warning language designed not to cause undue
patient alarm. The warnings were essentially identical to the warnings
contained in this interim rule. As part of the notice, FDA requested
comments about CFC warning statements. These comments are summarized
and responded to in section III of this preamble.
Since 1977 (42 FR 22018, April 29, 1977), FDA has required, with a
few exceptions, that OTC human drug and nonrestricted device products
containing CFC propellants be labeled with a warning (21 CFR 369.21 and
801.425). In addition, FDA established regulations in Secs. 101.17(c),
501.17(c), and 740.11(c) (21 CFR 101.17(c), 501.17(c), and 740.11(c))
that required that the package of a food, animal food, or cosmetic in a
self-pressurized container in which the propellant consists in whole or
in part of a fully halogenated CFC bear the following warning
statement:
Warning: Contains a chlorofluorocarbon that may harm the public
health and environment by reducing ozone in the upper atmosphere.
These regulations also provided requirements for placement and
conspicuousness of the warning statement. The required warning
statement applied only to self-pressurized containers that use CFC as a
propellant. For example, for foods, the use of the warning statement
was not required when the CFC was used as a stabilizer in food toppings
and spreads (Sec. 101.17(c)(3)).
Since 1978 (43 FR 11301, March 17, 1978), FDA has prohibited the
use of CFC propellants in most products it regulates (21 CFR 189.191,
300.100, 500.49, 700.23, and 801.417), except those listed as essential
uses of CFC's in Sec. 2.125 (21 CFR 2.125). Nonessential uses, which
were prohibited by the 1978 final rule, included CFC use as a
propellant in self-pressurized containers for foods and cosmetics. The
prohibitions against nonessential uses of CFC's, set out in
Sec. 2.125(c), provide that ``any food, drug, device, or cosmetic in a
self-pressurized container that contains a chlorofluorocarbon
propellant is adulterated and/or misbranded in violation of the act * *
*.'' Section 2.125(e) exempts certain essential uses of CFC's from the
adulteration and misbranding provisions of Sec. 2.125(c). Further,
Sec. 2.125(f) specifically provides for the filing of a petition in
accordance with 21 CFR part 10 to provide for the listing of additional
essential uses so as not to subject the new use to the adulteration and
misbranding provisions in Sec. 2.125(c).
FDA notes that all of the essential uses of CFC's exempted from the
adulteration and misbranding provisions of Sec. 2.125 that are listed
in Sec. 2.125(e) apply to drug products. No
[[Page 20097]]
essential uses of CFC's for foods, cosmetics, or animal foods in self-
pressurized containers have been identified.
II. Description of the Interim Rule
This interim rule describes the warning statements that should
accompany human prescription drug, biologic, and device products, and
restricted device products (hereafter referred to as ``prescription
human medical products''), OTC drug and device products, and animal
drug products that contain or are manufactured with CFC's, halons,
carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and any other class I ozone-
depleting substance designated by the EPA Administrator. (A list of
class I ozone-depleting substances can be found in 40 CFR part 82,
appendix A to subpart A, and any later EPA rulemaking adding other
ozone-depleting substances.)
The interim rule provides two options for labeling prescription
human medical products and OTC drugs and devices. The first option is
EPA's warning statement:
Warning: Contains [or Manufactured with, if applicable] [insert
name of substance], a substance which harms public health and
environment by destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere.
The second option for prescription human medical products contains
FDA's additional language for the alternative warning statements. These
warning statements are intended for physician labeling and patient
labeling.
The warning for the physician package insert would be used in
conjunction with an alternative warning statement that would appear on
patient labeling as stated in the EPA final regulation (58 FR 8136 at
8166). These alternative warning statements would be written so that
patients do not cease using their medications because of concerns over
the products' effect on the environment or alarm over the words ``harms
public health'' without first consulting their physicians. Instead,
patients would be able to discuss their concerns with their physicians
or, in the case of OTC drug or device products, another health
professional or suppliers, and, if they wish, consider the use of
alternative treatments. Also, physicians would be alerted to products
that contain ozone-depleting substances. FDA believes that these
warning statements will enable patients, physicians, pharmacists, other
health professionals, and suppliers (in the case of devices) to make
informed decisions.
Animal drug products manufactured with CFC's or other ozone-
depleting products are required to use EPA's warning statement because
the optimal alternative labeling statement is restricted to human
medical products.
A. Prescription Human Medical Products
For prescription human drug products, new Sec. 201.320 (21 CFR
201.320) provides both the EPA warning statement and FDA's alternative
warning statements. New Sec. 801.443 (21 CFR 801.443) provides the same
two options for prescription and restricted devices. A biological
product regulated as a drug or a device would use whichever labeling
applies to the particular biological product. Under new Secs. 201.320
and 801.443, all prescription drug and device products and restricted
devices containing or manufactured with CFC's, halons, carbon
tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, or any other class I ozone-depleting
substance designated by the EPA Administrator shall use the EPA warning
statement or specified alternative warning statements. For the first
option for a warning statement, new Secs. 201.320(a) and 801.443(a)
provide the EPA warning statement quoted earlier in this preamble.
Under new Secs. 201.320(a)(2) and 801.443(a)(2), the warning
statement shall be clearly legible and conspicuous on the product, its
immediate container, its outer packaging, or other labeling, and appear
with such prominence and conspicuousness as to render it likely to be
read and understood by consumers under normal conditions of purchase.
For the second option, new Secs. 201.320(b)(1) and 801.443(b)(1)
provide FDA's alternative warning statements for supplemental printed
materials intended for physicians and for patients. For patient
labeling, the warning statement would appear on the product, its
packaging, or supplemental printed material intended for the patient
and would read as follows:
Note: The indented statement below is required by the Federal
government's Clean Air Act for all products containing or
manufactured with chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) [or name of other
class I substance, if applicable].
This product contains [or is manufactured with, if applicable]
[insert name of substance], a substance which harms the environment
by destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere.
Your physician has determined that this product is likely to
help your personal health. USE THIS PRODUCT AS DIRECTED, UNLESS
INSTRUCTED TO DO OTHERWISE BY YOUR PHYSICIAN. If you have any
questions about alternatives, consult with your physician.
These statements are designed to explain that the Clean Air Act
requires the warning statement, but that patients should continue to
use the prescription medical product unless instructed otherwise by
their physicians. The labeling for the physician would be placed on the
physician package insert after the ``How supplied'' section on the
label describing the special handling and storage conditions.
For the package insert for the physician, the warning statement
would state that:
Note: The indented statement below is required by the Federal
government's Clean Air Act for all products containing or
manufactured with chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) [or name of other
class I substance, if applicable].
Warning: Contains [or Manufactured with, if applicable] [insert
name of substance], a substance which harms public health and
environment by destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere.
A notice similar to the above WARNING has been placed in the
information for the patient [or patient information leaflet, if
applicable] of this product under Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) regulations. The patient's warning states that the patient
should consult his or her physician if there are questions about
alternatives.
For the second option, for the alternative placement on
supplemental printed material described in new Secs. 201.320(b) and
801.443(b), the interim rule specifies a particular location for the
warning statement intended for the physician; provided, however, that a
person places the statement intended for the patient on the product,
its packaging, or supplemental printed material for the patient. The
warning label shall be clearly legible and conspicuous on the product,
its immediate container, or other labeling as to render it likely to be
read and understood by consumers under normal conditions of purchase.
FDA further advises all parties that new Secs. 201.320 and 801.443 do
not replace or relieve a party from the requirements under 40 CFR part
82.
FDA notes that EPA's regulations (58 FR 8136 at 8166 (40 CFR
82.108(c))) state that, for prescription human medical products that
FDA finds to be essential for patient health, the warning statement may
be placed in supplemental printed material intended to be read by the
prescribing physician, as long as the alternative statement is placed
on the product, its packaging, or supplemental printed material
intended to be read by the patient at time of purchase. The agency
believes that new Secs. 201.320 and 801.443 are consistent
[[Page 20098]]
with these EPA requirements. However, FDA declines at this time to
determine which products are essential for public health. The Clean Air
Act requires that the warning labels be on all products containing or
manufactured with CFC's on or after May 15, 1993. FDA believes it would
be impractical and unnecessary to engage in case-by-case determinations
of which medical products are essential to public health before
permitting alternative warning statements. Thus, until FDA can
establish criteria and make individualized determinations as to whether
a drug is essential to public health, the most prudent course of action
is to presume, for purpose of the warning statement, that all
prescription human medical products are essential to public health.
B. OTC Drug and Device Products
This interim rule also removes the existing CFC warning statement
for OTC drug products at 21 CFR 369.21 in favor of revised warning
statements at new Sec. 201.320 (a) and (c). This interim rule also
removes the existing warning statement at 21 CFR 801.425 for
nonrestricted devices in favor of a revised warning statement at new
Sec. 801.63 (21 CFR 801.63). Under new Secs. 201.320 and 801.63, an OTC
drug or device product that contains or is manufactured with CFC's or
other class I substances may use the EPA warning statement or, as an
alternative, state:
Note: The indented statement below is required by the Federal
government's Clean Air Act for all products containing or
manufactured with chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) [or other class I
substance, if applicable]:
Warning: Contains [or Manufactured with, if applicable] [insert
name of substance], a substance which harms public health and
environment by destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere.
CONSULT WITH YOUR PHYSICIAN OR HEALTH PROFESSIONAL IF YOU HAVE
ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE USE OF THIS PRODUCT.
For OTC devices, the sentence of the label shall state:
CONSULT WITH YOUR PHYSICIAN, HEALTH PROFESSIONAL, OR SUPPLIER IF
YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE USE OF THIS PRODUCT.
The warning statement shall appear on the product, its immediate
container, its packaging, or other labeling on or within the package
from which the drug is dispensed, and must also be prominent and
conspicuous so as to render it likely to be read and understood by
consumers under normal conditions of purchase. This statement also must
be consistent with EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 82.
The agency believes that these warning statements for OTC drug and
device products, like those for prescription human medical products,
enable patients, physicians, and other health professionals to
appreciate environmental concerns and will also avoid unduly alarming
patients.
C. Foods, Cosmetics, and Animal Foods
As noted above, no essential uses of CFC's for foods, cosmetics, or
animal foods have been identified. Any uses of CFC's or of other class
I substances deemed to be appropriate in the manufacture of foods,
cosmetics, and animal foods, or the indirect use of such substances as
additives in the manufacture of packaging materials intended to be used
for foods and animal foods, will subject the foods, cosmetics, and
food-packaging materials to the labeling requirements established by
EPA in 40 CFR part 82. Such EPA warning statement, as cited above in
the discussion on prescription and OTC medical products, must be
prominent and conspicuous so as to render it easily read and understood
by consumers under ordinary conditions of purchase.
Because the EPA warning statement is applicable to all products
``manufactured with'' or ``that contain CFC's or other class I
substances,'' the current exemption for CFC's used as a stabilizer in
food toppings and spreads is no longer appropriate and such foods must
comply with the applicable labeling requirements set forth in 40 CFR
part 82. Thus, FDA is removing the specific requirement for the CFC
warning statement for foods, cosmetics, and animal foods in
Secs. 101.17(c), 740.11(c), and 501.17 and the exemption for toppings
and spreads in Sec. 101.17(c)(3). In addition, FDA is revising these
sections to reference the EPA labeling requirements designated for
CFC's and other class I substances in 40 CFR part 82.
III. Comments
In the Federal Register of June 29, 1993 (58 FR 34812), FDA
published a notice setting out alternative labeling warnings, designed
not to cause undue patient alarm, that comply with the EPA regulation,
and that are acceptable to FDA. As part of the notice, FDA requested
comments about the labeling warning statements, which were nearly
identical to the warnings contained in this interim rule. These
comments are summarized and addressed below.
1. One comment suggested that use of the FDA alternative warnings
be made mandatory. The comment stated that if manufacturers did not opt
for the FDA alternative warning, and used the EPA warning instead, this
could cause undue concern and result in patients stopping medication.
FDA believes that manufacturers should have the option of using the
warning statement that best meets their particular needs. FDA does not
believe that a manufacturer will use the EPA warning if there is any
real likelihood that the warning's use will cause its customers to
cease using the manufacturer's product.
2. Two comments said that, due to the small size of some containers
for products with CFC's, any labeling rule should allow for alternative
placement of the warning on outer packaging or other labeling.
FDA considered these concerns during the drafting of this interim
rule, and the interim rule does allow such alternative placement.
3. One comment suggested that the phrase in the patient warning on
prescription drug labeling ``[i]f you have any questions about
alternatives please consult with your physician'' was too succinct and
that the warning should indicate that alternative delivery systems for
the drug product may be available and that an alternative therapy may
not be necessary.
FDA believes that patients will understand that the alternatives
available may include alternative delivery systems for the same drug
substance and that any need for additional clarity is outweighed by the
necessity of keeping this general warning concise.
4. Another comment suggested that the patient warning statement was
not sufficiently inclusive in directing patients to contact their
physician or pharmacist. The comment suggested that labeling refer to
``physician or health professional'' so as to refer to other health
care professionals, such as physician's assistants or nurses, who can
and do provide patients with information on drug products and medical
devices.
FDA agrees with this comment in regard to OTC products. Health care
professionals, other than physicians and pharmacists, are competent to
advise patients on OTC therapies. However, in regard to prescription
products, FDA believes that, in such a brief warning, the modification
may cause confusion and may cause consumers to direct questions to
health care professionals other than the prescribing physician (or
other authorized prescribing practitioner) and dispensing pharmacist.
In such event, the patient could receive inadequate or inappropriate
advice.
5. Several comments stated that the physician package insert does
not alert
[[Page 20099]]
the physician to the fact that patients have been instructed to consult
with their physician about possible alternatives. Two comments
suggested that the warning on the physician package insert contain the
following additional sentence: ``The patient has been instructed to
consult with you if they have questions about alternatives.''
FDA agrees with the comment and has reworded the warning in the
physician package insert with language to that effect.
Another comment suggested that the proposed OTC drug product
warning was unduly worrisome to consumers and that a warning similar to
the alternative warning contained in patient labeling for prescription
products be allowed for OTC drug products.
EPA's regulations allow an exception to the general rule of
requiring the EPA warning only on patient labeling for prescription
products when the EPA warning is contained in the physician labeling
for the product. No similar exception is provided for OTC drug
products; therefore, the warning suggested in the comment would not be
in compliance with EPA regulations.
IV. Implementation Scheme
FDA advises applicants who have an approved new drug application
(NDA) and whose products contain or are manufactured with CFC's or
other ozone-depleting substances to use the existing procedures in 21
CFR 314.70(c) (supplements for changes that may be made before FDA
approval) to notify the agency of any labeling changes to add a CFC
warning statement. Applicants who have an approved abbreviated new drug
application (ANDA) should follow the same procedures (see 21 CFR
314.97).
Applicants who have submitted either an NDA or ANDA but have not
received approval should, if necessary, amend their applications to
notify FDA about the warning statement(s) they intend to use.
Applicants should submit such amendments in accordance with 21 CFR
314.60 or 314.96, whichever is appropriate.
Applicants who hold an approved product license application (PLA)
and whose products contain or are manufactured with CFC's or other
ozone-depleting substances are to follow the guidance offered in this
interim rule. Revision of labeling to accommodate this warning
statement may be implemented without preclearance from the Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and submitted to the file as
final printed labeling provided that the placement of such information
does not interfere with or render less prominent any information
required by biologics labeling regulations (21 CFR 610.60 through
610.65)).
Applicants who have submitted a PLA but have not yet received
approval should, if necessary, amend their applications to notify CBER
about inclusion of the required warning statement(s) they intend to
use. Such amendments should be submitted under the applicable reference
number.
Applicants who have submitted premarket approval applications
(PMA's) for medical devices but have not received approval should, if
necessary, amend their applications to notify FDA about the warning
statement(s) they intend to use. Applicants should submit such
amendments in accordance with 21 CFR 814.37. With respect to approved
PMA's, applicants should use the procedures in 21 CFR 814.39 to notify
the agency of any labeling changes to add a CFC warning. Applicants who
have received premarket clearance pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 360(k)
(``510(k) clearance'') do not need to file a new 510(k) submission
requesting new clearance if this rule only results in the addition of
the warning statement to the labeling.
FDA advises applicants who have an approved new animal drug
application (NADA) and whose products contain or are manufactured with
CFC's or other ozone-depleting products to use the existing procedures
as identified in 21 CFR 514.8(e) (supplements for changes which may be
made before FDA approval) to notify the agency of any labeling changes
made to add the CFC warning statement. FDA advises applicants who have
submitted an NADA but have not received approval should, if necessary,
amend their applications to reflect the required label warning. No
notification to the agency is necessary for foods, cosmetics, or animal
foods.
Manufacturers who amended their labeling to conform with the June
29, 1993, notice and who have an approved marketing application for
their product should submit a supplemental application to bring their
labeling into compliance with this interim rule. Such manufacturers may
continue to use their current stocks of labeling that comply with the
June 29, 1993, notice until those stocks are exhausted.
V. Effective Date and Opportunity for Public Comment
For the reasons described in this section, FDA is issuing these
requirements as an interim rule with an opportunity for public comment.
In view of the May 15, 1993, statutory warning label requirement, the
agency is issuing these requirements at this time, but FDA will
consider modifications to the regulations based on issues raised during
the comment period and experience gained under the interim rule.
The Administrative Procedure Act provides an exception to notice
and comment rulemaking when an agency, for good cause, finds that the
notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest (see 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). For this
interim rule, FDA finds that notice and comment procedures would be
impracticable for a CFC warning statement requirement because the Clean
Air Act requires such warning statements to be placed on products
containing or manufactured with CFC's or other ozone-depleting
substances by May 15, 1993.
FDA also finds that notice and comment rulemaking to be unnecessary
and contrary to the public interest. The interim rule permits parties
to use the EPA warning statement or an alternative FDA statement. FDA
has no authority to change or modify the warning statements established
in EPA's regulations, and, in this interim rule, offers, but does not
require, the use of an alternative statement. Consequently, because one
warning statement is established by another agency and because the
alternative warning statement is optional, FDA believes that notice and
comment procedures are unnecessary. Furthermore, FDA believes that,
without the availability of the alternative warning statement, patients
who are concerned about a medical product's impact on the environment
and public health might inappropriately refrain from taking their
medication. This interim rule provides an alternative warning statement
that encourages patients to continue taking their medication and to
consult their physicians, pharmacists, other health professionals, or,
in the case of devices, their suppliers, concerning the product's
effect on the environment or public health. It would, therefore, be
contrary to the public interest to delay the implementation of this
rule pending notice and comment rulemaking.
FDA believes, however, that it should invite and consider public
comment on its practices and procedures for these CFC warning
statements. Interested persons may, on or before August 1, 1996, submit
to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) comments regarding
this interim rule. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted,
except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be
identified with the docket number
[[Page 20100]]
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the office above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
VI. Analysis of Impacts
FDA has examined the impacts of the interim rule under Executive
Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354).
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits
of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary,
to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that
this interim rule is consistent with the regulatory philosophy and
principles identified in the Executive Order. In addition, the interim
rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive
Order and so is not subject to review under the Executive Order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule
on small entities. The regulatory impact analysis (RIA) (January 1993)
that accompanied EPA's rule that implemented section 611 of the Clean
Air Act specifically accounted for cost increases for ``medical
aerosols, including metered-dose inhalation devices, contraceptive
foams, topical antibiotics, and local anesthetics'' (page 15 of the
RIA). A copy of this RIA is available for examination under Public
Docket No. A-91-60 at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, rm. M-
1500, Waterside Mall (Ground Floor), 401 M St. SW., Washington, DC
20460. Other FDA-regulated products are accounted for under separate
industry subgroupings. The compliance costs for these labeling changes
have thus been accounted for, and this interim rule adds no additional
burden or cost. Thus, the agency certifies that the interim rule does
not constitute a major rule as defined in Executive Order 12866. The
agency further certifies that the interim rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, no further analysis is
required.
VII. Environmental Impact
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.24(a)(11) that this
action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
List of Subjects
21 CFR Part 101
Food labeling, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 CFR Part 201
Drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 CFR Part 369
Labeling, Medical devices, Over-the-counter drugs.
21 CFR Part 501
Animal foods, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
21 CFR Part 740
Cosmetics, Labeling.
21 CFR Part 801
Labeling, Medical devices, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the
Public Health Service Act, the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, and
under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR
parts 101, 201, 369, 501, 740, and 801 are amended as follows:
PART 101--FOOD LABELING
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 101 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 5, 6 of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act
(15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, 1455); secs. 201, 301, 402, 403, 409, 701 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 342,
343, 348, 371).
2. Section 101.17 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 101.17 Food labeling warning and notice statements.
* * * * *
(c) Food containing or manufactured with a chlorofluorocarbon or
other ozone-depleting substance. Labeling requirements for foods that
contain or are manufactured with a chlorofluorocarbon or other ozone-
depleting substance designated by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) are set forth in 40 CFR part 82.
* * * * *
PART 201--LABELING
3. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 201 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 301, 501, 502, 503, 505, 506, 507, 508,
510, 512, 530-542, 701, 704, 721 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 355, 356, 357, 358,
360, 360b, 360gg-360ss, 371, 374, 379e); secs. 215, 301, 351, 361 of
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 216, 241, 262, 264).
4. New Sec. 201.320 is added to subpart G to read as follows:
Sec. 201.320 Warning statements for drug products containing or
manufactured with chlorofluorocarbons or other ozone-depleting
substances.
(a)(1) All drug products containing or manufactured with
chlorofluorocarbons, halons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloride, or
any other class I substance designated by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) shall, except as provided in paragraph (b) or (c) of this
section, bear the following warning statement:
Warning: Contains [or Manufactured with, if applicable] [insert
name of substance], a substance which harms public health and the
environment by destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere.
(2) The warning statement shall be clearly legible and conspicuous
on the product, its immediate container, its outer packaging, or other
labeling in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 82 and
appear with such prominence and conspicuousness as to render it likely
to be read and understood by consumers under normal conditions of
purchase.
(b)(1) For prescription drug products for human use, the following
alternative warning statement may be used:
Note: The indented statement below is required by the Federal
government's Clean Air Act for all products containing or
manufactured with chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) [or name of other
class I substance, if applicable]:
This product contains [or is manufactured with, if applicable]
[insert name of substance], a substance which harms the environment by
destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere.
Your physician has determined that this product is likely to
help your personal health. USE THIS PRODUCT AS DIRECTED, UNLESS
INSTRUCTED TO DO OTHERWISE BY YOUR PHYSICIAN. If you have any
questions about alternatives, consult with your physician.
(2) The warning statement shall be clearly legible and conspicuous
on the product, its immediate container, its outer packaging, or other
labeling in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 82 and
appear with such prominence and conspicuousness as to render it likely
to be read and understood by consumers under normal conditions of
purchase.
(3) If the warning statement in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is
used, the following warning statement must
[[Page 20101]]
be placed on the package labeling intended to be read by the physician
(physician package insert) after the ``How supplied'' section, which
describes special handling and storage conditions on the physician
labeling:
Note: The indented statement below is required by the Federal
government's Clean Air Act for all products containing or
manufactured with chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) [or name of other
class I substance, if applicable]:
Warning: Contains [or Manufactured with, if applicable] [insert
name of substance], a substance which harms public health and the
environment by destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere.
A notice similar to the above WARNING has been placed in the
information for the patient [or patient information leaflet, if
applicable] of this product under the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) regulations. The patient's warning states that the
patient should consult his or her physician if there are questions
about alternatives.
(c)(1) For over-the-counter drug products for human use, the
following alternative warning statement may be used:
Note: The indented statement below is required by the Federal
government's Clean Air Act for all products containing or
manufactured with chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) [or other class I
substance, if applicable]:
Warning: Contains [or Manufactured with, if applicable] [insert
name of substance], a substance which harms public health and
environment by destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere.
CONSULT WITH YOUR PHYSICIAN OR HEALTH PROFESSIONAL IF YOU HAVE
ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE USE OF THIS PRODUCT.
(2) The warning statement shall be clearly legible and conspicuous
on the product, its immediate container, its outer packaging, or other
labeling in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 82 and
appear with such prominence and conspicuousness as to render it likely
to be read and understood by consumers under normal conditions of
purchase.
(d) This section does not replace or relieve a person from any
requirements imposed under 40 CFR part 82.
PART 369--INTERPRETATIVE STATEMENTS RE WARNINGS ON DRUGS AND
DEVICES FOR OVER-THE-COUNTER SALE
5. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 369 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 301, 501, 502, 503, 505, 506, 507, 701 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351,
352, 353, 355, 356, 357, 371).
Sec. 369.21 [Amended]
6. Section 369.21 Drugs; warning and caution statements required by
regulations is amended in paragraph (d) in the warning section for
``DRUGS IN DISPENSERS PRESSURIZED BY GASEOUS PROPELLANTS * * *'' by
removing the five undesignated paragraphs after the introductory text
of paragraph (d).
PART 501--ANIMAL FOOD LABELING
7. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 501 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 5, 6 of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act
(15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, 1455); secs. 201, 301, 402, 403, 409, 701 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 342,
343, 348, 371).
8. Section 501.17 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 501.17 Animal food labeling warning statements.
* * * * *
(c) Animal food containing or manufactured with a
chlorofluorocarbon or other ozone-depleting substance. Labeling
requirements for animal foods that contain or are manufactured with a
chlorofluorocarbon or other ozone-depleting substance designated by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are set forth in 40 CFR part 82.
PART 740--COSMETIC PRODUCT WARNING STATEMENTS
9. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 740 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 301, 502, 505, 601, 602, 701, 704 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 352, 355,
361, 362, 371, 374).
10. Section 740.11 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 740.11 Cosmetics in self-pressurized containers.
* * * * *
(c) Labeling requirements for cosmetics packaged in a self-
pressurized container containing or manufactured with a
chlorofluorocarbon propellant or other ozone-depleting substance
designated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are set forth
in 40 CFR part 82.
PART 801--LABELING
11. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 801 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 301, 501, 502, 507, 519, 520, 701, 704 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351,
352, 357, 360i, 360j, 371, 374).
12. New Sec. 801.63 is added to subpart C to read as follows:
Sec. 801.63 Medical devices; warning statements for devices containing
or manufactured with chlorofluorocarbons and other class I ozone-
depleting substances.
(a) All over-the-counter devices containing or manufactured with
chlorofluorocarbons, halons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloride, or
any other class I substance designated by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) shall carry one of the following warnings:
(1) The EPA warning statement:
Warning: Contains [or Manufactured with, if applicable] [insert
name of substance], a substance which harms public health and
environment by destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere.
(2) The alternative statement:
Note: The indented statement below is required by the Federal
government's Clean Air Act for all products containing or
manufactured with chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) [or other class I
substance, if applicable]:
Warning: Contains [or Manufactured with, if applicable] [insert
name of substance], a substance which harms public health and
environment by destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere.
CONSULT WITH YOUR PHYSICIAN, HEALTH PROFESSIONAL, OR SUPPLIER IF
YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE USE OF THIS PRODUCT.
(b) The warning statement shall be clearly legible and conspicuous
on the product, its immediate container, its outer packaging, or other
labeling in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 82 and
appear with such prominence and conspicuousness as to render it likely
to be read and understood by consumers under normal conditions of
purchase. This provision does not replace or relieve a person from any
requirements imposed under 40 CFR part 82.
Sec. 801.425 [Removed]
13. Section 801.425 Nonrestricted devices in self-pressurized
containers with chlorofluorocarbon propellants is removed from subpart
H.
14. New Sec. 801.433 is added to subpart H to read as follows:
Sec. 801.433 Warning statements for prescription and restricted device
products containing or manufactured with chlorofluorocarbons or other
ozone-depleting substances.
(a)(1) All prescription and restricted device products containing
or manufactured with chlorofluorocarbons, halons, carbon tetrachloride,
methyl chloride, or any other class I substance designated by the
Environmental
[[Page 20102]]
Protection Agency (EPA) shall, except as provided in paragraph (b) of
this section, bear the following warning statement:
Warning: Contains [or Manufactured with, if applicable] [insert
name of substance], a substance which harms public health and
environment by destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere.
(2) The warning statement shall be clearly legible and conspicuous
on the product, its immediate container, its outer packaging, or other
labeling in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 82 and
appear with such prominence and conspicuousness as to render it likely
to be read and understood by consumers under normal conditions of
purchase.
(b)(1) For prescription and restricted device products, the
following alternative warning statement may be used:
Note: The indented statement below is required by the Federal
government's Clean Air Act for all products containing or
manufactured with chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) [or name of other
class I substance, if applicable]:
This product contains [or is manufactured with, if applicable]
[insert name of substance], a substance which harms the environment
by destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere.
Your physician has determined that this product is likely to
help your personal health. USE THIS PRODUCT AS DIRECTED, UNLESS
INSTRUCTED TO DO OTHERWISE BY YOUR PHYSICIAN. If you have any
questions about alternatives, consult with your physician.
(2) The warning statement shall be clearly legible and conspicuous
on the product, its immediate container, its outer packaging, or other
labeling in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 82 and
appear with such prominence and conspicuousness as to render it likely
to be read and understood by consumers under normal conditions of
purchase.
(3) If the warning statement in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is
used, the following warning statement must be placed on the package
labeling intended to be read by the physician (physician package
insert) after the ``How supplied'' section, which describes special
handling and storage conditions on the physician labeling:
Note: The indented statement below is required by the Federal
government's Clean Air Act for all products containing or
manufactured with chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) [or name of other
class I substance, if applicable]:
Warning: Contains [or Manufactured with, if applicable] [insert
name of substance], a substance which harms public health and
environment by destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere.
A notice similar to the above WARNING has been placed in the
information for the patient [or patient information leaflet, if
applicable] of this product under Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) regulations. The patient's warning states that the patient
should consult his or her physician if there are questions about
alternatives.
(c) This section does not replace or relieve a person from any
requirements imposed under 40 CFR part 82.
Dated: April 16, 1996.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 96-10961 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10922 Cyromazine; Pesticide Tolerance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19842-19845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10922]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 6F3333 and FAP2H5640/R2234; FRL-5365-6]
RIN 2070-AB78
Cyromazine; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule establishes a tolerance for combined residues of the
insecticide cyromazine (N-cyclopropyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine)
and its major metabolite melamine, 1,3,5-triazine-2,4-6-triamine
calculated as cyromazine in or on the raw agricultural commodity (RAC)
tomato. The regulation to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of the insecticide was requested in a petition submitted by
the CIBA-Geigy Corporation, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective May 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
document control number, [PP 6F3333 and FAP2H5640/R2234], may be
submitted to: Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency,
Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. A copy of any
objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be
identified by the document control number and submitted to: Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring copy of
objections and hearing requests to Rm. 1132, CM#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis
Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202. Fees accompanying objections shall be
labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees'' and forwarded to: EPA Headquarters
Accounting Operations Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M,
Pittsburgh, PA 15251. An electronic copy of objections and hearing
requests filed with the Hearing Clerk may be submitted to OPP by
sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected].
Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests must be
submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and
any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing
requests must be identified by the docket number [PP 6F3333 and
[[Page 19843]]
FAP2H5640/R2234]. No Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be
submitted through e-mail. Copies of electronic objections and hearing
requests on this rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository
Libraries. Additional information on electronic submissions can be
found below in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: George LaRocca, Product
Manager (PM) [13], Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm. 204, CM#2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. (703) 305-6100; e-mail:
[email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of March 19, 1986
(51 FR 9511) and June 10, 1992 (57 FR 2467) EPA issued notices of
filing which announced that Ciba-Geigy Corp. (CIBA), P.O. Box 18300,
Greensboro, NC 27419 had submitted pesticide petition (PP 6F3333) and
Food/Feed Additive Petition (FAP) 2H5640 to EPA proposing to amend 40
CFR 180.414 by establishing a tolerance under section 408 (d) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, for
residues of the insecticide cyromazine (N-cyclopropyl-1,3,5-triazine-
2,4,6-triamine) plus its major metabolite melamine, 1,3,5-triazine-2,4-
6-triamine calculated as cyromazine in or on the raw agricultural
commodity tomato at 1.0 parts per million (ppm) and proposing to amend
40 CFR parts 185 and 186 by establishing a food/feed additive
regulation under section 409(e) of FEDCA 21 U.S.C. 348(b) for combined
residues of cyromazine and its metabolite in/on processed tomato
products at 1.2 ppm and dried tomato pomace at 1.6 ppm. Further in the
Federal Register of March 10, 1993 (58 FR 13261), Ciba amended PP
6F3333 by lowering the tolerance for combined residues of the
insecticide cyromazine plus its metabolite melamine, in or on the raw
agricultural commodity tomato from 1.0 ppm to 0.5 ppm. The petitions
for tomato and processed tomato products were again amended in the
Federal Register of October 25, 1995 (60 FR 54689) by proposing to
raise the tolerance in tomatoes to 1.0 ppm and proposing tolerances in
or on processed tomato products (excluding juice) at 2.5 ppm and tomato
pomace, wet and dry at 2.5 ppm. In addition Ciba proposed to amend 40
CFR 180.414 by:
(1) Establishing separate tolerances for residues of cyromazine and
its major metabolite melamine, calculated as cyromazine, in meat, fat,
and meat by-products (including liver and kidney) of cattle, goats,
hogs, horses, and sheep at 0.05 ppm and milk at 0.02 ppm under Sections
180.414(b) and (c) respectively.
(2) Establish as a separate tolerance for residues of the
metabolite 1- methylcyromazine (1-methyl-N-cyclopropyl-1,3,5-triazine-
2,4,6- triamine), calculated as cyromazine, in liver and kidney of
cattle, goats, hogs, horses and sheep at 0.05 ppm, and
(3) Amending the established tolerances for cyromazine and melamine
in or on fat, meat and meat-by-products of chickens, under 40 CFR
180.414 (b) and (c) by removal of the restriction ``from chicken layer
hens and chicken breeder hens only''.
There were no comments or requests for referral to an advisory
committee received in response to these notices of filing.
The scientific data submitted in the petition and other relevant
material have been evaluated. A discussion of the toxicological data
considered in support of the tolerance as well as a discussion of the
risk of cyromazine and its metabolite melamine can be found in a rule
(FAP 2H5355/P344) published in the Federal Register of April 27, 1984
(48 FR 18120); in the Notice of Conditional Registration for Larvadex
0.3% Premix, published in the Federal Register of May 15, 1985 (50 FR
20373); and in the proposed rule regarding the establishment of a
tolerance for residues of cyromazine and its metabolite melamine,
calculated as cyromazine, in or on mushroom at 10.0 ppm in the Federal
Register of June 30, 1993 (58 FR 34972).
A chronic dietary exposure/risk assessment has been performed for
cyromazine using a reference dose (RfD) of 0.0075 mg/kg bwt/day. The
reference dose is based on the no-observable-effect-level (NOEL) of
0.75 mg/kg bwt/day from a 6-month dog feeding study with an uncertainty
factor (UF) of 100 that demonstrated decreased hematocrit and
hemoglobin levels. Granting the tolerance on tomato will increase the
theoretical maximum residue contribution (TMRC) for the overall
(average) U.S. population for cyromazine from 0.001788 mg/kg/day to
0.002011 mg/kg/day. The percentage of the RfD used is increased from 24
percent to approximately 26.8%. Generally speaking the Agency has no
concern if dietary exposure is less than the Rfd for all published and
proposed tolerances.
Cyromazine was previously classified by the Agency as a Group C-
possible human carcinogen, with the Reference Dose (RfD) methodology
recommended for estimation of human risk (see the Federal Register of
June 30, 1993 (58 FR 34972)). Ciba subsequently submitted a
reexamination (by a reviewing pathologist and a pathology working
group) of the tissues from the cyromazine chronic feeding and
carcinogenicity studies in both rat and mouse. Based on a review of
this information by the Health Effects Division Carcinogenicity Peer
Review Committee (CPRC) of the Office of Pesticide Programs, the Agency
has determined that cyromazine should be reclassified to Group E-no
evidence for carcinogenicity in humans. The consensus of the CPRC was
that the reexamination of mammary gland tissues in the mouse and rat
was performed in an acceptable manner and based on these revised data,
there were no statistically significant increases in tumors in the
treated groups, and there were no statistically significant trends.
Therefore, the classification of cyromazine has been revised to Group E
in accordance with Agency guidelines, published in the Federal Register
of September 24, 1986 (51 FR 33992).
The Agency has modified and updated its policy concerning whether
concentration occurs in processed foods. In the past, EPA has found
that a food additive tolerance (section 409) is necessary whenever a
pesticide concentrates in the processed food (i.e., the levels in parts
per million are greater in the processed food than in the raw food).
The National Food Processors Association (NFPA) raised a number of
concerns with the Agency's traditional approach to determining whether
concentration occurs. EPA concluded that modifications can be made to
its policy to ensure better predictions of concentration. Although
information from processing studies will remain the most important
information in determining whether concentration occurs EPA will now
also take into account information concerning mixing and blending of
crops information pertaining to average residues.
As a result of this change in policy the Agency has reevaluated the
processing data for tomato and has concluded that a food additive
tolerance is not needed for cyromazine residues including the
metabolite melamine in processed tomato products. Tolerances are needed
to prevent processed foods from being deemed adulterated when the
processed food when ready to eat contains a pesticide residue at a
level greater than permitted by the corresponding section 408 tolerance
21 U.S.C. 342(a)(2). In 1993, EPA had concluded that a 409 tolerance
for processed tomato products was needed due to a processing study
[[Page 19844]]
that showed levels of cyromazine in tomato paste (the tomato byproduct
with the highest concentration) 2.2 times the level in tomato (i.e., a
concentration factor 2.2X). However, other processing studies showed
that processing tomato paste resulted in a reduction of cyromazine
residues or a lower concentration factor than 2.2X. In accordance with
the Agency's revised concentration policy when the results from all
processing studies for tomato paste were averaged, the concentration
factor was lowered to 1X. Given the variability in analytical methods
and this lower concentration factor, EPA believes that it is unlikely
that any tomato paste or other processed tomato products derived from
tomatoes containing legal levels of cyromazine could be reliably
determined to have levels of cyromazine above the tomato tolerance.
Because it is unlikely that processed tomato products will have levels
of cyromazine above the section 408 tolerance, no section 409 tolerance
is needed. In a letter dated November 21, 1995 Ciba requested
withdrawal of the food additive proposal in processed tomato products.
In the same November 21, 1995 letter Ciba also requested withdrawal
of the feed additive proposal in or on tomato pomaces; withdrawal of
tolerance for cyromazine and melamine in milk, meat, fat and meat
byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horses and sheep; withdrawal of the
tolerance for the metabolite, 1-methycyromazine in the liver and kidney
of cattle, goats, hogs, horses and sheep and withdrawal of the request
to remove the restriction ``from chicken layer and breeder hens only''.
Ciba's withdrawal of these tolerances were submitted in response to
EPA's latest revision (unpublished) to Table II (September 1995) of the
Pesticide Assessment Guidelines, Subdivision O (Residue Chemistry)
titled Raw Agricultural and Processed Commodities and Livestock Feeds
Derived from Field Crops and Ciba's voluntary withdrawal of a companion
proposed tolerance request for use of cyromazine and its metabolite
melamine in or on carrot (PP 6F3329)(See 60 FR 54689, October 25,
1995). With respect to the feed additive proposal for tomato pomace EPA
has concluded that tomato pomaces (wet and dry) are no longer
considered feedstuffs. Withdrawal of the proposed use of cyromazine on
carrot eliminated potential residues from the feedstuff carrot culls.
Thus based upon the decision that tomato pomaces are no longer
feedstuffs and withdrawal of the carrot tolerance (carrot culls), feed
additive tolerances in animal commodities are not necessary for this
proposed use.
An adequate analytical method, AG-584A, is available for
enforcement purposes.
There are presently no actions pending against the continued
registration of this chemical. The pesticide is considered useful for
the purpose for which the tolerance is sought.
Based on the information and data considered, the Agency has
determined that the tolerance established by amending 40 CFR part 180
will protect the public health. Therefore, the tolerance is established
as set forth below.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections to the regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed with
the Hearing Clerk, at the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy
of the objections and/or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk
should be submitted to the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The
objections submitted must specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). Each objection must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40
CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a
statement of the factual issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the
requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence
relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing
will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material
submitted shows the following: There is genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence
identified by the requestor would, if established, resolve one or more
of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the
factual issue(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be
adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
A record has been established for this rulemaking under the docket
number [PP 6F3333 and FAP2H5640/R2234] (including any comments and data
submitted electronically). A public version of this record, including
printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does not include
any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection from 8 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer any copies of objections and hearing requests
received electronically into printed, paper form as they are received
and will place the paper copies in the official rule-making record
which will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The
official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the
address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order
(i.e., Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines
``significant'' as those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and
materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local or tribal governments or communities (also known as
``economically significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable
duty, or contain any ``unfunded mandates'' as described in Title II of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), or require
prior consultation as specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093,
October 28, 1993), entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership, or special considerations as required by Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-
[[Page 19845]]
354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator has determined
that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising tolerance
levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements do not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. A certification statement to this effect was published in the
Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 18, 1996.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.414 the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
alphabetically the following raw agricultural commodity:
Sec. 180.414 Cyromazine; tolerances for residues.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Tomato..................................................... 1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-10922 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10921 Pesticide Tolerance for Iprodione
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19845-19847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10921]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 2F4111/R2226; FRL-5360-3]
RIN 2070-AB78
Pesticide Tolerance for Iprodione
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule establishes a time-limited tolerance for the
combined residues of the fungicide iprodione in or on the raw
agricultural commodity cottonseed. The regulation to establish a
maximum permissible level for residues of iprodione was requested in a
petition submitted by Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective March 18, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
document control number, [PP 2F4111/R2226], may be submitted to:
Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M
St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Fees accompanying objections and
hearing requests shall be labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees'' and
forwarded to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, OPP
(Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy of any
objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be
identified by the document control number and submitted to: Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring copy of
objections and hearing requests to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson
Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202.
A copy of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing
Clerk may also be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail
(e-mail) to: [email protected]. Copies of objections and
hearing requests must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of
special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of objections and
hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1
file format or ASCII file format. All copies of objections and hearing
requests in electronic form must be identified by the docket number [PP
2F4111/R2226]. No Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be
submitted through e-mail. Electronic copies of objections and hearing
requests on this rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository
Libraries. Additional information on electronic submissions can be
found below in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Connie B. Welch, Product
Manager (PM) 21, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm. 227, CM #2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202 (703) 305-6900; e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Rhone-Poulenc Ag Co., P.O. Box 12014,2 T.W.
Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, has
submittedpesticide petition (PP) 2F4111 to EPA requesting that the
Administrator,pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), establish a tolerance for the
combined residues of the fungicide iprodione, [3-(3,5-dichlorophenyl)-
N-(1-methylethyl)-2,4-dioxo-1-imidazolidinecarboxamide], its isomer [3-
(1-methylethyl)-N-(3,5-dichlorophenyl)-2,4-dioxo-1-
imidazolidinecarboxamide], and its metabolite [3-(3,5-dichlorophenyl)-
2,4-dioxo-1-imidazolidinecarboxamide], in or on the raw agricultural
commodity cottonseed at 0.10 parts per million (ppm).
Through an oversight, an announcement of receipt of this petition
by the Agency was not published in the Federal Register as required by
regulation in 40 CFR 177.88. In lieu of the 30-day comment period prior
to establishing the tolerance requested, this tolerance is being
established with the provision that any comments received within 30
days after publication in the Federal Register which contain objections
will be reviewed and if the objections are substantial, the tolerance
will be withdrawn, if justified. The publication of this notice is
deemed to be in the public interest and is justified by the fact that
the resulting changes in the use pattern for iprodione, which resulted
from an agreement between Rhone-Poulenc Ag Co. and the Agency, will
significantly lower the overall use of iprodione and consequently
reduce the risk to the public posed by its current uses.
The scientific data submitted in the petition and other relevant
material have been evaluated. The toxicological data considered in
support of the tolerance include:
1. A three-generation rat reproduction study using dosage levels of
0, 250, 500 and 2,000 ppm with a no-observed-effect level (NOEL) of 500
ppm (25 milligrams/kilogram(mg/kg) body weight (bwt)/day), a
reproductive lowest effect level (LEL) of 2,000 ppm (100 mg/kg/day),
and a systemic NOEL equal to or greater than 2,000 ppm (100 mg/kg/day).
2. A rabbit developmental toxicity study in which the following
doses were administered by gavage; 0, 20, 60, and 200 mg/kg bwt,
resulting in a developmental toxicity NOEL equal to or greater than 60
mg/kg bwt, and an LEL of 200 mg/kg bwt.
3. A rat developmental toxicity study in which the following doses
were administered by gavage: 0, 40, 90, and
[[Page 19846]]
200 mg/kg bwt, with a developmental toxicity NOEL equal to or greater
than 90 mg/kg bwt, and an LEL of 200 mg/kg bwt.
4. A 24-month feeding/oncogenicity study in rats using dosage
levels of 125, 250 and 1,000 ppm (6.25, 12.5 and 50 mg/kg/day) which
showed no treatment-related tumors were reported but testicular
intersticial cell tumors were observed.
5. A repeated 24-month rat feeding study at dose levels of 0, 150,
300 and 1,600 ppm which showed non-neoplastic changes such as
intersticial cell hyperplasia in the testes of males and tubular
hyperplasia in the ovaries and increased sciatic nerve fiber
degeneration in females. The NOEL for non-neoplastic changes was 150
ppm (6.1 mg/kg/day for males and 8.4 mg/kg/day for females) and an LEL
of 300 ppm (12.4 mg/kg/day for males and 16.5 mg/kg/day for females).
6. An 18-month oncogenicity study in mice using dosage levels of
200, 500 and 1,250 ppm (28.6, 71.4 and 178.6 mg/kg/day, which showed no
carcinogenicity.
7. A repeated mouse feeding study of 99 weeks at dose levels of 0,
160, 800, and 4,000 ppm in which there was a significantly increased
incidence of single and multiple areas of enlarged eosinophilic
hepatocytes and focal fat-containing hepatocytes in both males and
females. In males there was an increased incidence of generalized
vacuolation/hypertrophy of the interstitial cells of the testes in the
mid- and high-dose mice. There was a dose-related increase in female
mice displaying luteinization of the interstitial cell of the ovary,
but statistical significance was not attained at any dose level. The
NOEL for non-neoplastic changes was 160 ppm (23 mg/kg/day for males and
27 mg/kg/day for females) and the LEL was 800 ppm (115 mg/kg/day for
males and 138 mg/kg/day for females).
8. A 1-year dog feeding study using dosage levels of 100, 600 and
3,600 ppm (4.2, 15, and 90 mg/kg/day) with a NOEL of 100 ppm (4.2 mg/
kg/day) and an LEL of 600 ppm (15 mg/kg/day) based on decreased
prostate weight and an increased number of erythrocytes with Heinz
bodies in males.
9. Another 1-year dog feeding study at dosage levels of 200, 300,
400 and 600 ppm in which the NOEL was set at 400 ppm (17.5 mg/kg for
males and 18.4 mg/kg for females and an LEL set at 600 ppm (24.6 mg/kg
for males and 26.4 mg/kg for females) based on depressed red blood cell
parameters.
10. A 90-day feeding study in dogs using dosage levels of 800,
2,400 and 7,200 ppm (20, 60, and 180 mg/kg/day) with a NOEL of 2,400
ppm (60 mg/kg/day) and an LEL of 7,200 ppm (180 mg/kg/day) based on
liver hypertrophy and increased SAP.
11. Iprodione was tested in several mutagenicity studies. The
chemical was negative in the Ames assay; CHO/HGPRT mammalian cell
forward mutation assay, with and without metabolic activation; in vitro
chromosome aberration assay in CHO cells; in vitro sister chromatid
exchange assay in CHO cells; and dominant lethal test in mice.
Iprodione was positive in the Bacillus subtilis assay for DNA damage
without metabolic activation.
The Reference Dose (RfD) of 0.06 mg/kg/day based on a NOEL of 6.1
mg/kg/day and an uncertainty factor of 100 was used in the chronic risk
analysis for iprodione. Using percent crop treated data and the
Anticipated Residue Contribution (ARC), the Theoretical Maximum Residue
Contribution (TMRC) for the overall U.S. population is 0.015134 mg/kg/
day and utilizes 25% of the RfD. For the most highly exposed subgroup,
non-nursing infants, the TMRC is 0.045389 mg/kg/day and utilizes 76% of
the RfD. The calculated percentage of the RfD is within a safe margin
and the chronic dietary risk posed from iprodione is not of concern.
In analyzing for the acute dietary risk tolerance level, residues
were used to calculate the exposure of the highest exposed individual
for the females (13 years old or older) which was compared to the
developmental NOEL of 60 mg/kg/day from the rabbit study to determine
the Margin of Exposure (MOE). The MOE was calculated to be 333. The
Agency is not generally concerned with acute risk unless the MOE is
below 100 when the NOEL is taken from an animal study.
The Health Effects Division (HED) Cancer Peer Review Committee
determined that iprodione should be classified as a group B2 carcinogen
(probable human carcinogen). Calculations of Q1* from the rat
study used in the risk analysis was based upon interstitial cell benign
tumor rates and was calculated to be 0.0439 (mg/kg/day)-1. In the
dietary cancer risk assessment, the upper bound cancer risk was
calculated for all registered commodities when using anticipated
residues to be 6.0 x 10-6. This upper bound cancer risk estimate
exceeds the Agency's generally accepted level of concern for dietary
risk, even when anticipated residues are used and adjustments for
percent crop treated are made. In an agreement between the Agency and
Rhone-Poulenc Ag Co., various changes in the use pattern of iprodione
will be made to reduce the residues of iprodione in or on several
crops. Although data are not available to quantitatively determine the
amount of reduction, the overall quantity of iprodione used will be
reduced enough to significantly affect the amount of residues. This
reduction is expected to lower the upper bound cancer risk estimate to
an acceptable level.
The upper bound cancer risk attributed to the use of iprodione on
cotton was calculated to be 1.8 x 10-8. Therefore, the added use
would be unlikely to significantly affect the overall cancer risk
estimate. The tolerance being established for cottonseed is time-
limited and the time limitation is being imposed on the condition that
sufficient data are submitted within the time period to demonstrate
that the risk has been reduced to an acceptable level through the
changes in the use pattern of iprodione containing products.
An adequate analytical method, gas liquid chromatography using an
electron-capture detector, is available in the Pesticide Analytical
Manual, Vol. II, for enforcement purposes.
There are presently no actions pending against the continued
registration of this chemical. The pesticide is considered useful for
the purpose for which the tolerance is sought.
Based on the information and data considered, the Agency has
determined that the tolerance established by amending 40 CFR part 180
will protect the public health. Therefore, the tolerance is established
as set forth below.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections to the regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed with
the Hearing Clerk, at the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy
of the objections and/or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk
should be submitted to the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The
objections submitted must specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). Each objection must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40
CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a
statement of the factual issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the
requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence
relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing
will be granted if the Administrator determines that the
[[Page 19847]]
material submitted shows the following: There is genuine and
substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that
available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established,
resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking
into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and
resolution of the factual issue(s) in the manner sought by the
requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR
178.32).
EPA has established a record for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 2F4111/R2226] (including any comments and data submitted
electronically). A public version of this record, including printed,
paper versions of electronic comments, which does not include any
information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public
record is located in Room 1132 of the Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments may be sent directly to EPA at:
[email protected].
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer any copies of objections and hearing requests
received electronically into printed, paper form as they are received
and will place the paper copies in the official rulemaking record which
will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The
official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the
address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order
(i.e., Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines
``significant'' as those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and
materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local or tribal governments or communities (also known as
``economically significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 18, 1996.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.399, is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 180.399 Iprodione; tolerances for residues.
* * * * *
(d)(1) A time-limited tolerance, to expire March 15, 1997, is
established permitting the combined residues of the fungicide iprodione
[3-(3,5-dichlorophenyl)-N-(1-methylethyl)-2,4-dioxo-1-
imidazolidinecarboxamide, its isomer [3-(1-methylethyl)-N-(3,5-
dichlorophenyl)-2,4-dioxo-1-imidazolidinecarboxamide] and its
metabolite [3-(3,5-dichlorophenyl)-2,4-dioxo-1-
imidazolidinecarboxamide] in or on the following raw agricultural
commodity:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cottonseed................................................. 0.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Residues in this commodity not in excess of the established
tolerance resulting from the use described in this paragraph remaining
after expiration of the time-limited tolerance will not be considered
to be actionable if the fungicide is applied during the term of and in
accordance with the provisions of the above regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-10921 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10920 Tebuthiuron; Pesticide Tolerances
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19847-19849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10920]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-300403A; FRL-4995-8]
RIN 2070-AB78
Tebuthiuron; Pesticide Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final regulation establishes lower tolerances for
residues of Tebuthiuron on grass hay and grass rangeland forage and
changes the commodity name grass, rangeland forage to grass, forage.
These changes are based on the Reregistration Eligibility Decision
tolerance assessment for Tebuthiuron.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective July 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
document control number, [OPP-300403A], may be submitted to: Hearing
Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St.,
SW., Washington, DC 20460. Fees accompanying objections and hearing
requests shall be labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees'' and forwarded to:
EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees),
P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy of any objections and
hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be identified by
the document control number and submitted to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring copy of objections and hearing
requests to Rm. 1132, CM #2,
[[Page 19848]]
1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202.
Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests must be
submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and
any form of encryption. Copies of objections and hearing requests will
also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file
format. All copies of objections and hearing requests in electron form
must be identified by the docket number [300403A]. No Confidential
Business Information (CBI) should be submitted through e-mail.
Electronic copies of objections and hearing requests on this rule may
be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. Additional
information on electronic submissions can be found below in this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Ben Chambliss, Special Review
and Reregistration Division (7508W), Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone
number: Crystal Station #1, Third Floor, 2800 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA 22202. (703) 308-8174, e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of December 6, 1995
(60 FR 62364), EPA issued a proposed rule that proposed to lower the
tolerance for Tebuthiuron on grass hay and grass rangeland forage and
to change the commodity name ``grass, rangeland forage'' to ``grass,
forage.''
There were no comments or requests for referral to an advisory
committee received in response to the proposed rule. This final rule
adopts those changes based on the Reregistration Eligibility Decision
tolerance assessment for Tebuthiuron.
This regulation amends 40 CFR 180.390 by lowering the tolerance for
grass hay and forage from 20 parts per million (ppm) to 10 ppm, based
on data showing that combined residues of tebuthiuron and its regulated
metabolites did not exceed 10 ppm on any grass forage or hay sample in
field trials conducted under label conditions.
This regulations also amends the definition listed in 40 CFR
180.390 to conform to commodity definitions currently used by EPA.
The data submitted with the proposal and other relevant material
have been evaluated and discussed in the proposed rule. Based on the
data and information considered, the Agency concludes that the
tolerance will protect the public health. Therefore, the tolerance is
established as set forth below.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections to the regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed with
the Hearing Clerk, at the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy
of the objections and/or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk
should be submitted to the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The
objections submitted must specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). Each objection must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40
CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a
statement of the factual issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the
requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence
relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing
will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material
submitted shows the following: There is genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence
identified by the requestor would, if established, resolve one or more
of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the
factual issue(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be
adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [OPP-300403A] (including any objections and hearing requests
submitted electronically as described below). A public version of this
record, including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which
does not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for
inspection from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
A copy of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing
Clerk may also be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail
(e-mail) to:
[email protected].
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer any copies of objections and hearing requests
received electronically into printed, paper form as they are received
and will place the paper copies in the official rulemaking record which
will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The
official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the
address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. Under section 3(f),
the order defines ``a significant regulatory action'' as an action that
is likely to result in a rule (1) having an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities (also referred to as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations thereof; or (4)
raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive
Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
There are no information collection requirements in this regulation
therefore the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act do not apply
to this rulemaking.
List of Subjects In 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 19849]]
Dated: April 16, 1996.
Lois A. Rossi,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR, chapter I, part 180 is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.390 the table is amended by revising the entry for
``grass, hay'', removing the entry for ``grass, rangeland, forage'',
and adding alphabetically an entry for ``grass, forage'', to read as
follows:
Sec. 180.390 Tebuthiuron; tolerances for residues.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Grass, forage.............................................. 10.0
Grass, hay................................................. 10.0
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-10920 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10919 Lactofen; Pesticide Tolerance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19849-19850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10919]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 9F3798/R2229; FRL-5362-9]
RIN 2070-AB78
Lactofen; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document extends a time-limited tolerance for residues of
the herbicide lactofen, 1-(carboethoxy)ethyl-5-[2-chloro-4-
(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoate, and its metabolites
containing the diphenyl ether linkage on the raw agricultural commodity
(RAC) cottonseed at 0.05 part per million (ppm). The Valent USA Corp.
requested this tolerance pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). The time-limited tolerance expires on December
31, 1996.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is effective May 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
document control number, [[PP 9F3798/R2229], may be submitted to:
Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M
St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Fees accompanying objections and
hearing requests shall be labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees'' and
forwarded to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, OPP
(Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy of any
objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be
identified by the document control number and submitted to: Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring copy of
objections and hearing requests to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson
Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202.
A copy of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing
Clerk may also be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail
(e-mail) to: [email protected]. Copies of objections and
hearing requests must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of
special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of objections and
hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1
file format or ASCII file format. All copies of objections and hearing
requests in electronic form must be identified by the docket number
[[PP 9F3798/R2229]. No Confidential Business Information (CBI) should
be submitted through e-mail. Electronic copies of objections and
hearing requests on this rule may be filed online at many Federal
Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic submissions
can be found below in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Joanne I. Miller, Product
Manager (PM 23), Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Office location, telephone number, and e-mail address: Rm.
237, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, (703)-305-
6224; e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of February 14, 1996
(61 FR 5726) (FRL-5349-1), EPA issued a proposed rule that gave notice
pursuant to section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 346a), the Agency proposed to extend until December
31, 1996, a tolerance for residues of the herbicide lactofen, 1-
(carboethoxy)ethyl-5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-
nitrobenzoate, and its metabolites containing the diphenyl ether
linkage in or on the raw agricultural commodity (RAC) cottonseed at
0.05 ppm.
There were no comments or requests for referral to an advisory
committee received in response to the proposed rule.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections to the regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed with
the Hearing Clerk, at the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy
of the objections and/or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk
should be submitted to the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The
objections submitted must specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). Each objection must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40
CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a
statement of the factual issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the
requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence
relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing
will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material
submitted shows the following: There is genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence
identified by the requestor would, if established, resolve one or more
of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the
factual issue(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be
adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 9F3798/R2229] (including any objections and hearing requests
submitted electronically as described below). A public version of this
record, including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which
does not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for
inspection from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
A copy of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing
Clerk
[[Page 19850]]
may also be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail (e-
mail) to:
[email protected].
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer any copies of objections and hearing requests
received electronically into printed, paper form as they are received
and will place the paper copies in the official rulemaking record which
will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The
official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the
Virginia address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order
(i.e., Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines
``significant'' as those actions likely to lead to a rule: (1) Having
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely
and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local or tribal governments or communities (also known as
``economically significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising
out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this executive order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 10, 1996.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.432, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 180.432 Lactofen; tolerances for residues.
* * * * *
(b) A time-limited tolerance, that expired December 31, 1995, is
renewed for 1 year and will now expire December 31, 1996, for residues
of the herbicide lactofen, 1-(carboethoxy)ethyl-5-[2-chloro-4-
(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoate, and its metabolites
containing the diphenyl ether linkage in or on the following raw
agricultural commodity:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million Expiration date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cottonseed................... 0.05............ December 31, 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-10919 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10918 Tolerance Processing Fees
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19850-19852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10918]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-30109; FRL-5365-2]
Tolerance Processing Fees
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule increases fees charged for processing tolerance
petitions for pesticides under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA). The change in fees reflects a 2.54 percent increase in
locality pay for civilian Federal General Schedule (GS) employees
working in the Washington, DC/Baltimore, MD metropolitan area in 1996.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 3, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning this rule: By mail: Rochele
Kadish, Program Management and Support Division (7502C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm. 700-K,
CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA., 703-305-5044, e-
mail: [email protected].
Concerning Tolerance Petitions and Individual Fees: Tom Ellwanger,
703-308-8780, e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA is charged with administration of
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
Section 408 authorizes the Agency to establish tolerance levels and
exemptions from the requirements for tolerances for raw agricultural
commodities. Section 408(o) requires that the Agency collect fees as
will, in the aggregate, be sufficient to cover the costs of processing
petitions for pesticide products, i.e., that the tolerance process be
as self-supporting as possible.
The current fee schedule for tolerance petitions (40 CFR 180.33)
was published in the Federal Register on May 17, 1995 (60 FR
26360)(FRL-4950-7) and became effective on June 16, 1995. At that time
the fees were increased 3.22 percent in accordance with a provision in
the regulation that provides for automatic annual adjustments to the
fees based on annual percentage changes in Federal salaries. The
specific language in the regulation is contained in paragraph (o) of
Sec. 180.33 and reads in part as follows:
(o) This fee schedule will be changed annually by the same
percentage as the percent change in the Federal General Schedule
(GS) pay scale... When automatic adjustments are made based on the
GS pay scale, the new fee schedule will be published in the Federal
Register as a final rule to become effective thirty days or more
after publication, as specified in the rule.
The Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA)
initiated locality-based comparability pay, known as ``locality pay''.
The intent of the legislation is to make Federal pay more responsive to
local labor market conditions by adjusting General Schedule salaries on
the basis
[[Page 19851]]
of a comparison with non-Federal rates on a geographic, locality basis.
The processing and review of tolerance petitions is conducted by
EPA employees working in the Washington, DC/Baltimore, MD pay area. The
pay raise in 1996 for Federal General Schedule employees working in the
Washington, DC/Baltimore, MD metropolitan pay area is 2.54 percent;
therefore, the tolerance petition fees are being increased 2.54
percent. The entire fee schedule, Sec. 180.33, is presented for the
reader's convenience. (All fees have been rounded to the nearest
$25.00.)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Administrative practice and procedures, Agricultural commodities,
Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Dated: April 16, 1996.
Daniel M. Barolo,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.33 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 180.33 Fees.
(a) Each petition or request for the establishment of a new
tolerance or a tolerance higher than already established, shall be
accompanied by a fee of $61,950, plus $1,550 for each raw agricultural
commodity more than nine on which the establishment of a tolerance is
requested, except as provided in paragraphs (b), (d), and (h) of this
section.
(b) Each petition or request for the establishment of a tolerance
at a lower numerical level or levels than a tolerance already
established for the same pesticide chemical, or for the establishment
of a tolerance on additional raw agricultural commodities at the same
numerical level as a tolerance already established for the same
pesticide chemical, shall be accompanied by a fee of $14,175 plus $950
for each raw agricultural commodity on which a tolerance is requested.
(c) Each petition or request for an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance or repeal of an exemption shall be accompanied by a fee
of $11,425.
(d) Each petition or request for a temporary tolerance or a
temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance shall be
accompanied by a fee of $24,750 except as provided in paragraph (e) of
this section. A petition or request to renew or extend such temporary
tolerance or temporary exemption shall be accompanied by a fee of
$3,500.
(e) A petition or request for a temporary tolerance for a pesticide
chemical which has a tolerance for other uses at the same numerical
level or a higher numerical level shall be accompanied by a fee of
$12,350 plus $950 for each raw agricultural commodity on which the
temporary tolerance is sought.
(f) Each petition or request for repeal of a tolerance shall be
accompanied by a fee of $7,750. Such fee is not required when, in
connection with the change sought under this paragraph, a petition or
request is filed for the establishment of new tolerances to take the
place of those sought to be repealed and a fee is paid as required by
paragraph (a) of this section.
(g) If a petition or a request is not accepted for processing
because it is technically incomplete, the fee, less $1,550 for handling
and initial review, shall be returned. If a petition is withdrawn by
the petitioner after initial processing, but before significant Agency
scientific review has begun, the fee, less $1,550 for handling and
initial review, shall be returned. If an unacceptable or withdrawn
petition is resubmitted, it shall be accompanied by the fee that would
be required if it were being submitted for the first time.
(h) Each petition or request for a crop group tolerance, regardless
of the number of raw agricultural commodities involved, shall be
accompanied by a fee equal to the fee required by the analogous
category for a single tolerance that is not a crop group tolerance,
i.e., paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section, without a charge for
each commodity where that would otherwise apply.
(i) Objections under section 408(d)(5) of the Act shall be
accompanied by a filing fee of $3,100.
(j)(1) In the event of a referral of a petition or proposal under
this section to an advisory committee, the costs shall be borne by the
person who requests the referral of the data to the advisory committee.
(2) Costs of the advisory committee shall include compensation for
experts as provided in Sec. 180.11(c) and the expenses of the
secretariat, including the costs of duplicating petitions and other
related material referred to the committee.
(3) An advance deposit shall be made in the amount of $30,950 to
cover the costs of the advisory committee. Further advance deposits of
$30,950 each shall be made upon request of the Administrator when
necessary to prevent arrears in the payment of such costs. Any deposits
in excess of actual expenses will be refunded to the depositor.
(k) The person who files a petition for judicial review of an order
under section 408(d)(5) or (e) of the Act shall pay the costs of
preparing the record on which the order is based unless the person has
no financial interest in the petition for judicial review.
(l) No fee under this section will be imposed on the Inter-Regional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4 Program).
(m) The Administrator may waive or refund part or all of any fee
imposed by this section if the Administrator determines in his or her
sole discretion that such a waiver or refund will promote the public
interest or that payment of the fee would work an unreasonable hardship
on the person on whom the fee is imposed. A request for waiver or
refund of a fee shall be submitted in writing to the Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Registration Division
(7505C), Washington, DC 20460. A fee of $1,550 shall accompany every
request for a waiver or refund, except that the fee under this sentence
shall not be imposed on any person who has no financial interest in any
action requested by such person under paragraphs (a) through (k) of
this section. The fee for requesting a waiver or refund shall be
refunded if the request is granted.
(n) All deposits and fees required by the regulations in this part
shall be paid by money order, bank draft, or certified check drawn to
the order of the Environmental Protection Agency. All deposits and fees
shall be forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters
Accounting Operations Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs (Tolerance
Fees), P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. The payments should be
specifically labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees'' and should be
accompanied only by a copy of the letter or petition requesting the
tolerance. The actual letter or petition, along with supporting data,
shall be forwarded within 30 days of payment to the Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Registration Division,
(7504C) Washington, DC 20460. A petition will not be accepted for
processing until the required fees have been submitted. A petition for
which a waiver of fees has been requested will not be accepted for
processing until the fee has been waived
[[Page 19852]]
or, if the waiver has been denied, the proper fee is submitted after
notice of denial. A request for waiver or refund will not be accepted
after scientific review has begun on a petition.
(o) This fee schedule will be changed annually by the same
percentage as the percent change in the Federal General Schedule (GS)
pay scale. In addition, processing costs and fees will periodically be
reviewed and changes will be made to the schedule as necessary. When
automatic adjustments are made based on the GS pay scale, the new fee
schedule will be published in the Federal Register as a Final Rule to
become effective 30 days or more after publication, as specified in the
rule. When changes are made based on periodic reviews, the changes will
be subject to public comment.
[FR Doc. 96-10918 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10917 Tefluthrin; Renewal of Time-limited Tolerances
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19852-19854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10917]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 4F4406/R2222; FRL-5358-5]
RIN 2070-AB78
Tefluthrin; Renewal of Time-limited Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule establishes a tolerance for the combined residues of
the pyrethroid tefluthrin and its metabolites in or on the raw
agricultural commodity (RAC) corn, fresh (including sweet K + CWHR) at
0.06 parts per million (ppm), and corn, forage and fodder, sweet at
0.06 ppm and renews time-limited tolerances for tefluthrin on the RAC's
corn, grain, field, and pop; corn forage and fodder, field and pop.
These regulations to establish maximum permissible levels for residues
of the chemical and renew tolerances were requested in a petition
submitted by Zeneca Ag Products.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective May 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
document control number, [PP 4F4406/R2222], may be submitted to:
Hearing Clerk (A-1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. A copy of any objections and hearing
requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be identified by the
document control number and submitted to: Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring copy of objections and hearing
requests to Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA
22202. Fees accompanying objections shall be labeled ``Tolerance
Petition Fees'' and forwarded to: EPA Headquarters Accounting
Operations Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh,
PA 15251.
An electronic copy of objections and hearing requests filed with
the Hearing Clerk may be submitted to OPP by sending electronic mail
(e-mail) to: [email protected].
Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests must be
submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and
any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing
requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format
or ASCII file format. All copies of electronic objections and hearing
requests must be identified by the docket number [PP 4F4406/R2222] . No
Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be submitted through e-
mail. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests on this rule
may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. Additional
information on electronic submissions can be found below in this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: George T. LaRocca, Product
Manager (PM) 13, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm. 200, CM#2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202 (703) 305-6100; e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA issued a notice published in the Federal
Register of February 8, 1995 (60 FR 7540)(FRL-4926-4), which announced
that Zeneca Ag Products had submitted pesticide petition (PP) 4F4406 to
EPA requesting that the Administrator, pursuant to section 408(d) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d ),
establish a tolerance for the combined residues of the insecticide
tefluthrin (2,3,5,6-tetrafluro-4-methylphenyl)methyl-(1 alpha, 3
alpha)-(Z)-( )-3(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoro-1-propenyl)-2,2-
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate) and its metabolite (Z)-3-(2-chloro-
3,3,3-trifluroro-1-propenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylic acid,
in or on the raw agricultural commodity corn, fresh (including sweet K
+ CWHR) at 0.06 ppm, and corn, forage and fodder, sweet at 0.06 parts
per million (ppm).
No comments were received in response to the notice of filing.
The scientific data submitted in the petition and other relevant
material have been evaluated. The toxicological and metabolism data
considered in support of the tolerance are discussed in detail in
related documents published in the Federal Register of February 1, 1989
(54 FR 5080).
A dietary exposure/risk assessment was performed for teflutrhin on
sweet corn using a Reference Dose (RfD) of 0.005 mg/kg/day, based on a
no-observed-effect-level (NOEL) of 0.5 mg/kg bwt/day from a 1- year dog
feeding study with an uncertainty factor of 100. The endpoint of
concern was increased incidence of ataxia. The Theoretical Maximum
Residue Contribution (TMRC) from established tolerances utilizes 0.41%
of the RfD for the U. S. population or 0.69% of the RfD if the new
tolerance is granted. Established tolerances utilize 1.06% of the RfD
for nonnursing infants less than 1 year old, the subgroup with the
highest estimated exposure to tefluthrin residues or 1.71% of the RfD
if the new tolerance is granted.
Generally speaking, EPA has no cause for concern if total residue
contribution for published and final tolerances is less than the RfD.
The nature of tefluthrin residue in plants and animals for this
corn use is adequately understood. The residues of concern is
tefluthrin and its metabolite. There is no reasonable expectation of
secondary residues in animal tissues and milk from the use as
delineated in 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3). An adequate analytical method, gas
liquid chromatography with an electron capture detector, is available
for enforcement purposes. The enforcement methodology has been
submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, and is published in the
Pesticide Analytical Manual Vol. II (PAM II).
In the Federal Register of September 30, 1994 (59 FR 49824) EPA
amended 40 CFR 180.440 by extending to November 15, 1995 tolerances of
0.06 ppm for residues of tefluthrin in or on field and pop, corn grain
including, forage and fodder. The tolerances were extedned to coincide
with the extension of the conditional registration of this pesticide to
allow time for EPA to review data and complete an aquatic risk
assessment for use on field and pop corn. The basis for the extension
is discussed in detail in the above Federal Register notice. On
November 14, 1995 EPA again amended the conditional
[[Page 19853]]
registration of this pesticide on field and pop corn by extending the
expiration date to November 15, 1996. The registration was amended and
extended for an additional year to allow time for submission and
evaluation of additional data/information on aquatic risk mitigation,
specifically, surface-water runoff data. Zeneca Ag Products submitted
this information on December 1, 1995.
To be consistent with the extension issued for the conditional
registration the Agency is renewing the tolerances on field and pop
corn grains, including their forage and fodder, with an expiration date
of November 15, 1997 to cover residues expected to result from use
during the period of conditional registration.
With respect to the additional use of tefluthrin on sweet corn, the
Agency concluded that this additional use would not cause a significant
increase in the risk of adverse effects to the environment. This
conclusion was premised mainly on the following:
1. The directions for use and precautions for use of tefluthrin on
sweet corn are identical to the current directions for use for
tefluthrin on field and pop corn.
2. Current, interim aquatic risk mitigation measures approved for
use on field and pop corn will also be used for application on sweet
corn.
To be consistent with the conditional registration and renewal on
field and pop corn the Agency is issuing a conditional registration
with an expiration date of November 15, 1996 and establishing a time-
limited tolerance on sweet corn and its forage and fodder with an
expiration date of November 15, 1997 to cover residues expected to
result from use during the period of conditioanl registration.
Upon evaluation of the additional data/information required as a
condition of the registration for this insecticide on corn the Agency
will reassess the tolerances and the registration, and if appropriate,
will issue permanent tolerances and an unconditional registration for
the insecticide on corn.
Residues remaining in or on the above commodities after expiration
of these tolerances will not be considered actionable if the pesticide
is legally applied during the term of and in accordance with the
provisions of the conditional registration.
There are presently no actions pending against the continued
registration of this chemical.
Based on the information and data considered, the Agency has
determined that the tolerance established by amending 40 CFR part 180
will protect the public health. Therefore, the tolerance is established
as set forth below.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections to the regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed with
the Hearing Clerk, at the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy
of the objections and/or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk
should be submitted to the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The
objections submitted must specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). Each objection must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40
CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a
statement of the factual issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the
requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence
relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing
will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material
submitted shows the following: There is genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence
identified by the requestor would, if established, resolve one or more
of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the
factual issue(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be
adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
A record has been established for this rulemaking under the docket
number [PP 4F4406/R2222] (including any comments and data submitted
electronically). A public version of this record, including printed,
paper versions of electronic comments, which does not include any
information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public
record is located in Room 1132 of the Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer any copies of objections and hearing requests
received electronically into printed, paper form as they are received
and will place the paper copies in the official rule-making record
which will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The
official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the
address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order
(i.e., Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines
``significant'' as those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and
materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local or tribal governments or communities (also known as
``economically significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 9-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator has
determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty, or
contain any ``unfunded mandates'' as described in Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4), or require prior
consultation as specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093,
October 28, 1993), entitled Enhancing the Intergovenmental Partnership,
or special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
[[Page 19854]]
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 4, 1996.
Susan Lewis,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. By revising 180.440, and the table therein to read as follows:
Sec. 180.440 Tefluthrin; tolerances for residues.
Tolerances, to expire on November 15, 1997, are established for the
combined residues of the insecticide tefluthrin (2,3,5,6-tetrafluro-4-
methylphenyl)methyl-(1-alpha, 3-alpha)-(Z)-()-3(2-chloro-
3,3,3-trifluoro-1-propenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate) and
its metabolite (Z)3-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluro-1-propenyl)-2,2-
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylic acid raw agricultural commodities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn, grain, field and pop................................. 0.06
Corn, forage and fodder, field, pop and sweet.............. 0.06
Corn, fresh (including sweet K and CWHR)................... 0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-10917 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10916 Xanthan Gum-Modified, Produced by the Reaction of Xanthan Gum and Glyoxal; Tolerance Exemption
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19854-19855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10916]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-300410A; FRL-5359-5]
Xanthan Gum-Modified, Produced by the Reaction of Xanthan Gum and
Glyoxal; Tolerance Exemption
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document exempts xanthan gum-modified, produced by the
reaction of xanthan gum and glyoxal (maximum 0.3% by weight) from the
requirement of a tolerance when used as a surfactant in pesticide
formulations. This regulation was requested by Rhone-Poulenc, Inc.,
pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulations becomes effective on May 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
document control number, [OPP-300410A], may be submitted to: Hearing
Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St.,
SW., Washington, DC 20460. Fees accompanying objections and hearing
requests shall be labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees'' and forwarded to:
EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees),
P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy of any objections and
hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be identified by
the document control number and submitted to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring copy of objections and hearing
requests to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA
22202.
A copy of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing
Clerk may also be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail
(e-mail) to: [email protected]. Copies of objections and
hearing requests must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of
special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of objections and
hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1
file format or ASCII file format. All copies of objections and hearing
requests in electronic form must be identified by the docket number
[OPP-300410A]. No Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be
submitted through e-mail. Electronic copies of objections and hearing
requests on this rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository
Libraries. Additional information on electronic submissions can be
found below in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Amelia M. Acierto,
Registration Support Branch, Registration Division (7505W), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Office location, telephone number, and e-mail
address: 2800 Crystal Drive, North Tower, Arlington, VA, (703)-308-
8375, e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of February 7, 1996
(61 FR 4621) (FRL-4994-4), EPA issued a pesticide petition (PP) 2E04084
from Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., CN 7500, Cranbury, NJ 08512-7500, requesting
that the Administrator, pursuant to section 408(e) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), propose to amend 40 CFR
180.1001(c) by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for xanthan gum, modified, produced by the reaction of
xanthan gum and glyoxal (maximum 0.3% by weight) when used as a
surfactant in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or to raw
agricultural commodities after harvest.
There were no comments received in response to the proposed rule.
Based upon a review of the data submitted and a review of its use,
EPA has found that, when used in accordance with good agricultural
practice, this ingredient is useful and a tolerance is not necessary to
protect the public health. Therefore, EPA is exempting xanthan gum-
modified, produced by the reaction of xanthum gum and glyoxal (maximum
0.3% by weight) from the requirement of a tolerance as set forth below.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections to the regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed with
the Hearing Clerk, at the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy
of the objections and/or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk
should be submitted to the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The
objections submitted must specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). Each objection must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40
CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a
statement of the factual issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the
requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence
relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing
will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material
submitted shows the following: There is genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence
identified by the requestor would, if established, resolve one or more
of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the
factual issue(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be
adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
EPA has established a record for this rulemaking under docket
number [OPP-300410A] (including any comments and data submitted
electronically). A public
[[Page 19855]]
version of this record, including printed, paper versions of electronic
comments, which does not include any information claimed as CBI, is
available for inspection from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public record is located in Room
1132 of the Public Response and Program Resources Branch, Field
Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments may be sent directly to EPA at:
[email protected].
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer any copies of objections and hearing requests
received electronically into printed, paper form as they are received
and will place the paper copies in the official rulemaking record which
will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The
official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the
address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 3, 1996.
Susan Lewis,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.1001, paragraph (c), the table is amended by adding
alphabetically inserting the inert ingredient, to read as follows:
Sec. 180.1001 Exemptions from the requirements of a tolerance.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ingredients Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Xanthan gum-modified, Not more than Surfactant
produced by the reaction of 0.5% of
xanthan gum and glyoxal pesticide
(maximum 0.3% by weight). formulation.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-10916 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10915 Imidacloprid; Pesticide Tolerance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19855-19857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10915]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 5F4600/5H5733/R2233; FRL-5364-5]
RIN 2070-AB18
Imidacloprid; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule establishes a tolerance for residues of the
insecticide (1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-
imidazolidinimine) and its metabolites in or on pome fruits. Bayer
Corporation (formerly Miles, Inc.) requested this regulation to
establish these maximum permissible levels for residues of the
insecticide.
EFFECTIVE DATES: This regulation became effective April 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
docket control number, [PP 5F4600/5H5733/R2233], may be submitted to:
Hearing Clerk (A-110), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. A copy of any objections and hearing
requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be identified by the
docket control number and submitted to: Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring copy of objections and hearing
requests to Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA
22202. Fees accompanying objections shall be labeled ``Tolerance
Petition Fees'' and forwarded to: EPA Headquarters Accounting
Operations Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh,
PA 15251. An electronic copy of objections and hearing requests filed
with Hearing Clerk may be submitted to OPP by sending electronic mail
(e-mail) to: [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Dennis H. Edwards, Jr.,
Product Manager (PM) 19, Registration Division (7505C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Office location, telephone number, and e-mail
address: Rm. 207, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA,
(703) 305-6386; e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register
of November 15, 1995 (60 FR 57423), which announced that Bayer
Corporation, 8400 Hawthorn Road, P.O. Box 4913, Kansas City, MO 64120-
0013, had submitted pesticide petition 5F4600/5H5733 to EPA requesting
that the Administrator, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), establish tolerances
for residues of the insecticide 1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-
nitro-2-imidazolidinimine in or on pome fruit (fresh fruit) including
apple, pear, crabapple, loquat, mayhaw, pear
[[Page 19856]]
(oriental) and quince, at 0.6 ppm and a Food Additive Tolerance (FAT)
5H5733 in or on apples, pomace (wet or dried) at 4.0 ppm. There were no
comments or request for referral to an advisory committee received in
response to this notice of filing. Subsequent to the notice of filing
Bayer submitted a revised Section F deleting the 4 ppm apple pomace
tolerance that was proposed in the pome fruit petition. The reason
apple pomace was deleted is because dried apple pomace is no longer
considered a significant livestock feedstuff in the Agency's September
1995 revised Table II and there is no significant concentration from
apples to wet apple pomace.
All relevant materials have been evaluated. The toxicology data
considered in support of the tolerance include:
1. A three-generation rat reproduction study with a no-observed-
effect level (NOEL) of 100 ppm (8 mg/kg/bwt); rat and rabbit
developmental toxicity studies were negative at doses up to 30 mg/kg/
bwt and 24 mg/kg/bwt, respectively.
2. A 2-year rat feeding/carcinogenicity study that was negative for
carcinogenic effects under the conditions of the study and had a NOEL
of 100 ppm (5.7 mg/kg/bwt in male and 7.6 mg/kg/bwt female) for
noncarcinogenic effects that included decreased body weight gain in
females at 300 ppm and increased thyroid lesions in males at 300 ppm
and females at 900 ppm.
3. A 1-year dog feeding study with a NOEL of 1,250 ppm (41 mg/kg/
bwt).
4. A 2-year mouse carcinogenicity study that was negative for
carcinogenic effects under conditions of the study and that had a NOEL
of 1,000 ppm (208 mg/kg/day).
There is no cancer risk associated with exposure to this chemical.
Imidacloprid has been classified under ``Group E'' (no evidence of
carcinogenicity) by EPA's OPP/HED's Reference Dose (RfD) Committee.
The reference dose (RfD) based on the 2-year rat feeding/
carcinogenic study with a NOEL of 5.7 mg/kg/bwt and 100-fold
uncertainity factor, is calculated to be 0.057 mg/kg/bwt. The
theoretical maximum residue contribution (TMRC) from published uses is
0.008187 mg/kg/bwt/day utilizing 14.4% of the RfD. The tolerance will
increase the TMRC by .000154 mg/kg/day representing an increase in the
ADI of 0.3%. Thus the TMRC will be .008340 mg/kg/day utilizing 14.6% of
the RfD. For exposure of the most highly exposured subgroups in the
population, children (ages 1-6), the TMRC for the tolerances is
0.016570 mg/kg/day. This is equal to 29.1% of the RfD. Dietary exposure
from the existing uses and proposed use will not exceed the reference
dose for any subpopulation (including infants and children) based on
the information available from EPA's Dietary Risk Evaluation System.
The nature of the imidacloprid residue in plants and livestock is
adequately understood. The residues of concern are combined residues of
imidacloprid and it metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl
moiety, all calculated as imidacloprid. The analytical method is a
common moiety method for imidacloprid and its metabolites containing
the 6-chloropyridiyl moiety using a permanganate oxidation, silyl
derivatization, and capillary GC-MS selective ion monitoring.
Imidacloprid and its metabolites are stable in the commodities when
frozen for at least 24 months. There are adequate amounts of
geographically representative crop field trial data to show that
combined residues of imidacloprid and its metabolites, all calculated
as imidacloprid, will not exceed the proposed tolerance when used as
directed.
There are presently no actions pending against the continued
registration of this chemical.
This pesticide is considered useful for the purposes for which the
tolerance is sought and capable of achieving the intended physical or
technical effect. Based on the information and data considered, the
Agency has determined that the tolerances established by amending 40
CFR part 180 will protect the public health. Therefore, these
tolerances are established as set forth below.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections to the regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed with
the Hearing Clerk, at the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy
of the objections and/or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk
should be submitted to the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The
objections submitted must specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). Each objection must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40
CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a
statement of the factual issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the
requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence
relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing
will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material
submitted shows the following: There is genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence
identified by the requestor would, if established, resolve one or more
of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the
factual issue(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be
adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order
(i.e., Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines
``significant'' as those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) Having an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and
materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local or tribal governments or communities (also known as
``economically significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 19857]]
Dated: April 19, 1996.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.472(a) is amended in the table therein by adding in
alphabetical order the following commodity to read as follows:
Sec. 180.472 1-[(6-Chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-
imidazolidinimine; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Pome fruits crop group 0.6
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-10915 Filed 5-02-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10914 Airworthiness Directives; HB Flugtechnik GmbH Model HB-23/2400 Sailplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19815-19816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10914]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-CE-30-AD; Amendment 39-9607; AD 96-10-02]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; HB Flugtechnik GmbH Model HB-23/2400
Sailplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that
applies to certain HB Flugtechnik GmbH (Flugtechnik) Model HB-23/2400
sailplanes. This action requires inspecting (one time) the elevator
control push rod tube for dents or bending and replacing the push rod
tube, if damaged, inspecting the elevator control system for incorrect
rigging, and repetitively inspecting the threaded adjustable extension
joints in the push rod to control lever connection for cracks. If
cracks are found, replacing the threaded adjustable joints at both ends
of the push rod. Cracking of the threaded adjustable extension joints
and incorrect rigging of the elevator control system prompted this AD
action. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent
failure of the elevator control system, which, if not detected and
corrected, could result in possible loss of elevator control and loss
of the sailplane.
DATES: Effective June 12, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of June 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Service information that applies to this AD may be obtained
from HB Flugtechnik GmbH, Dr. Adolf Scharfstr, 42, PF 74, A-4053 Haid,
Austria, telephone 43.7229.80904. This information may also be examined
at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of
the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket 95-CE-30-AD, Room
1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the Office
of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Herman Belderok, Sailplane Program
Officer, Small Airplane Directorate, Airplane Certification Service,
FAA, 1201 Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone
(816) 426-6932; facsimile (816) 426-2169.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply
to HB Flugtechnik GmbH (Flugtechnik) Model HB-23/2400 sailplanes was
published in the Federal Register on October 13, 1995 (60 FR 53310).
This action proposed to require:
--Inspecting (one time) for bending and dents on the elevator control
push rod tube, and replacing the elevator control push rod tube, if
damaged,
--Inspecting the clearance between the elevator control lever and the
elevator control push rod, ensuring the clearance remains at least 3
mm,
--Inspecting the threaded portion of the adjustable push rod joints
(located at each end of the push rod) for fatigue cracks and
deformation, and if cracked or damaged, (based on the fatigue
evaluation), replacing the joints on both ends of the push rod.
--Repetitively inspecting, at intervals not to exceed 500 hours, the
threaded portion of the adjustable push rod joints for cracks or
deformation, and if cracked or damaged replacing the joints as
necessary.
Accomplishment of the proposed action would be in accordance with
HB Flugtechnik GmbH service bulletins (SB) HB-23/17/91 and HB-23/18/91,
both dated October 28, 1991.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the
proposed rule or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.
After careful review of all available information related to the
subject presented above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the
public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for
minor editorial corrections. The FAA has determined that these minor
corrections will not change the meaning of the AD and will not add any
additional burden upon the public than was already proposed.
The FAA estimates that one sailplane in the U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 3 hours to
accomplish the AD action, and that the average labor rate is
approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost approximately $70 per sailplane.
Based on these figures, the total cost impact of this AD on the one
U.S. operator is estimated to be $250. This figure is based on the
assumption that the affected owner/operator of the affected sailplane
has not incorporated the modification or accomplished the inspections.
The FAA has no way of determining the number of repetitive inspections
the owner/operator may incur over the life of the sailplane.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a
[[Page 19816]]
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is
not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy
of the final evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Secs. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD) to read as follows:
96-10-02 HB Flugtechnik GMBH: Amendment 39-9607; Docket No. 95-CE-
30-AD.
Applicability: Model HB-23/2400 sailplanes (serial numbers 23001
through 23048), certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each sailplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For sailplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (f) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required initially within the next 50 hours time-in-
service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD, and as indicated
in the body of this AD thereafter, unless already accomplished.
To prevent failure of the elevator control system, which, if not
detected and corrected, could result in possible loss of elevator
control and loss of the sailplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Inspect (one time) for bending and dents on the elevator
control push rod tube. If the push rod tube is damaged, prior to
further flight, replace the elevator control push rod tube in
accordance with HB Flugtechnik GmbH (Flugtechnik) service bulletin
(SB) HB-23/18/91, dated October 28, 1991.
(b) Inspect the clearance between the elevator control lever and
the elevator control push rod, ensuring the clearance remains at
least 3 mm. If clearance is not 3 mm, prior to further flight,
adjust in accordance with the maintenance manual.
(c) Inspect the threaded portion of the adjustable push rod
joints (located at each end of the push rod) for fatigue cracks and
deformation, and if cracked or damaged, (based on the fatigue
evaluation), prior to further flight, replace the joints on both
ends of the push rod in accordance with Flugtechnik SB HB-23/17/91,
dated October 28, 1991.
(d) Repetitively inspect the threaded portion of the adjustable
push rod joints, at intervals not to exceed 500 hours time-in-
service (TIS) thereafter for cracks or deformation, and if cracked
or damaged, prior to further flight, replace the joints as
necessary, in accordance with Flugtechnik SB HB-23/17/91, dated
October 28, 1991.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the sailplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(f) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
initial or repetitive compliance times that provides an equivalent
level of safety may be approved by the Manager, Small Airplane
Directorate, Airplane Certification Service, FAA, 1201 Walnut, suite
900, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. The request shall be forwarded
through an appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add
comments and then send it to the Manager, Small Airplane
Directorate.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Small Airplane Directorate.
(g) The inspections and modifications required by this AD shall
be done in accordance with ING Heino Broitschka Flugtechnik
Ges.m.b.H Service Bulletin HB-23/17/91, dated October 28, 1991, and
ING Heino Broitschka Flugtechnik Ges.m.b.H Service Bulletin HB-23/
18/91, dated October 28, 1991. This incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from HB
Flugtechnik GmbH, Dr. Adolf Scharfstr, 42, PF 74, A-4053 Haid,
Austria. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Central Region, Office
of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,
Kansas City, Missouri, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800
North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(h) This amendment (39-9607) becomes effective on June 12, 1996.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 24, 1996.
Henry A. Armstrong,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-10914 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10913 Airworthiness Directives; The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Formerly Piper Aircraft Corporation) Models PA-28-140, PA-28-150, PA-28-160, and PA-28-180 Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19813-19815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10913]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-CE-51-AD; Amendment 39-9606; AD 96-10-01]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Formerly
Piper Aircraft Corporation) Models PA-28-140, PA-28-150, PA-28-160, and
PA-28-180 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that
applies to certain The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) Models PA-28-
140, PA-28-150, PA-28-160, and PA-28-180 airplanes. This action
requires a
[[Page 19814]]
complete landing light support replacement. This AD action is prompted
by reports of two accidents and two incidents resulting from the
landing light retainer support seal breaking apart and entering the
carburetor. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent
the landing light retainer support seal from being ingested by the
updraft carburetor, which, if not detected and corrected, could result
in rough engine operation or possible engine failure and loss of
control of the airplane.
DATES: Effective June 10, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of June 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Service information that applies to this AD may be obtained
from The New Piper Aircraft, Inc., Attn: Customer Service, 2926 Piper
Dr., Vero Beach, Florida 32960. This information may also be examined
at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of
the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket 95-CE-51-AD, Room
1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the Office
of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juanita Craft-Lloyd, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, Campus Building,
1701 Columbia Avenue, suite 2-160, College Park, Georgia 30337-2748;
telephone (404) 305-7373; facsimile (404) 305-7348.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply
to Piper Models PA-28-140, PA-28-150, PA-28-160, and PA-28-180
airplanes was published in the Federal Register on October 5, 1995 (60
FR 52131). The action proposed replacing the landing light support and
seal assembly. Accomplishment of this action will be in accordance with
Piper Service Bulletin (SB) No. 975, dated November 2, 1994.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the
proposed rule or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.
After careful review of all available information related to the
subject presented above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the
public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for
minor editorial corrections. The FAA has determined that these minor
corrections will not change the meaning of the AD and will not add any
additional burden upon the public than was already proposed.
The FAA estimates that 16,440 airplanes in the U.S. registry will
be affected by this AD, that it would take approximately 2 workhours
per airplane to accomplish the proposed action, and that the average
labor rate is approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost approximately $140
per airplane. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of this AD
on U.S. operators is estimated to be $4,274,400. This figure is based
on the assumption that all of the affected airplanes have old landing
light support and seal assemblies and that none of the owners/operators
of the affected airplanes have replaced the landing light support and
seal assemblies with parts of improved design.
Piper has informed the FAA that parts have been distributed to
equip approximately 850 airplanes. Assuming that these distributed
parts are incorporated on the affected airplanes, the cost of this AD
will be reduced by $221,000 from $4,274,400 to $4,053,400.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A copy of the final evaluation prepared for this
action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the
caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Sec. 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD) to read as follows:
96-10-01. The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (formerly Piper Aircraft
Corporation): Amendment No. 39-9606; Docket No. 95-CE-51-AD.
Applicability: The following airplane models and serial numbers,
certificated in any category:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Models Serial Numbers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA-28-140.................... 28-20000 through 28-7725290.
PA-28-150, PA-28-160, and PA- 28-1 through 28-7505259, and 28-E13.
28-180.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required within the next 100 hours time-in-service
(TIS) after the effective date of this AD, or upon replacement of
the landing light, whichever occurs first, unless already
accomplished.
Note 2: Early compliance is encouraged.
To prevent the landing light seal from lodging in the
carburetor, which, if not
[[Page 19815]]
detected and corrected, could result in rough engine operation or
possible engine failure and possible loss of control of the
airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Replace landing light support and seal assembly in
accordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper
Service Bulletin No. 975, dated November 2, 1994.
(b) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an equivalent level of safety may be
approved by the Manager, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office,
Campus Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue, suite 2-160, College Park,
Georgia 30337-2748. The request shall be forwarded through an
appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then
send it to the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office.
(d) The replacements required by this AD shall be done in
accordance with The New Piper Aircraft Inc. Piper Service Bulletin
No. 975, dated November 2, 1994. This incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from The
New Piper Aircraft, Inc., Attn: Customer Service, 2926 Piper Dr.,
Vero Beach, Florida, 32960. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,
Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558,
601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri, or at the Office of the
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
(e) This amendment (39-9606) becomes effective on June 10, 1996.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 24, 1996.
Henry A. Armstrong,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-10913 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10911 Airworthiness Directives; The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Formerly Piper Aircraft Corporation) PA28, PA32, PA34, and PA44 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19811-19813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10911]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-CE-37-AD; Amendment 39-9608; AD 96-10-03]
[RIN 2120-AA64]
Airworthiness Directives; The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Formerly
Piper Aircraft Corporation) PA28, PA32, PA34, and PA44 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that
applies to certain The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) PA28, PA32,
PA34, and PA44 series airplanes. This action will require inspecting
and modifying the flap lever assembly. Reports of worn flap handle
attach bolts and elongated holes in the flap lever to cable mounting
attach point prompted this AD action. The actions specified by this AD
are intended to prevent failure of the flap handle attach bolt and
sudden retraction of the flaps, which, if not detected and corrected,
could result in loss of control of the airplane.
DATES: Effective June 14, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of June 14, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Service information that applies to this AD may be obtained
from The New Piper Aircraft, Inc., Attn: Customer Service, 2629 Piper
Dr., Vero Beach, Florida 32960. This information may also be examined
at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of
the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket 95-CE-37-AD, Room
1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the Office
of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Marsh, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, Campus Building, 1701
Columbia Avenue, suite 2-160, College Park, Georgia 30337-2748;
telephone (404) 305-7362; facsimile (404) 305-7348.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply
to The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) PA28, PA32, PA34, and PA44
series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on October 13,
1995 (60 FR 53314). The action proposed to require inspecting
[[Page 19812]]
and modifying the flap lever assembly. Accomplishment of the proposed
action would be in accordance with Piper Service Bulletin (SB) No. 965,
dated September 1, 1993.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
each comment received from two commenters.
The first commenter recommends that the compliance time be changed
to apply to aircraft with greater than 2,000 hours time-in-service
(TIS) and require these aircraft to accomplish the modification within
the next 500 hours TIS or 12 calendar months, whichever occurs first.
The commenter acknowledges that the wear problem in the flap handle
attach area is a widespread problem and has been dealt with by the
industry for years. Industry's experience with the problem is that it
progresses gradually over time; therefore, the immediacy of the 100
hour TIS compliance time does not seem warranted. The commenter
recommends the compliance time be changed to 500 hours TIS to coincide
with commercial operators' inspection cycles and 12 calendar months to
coincide with an individual owner/operator's annual inspection.
The FAA recognizes the commenter's proposal, but the service
difficulty reports reflect 73 reports from January 1990 to March 1995
and from these 73 reports, 50 reports were submitted from the same
commercial operator. The operator submitted a TIS range of 1200 to 2400
hours TIS for the 50 occurrences in their fleet. The remaining 23
reports contain TIS values ranging from 1884 to 5063. With this
information, FAA could not determine the statistical distribution or
fleet average. Subsequently, the FAA made a determination that a
compliance time with a 2,000 hour TIS threshold or within the next 100
hours TIS for those airplanes with greater than 2,000 hours TIS was
reasonable and will not impose an undue burden on the affected owners/
operators. The compliance time remains unchanged as a result of the
comment.
The second commenter recommended that the standard part designation
corresponding to the manufacturer's part number be included in the AD.
The standard part designation is typically listed in the manufacturer's
service publications and manuals.
The commenter also states that the AD as proposed requires the
installation of the Piper part numbers to comply with the AD. The Piper
part numbers (P/N) are equivalent to the standard parts and therefore,
the standard parts designation should also be listed as acceptable
compliance to this AD action.
The FAA concurs that the standard parts are equivalent to the Piper
parts designated in this AD, with the exception of the bushing, Piper
P/N 63900-174. The standard parts designation will be listed as
equivalent parts in the Final Rule to permit AD compliance (with the
exception of the bushing, Piper P/N 63900-174).
The commenter also states that P/N 407 564 was listed incorrectly
in the NPRM as P/N 407 584. The FAA concurs and the part number is
corrected in the Final Rule.
After careful review of all available information related to the
subject presented above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the
public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for
minor editorial corrections. The FAA has determined that these minor
corrections will not change the meaning of the AD and will not add any
additional burden upon the public than was already proposed.
The FAA estimates that 30,000 airplanes in the U.S. registry will
be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2 workhours per
airplane to accomplish this action, and that the average labor rate is
approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost approximately $16 per airplane.
Based on these figures, the total cost impact of this AD on U.S.
operators is estimated to be $4,080,000. This figure is based on the
assumption that all of the affected airplanes have worn bolts and
elongated holes and that none of the owners/operators of the affected
airplanes have replaced the worn parts.
Piper has informed the FAA that parts have been distributed to
equip approximately 8,000 airplanes. Assuming that these distributed
parts are incorporated on the affected airplanes, the cost of the
proposed AD will be reduced by $1,088,000 from $4,080,000 to
$2,992,000.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A copy of the final evaluation prepared for this
action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the
caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD) to read as follows:
96-10-03 The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (formerly Piper Aircraft
Corporation): Amendment No. 39-9608; Docket No. 95-CE-37-AD.
Applicability: The following airplane models and serial numbers,
certificated in any category:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Models Serial numbers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA28-140..................... 28-20000 through 28-26946 and 28-7125001
through 28-7725290.
PA28-150, PA28-160, and PA28- 28-1 through 28-5859, 28-7105001 through
180. 28-7505259, 28-E13, and 28-03.
PA28-151..................... 28-7415001 through 28-7715314.
PA28-161..................... 28-7716001 through 28-8616057, 2816001
through 2816102, and 2841001 through
2841346.
PA28-181..................... 28-7690001 through 28-8690062 and 2890001
through 2890169.
[[Page 19813]]
PA28-235..................... 28-10001 through 28-11378, 28-7110001
through 28-7710089, and 28-E11.
PA28-236..................... 28-7911001 through 28-8611008 and 2811001
through 2811034.
PA28-201T.................... 28-7921001 through 28-7921095.
PA28R-180.................... 28R-30001 through 28R-31270 and 28R-
7130001 through 28R-7130013.
PA28R-200.................... 28R-35001 through 28R-35820 and 28R-
7135001 through 28R-7635462.
PA28R-201.................... 28R-7737001 through 28R-7837319 and
2837001 through 2837059.
PA28R-201T................... 28R-7703001 through 28R-7803374 and
2803001 through 2803012.
PA28RT-201................... 28R-7918001 through 28R-8218026.
PA28RT-201T.................. 28R-7931001 through 28R-8631005 and
2831001 through 2831038.
PA32-260..................... 32-1 through 32-1297 and 32-7100001
through 32-7800008.
PA32-300..................... 32-40000 through 32-40974 and 32-7140001
through 32-7940290.
PA32-301..................... 32-8006001 through 32-8406020.
PA32-301T.................... 32-8024001 through 32-8424002.
PA32R-300.................... 32R-7680001 through 32R-7880068.
PA32RT-300................... 32R-7885001 through 32R-7985105.
PA32RT-300T.................. 32R-7887001 through 32R-7987126.
PA32R-301.................... 32R-8013001 through 32R-8413024.
PA32R-301T................... 32R-8029001 through 32R-8429028.
PA34-200..................... 34-7250001 through 34-7450220.
PA34-200T.................... 34-7570001 through 34-8170092.
PA34-220T.................... 34-8133001 through 34-8233088.
PA44-180..................... 44-7995001 through 44-8195026 and 4495001
through 4495013.
PA44-180T.................... 44-8107001 through 44-8107066.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (f) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required upon the accumulation of 2,000 hours time-
in-service (TIS) or within the next 100 hours TIS after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, unless already
accomplished.
Note 2: The compliance time specified in this AD takes
precedence over the compliance time specified in the The New Piper
Aircraft Inc. (Piper) Service Bulletin (SB) 965, dated September 1,
1993.
Note 3: The instructions in this AD do not mirror the Piper
service bulletin and instructions in this AD take precedence over
the service bulletin instructions. This AD will require installing
the clevis bolt, regardless of the condition of the current part.
To prevent failure of the flap handle attach bolt and sudden
retraction of the flaps, which, if not detected and corrected, could
result in loss of control of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Measure the cable mounting attach hole diameter and enlarge
the hole to .316 of an inch diameter. If the diameter of the cable
mount attach hole is larger than .316 of an inch, prior to further
flight, replace the flap lever handle (refer to the applicable
illustrated parts catalog for part number), in accordance with the
INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper SB No. 965, dated September 1, 1993.
(b) Install a new bushing (using only Piper Part Number (P/N)
63900-174) into the cable mounting attach hole, in accordance with
the INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper SB No. 965, dated September 1,
1993.
(c) Replace the flap lever handle attach bolt with a new clevis
bolt (Piper P/N 400 673 or standard P/N AN23-11) in accordance with
the INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper SB No. 965, dated September 1,
1993.
(d) Inspect the washer, nut, and cotter pin, and if damaged,
prior to further flight, replace washer (Piper P/N 407-564 or
standard P/N AN960-10), nut (Piper P/N 404-392 or standard P/N
AN320-3), and cotter pin (Piper P/N 424-051 or standard P/N MS24665-
132) as applicable in accordance with the INSTRUCTIONS section of
Piper SB No. 965, dated September 1, 1993.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(f) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an equivalent level of safety may be
approved by the Manager, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office,
Campus Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue, suite 2-160, College Park,
Georgia 30337-2748. The request shall be forwarded through an
appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then
send it to the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office.
Note 4: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office.
(g) The inspections and replacements required by this AD shall
be done in accordance with The New Piper Aircraft Inc. Piper Service
Bulletin No. 965, dated September 1, 1993. This incorporation by
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be
obtained from The New Piper Aircraft, Inc., Attn: Customer Service,
2629 Piper Dr., Vero Beach, Florida 32960. Copies may be inspected
at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,
Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, or at
the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,
suite 700, Washington, DC.
(h) This amendment (39-9608) becomes effective on June 14, 1996.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 26, 1996.
Henry A. Armstrong,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-10911 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10891 Transactions With Affiliates
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19805-19807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10891]
========================================================================
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. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Rules and
Regulations
[[Page 19805]]
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 250
[Docket No. R-0902]
Transactions With Affiliates
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board is adopting a definition of capital stock and
surplus for purposes of section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act that
conforms to the definition of unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus
used by the Board in calculating the limits in Regulation O for insider
lending and by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) in
calculating the limit on loans by a national bank to a single borrower.
The final rule will reduce the burden for member banks and other
insured depository institutions monitoring lending to their affiliates.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela G. Nardolilli, Senior Attorney
(202/452-3289) Legal Division, or Barbara Bouchard, Supervisory
Financial Analyst (202/452-3072), Division of Banking Supervision and
Regulation, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. For users
of the Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, please
contact Dorothea Thompson (202/452-3544).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act, 12
U.S.C. 371c, regulates lending and asset purchase transactions between
insured depository institutions and their affiliates. In general,
section 23A prohibits an insured depository institution from engaging
in covered transactions (which include extensions of credit and
purchases of assets) with any single affiliate in excess of 10 percent
of the institution's capital stock and surplus. A 20 percent aggregate
limit is imposed on the total amount of covered transactions by a bank
with all affiliates. Under section 23A, all extensions of credit
between an insured depository institution and its affiliate must meet
certain collateral requirements. Section 23A also prohibits an insured
depository institution from purchasing any low-quality assets from an
affiliate and requires that all transactions with an affiliate must be
conducted on terms that are consistent with safe and sound banking
practices. Although section 23A, by its terms, applies only to member
banks, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act applies section 23A to all
nonmember insured banks (12 U.S.C. 1828 (j)), and the Home Owners' Loan
Act applies section 23A to savings associations (12 U.S.C. 1468).
Section 23A does not include an explicit definition of ``capital
stock and surplus.'' A 1964 Board interpretation refers to the
definition of capital as ``the amount of unimpaired common stock plus
the amount of preferred stock outstanding and unimpaired'' but
explicitly excludes debt-like instruments from the definition of
capital and surplus. 12 CFR 250.161. In the interpretation, the Board
recognized that certain notes and debentures could be considered as
capital or capital stock for purposes of membership in the Federal
Reserve System, but concluded that for purposes of certain Federal
Reserve Act limitations and requirements, such instruments could not be
regarded as part of either capital or capital stock. A subsequent Board
interpretation issued in 1971 states that capital stock and surplus, as
used in provisions of the Federal Reserve Act, includes undivided
profits, which are defined to include reserves for loan losses and
valuation reserves for securities. 12 CFR 250.162. As a practical
matter, this definition of capital and surplus has been implemented as
total equity capital and the allowance for loan and lease losses (ALLL)
as set forth in the bank's Report of Condition and Income (Call
Report).
Revisions to the Definition of Capital Stock and Surplus
In February 1995, the OCC amended its regulation governing the
amount a national bank may lend to a single counterparty, and revised
the definition of unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus upon which
this lending limit was based. 60 FR 8526 (February 15, 1995) (to be
codified at 12 CFR 32.2(b)). In June 1995, the Board amended its
Regulation O, 60 FR 31053 (June 13, 1995) (to be codified at 12 CFR
215.2), to revise the definition of capital used to limit loans to
insiders, to a definition that is consistent with that used for
purposes of the OCC's single borrower lending limits. The Board took
this action to eliminate discrepancies in the definitions of capital
used for different lending limit purposes and to reduce regulatory
burden for banks monitoring lending to their insiders. Under the
revised OCC regulation, unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus is
defined as Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital, as calculated under the risk-
based capital guidelines, plus the balance of the allowance for loan
and lease losses (ALLL) excluded from Tier 2 capital.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under the banking agencies' risk-based capital guidelines,
Tier 1 capital includes common equity, some noncumulative perpetual
preferred stock and related surplus, and minority interest in equity
accounts of consolidated subsidiaries. Tier 2 capital includes the
ALLL up to 1.25 percent of the bank's weighted risk assets,
perpetual preferred stock and related surplus, hybrid capital
instruments, and certain types of subordinated debt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 4, 1995, the Board proposed adopting a definition of
``capital stock and surplus'' for purposes of section 23A that is the
same as the capital definitions used for Regulation O and the national
bank lending limits. (60 FR 62050 (1995)). Unlike the current capital
definition for section 23A, the revised definition will permit banks to
include in capital the bank's subordinated debt that qualifies for
inclusion in Tier 2 capital. On the other hand, unlike equity capital,
Tier 1 capital does not include securities revaluation reserves, in
particular, gains and losses on available-for-sale securities, which
under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards Number 115 (FAS 115)
are considered a component of equity capital. Tier 1 capital also
excludes certain intangible assets, most notably goodwill. Based on
June 1995 Call Report data, the revised definition will decrease the
limits for transactions with affiliates for a majority of banks.
Overall, it is estimated that the revised definition of capital and
surplus will result in a change for most banks of 5 percent or less
from their current limit, although a few community and
[[Page 19806]]
mid-sized banks may experience substantial changes principally due to
large gains or losses on available-for-sale securities.
Notwithstanding the decrease for many banks in the amount of
capital that will be used to calculate their section 23A limit under
the revised definition, the Board believes that, over all, revising the
definition will be beneficial for all insured depository institutions
for two reasons. First, the revised definition will provide consistency
in the capital definition used for section 23A, Regulation O, and the
national bank lending limits. Second, the revised definition will
result in a more stable limit over time than the current definition
because the revised definition excludes revaluation gains and losses on
available-for-sale securities, a component of equity capital that tends
to be volatile.
Public Comment
The Board received seventeen comments regarding its proposed
definition of capital stock and surplus. The Board received eight
comments from Reserve Banks, six comments from commercial banking
organizations and three comments from trade associations. All the
commenters supported the Board's efforts to reduce regulatory burden
and provide greater uniformity in defining capital for regulatory
purposes. Seven commenters also noted that the proposed definition will
provide greater stability over time because the proposed definition
excludes the gains and losses on available-for-sale securities.
Several commenters questioned whether an institution will be in
violation of section 23A if, as a result of the change in the
definition of capital stock and surplus, the institution's amount of
outstanding covered transactions exceeded the quantitative limits of
section 23A. In general, the Board believes that a change in
circumstances, such as a change in the capital definition, should not
adversely affect existing transactions that were entered into in good
faith by an insured depository institution and its affiliate. In the
past, when an institution exceeded its quantitative limit because of a
change in circumstances, the Board has allowed the insured depository
institution to retain the nonconforming transaction, but has not
allowed the institution to engage in additional covered transactions
until the institution was in compliance with section 23A. Accordingly,
based on this precedent, the Board has determined that any institution
whose outstanding covered transactions with its affiliates exceed its
quantitative limits as a result of this rule will be allowed to retain
those transactions. However, these institutions are not allowed to
engage in any additional covered transactions with any affiliate,
including any renewal transactions, until the institution's outstanding
amount of covered transactions is in compliance with the institution's
new quantitative limit.
The Board also amends 12 CFR 250.161 and 12 CFR 250.162 to delete
the reference to section 23A to reflect the change.
Determination of Effective Date
Because the final rule adjusts a requirement on insured depository
institutions, the final rule will become effective July 1, 1996, the
first day of the calendar quarter after the date of the final rule's
publication. See 12 U.S.C. 4802(b).
Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) (the ``Act'')
requires an agency to publish a final regulatory flexibility analysis
with any final rulemaking. The Act requires that the regulatory
flexibility analysis of a final rule provide a description of the
reasons why the action by the agency is being considered and a
statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the rule and a
summary of the issues raised by the public comments received, the
agency assessment thereof, and any change made in response thereto.
This information is contained in the supplementary information above.
No significant alternatives to the final rule were considered by the
agency.
Another requirement for the regulatory flexibility analysis is a
description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small
entities to which the proposed rule will apply. The final rule will
apply to all insured depository institutions, regardless of size. The
Board has determined that its final rule will impose no additional
reporting or recordkeeping requirements, and that there are no relevant
federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed
rule. In addition, the final rule is not expected to have a significant
economic impact on small institutions. Instead, the final rule is
expected to relieve the regulatory burden on the majority of insured
depository institutions.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1.), the Board
reviewed the final rule under authority delegated to the Board by the
Office of Management and Budget. No collections of information pursuant
to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 250
Credit, Federal Reserve System.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends 12 CFR
part 250 as set forth below:
PART 250--MISCELLANEOUS INTERPRETATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 250 will continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 248(i) and 371c(e).
Sec. 250.161 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 250.161 paragraph (d) is amended by removing the words
``loans to affiliates (12 U.S.C. 371c),'' in the first sentence.
Sec. 250.162 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 250.162, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the words
``Loans to affiliates (12 U.S.C. 371c), purchases'' in the first
sentence and adding ``Purchases'' in their place.
4. A new Sec. 250.242 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 250.242 Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act--definition of
capital stock and surplus.
(a) An insured depository institution's capital stock and surplus
for purposes of section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 371c)
is:
(1) Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital included in an institution's risk-
based capital under the capital guidelines of the appropriate Federal
banking agency, based on the institution's most recent consolidated
Report of Condition and Income filed under 12 U.S.C. 1817(a)(3); and
(2) The balance of an institution's allowance for loan and lease
losses not included in its Tier 2 capital for purposes of the
calculation of risk-based capital by the appropriate Federal banking
agency, based on the institution's most recent consolidated Report of
Condition and Income filed under 12 U.S.C. 1817(a)(3).
(b) For purposes of this section, the terms appropriate Federal
banking agency and insured depository institution are defined as those
terms are defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12
U.S.C. 1813.
[[Page 19807]]
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, April 26, 1996.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-10891 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10870 Airworthiness Directives; Robinson Helicopter Company Model R22 Helicopters
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19809-19811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10870]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-SW-23-AD; Amendment 39-9605; AD 96-09-29]
Airworthiness Directives; Robinson Helicopter Company Model R22
Helicopters
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to Robinson Helicopter Company (Robinson) Model R22
helicopters, that requires replacement of the upper V-belt sheave
(sheave). This amendment is prompted by three reports of cracks in the
flange of the sheave. The actions specified by this AD are intended to
prevent failure of the sheave, which could result in damage to other
drive system components, and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.
DATES: Effective June 7, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of June 7, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained
[[Page 19810]]
from Robinson Helicopter Company, 2901 Airport Drive, Torrance,
California 90505. This information may be examined at the FAA, Office
of the Assistant Chief Counsel, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort
Worth, Texas 76137, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North
Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Elizabeth Bumann, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960
Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712, telephone (310) 627-5265,
fax (310) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to Robinson Model R22 helicopters was
published in the Federal Register on November 28, 1995 (60 FR 58579).
That action proposed to require, within the next 100 hours time-in-
service (TIS) or 60 calendar days, whichever comes first, replacement
of the upper sheave, part number (P/N) A170-1I or J or P/N A170-2J,
with a sheave having a dimension equal to or less than 0.30 inch
measured from the edge of the forward retainer plate to the flange of
the sheave.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the
proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA
has determined that air safety and the public interest require the
adoption of the rule as proposed.
The FAA estimates that 650 helicopters of U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 4 work hours per
helicopter to accomplish the required actions, and that the average
labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately
$1,216 per helicopter for the sheave, part number (P/N) A170-1, and
$2,298 per helicopter for the sheave, P/N A170-2. Based on these
figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated
to be $1,298,050, assuming replacement of the sheave in all 650
helicopters, and assuming that one-half of the helicopters have the
sheave, P/N A170-1, installed, and one-half of the helicopters have the
sheave, P/N A170-2, installed.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive
to read as follows:
AD 96-09-29 Robinson Helicopter Company: Amendment 39-9605. Docket
No. 95-SW-23-AD.
Applicability: Model R22 helicopters with upper V-belt sheave
(sheave) part number (P/N) A170-1I or J, or P/N A170-2J, installed,
certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each helicopter identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For helicopters that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (b) to request approval from the FAA. This
approval may address either no action, if the current configuration
eliminates the unsafe condition, or different actions necessary to
address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such a request
should include an assessment of the effect of the changed
configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no
case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair
remove any helicopter from the applicability of this AD.
Note 2: Determination of whether the affected sheave has been
installed can be accomplished by measuring the depth from the edge
of the forward retainer plate to the flange of the sheave in an area
located between the webs as shown in Figure 2 of Robinson Helicopter
Company R22 Service Bulletin SB-77, dated April 25, 1995. If the
depth is greater than 0.30 inch, then either sheave, P/N A170-1I or
J, or sheave, P/N A170-2J, is installed.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent failure of the sheave, which could result in damage
to other drive system components, and subsequent loss of control of
the helicopter, accomplish the following:
(a) Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 60
calendar days, whichever occurs first after the effective date of
this AD, replace the sheave, P/N A170-1I or J, or P/N A170-2J, with
an airworthy sheave, P/N A170-1, or P/N A170-2, having a dimension
equal to or less than 0.30 inch measured from the edge of the
forward retainer plate to the flange of the sheave in an area
located between the webs, in accordance with paragraphs 2 through 15
of the Compliance Procedures of Robinson Helicopter Company R22
Service Bulletin SB-77, dated April 25, 1995.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an FAA
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may concur or comment and then
send it to the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the helicopter to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) Replacement of the sheave shall be done in accordance with
paragraphs 2 through 15 of the Compliance Procedures of Robinson
Helicopter Company R22 Service Bulletin SB-77, dated April 25, 1995.
This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Copies may be obtained from Robinson Helicopter Company, 2901
Airport Drive, Torrance, California 90505. Copies may be inspected
at the FAA, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas, or at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on June 7, 1996.
[[Page 19811]]
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 24, 1996.
Larry M. Kelly,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 96-10870 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10581 Airworthiness Directives; I.A.M. Rinaldo Piaggio S.p.A. Model P 180 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19808-19809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10581]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-CE-50-AD; Amendment 39-9585; AD 96-09-09]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; I.A.M. Rinaldo Piaggio S.p.A. Model P
180 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that
applies to I.A.M. Rinaldo Piaggio S.p.A. Model P 180 series airplanes.
This action requires installing a shield on the front section of the
engine cradle. A report of power control jamming as a result of
freezing conditions during a high altitude flight prompted this AD
action. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent loss
of engine power or the propeller controls from jamming as a result of
freezing rain entering the engine nacelle, which, if not detected and
corrected, could result in loss of control of the airplane.
DATES: Effective June 7, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of June 7, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Service information that applies to this AD may be obtained
from I.A.M. Rinaldo Piaggio, S.p.A., Via Cibrario, 4 16154, Genoa,
Italy. This information may also be examined at the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket 95-CE-50-AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th
Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Dorenda Baker, Program Manager,
Brussels Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Europe, Africa, and Middle
East Office, c/o American Embassy, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium; telephone
(322) 513-3830, ext. 2716; facsimile (322) 230-6899; or Mr. Roman T.
Gabrys, Project Officer, Small Airplane Directorate, Airplane
Certification Service, FAA, 1201 Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City,
Missouri 64105; telephone (816) 426-6932; facsimile (816) 426-2169.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply
to I.A.M. Rinaldo Piaggio S.p.A. Model P 180 series was published in
the Federal Register on October 4, 1995 (60 FR 51944). The action
proposed to require installing a shield on the front section of the
engine cradle. Accomplishment of this action would be in accordance
with Piaggio Service Bulletin (SB) 80-0066; Original Issue December 12,
1994.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the
proposed rule or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.
After careful review of all available information related to the
subject presented above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the
public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for
minor editorial corrections. The FAA has determined that these minor
corrections will not change the meaning of the AD and will not add any
additional burden upon the public than was already proposed.
The FAA estimates that 5 airplanes in the U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2
[[Page 19809]]
workhours per airplane to accomplish this action, and that the average
labor rate is approximately $60 an hour. Parts will be furnished by the
manufacturer at no cost to the owner/operators. Based on these figures,
the total cost impact of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$600. This figure is based on the assumption that none of the affected
airplanes have shields installed and that none of the affected owners/
operators have modified the airplanes.
The compliance time of this AD is presented in both hours time-in-
service (TIS) and calendar time. The FAA has determined that including
calendar time compliance is also necessary because the unsafe condition
is the result of adverse weather conditions which can affect the
nacelle and power controls while not in use as well as in flight.
Therefore, to ensure that the above-described condition is detected and
corrected on all airplanes within a reasonable period of time without
inadvertently grounding any airplanes, a compliance schedule based upon
both TIS and calendar time is required.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A copy of the final evaluation prepared for this
action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the
caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD) to read as follows:
96-09-09 I.A.M. Rinaldo Piaggio S.P.A.: Amendment 39-9585; Docket
No. 95-CE-50-AD.
Applicability: Model P 180 Series Airplanes (serial numbers
1001, 1002, 1004, and 1006 through 1033), certificated in any
category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it. Compliance: Required within the next 100 hours time-in
service (TIS), or within the next 3 calendar months, whichever
occurs later, after the effective date of this AD, unless already
accomplished.
Note 2: The compliance time in this AD takes precedence over the
compliance time reflected in Piaggio Service Bulletin 80-0066,
Original Issue, December 12, 1994.
To prevent loss of engine power or the propeller controls from
jamming, as a result of freezing rain entering the engine nacelle,
which, if not detected and corrected, could result in loss of
control of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Modify the nacelle by installing a shield on the front
section of the engine cradle, in accordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENT
INSTRUCTIONS section in Piaggio Service Bulletin (SB) No. 80-0066;
Original Issue: December 12, 1994.
(b) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an equivalent level of safety may be
approved by the Manager, Brussels Aircraft Certification Office,
FAA, Europe, Africa, and Middle East Office, c/o American Embassy,
B-1000 Brussels, Belgium or Mr. Roman T. Gabrys, Project Officer,
Small Airplane Directorate, Airplane Certification Service, FAA,
1201 Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. The request
shall be forwarded through an appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Brussels
Aircraft Certification Office.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Brussels Aircraft Certification Office.
(d) The modifications required by this AD shall be done in
accordance with Piaggio Service Bulletin No. 80-0066; Original
Issue: December 12, 1994. This incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from
I.A.M. Rinaldo Piaggio, S.p.A., Via Cibrario, 4 16154, Genoa, Italy.
Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the
Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,
Missouri, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North
Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(e) This amendment (39-9585) becomes effective on June 7, 1996.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 23, 1996.
Henry A. Armstrong,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-10581 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10076 Airworthiness Directives; de Havilland Model DHC-3 Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19807-19808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10076]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-CE-47-AD; Amendment 39-9578; AD 96-09-04]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; de Havilland Model DHC-3 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes Airworthiness Directive (AD) 90-12-
08, which currently requires the following on de Havilland Model DHC-3
airplanes: repetitively inspecting (using dye penetrant methods) the
tailplane main rib forward flanges and the main rib forward lower
flanges at the tailplane front attachment fitting for cracks and
repairing any cracked flange. This AD action will retain the repetitive
inspections currently required by AD 90-12-08, and will allow a certain
modification as terminating action for these repetitive inspections.
This action is prompted by the Federal Aviation Administration's
determination that installing new angles and plates on the tailplane
root ribs on de Havilland Model DHC-3 airplanes provides an equivalent
level of safety to the repetitive inspections required by AD 90-12-08.
The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent failure of the
tailplane structure caused by cracked tailplane main rib forward
flanges or main rib forward lower flanges at the tailplane front
attachment fitting, which, if not detected and corrected, could result
in loss of control of the airplane.
DATES: Effective May 17, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of May 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Service information that applies to this AD may be obtained
from Bombardier Inc., (the parent company of de Havilland) Bombardier
Regional Aircraft Division, Garrett Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario,
Canada M3K 1Y5; telephone (416) 633-7310. This information may also be
examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Central Region,
Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket 95-CE-
47-AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or
at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,
suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeff Casale, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 10 5th St., 3rd Floor,
Valley Stream, New York 11581; telephone (516) 256-7521; facsimile
(516) 568-2716.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply
to de Havilland Model DHC-3 airplanes was published in the Federal
Register on November 14, 1995 (60 FR 57201). This action would retain
the repetitive inspections currently required by AD 90-12-08, and would
allow incorporating a certain modification as terminating action for
these repetitive inspections. Accomplishment of this action will be in
accordance with de Havilland Service Bulletin (SB) No. 3/46, Revision
B, dated December 1, 1989 and de Havilland SB No. 3/50, Revision A,
dated February 17, 1995.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the
proposed rule or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.
After careful review of all available information related to the
subject presented above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the
public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed except for
minor editorial corrections. The FAA has determined that these minor
corrections will not change the meaning of the AD and will not add any
additional burden upon the public than was already proposed.
The FAA estimates that 49 airplanes in the U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 35 workhours per
airplane to accomplish the inspection and that the average labor rate
is approximately $60 an hour. Based on these figures, the total cost
impact of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $102,900 or
$2,100 per airplane. This figure represents the cost of the initial
inspection, and does not reflect the costs for repetitive inspections
or possible repairs. The FAA has no way of determining how many
tailplane main rib forward or main rib forward lower flanges may need
to be repaired or how many repetitive inspections each owner/operator
of the affected airplanes would incur over the life of the airplane.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A copy of the final evaluation prepared for this
action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the
caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing AD 90-12-08, Amendment 39-
6622, and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD) to read as
follows:
96-09-04 De Havilland: Amendment 39-9578. Docket No. 95-CE-47-AD;
Supersedes AD 90-12-08, Amendment 39-6622.
Applicability: Model DHC-3 airplanes (all serial numbers),
certificated in any category, that do not have Modification 3/935
incorporated in accordance with de Havilland Service Bulletin (SB)
number (No.) 3/50, Revision A, dated February 17, 1995.
[[Page 19808]]
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (e) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Within the next 3 calendar months after the
effective date of this AD, unless already accomplished (compliance
with AD 90-12-08), and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24
calendar months.
To prevent failure of the tailplane structure caused by cracked
tailplane main rib forward flanges or main rib forward lower flanges
at the tailplane front attachment fitting, which, if not detected
and corrected, could result in loss of control of the airplane,
accomplish the following:
(a) Inspect, using dye penetrant methods, the tailplane main rib
forward flanges and the main rib forward lower flanges at the
tailplane front attachment fitting in accordance with the
ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS section of de Havilland SB No. 3/46,
Revision B, dated December 1, 1989.
Note 2: Pay particular attention to the front attachment fitting
area.
(b) Prior to further flight, repair any tailplane main rib
forward flange or main rib forward lower flange found cracked during
any inspection required by this AD. Accomplish this repair in
accordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS section of de
Havilland SB No. 3/46, Revision B, dated December 1, 1989.
(c) Installing tailplane root rib angles and plates of improved
design (Modification 3/935) in accordance with de Havilland SB 3/50,
Revision A, dated February 17, 1995, terminates the repetitive
inspection requirement of this AD. Modification 3/935 may be
incorporated at any time provided that any tailplane main rib
forward flange or main rib forward lower flange found cracked during
any inspection required by this AD is repaired.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(e) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
initial or repetitive compliance times that provides an equivalent
level of safety may be approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 10 5th St., 3rd Floor, Valley Stream, New York
11581. The request shall be forwarded through an appropriate FAA
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the New York Aircraft Certification Office.
(f) Alternative methods of compliance approved in accordance
with AD 90-12-08 (superseded by this action) are considered approved
as alternative methods of compliance with this AD.
(g) The inspections, repairs, and replacements required by this
AD shall be done in accordance with de Havilland Service Bulletin
No. 3/46, Revision B, dated December 1, 1989, and de Havilland
Service Bulletin No. 3/50, Revision A, dated February 17, 1995. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51. Copies may be obtained from Bombardier Inc. (the parent company
of de Havilland), Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, Garrett
Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario, Canada M3K 1Y5; telephone (416) 633-
7310. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Central Region, Office of
the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas
City, Missouri, or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North
Capitol Street, NW., 7th Floor, suite 700, Washington, DC.
(h) This amendment supersedes AD 90-12-08, Amendment 39-6622.
(i) This amendment (39-9578) becomes effective on May 17, 1996.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 18, 1996.
Henry A. Armstrong,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-10076 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.