issue-1996-06-12•Federal Register final rules — 1996-06-12
Federal Register final rules — 1996-06-12
issue-1996-06-12Federal Register final rules — 1996-06-12Regulation
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. 96-14925 Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Trawl Rock Sole/Flathead Sole/``Other Flatfish'' Fishery Category
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14925]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 675
[Docket No. 960129019-6019-01, I.D. 060696E]
Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Trawl
Rock Sole/Flathead Sole/``Other Flatfish'' Fishery Category
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
ACTION: Closure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is closing the directed fishery for species in the rock
sole/flathead sole/``other flatfish'' fishery category by vessels using
trawl gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area
(BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the second
seasonal bycatch allowance of Pacific halibut apportioned to the trawl
rock sole/flathead sole/``other flatfish'' fishery category in the
BSAI.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), June 8, 1996,
until 12 noon, A.l.t., July 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Smoker, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management
Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
under authority of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management
Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is governed by regulations implementing
the FMP at 50 CFR parts 620 and 675.
The second seasonal bycatch allowance of Pacific halibut for the
BSAI trawl rock sole/flathead sole/``other flatfish'' fishery category,
which is defined at Sec. 675.21(b)(1)(iii)(B)(2), was established by
the Final 1996 Harvest Specifications of Groundfish (61 FR 4311,
February 5, 1996) as 139 metric tons (mt). This fishery was previously
closed with the expectation that the second seasonal allocation had
been taken (61 FR 16883, April 18, 1996), it was subsequently opened on
June 3, 1996, when NMFS determined that 50 mt of halibut mortality
remained in the allocation (61 FR 28071, June 4, 1996).
The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined, in accordance
with Sec. 675.21(c)(1)(iii), that the second seasonal bycatch allowance
of Pacific halibut apportioned to the trawl rock sole/flathead sole/
``other flatfish'' fishery in the BSAI has been caught. Therefore, NMFS
is prohibiting directed fishing for species in the rock sole/flathead
sole/``other flatfish'' fishery category by vessels using trawl gear in
the BSAI.
Maximum retainable bycatch amounts for applicable gear types may be
found in the regulations at Sec. 675.20(h).
Classification
This action is taken under 50 CFR 675.21 and is exempt from review
under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: June 7, 1996.
Richard H. Schaefer,
Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-14925 Filed 6-7-96; 3:52 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14908 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Tennessee; Approval of Revisions to Process Gaseous Emission Standards for Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions From Kraft Mills
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29666-29667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14908]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62
[TN-115-01-9616a; FRL-5519-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Tennessee; Approval of Revisions to Process Gaseous Emission Standards
for Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions From Kraft Mills
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
revisions to the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted
by the State of Tennessee through the Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation on June 25, 1993. The submittal included
revisions to the State's regulations for Process Gaseous Emission
Standards for Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS) from Kraft Mills. These
revisions were made to bring these regulations into compliance with the
1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act (the Act) and the Federal
regulations. EPA finds that the revised rules meet the Federal
requirements for process emission standards for sulfur emissions.
DATES: This final rule is effective August 12, 1996, unless adverse or
critical comments are received by July 12, 1996. If the effective date
is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Ms. Karen Borel, at
the Regional Office Address listed below.
Copies of the material submitted by the State of Tennessee may be
examined during normal business hours at the following locations:
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Programs Branch, 345
Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
Tennessee Division of Air Pollution Control, 9th Floor L&C Annex, 401
Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1531.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Interested persons wanting to examine
documents relative to this action should make an appointment with the
Region 4 Air Programs Branch at least 24 hours before the visiting day.
To schedule the appointment or to request additional information,
contact Karen C. Borel, Regulatory Planning and Development Section,
Air Programs Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics Management Division,
Region 4 EPA, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365. The
telephone number is 404/347-3555 extension 4197. Reference file TN115-
01-9616.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 25, 1993, the State of Tennessee
submitted revisions to the Tennessee SIP, through the State of
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. These revisions
were made to bring this regulation into accordance with the guidance
provided in the official EPA guidance document (EPA-450/2-78-0003b) and
to improve the ambient air quality surrounding affected facilities. The
SIP revision was reviewed by EPA to determine completeness, and a
letter of completeness dated July 26, 1993, was sent to the State of
Tennessee. EPA finds that the revisions provide for consistency with
the Act and corresponding Federal regulations. EPA is approving the
following revisions to the Tennessee SIP.
Rule 1200-3-7-.07(4) Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions From Kraft Mills
(a) This subparagraph is amended by striking the number ``24'' and
inserting the number ``12.''
(b) This subparagraph is amended by striking the number ``24'' and
inserting the number ``12.''
This new rule meets the requirements set forth in the EPA guidance
document EPA 450/2-78-003b, March, 1979. This recommends the 12-hour
averaging interval. Statistically the reduction in the averaging time
interval will result in reduced TRS emissions which will improve
ambient air quality surrounding the affected facilities.
Final Action
EPA is approving revisions to subparagraphs 1200-3-7-.07(4)(a) and
[[Page 29667]]
(b) for Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions for Kraft Mills. Specifically,
EPA is approving Tennessee's submittal as meeting the gaseous emissions
requirements for TRS emissions for Kraft Mills.
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be
effective on August 12, 1996, unless, by July 12, 1996, adverse or
critical comments are received.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
action will be effective on August 12, 1996.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607 (b)(1),
petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the
United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August
12, 1996. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. [See section
307(b)(2) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607 (b)(2).]
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to any SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small business, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000.
SIP approvals under sections 110 and 11 and subchapter I, part D of
the Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify
that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities
affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship
under the Act, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state
action. The Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2) and 7410(k)(3).
Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22,
1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed
or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of this state implementation plan or plan
revision, the State and any affected local or tribal governments have
elected to adopt the program provided for under Section 165 of the CAA.
These rules may bind State, local and tribal governments to perform
certain actions and also require the private sector to perform certain
duties. EPA has examined whether the rules being approved by this
action will impose no new requirements, since such sources are already
subject to these regulations under State law. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action, and therefore there will be no
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Paper and paper
products industry, Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfuric oxides.
Dated: May 28, 1996.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Part 62, of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is
amended as follows:
PART 62--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7413 and 7601.
Subpart RR--Tennessee
2. Subpart RR is amended by adding an undesignated heading and a
new Sec. 62.10625 to read as follows:
Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions From Existing Kraft Pulp Mills
Sec. 62.10625 Identification of plan.
On June 25, 1993, the State submitted revisions to the Tennessee
State Implementation Plan (SIP). These were revisions to the process
gaseous emission standards. These revisions incorporate changes to Rule
1200-3-7-.07, subparagraphs (4)(a) and (4)(b) of the Tennessee SIP
which bring this into conformance with the requirements of 40 CFR part
62, subpart I.
[FR Doc. 96-14908 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14897 Minor Amendments to Miscellaneous Cross-References
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29636-29638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14897]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, 72
RIN 3150-AF50
Minor Amendments to Miscellaneous Cross-References
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its
regulations to achieve consistency in the cross-references associated
with several recent changes to the NRC's regulations affecting
decommissioning. This notice is necessary to inform the public of these
corrections.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 12, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6219, email JMM[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To achieve consistency in the NRC's
regulations affecting decommissioning, the following cross-reference
revisions in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, and 72 are being made:
(1) In Secs. 30.36(d) and 30.36(g)(3), the cross-references to
paragraph ``(f)(1)'' are revised to read ``(g)(1).''
(2) In Secs. 30.36(g)(3)(vi) and 30.36(h)(1) and (h)(2), the cross-
references to paragraph ``(h)'' are revised to read ``(i).''
(3) In Secs. 40.42(d) and 40.42(g)(3), the cross-references to
paragraph ``(f)(1)'' are revised to read ``(g)(1).''
(4) In Secs. 40.42(g)(4)(vi) and 40.42(h)(1) and (h)(2), the cross-
references to paragraph ``(h)'' are revised to read ``(i).''
(5) In Secs. 70.38(d) and 70.38(g)(3), the cross-references to
paragraph ``(f)(1)'' are revised to read ``(g)(1).''
(6) In Secs. 70.38(g)(4)(vii) and 70.38(h)(1) and (h)(2), the
cross- references to ``(h)'' are revised to read ``(i).''
(7) In Secs. 72.54(j)(1) and (j)(2), the cross-references to
``(j)'' are revised to read ``(k).''
Because the changes are minor administrative amendments, the NRC
has determined that good cause exists to dispense with the notice and
comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). For the same reasons, the NRC has determined
that good cause exists to waive the 30-day deferred effective date
provisions of the APA (5 U.S.C. 553(d)).
[[Page 29637]]
Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion
The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action
described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2). Therefore,
neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental
assessment has been prepared for this final rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This final rule does not contain a new or amended information
collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the
Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 3150-0009, 3150-0017,
3150-0020, and 3150-0132.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
Regulatory Analysis
This final rulemaking does not impose any new requirements or
additional costs to licensees because it is administrative in that it
achieves consistency in cross-references in existing regulations and
does not result in any substantive change. This constitutes the
regulatory analysis for this final rule.
Backfit Analysis
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does
not apply to this final rule and, therefore, that a backfit analysis is
not required for this rulemaking because these amendments do not
involve any provision that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR
50.109(a)(1).
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 30
Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Government contracts,
Intergovernmental relations, Isotopes, Nuclear materials, Radiation
protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 40
Criminal penalties, Government contracts, Hazardous materials
transportation, Nuclear materials, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Source material, Uranium.
10 CFR Part 70
Criminal penalties, Hazardous materials transportation, Material
control and accounting, Nuclear materials, Packaging and containers,
Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Scientific equipment, Security measures, Special nuclear material.
10 CFR Part 72
Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety
and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security
measures, Spent fuel.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR
Parts 30, 40, 70, and 72.
PART 30--RULES OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY TO DOMESTIC LICENSING OF
BYPRODUCT MATERIAL
1. The authority citation for Part 30 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 81, 82, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat. 935, 948,
953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42
U.S.C. 2111, 2112, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); secs. 201, as
amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C.
5841, 5842, 5846).
Section 30.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.
2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102-485, sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42
U.S.C. 5851). Section 30.34(b) also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat.
954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 30.61 also issued under
sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
Sec. 30.36 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 30.36(d), the cross-reference to ``paragraph (f)(1)'' is
revised to read ``paragraph (g)(1).''
3. In Sec. 30.36(g)(3), the cross-reference to ``paragraph (f)(1)''
is revised to read ``paragraph (g)(1).''
4. In Sec. 30.36(g)(4)(vi), the cross-reference to ``paragraph
(h)'' is revised to read ``paragraph (i).''
5. In Sec. 30.36 (h)(1), the cross-reference to ``paragraph (h)''
is revised to read ``paragraph (i).''
6. In Sec. 30.36(h)(2), the cross-reference to ``paragraph (h)'' is
revised to read ``paragraph (i).''
PART 40--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL
7. The authority citation for Part 40 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 62, 63, 64, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68
Stat. 932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, secs. 11e(2),
83, 84, Pub. L. 95-604, 92 Stat. 3033, as amended, 3039, sec. 234,
83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014(e)(2), 2092, 2093, 2094,
2095, 2111, 2113, 2114, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); sec. 274,
Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688 (42 U.S.C. 2021); secs. 201, as
amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C.
5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 275, 92 Stat. 3021, as amended by Pub. L.
97-415, 96 Stat. 2067 (42 U.S.C. 2022).
Section 40.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.
2951, as amended by Pub. L. 102-486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42
U.S.C. 5851). Section 40.31(g) also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat.
939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 40.46 also issued under sec. 184, 68
Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 40.71 also issued
under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
Sec. 40.42 [Amended]
8. In Sec. 40.42(d) introductory text, the cross-reference to
``paragraph (f)(1)'' is revised to read ``paragraph (g)(1).''
9. In Sec. 40.42(g)(3), the cross-reference to ``paragraph (f)(1)''
is revised to read ``paragraph (g)(1).''
10. In Sec. 40.42(g)(4)(vi), the cross-reference to ``paragraph
(h)'' is revised to read ``paragraph (i).''
11. In Sec. 40.42(h)(1), the cross-reference to ``paragraph (h)''
is revised to read ``paragraph (i).''
12. In Sec. 40.42(h)(2), the cross-reference to ``paragraph (h)''
is revised to read ``paragraph (i).''
PART 70--DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL
13. The authority citation for Part 70 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 948,
953, 954, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended, sec. 1701,
106 Stat. 2951, 2952, 2953 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2201, 2232, 2233,
2282, 2297f), secs. 201, as amended, 202, 204, 206, 88 Stat. 1242,
as amended, 1244, 1245, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5845, 5846).
Sections 70.1(c) and 70.20a(b) also issued under secs. 135, 141,
Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161).
Section 70.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.
2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 70.21(g) also issued under sec. 122,
68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 70.31 also issued under sec.
57d, Pub. L. 93-377, 88 Stat. 475 (42 U.S.C. 2077). Sections 70.36
and 70.44 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42
U.S.C. 2234). Section 70.61 also issued under secs. 186, 187, 68
Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237). Section 70.62 also issued under
sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).
Sec. 70.38 [Amended]
14. In Sec. 70.38(d) introductory text, the cross-reference to
``paragraph (f)(1)'' is revised to read ``paragraph (g)(1).''
15. In Sec. 70.38(g)(3), the cross-reference to ``paragraph
(f)(1)'' is revised to read ``paragraph (g)(1).''
[[Page 29638]]
16. In Sec. 70.38(g)(4)(vii), the cross-reference to ``paragraph
(h)'' is revised to read ``paragraph (i).''
17. In Sec. 70.38(h)(1), the cross-reference to ``paragraph (h)''
is revised to read ``paragraph (i).''
18. In Sec. 70.38(h)(2), the cross-reference to ``paragraph (h)''
is revised to read ``paragraph (i).''
PART 72--LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF
SPENT FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE
19. The authority citation for Part 72 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183,
184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953,
954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233,
2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat.
688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88
Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846);
Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 295 as amended by Pub. L. 102-486,
sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-
190, 83 Stat. (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141,
Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L.
100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155,
10157, 10161, 10168).
Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d),
Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b),
10168(c), (d). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat.
935 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42
U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub.
L. 100-203; 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also
issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97-
425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244 (42 U.S.C. 10101,
10137(a), 10161(h). Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 133,
96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C.
10198).
Sec. 72.54 [Amended]
20. In Sec. 72.54(j)(1), the cross-reference to ``paragraph (j)''
is revised to read ``paragraph (k).''
21. In Sec. 72.54(j)(2), the cross-reference to ``paragraph (j)''
is revised to read ``paragraph (k).''
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of May, 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James M. Taylor,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 96-14897 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14893 Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Praziquantel, Pyrantel Pamoate, and Febantel Tablets
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29650-29651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14893]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
21 CFR Part 520
Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Praziquantel, Pyrantel
Pamoate, and Febantel Tablets
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect approval of a supplemental new animal drug
application (NADA) filed by Bayer Corp., Agriculture Div., Animal
Health Products. The supplement provides for oral prescription use of
Drontal PlusTM for removal and control of the tapeworm
Echinococcus multilocularis in dogs.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 12, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra K. Woods, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-114), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855, 301-594-0614.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Bayer Corp., Agriculture Div., Animal Health
Products, P.O. Box 390, Shawnee Mission, KS 66201, filed supplemental
NADA 141-007, which provides for oral prescription use of Drontal
PlusTM tablet for small dogs containing 22.7 milligrams (mg)
praziquantel, 22.7 mg pyrantel base (as pyrantel pamoate), and
[[Page 29651]]
113.4 mg febantel, and Drontal PlusTM tablet for medium and large
dogs containing 68 mg praziquantel, 68 mg pyrantel base (as pyrantel
pamoate), and 340.2 mg febantel. The supplement provides for use of the
tablet for removal and control of the cestode E. multilocularis in
dogs in addition to the previously approved use for removal of other
tapeworms (cestodes), hookworms, ascarids, and whipworms. Approval is
based on data and information in previously approved NADA's 111-607
(Droncit injectable solution) and 111-798 (Droncit tablets). The
supplement is approved as of March 28, 1996, and the regulations are
amended in Sec. 520.1872(c)(1)(ii) to reflect the approval. The basis
of approval is discussed in the freedom of information summary.
-In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of part
20 (21 CFR part 20) and Sec. 514.11(e)(2)(ii) (21 CFR
514.11(e)(2)(ii)), a summary of data and information submitted to
support approval of this application may be seen in the Dockets
Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 12420
Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23, Rockville, MD 20857, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
-Under section 512(c)(2)(F)(iii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(c)(2)(F)(iii)), this supplemental approval
does not qualify for marketing exclusivity because no new clinical or
field investigations (other than bioequivalence studies), essential to
the approval, were conducted or sponsored by the applicant.
-The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.24(d)(1)(i) 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 in 21 CFR Part 520
-Animal drugs.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and
under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 520 is
amended as follows:
PART 520--ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS
-1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 520 continues to read as
follows:
-Authority: Sec. 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(21 U.S.C. 360b).
Sec. 520.1872 [Amended]
-2. Section 520.1872 Praziquantel, pyrantel pamoate, and febantel
tablets is amended in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) by adding the phrase ``and
for the removal and control of tapeworm Echinococcus multilocularis''
before the words ``in dogs''.
Dated: May 17, 1996.
Stephen F. Sundlof,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 96-14893 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14891 Tin-Coated Lead Foil Capsules for Wine Bottles; Correction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14891]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 189
[Docket No. 91N-0326]
RIN 0910-AA06
Tin-Coated Lead Foil Capsules for Wine Bottles; Correction
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a final
rule that appeared in the Federal Register of February 8, 1996 (61 FR
4816). The document announced that FDA was amending its regulations to
prohibit the use of tin-coated lead foil capsules on wine bottles. The
document was published with some inadvertent errors. This document
corrects those errors.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cristina R. Ford, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-726), Food and Drug Administration,
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-205-5268.
In FR Doc. 96-2665, appearing on page 4816 in the Federal Register
of Thursday, February 8, 1996, the following corrections are made:
1. On page 4819, in the second column, in the seventh line, ``$4.6
million'' is corrected to read ``$0.4 million'' and in the same column,
in the first full paragraph, in the fourth line, ``$5.7 million'' is
corrected to read ``$0.8 million.''
2. On page 4819, in the text at the bottom of the page, below Table
2, in the third column, beginning in the second line, ``$97,000 to $8.7
million'' is corrected to read ``$111,000 to $3.8 million.''
Dated: June 5, 1996.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commisssioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 96-14891 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14878 Amendment of Class E Airspace; Baker, Montana
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14878]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ANM-001]
Amendment of Class E Airspace; Baker, Montana
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action modifies the Baker, Montana, Class E airspace to
provide additional controlled airspace necessary to accommodate a
revised Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach
procedure (SIAP) to the Baker Municipal Airport.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, August 15, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James C. Frala, Operations Branch, ANM-532.4, Federal Aviation
Administration, Docket No. 96-ANM-001, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056; telephone number: (206) 227-2535.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On April 22, 1996, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to amend Class E airspace at
Baker, Montana, to accommodate a revised GPS SIAP to the Baker
Municipal Airport (61 FR 17607). Interested parties were invited to
participate in the rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments
on the proposal. No comments were received.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of Federal Aviation Regulations amends
Class E airspace at Baker, Montana. The FAA has determined that this
regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations
for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them
operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 71 as
follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106 (g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, 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.
* * * * *
ANM MT E5 Baker, MT [Revised]
Baker Municipal Airport, MT
lat. 46 deg.20'52'' N, long. 104 deg.15'34'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 8.9-mile radius of the Baker Municipal Airport; that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded
by a line beginning at lat. 46 deg.20'00'' N, long.104 deg.45'00''
W; to lat. 46 deg.30'30'' N, long. 104 deg.31'00'' W; to lat.
46 deg.37'00''N, long. 104 deg.31'00''W; to lat. 46 deg.37'00''N,
long. 103 deg.59'40''W; to lat. 46 deg.37'55''N, long.
103 deg.53'45''W; to lat. 46 deg.25'45''N, long. 103 deg.37'30''W;
to lat. 46 deg.17'30''N, long. 103 deg.48'15''W; to lat.
45 deg.40'00''N, long. 103 deg.00'50''W; to lat. 45 deg.35'30''N,
long. 103 deg.01'45''W; to lat. 45 deg.55'20''N, long.
103 deg.53'15''W; to lat. 46 deg.00'00''N, long. 104 deg.13'00''W;
to lat. 46 deg.04'20''N, long. 104 deg.10'45''W; to the point of
beginning; excluding that portion within the Bowman Municipal
Airport, ND, 1,200-foot Class E airspace area.
* * * * *
Issued in Seattle, Washington, on May 28, 1996.
Richard E. Prang,
Acting Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division, Northwest Mountain
Region.
[FR Doc. 96-14878 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14870 Airworthiness Directives; Superior Air Parts, Inc. Pistons Installed on Teledyne Continental Motors O-470 Series Reciprocating Engines
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29641-29642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14870]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 94-ANE-30; Amendment 39-9646; AD 96-12-04]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Superior Air Parts, Inc. Pistons
Installed on Teledyne Continental Motors O-470 Series Reciprocating
Engines
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Superior Air Parts, Inc. Parts Manufacturer
Approval (PMA) pistons installed on Teledyne Continental Motors O-470
series reciprocating engines, that requires removal from service of
certain pistons. This amendment is prompted by piston failures. The
actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent piston failure,
which can result in engine power loss, engine failure and loss of the
aircraft.
DATES: Effective August 12, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Karanian, Aerospace Engineer,
Special Certification Office, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137-4298; telephone (817) 222-5195, fax (817)
222-5959.
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 Superior Air Parts, Inc. Parts
Manufacturer Approval (PMA) pistons installed on Teledyne Continental
Motors O-470 series reciprocating engines was published in the Federal
Register on February 22, 1995 (60 FR 9800). That action proposed to
require removal from service of Superior Air Parts, Inc. pistons, Part
Number (P/N) SA626992, at the next access to the piston, top overhaul,
or major overhaul. The affected pistons can be identified by either a
stamped-in P/N on the piston dome (SA626992 or SA626992P15) or, by a
raised casting number (SA632932) along one of the piston pin bosses on
the underside of the piston.
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 manufacturer has informed the FAA that 5,585 pistons were
shipped between December 1976 and June 1981 and will be affected by
this AD. The FAA estimates that it will take approximately 2 work hours
per piston to accomplish the required actions, and that the average
labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately
$156 per piston. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the
AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,541,460.
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
[[Page 29642]]
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, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-12-04 Superior Air Parts, Inc.: Amendment 39-9646. Docket 94-ANE-
30.
Applicability: Superior Air Parts, Inc. Parts Manufacturer
Approval (PMA) pistons, Part Numbers (P/N's) SA626992 and
SA626992P15, installed on Teledyne Continental Motors Model O-470-K,
-L, -R reciprocating engines. These engines are installed on but not
limited to Cessna 182 series aircraft.
Note: This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to each piston
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 pistons 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
Federal Aviation Administration (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 piston from the
applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent piston failure, which can result in engine power
loss, engine failure and loss of the aircraft, accomplish the
following:
(a) At the next access to the piston, top overhaul, or major
overhaul after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
first, remove pistons, P/N SA626992, from service and replace with a
serviceable part.
Note: The affected pistons can be identified by either a
stamped-in P/N on the piston dome (SA626992 or SA626992P15) or, by a
raised casting number (SA632932) along one of the piston pin bosses
on the underside of the piston.
(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, Fort Worth Special Certification
Office. The request should be forwarded through an appropriate FAA
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Fort Worth Special Certification Office.
Note: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive,
if any, may be obtained from the Fort Worth Special 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 aircraft to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) This amendment becomes effective on August 12, 1996.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 29, 1996.
Robert E. Guyotte,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 96-14870 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14864 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, FL
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29654-29655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14864]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD07-95-057]
RIN 2115-AE47
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is changing the regulations governing the
operation of the NASA Railroad bridge, mile 876.6, at Kennedy Space
Center, by removing the authorization for automatic operation and
returning the draw to manual operation. This action will accommodate
the needs of railroad traffic and still provide for the reasonable
needs of navigation.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 29, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Documents are available for inspection or copying at U.S.
Coast Guard Seventh District, Office of Aids to Navigation, 909 S.E.
1st Avenue, Miami, Florida 33131 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. EDT, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Walt Paskowsky, Project Manager, Bridge Section, (305) 536-4103.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History
On February 22, 1996, the Coast Guard published a notice of
proposed rulemaking entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulations, Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, FL in the Federal Register (61 FR 6803). The
comment period ended on April 22, 1996. The Coast Guard received no
comments on the proposal. A public hearing was not requested and one
was not held.
Background and Purpose
The draw of the NASA railroad bridge, mile 876.6 at Kennedy Space
Center was placed in automatic remote controlled operation by the
Florida East Coast Railroad when it was put into service in February
1964. Under remote
[[Page 29655]]
operation the span is normally in the open position displaying flashing
green signals to allow the movement of water traffic. When a train
approaches the bridge the lights go to flashing red, a horn sounds 4
blasts, pauses, then repeats 4 blasts. After an 8 minute delay, the
draw lowers and locks, providing scanning equipment reveals nothing
under the span. The draw remains down for a period of 8 minutes or
while the approach track circuit is occupied. After the train clears,
the draw opens and the lights return to flashing green.
The automatic remote control method was discontinued in 1984 when
ownership of the bridge was transferred from the Florida East Coast
Railroad to the Kennedy Space Center (NASA). The purpose of this change
is to describe in the regulation how the bridge is actually being
operated.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
No comments were received on the proposed rule. The final rule is
therefore unchanged from the proposed rule published on February 22,
1996.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of executive order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that
order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and
procedures of the Department of Transportation. (DOT) (44 FR 11040;
February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this
action to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under
paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is
unnecessary.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this rule will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small
entities'' may include small businesses and not for profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their field and governmental jurisdictions with populations
of less than 50,000. Because it expects the impact of the action to be
minimal, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Collection of Information
This rule contains no collection of information requirements under
the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed the rule 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.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule
and concluded that under section 2.B.2.e.(32) of Commandant Instruction
M16475.1B, promulgation of operating requirements or procedures for
drawbridges is categorically excluded from further environmental
documentation. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available
in the docket where listed under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
Final Regulation
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR Part 117 as follows:
PART 117-- [AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 117 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section
117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106
Stat. 5039.
2. Section 117.261 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 117.261 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from St. Mary's River to
Key Largo
* * * * *
(j) NASA Railroad bridge, mile 876.6 at Kennedy Space Center.
(1) The draw is not constantly tended.
(2) The draw is normally in the fully open position displaying
flashing green lights to indicate that vessels may pass.
(3) When a train approaches the bridge, it stops and the operator
initiates a command to lower the bridge. The lights go to flashing red
and the draw lowers and locks, providing scanning equipment reveals
nothing under the draw. The draw remains down until a manual raise
command is initiated, or will raise automatically 5 minutes after the
intermediate track circuit is no longer occupied by a rail car.
(4) After the train has cleared, the draw opens and the lights
return to flashing green.
* * * * *
Dated: May 21, 1996.
Roger T. Rufe, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 96-14864 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14863 Generation-Skipping Transfer Tax; Correction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29653-29654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14863]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Parts 26, 301, and 602
[TD 8644]
RIN 1545-AJ11; 1545-AL75; 1545-AO89
Generation-Skipping Transfer Tax; Correction
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Correction to final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final regulations [TD
8644] which were published in the Federal Register for Wednesday,
December 27, 1995 (60 FR 66898). The final regulations relate to
generation-skipping transfer tax.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 27, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Hogan (202) 622-3090 (not a toll-
free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The final regulations that are subject to these corrections are
under chapter 13 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Need for Correction
As published, the final regulations [TD 8644] contain errors that
are in need of clarification.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the publication of final regulations which are the
subject of FR Doc. 95-30873 is corrected as follows:
1. On page 66899, column 1, in the preamble under the paragraph
heading ``Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities'', line 13, the
language ``alienation of a interest in property for a'' is corrected to
read ``alienation of an interest in property for a''.
2. On page 66902, column 1, in the preamble under the paragraph
heading ``Division of a Single Trust Into Separate Trusts'', paragraph
3, line 3 from the bottom, the language ``for under the original
trusts. Thus, a'' is corrected to read ``for under the original trust.
Thus, a''.
Sec. 26.2601-1 [Corrected]
2a. On page 66907, column 2, Sec. 26.2601-1, paragraph
(b)(1)(v)(D), Example 2, eighth line from the bottom of the paragraph,
the language, ``of the first addition), $200,000 (.2'' is
corrected to read ``of the first addition), $200,000 (.2 x ''.
3. On page 66907, column 2, Sec. 26.2601-1, paragraph (b)(1)(v)(D),
Example 4, eighth line from the bottom of the column, the language
``GGC, for life. Upon GGC's death the'' is corrected to read ``GGC, for
life. Upon GGC's death, the''.
4. On page 66907, column 3, Sec. 26.2601-1, paragraph (b)(1)(v)(D),
Example 5, line 3, the language ``Assume the same facts as in Example
3,'' is corrected to read ``Assume the same facts as in Example 4,''.
5. On page 66909, column 2, Sec. 26.2601-1, paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)
introductory text, (b)(3)(iii)(A), (b)(3)(iii)(A)(1),
(b)(3)(iii)(A)(2), (b)(3)(iii)(B), (b)(3)(iii)(C) are correctly
designated (b)(3)(iii)(A) introductory text, (b)(3)(iii)(A)(1),
(b)(3)(iii)(A)(1)(i), (b)(3)(iii)(A)(1)(ii), (b)(3)(iii)(A)(2), and
(b)(3)(iii)(A)(3), respectively.
6. On page 66909, column 2, Sec. 26.2601-1, newly designated
paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A)(3) is corrected and paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(B)
is added to read as follows:
Sec. 26.2601-1 Effective dates.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) * * *
(3) Any judgement or decree relating to the decedent's incompetency
that was made after October 22, 1986.
(B) Such items in paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) (A), (B), and (C) of this
section will be considered relevant, but not determinative, in
establishing the decedent's state of competency.
7. On page 66909, column 3, Sec. 26.2601-1, paragraph (b)(4)(i),
line 5, the language ``rules in paragraph (b) (2) or (3) of this'' is
corrected to read ``rules in paragraph (b) (1), (2) or (3) of this''.
8. On page 66910, column 2, Sec. 26.2601-1, paragraph (c), line 5
from the top of the column, the language ``on or after [December 27,
1995].'' is corrected to read ``on or after December 27, 1995.''.
Sec. 26.2612-1 [Corrected]
9. On page 66910, column 3, Sec. 26.2612-1, paragraph (a)(2)(ii),
lines 5 and 6, the language ``the transferor would be assigned to a
lower generation by reason of that'' is corrected to read ``the lineal
descendant would be assigned to a higher generation by reason of
that''.
10. On page 66910, column 3, Sec. 26.2612-1, paragraph (b)(1)(i),
last 3 lines are corrected by removing the language ``(i.e., a new
transferor is determined with respect to the property)''.
[[Page 29654]]
Sec. 26.2632-1 [Corrected]
11. On page 66914, column 3, Sec. 26.2632-1, paragraph (d)(1), line
3 from the top of the column, the language ``706 or Form 706NA and is
effective as'' is corrected to read ``706, Form 706NA or Form 709
(filed on or before the due date of the transferor's estate tax return)
and is effective as''.
Sec. 26.2642-2 [Corrected]
12. On page 66916, column 2, Sec. 26.2642-2, paragraph
(b)(3)(ii)(B), line 6, the language ``date of death and the date of''
is corrected to read ``valuation date and the date of''.
Sec. 26.2642-4 [Corrected]
13. On page 66917, column 3, Sec. 26.2642-4, paragraph (a)(3),
lines 5 through 9 from the top of the column, the language ``not
allocated to the trust, the applicable fraction immediately before
death is not changed, if the trust was not subject to an ETIP at the
time GST exemption was allocated to the trust. The denominator'' is
corrected to read ``not allocated to the trust, then, except as
provided in this paragraph (a)(3), the applicable fraction immediately
before death is not changed, if the trust was not subject to an ETIP at
the time GST exemption was allocated to the trust. In any event, the
denominator''.
14. On page 66918, column 2, Sec. 26.2642-4, paragraph (b),
paragraph (i) of Example 5, the last line, the language ``is .50
(1-($100,000/$200,000 = .50)'' is corrected to read ``is .50
(1-($100,000/$200,000))''.
Sec. 26.2652-1 [Corrected]
15. On page 66918, column 3, Sec. 26.2652-1, paragraph (a)(2), line
2, the language ``or gift tax. For purposes of this section,'' is
corrected to read ``or gift tax. For purposes of this chapter,''.
16. On page 66919, column 1, Sec. 26.2652-1, paragraph (a)(2), line
3 from the top of the column, the language ``2501(a). A transfer is
subject to Federal'' is corrected to read ``2501(a) (without regard to
exemptions, exclusions, deductions, and credits). A transfer is subject
to Federal''.
17. On page 66919, columns 1 and 2, Sec. 26.2652-1, paragraph
(a)(6) Example 1, last two lines in column 1 and first line in column
2, the language ``benefit of T's grandchild. The transfer is a
completed gift under Sec. 25.2511-2 of this chapter. Thus, for purposes
of chapter 13, T'' is corrected to read ``benefit of T's grandchild.
The transfer is subject to Federal gift tax because a gift tax is
imposed under section 2501(a) (without regard to exemptions,
exclusions, deductions, and credits). Thus, for purposes of chapter 13,
T''.
18. On page 66919, column 2, Sec. 26.2652-1, paragraph (a)(6),
Example 5, lines 13 and 14, the language ``transfer by T is a completed
transfer within the meaning of Sec. 25.2511-2 of this chapter'' is
corrected to read ``transfer by T is subject to Federal gift tax
because a gift tax is imposed under section 2501(a) (without regard to
exemptions, exclusions, deductions, and credits)''.
Sec. 26.2654-1 [Corrected]
19. On page 66921, column 2, Sec. 26.2654-1, paragraph
(a)(1)(ii)(A), last line, the language ``person; or'' is corrected to
read ``person; and''.
20. On page 66922, column 2, Sec. 26.2654-1, paragraph (a)(5),
Example 6, line 10 from the top of the column, the language
``contribution is \3/4\ ((\2/3\ x $180,000) +'' is corrected to read
``contribution is \3/4\ (((\2/3\ x $180,000) +''.
21. On page 66922, column 2, Sec. 26.2654-1, paragraph (a)(5),
Example 8, line 4 from the bottom of the paragraph, the language ``same
if, the trust instrument provided that'' is corrected to read ``same if
the trust instrument provided that''.
22. On page 66922, column 2, Sec. 26.2654-1, paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)(A), lines 1 and 2, the language ``(A) The terms of each of
the new trusts provide for the same succession of'' is corrected to
read ``(A) The terms of the new trusts provide in the aggregate for the
same succession of''.
23. On page 66922, column 3, Sec. 26.2654-1, paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)(C)(1), line 2 from the bottom of the paragraph, the language
``measured from the date of death to the'' is corrected to read
``measured from the valuation date to the''.
Sec. 26.2662-1 [Corrected]
24. On page 66923, column 3, Sec. 26.2662-1, paragraph (c)(2)(vi),
Example 1, line 6, the language ``T's grandchild GC, was named the
sole'' is corrected to read ``T's grandchild, GC, was named the sole''.
Sec. 26.2663-2 [Corrected]
25. On page 66925, column 1, Sec. 26.2663-2, paragraph (c)(2), the
last line, the language ``the trust).'' is corrected to read ``the
trust)).''.
26. On page 66925, column 2, Sec. 26.2663-2, paragraph (d), Example
3, line 8 from the bottom of the paragraph, the language ``Generation-
Skipping Transfer) Tax return'' is corrected to read ``Generation-
Skipping Transfer) Tax Return''.
27. On page 66925, column 3, Sec. 26.2663-2, paragraph (e), line
11, the language ``prescribed in section 2632(c). Thus, an'' is
corrected to read ``prescribed in section 2632(c). Thus, a''.
Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 96-14863 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14862 Safety Zone; San Francisco Bay, CA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29656-29657]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14862]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP San Francisco Bay 96-003]
RIN 2115-AA97
Safety Zone; San Francisco Bay, CA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Temporary final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the waters of
San Francisco Bay, California around the Coast Guard Cutter Boutwell
which will be moored at the Coast Guard Island Pier, Alameda. The event
requiring a safety zone is a military change of command ceremony. The
zone will encompass a water area extending 25 yards forward, aft, and
to the outboard side of the ship which will be moored at the following
location: Latitude: 37 deg.46'50''N, Longitude: 122 deg.15'01''W.
Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting
through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This safety zone will be in effect on June 12, 1996,
between 9:30 a.m., PDT, and 1:30 p.m., PDT, unless canceled earlier by
the Captain of the Port.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Rob Lee, Coast Guard Marine Safety Office San Francisco Bay,
CA; (510) 437-3073.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was not published for this regulation, and
good cause exists for making it effective in less than 30 days after
Federal Register publication. Publishing an NPRM and delaying its
effective date would be contrary to the public interest since the cope
of activities potentially attracting a number of spectator craft and
thus requiring a safety zone was not finalized until a date fewer than
30 days prior to the event date.
Discussion of Regulation
The military change of command event requiring this regulation will
begin at approximately 10:30 a.m. PDT on June 12, 1996. This safety
zone is necessary to prevent spectator recreational and commercial
craft from collecting within 25 yards of the cutter Boutwell, creating
possible safety concerns for these vessels and the Coast Guard cutter.
Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting
through, or anchoring within the safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port.
Regulatory Evaluation
This regulation 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
(DOT) (44 FR 11040;
[[Page 29657]]
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 DOT is
unnecessary. Because the impact is expected to be minimal, the Coast
Guard certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
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 regulation 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.
List of Subjects 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 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.T11-074 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T11-074 Safety Zone: San Francisco Bay, CA
(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: the waters of
San Francisco Bay, California around the Coast Guard Cutter Boutwell
which will be moored at the Coast Guard Island Pier, Alameda. The zone
will encompass a water area extending 25 yards forward, aft, and to the
outboard side of the ship which will be moored at the following
location: Latitude: 37 deg.46'50''N, Longitude: 122 deg.15'01''W.
[Datum: NAD 83].
(b) Effective Date. This safety zone will be in effect on June 12,
1996, between 9:30 a.m., PDT, and 1:30 p.m., PDT, unless canceled
earlier by the Captain of the Port.
(c) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in
Section 164.23 of this part, entry into, transit through, or anchoring
within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port.
Dated: May 28, 1996.
D.P. Montoro,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port.
[FR Doc. 96-14862 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14861 Safety Zone; Chesapeake Bay, Hampton Roads, Elizabeth River, Norfolk, VA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29655-29656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14861]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD 05-96-038]
RIN 2115-AA97
Safety Zone; Chesapeake Bay, Hampton Roads, Elizabeth River,
Norfolk, VA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Temporary rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone around
the Nauticus National Maritime Center Norfolk, VA. The zone is needed
to protect U.S. Coast Guard Change of Command participant vessels and
mariners operating in the vicinity from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on June 14,
1996. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
EFFECTIVE DATES: This regulation is effective from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on
June 14, 1996, unless sooner terminated by the Captain of the Port,
Hampton Roads, Virginia.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chief Petty Officer John Pekich, Project Officer, USCG Marine Safety
Office Hampton Roads, telephone number (804) 484-8192.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) was not published for this rule and good
cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after Federal
Register publication. Publishing an NPRM and delaying its effective
date would be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is
needed to protect the vessels involved in the Change of Command
Ceremony and other mariners operating in the vicinity
Discussion of the Regulation
This temporary rule is issued to protect vessels involved in Change
of Command ceremonies at the Nauticus National Maritime Center,
Norfolk, VA. or those transiting the area on the Elizabeth River,
Norfolk, VA. Therefore, the Coast Guard is establishing a 100 yard
radius safety zone around the
[[Page 29656]]
maritime center's piers while the ceremony is conducted. The safety
zone will be in effect from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on June 14, 1996, unless
terminated sooner by the Captain of the Port. This safety zone will
prohibit access by all unauthorized persons to all waters within a 100
yard radius from a point located at 36-54'.28'' N 076-05'.31'' W during
these operations. A safety zone is necessary to protect both the
vessels involved with the operation and those operating in the
vicinity.
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 (DOT) (44 FR 11040;
February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this
rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph
10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
Collection of Information
This rule contains no collection of information requirements under
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that it
does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule
and concluded that under section 2.B.2.e(34) of Commandant Instruction
M16475.1B (as revised by 59 FR 38654; July 29, 1994), this rule is
categorically excluded from further environmental documentation.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Vessels, Waterways.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR 165 as follows:
PART 165--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 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 temporary section 165.T05-038 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T05-038 Safety Zone: Chesapeake Bay, Hampton Roads, Elizabeth
River, Norfolk, Virginia.
(a) Location: The following area is a safety zone: All waters
within a 100 yard radius from a point located at 36-54'.28'' N, 076-
05'.31'' W, on the Elizabeth River at the Nauticus National Maritime
Center, Norfolk, Virginia, during the Change of Command Ceremony.
(b) Definitions: Captain of the Port means the Commanding Officer
of the Marine Safety Office Hampton Roads, Norfolk, VA or any Coast
Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized
by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.
(c) (1) In accordance with the general regulations in section
165.23 and 165.501 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port. The general requirements
of section 165.23 and 165.501 also apply to this regulation.
(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the
safety zone must first request authorization from the Captain of the
Port. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing the safety zone can be
contacted on VHF Marine Band Radio, channels 13 and 16. The Captain of
the Port can be contacted at telephone number (804) 484-8192.
(d) The Captain of the Port will notify the public of changes in
the status of this zone by Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF Marine
Band Radio, Channel 22 (157.1 MHz).
Dated: June 6, 1996.
D.A. Sande,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. 96-14861 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14846 Recreation Programs
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29678-29679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14846]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 8000
[WO-340-1220-00-24 1A]
RIN 1004-AC51
Recreation Programs
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Final Rule; removal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule removes 43 CFR Part 8000--Recreation Programs
regarding recreation programs on public lands, in its entirety. 43 CFR
Part 8000--Recreation Programs contains no substantive material that is
not repeated in subsequent sections of 43 CFR. The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) will
[[Page 29679]]
provide the public with any necessary policy and practices for the
administration of recreation program through procedural guidance.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edna Taylor, (202) 452-5068.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final regulation removes 43 CFR Part
8000--Recreation Programs from BLM's regulatory program as part of its
effort to eliminate unnecessary and inappropriate material in the Code
of Federal Regulations.
BLM published a proposed rule on the removal of 43 CFR Part 8000--
Recreation Programs in the Federal Register of April 9, 1996 (61 FR
15753), requesting comments by May 9, 1996. During the 30-day comment
period, BLM did not receive any comments.
This rule is not subject to the Office of Management and Budget
review under Executive Order 12866.
BLM has determined that this final rule is categorically excluded
from environmental review under section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act, pursuant to 516 Departmental Manual (DM),
Chapter 2, Appendix I, Item 1.10, and that the final rule does not meet
any of the 10 criteria for exceptions to categorical exclusion listed
in 516 DM, Chapter 2, Appendix 2. Pursuant to Council on Environmental
Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.4) and the environmental policies and
procedures of the Department of the Interior, the term ``categorical
exclusions'' means a ``category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and
that have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by
the Federal agency and for which neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement is required.''
The final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The rule does not contain information
collection requirements that need approval by the Office of Management
and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The principal author of this final rule is Edna Taylor, Regulatory
Management Team, BLM.
Accordingly, under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 43 CFR Part
8000--Recreation Programs is removed.
Dated: June 5, 1996.
Sylvia V. Baca,
Acting Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 96-14846 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14845 Recreation Management
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14845]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
43 CFR Part 8300
[WO-340-1220-00-24 1A]
RIN 1004-AC50
Recreation Management
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Final Rule; removal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule removes 43 CFR Part 8300--Procedures regarding
recreation management on public lands, in its entirety. 43 CFR Part
8300--Procedures contains no substantive material that is not repeated
in subsequent sections of 43 CFR. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
will provide the public with any necessary policy and practices for the
administration of recreation program through procedural guidance.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edna Taylor, (202) 452-5068.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final regulation removes 43 CFR Part
8300--Procedures from BLM's regulatory program as part of its effort to
eliminate unnecessary and inappropriate material in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
BLM published a proposed rule on the removal of 43 CFR Part 8300--
Procedures in the Federal Register of April 9, 1996 (61 FR 15753),
requesting comments by May 9, 1996. During the 30-day comment period,
BLM did not receive any comments.
This rule is not subject to the Office of Management and Budget
review under Executive Order 12866.
BLM has determined that this final rule is categorically excluded
from environmental review under section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act, pursuant to 516 Departmental Manual (DM),
Chapter 2, Appendix I, Item 1.10, and that the final rule does not meet
any of the 10 criteria for exceptions to categorical exclusion listed
in 516 DM, Chapter 2, Appendix 2. Pursuant to Council on Environmental
Quality regulations (40 CFR 1508.4) and the environmental policies and
procedures of the Department of the Interior, the term ``categorical
exclusions'' means a ``category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and
that have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by
the Federal agency and for which neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement is required.''
The final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The rule does not contain information
collection requirements that need approval by the Office of Management
and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The principal author of this final rule is Edna Taylor, Regulatory
Management Team, BLM.
Accordingly, under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 43 CFR Part
8300--Procedures is removed.
Dated: June 5, 1996.
Sylvia V. Baca,
Acting Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 96-14845 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14844 Inventions by Employees of Department of Veterans Affairs
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29657-29659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14844]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 1
RIN 2900-AI03
Inventions by Employees of Department of Veterans Affairs
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends the regulations concerning inventions
developed by employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). It
adds the Federal Technology Transfer Act (FTTA) of the 1986 as an
authority for these regulations. Also, it reflects changes in
delegations of authority made by the Department of Commerce (DOC), the
lead agency concerning patents and inventions. Further, it removes
language in the VA regulations that is also set forth in DOC
regulations. The DOC regulations are applicable to the Department
without restatement in VA regulations. In addition, it makes changes to
VA delegations of authority. Lastly, the amendments clarify procedures
to be followed by VA employees in reporting inventions.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chuck Delobe, Deputy Assistant General
Counsel (024B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-6383.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 10096, dated January 23,
1950, as amended by Executive Order 10930, dated March 24, 1961, set
forth the criteria Federal agencies are to utilize in making
determinations of ownership rights to inventions developed by Federal
employees. The E.O. also required that each Federal agency take all
necessary steps, including the promulgation of regulations, to
effectuate the order. The VA's regulations implementing the executive
order are found at 38 CFR 1.650-666.
DOC was given lead agency authority to implement the provisions of
the E.O. DOC's regulations, applicable to all Federal agencies, set
forth a uniform patent policy and are found at 37 CFR part 501. The
amendments reflect more recent changes in the delegations of authority
within DOC. It adds the Federal Technology Transfer Act (FTTA) of the
1986 as an authority for these regulations. Also, it reflects changes
in delegations of authority made by the Department of Commerce (DOC),
the lead agency concerning patents and inventions. Further, it removes
language in the VA regulations that is also set forth in DOC
regulations. The DOC regulations are applicable to the Department
without restatement in VA regulations. In addition, it makes changes to
VA delegations of authority. Lastly, the amendments clarify procedures
to be followed by VA employees in reporting inventions.
This final rule consists of agency procedures and nonsubstantive
changes and, therefore, is not subject to the notice-and-comment and
effective date provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553.
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612. This final rule would not have any impact on individuals or small
entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(B), this final rule is
exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis
requirements of sections 603 and 604.
There is no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for the
program affected by this final rule.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Archives and records,
Cemeteries, Claims, Courts, Flags, Freedom of information, Government
contracts, Government employees, Government property, Infants and
children, Inventions and patents, Investigation, Parking, Penalties,
Postal service, Privacy reporting and record keeping requirements,
Seals and insignia security measures, Wages.
Approved: May 5, 1996.
Jesse Brown,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 38 CFR part 1 is amended
as set forth below:
[[Page 29658]]
PART 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for part 1 sections 1.650-1.666 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: sections 1.650 to 1.666 issued under sect. 1, 66
Stat. 811, 72 Stat. 1114; 35 U.S.C. 266; 15 U.S.C. 3710a; 38 U.S.C.
501; E.O. 10096, E.O. 10930, 15 FR 389; 3 CFR 1949-1953 Comp.
2. Section 1.650 is amended by removing ``the regulations'' and
adding, in its place, ``these regulations'', and by removing
``concerning inventions by employees of the Department of Veterans
Affairs.''
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. (501(a), unless otherwise noted.)
3. In Sec. 1.651, paragraphs (b) and (c) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.651 Definitions.
* * * * *
(b) The term employee or Government employee means any officer or
employee, civilian or military, of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Part-time, without compensation (WOC) employees and part-time
consultants are included.
(c) The term Secretary of Commerce means the Under Secretary of
Commerce for Technology.
4. Section 1.652 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.652 Criteria for determining rights to employee inventions.
(a) The criteria to be applied in determining the respective rights
of the Government and of the employee-inventor in and to any invention
subject to these provisions shall be in accordance with the Uniform
Patent Policy regulations found at 37 CFR 501.6 and 501.7.
(b) Ownership in and to inventions arising under Cooperative
Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) pursuant to 15 USC 3710a
shall be governed by the provisions of the pertinent CRADA, as
authorized by the Federal Technology Transfer Act.
(Authority: 15 U.S.C. 3710a; 37 CFR part 501)
5. Section 1.653 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.653 Delegation of authority.
(a) The General Counsel or Deputy General Counsel is authorized to
act for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in matters concerning patents
and inventions, unless otherwise required by law. The determination of
rights to an invention as between the Government and the employee where
there is no cooperative research and development agreement shall be
made by the General Counsel or Deputy General Counsel, in accordance
with 37 CFR part 500.
(b) The Directors of VA Medical Centers are delegated the authority
to enter into cooperative research and development and license
agreements under the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986, Pub. L.
99-502.
(Authority: E.O. 12591; 15 U.S.C. 3710a)
6. Section 1.654 is amended by removing ``given in paragraph 1(a)
of Executive Order 10096 (15 FR 389, 3 CFR, 1949-1953 comp., p. 292)
shall'' and adding, in its place, ``as set forth in 37 CFR 501.6
should''; by removing ``inventor (employee)'' and adding, in its place,
``employee inventor''; by removing ``Commissioner'' and adding, in its
place, ``Secretary of Commerce''; and the section heading is revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 1.654 Patenting of Inventions.
* * * * *
7. Section 1.655 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.655 Government license in invention of employee.
If an invention is made by an employee and it is determined that
the employee inventor is entitled to full ownership under 37 CFR 501.6,
subject to a nonexclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license in the
Government with power to grant sublicenses for all Governmental
purposes, it shall be the duty of the employee inventor to notify the
Office of General Counsel of the status of the patent application,
including the patent application number, so that the Department may
protect the interests reserved to the Government under 37 CFR 501.6.
8. Section 1.656 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.656 Information to be submitted by inventor.
(a) In the case of an invention or believed invention, the inventor
will prepare a statement for submission to his or her immediate
superior. It will be submitted regardless of where the ownership is
believed to exist. The statement will consist of two parts:
(1) One part of the statement will be a disclosure of the invention
sufficient to permit the preparation of a patent applicant. It shall
consist of a description, including where applicable, of the parts or
components of the invention as shown on the drawings or blueprints,
accompanied further by a description of the construction and operation
of the invention. Photographs of the invention may be included. The
inventor should state pertinent prior art known to him or her, and set
forth in detail as clearly as possible the respects which his or her
invention differs.
(2) The other part of the statement will set forth the
circumstances attending the making of the invention. It will include
the full name and address of the inventor; the grade and title of his
or her position; whether full time or part time; his or her duties at
the time the invention was made; the facts pertinent to a determination
whether the invention bore a direct relation to or was made in
consequence of such official duties; whether there was, and if so, the
terms of any special agreement or understanding with respect to use or
manufacture of his or her invention; date of the invention; when and
where it was conceived, constructed and tested; whether it was made
entirely during working hours; whether, and to what extent there was a
contribution by the Government of any of the following: Facilities;
equipment; materials or supplies; funds; information; time or services
of other Government employees on duty. When the invention is disclosed
through publication, or in consultation with a manufacturer or
attorney, simultaneous notification of the publication shall be given
to the Office of General Counsel. A copy of the article will accompany
the notification.
(b) The inventor's immediate superior shall promptly review the
statement of the employee inventor for completeness and accuracy, and
shall certify that the employee's statement of circumstances attending
the invention is or is not correct, giving reasons if pertinent. The
file should then be submitted through the facility head (or
administration heads or top staff officials in the case of Central
Office employees) to the General Counsel together with any comments or
recommendations.
Sec. 1.657 [Removed]
9. Section 1.657 is removed.
Sec. 1.658 [Redesignated as Sec. 1.657]
10. Section 1.658 is redesignated as
11. Newly redesignated Sec. 1.657 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.657 Determination of rights.
The General Counsel will make a determination of rights subject to
review where required by the Secretary of Commerce. The determination
will be in accordance with 37 CFR 501.7.
12. A new Sec. 1.658 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 1.658 Right of appeal.
In accordance with 37 CFR 501.8, the employee has a right of appeal
to the
[[Page 29659]]
Secretary of Commerce within 30 days of receipt of the Department's
determination of ownership rights. The decision reached by the
Secretary of Commerce will be communicated to the employee.
13. Section 1.659 is amended by removing ``patentability'' and
adding, in its place, ``a determination of ownership rights''; by
removing ``may'' and adding, in its place, ``will''; by removing
``patent consideration.'' and adding, in its place, ``an ownership
determination where the employee idea or suggestion involves an
invention. The employee shall be directed to submit a disclosure of
invention in accordance with these regulations if such has not been
previously submitted.''
Sec. 1.660 [Removed]
14. Section 1.660 is removed.
Sec. 1.661 [Redesignated as Sec. 1.660]
15. Section 1.661 is redesignated as Sec. 1.660.
16. Newly redesignated Sec. 1.660 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.660 Expeditious handling.
No patent may be granted where the invention has been in public use
or publicly disclosed for more than one year before filing of a patent
application. Hence, submissions involving inventions should be made as
promptly as possible in order to avoid delay which might jeopardize
title to the invention or impair the rights of the inventor or the
Government.
Sec. 1.662 [Redesignated as Sec. 1.661]
17. Section 1.662 is redesignated as Sec. 1.661.
Sec. 1.663 [Redesignated as Sec. 1.662]
18. Section 1.663 is redesignated as Sec. 1.662.
Sec. 1.666 [Redesignated as Sec. 1.663]
19. Section 1.666 is redesignated as Sec. 1.663.
20. Newly redesignated Sec. 1.663 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.663 Licensing of Government-owned inventions.
(a) The licensing of Government-owned inventions under VA control
and custody will be conducted pursuant to the regulations on the
licensing of Government-owned inventions contained in 37 CFR part 404,
and 15 U.S.C. 3710a, as appropriate.
(b) Any person whose application for a license in an invention
under VA control and custody has been denied; whose license in such an
invention has been modified or terminated, in whole or in part; or who
timely filed a written objection in response to a proposal to grant an
exclusive or partially exclusive license in an invention under VA
control or custody, may, if damaged, appeal any decision or
determination concerning the grant, denial, interpretation,
modification, or termination of a license to the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs. Such appeal shall be in writing; shall set forth with
specificity the basis of the appeal; and shall be postmarked not later
than 60 days after the action being appealed. Upon request of the
appellant, such appeal may be considered by one to three persons
appointed on a case-by-case basis by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Such a request will be granted only if it accompanies the written
appeal. Appellant may appear and be represented by counsel before such
a panel, which will sit in Washington, DC. If the appeal challenges a
decision to grant an exclusive or partially exclusive license in an
invention under VA control or custody, the licensee shall be furnished
a copy of the appeal, shall be given the opportunity to respond in
writing, may appear and be represented by counsel at any hearing
requested by appellant, and may request a hearing if appellant has not,
under the same terms and conditions, at which the appellant may also
appear and be represented by counsel.
[FR Doc. 96-14844 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14820 William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program; Institutional Eligibility Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended; Student Assistance General Provisions
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29898-29901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14820]
[[Page 29897]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
34 CFR Part 600, et al.
William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 29898]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 600, 668, and 685
RIN 1840-AC18
William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program; Institutional
Eligibility Under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended; Student
Assistance General Provisions
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Final Regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains corrections and other technical changes
to the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program final
regulations published in the Federal Register on December 1, 1994 (59
FR 61664). These regulations apply to loans under the Federal Direct
Stafford/Ford Loan Program, the Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford/
Ford Loan Program, the Federal Direct PLUS Program, and the Federal
Direct Consolidation Loan Program, collectively referred to as the
Direct Loan Program. The Secretary also corrects minor technical errors
and omissions in the Institutional Eligibility regulations contained in
34 CFR Part 600, Subpart A, and the Student Assistance General
Provisions regulations contained in 34 CFR Part 668, Subpart B.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulations take effect July 12, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Meredith Merrill, Program
Specialist, U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W.
(ROB-3, Room 3053), Washington, DC 20202-5400. Telephone: (202) 708-
9406. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the Deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-
877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through
Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following regulations are amended to
clarify the regulations and to correct errors and omissions in the text
of the Direct Loan Program final regulations published on December 1,
1994 (59 FR 61664), the Institutional Eligibility regulations, 34 CFR
Part 600, and the Student Assistance General Provisions regulations, 34
CFR Part 668.
The Direct Loan Program
Section 685.102 has been amended to correct a typographical error
in a reference to the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program and
to include a reference to grace period, which was inadvertently omitted
in the description of a Direct Subsidized Consolidation Loan under the
definition of the Federal Direct Consolidation Loan Program. In order
to reflect a statutory change made by the Higher Education Technical
Amendments of 1993, Public Law 103-208, this section also has been
amended to clarify that a borrower may make satisfactory repayment
arrangements on a defaulted Direct Loan for the purposes of regaining
title IV eligibility only one time.
Section 685.200 has been amended to accurately reflect the
requirement that a student must be enrolled or accepted for enrollment
on at least a half-time basis in order to be eligible to receive a
Direct Loan. Paragraph (c) of this section has been amended to clarify
the definition of ``satisfactory repayment arrangement'' for the
purpose of consolidating a defaulted loan. Further, this section has
been amended to correct a grammatical error in the text and an error in
a cross-reference to another section in Part 685.
Section 685.202 clarifies the interest rate calculations for Direct
Subsidized and Direct Unsubsidized Loans. The 2.5 percentage point
adjustment on the interest rate for in-school, grace, and deferment
periods only applies to loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 1995.
For loans disbursed prior to July 1, 1995, the interest rate
calculation for all periods is based on a 3.1 percentage point
adjustment.
Paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of Sec. 685.202 clarify that the
Secretary does not capitalize all interest that has accrued on a
borrower's principal balance. Instead, the Secretary only capitalizes
the amount of interest that accrues on the loan amount that the
borrower has not paid.
Paragraph (b)(2) of Sec. 685.202 is amended to clarify that, when a
borrower enters repayment, the Secretary will capitalize the unpaid
interest that accrued during the in-school and grace periods on a
Direct Unsubsidized Consolidation Loan that is eligible for a grace
period.
Paragraph (b)(3) of Sec. 685.202 also clarifies the Secretary's
intent that the limit on the amount of interest that is capitalized
under the Income Contingent Repayment and Alternative Repayment plans
does not apply during periods of deferment for unsubsidized loans and
does not apply during periods of forbearance for any Direct Loan.
Section 685.204 has been amended to clarify that a Direct Loan
borrower who has an outstanding balance on a FFEL Program loan made
prior to July 1, 1993, at the time he or she applies for a first Direct
Loan, will remain eligible for the FFEL Program deferments on all
Direct Loans until all loans with those deferments are fully repaid,
even if the borrower repays the FFEL Program loans in full before the
Direct Loans are paid in full.
Section 685.204 also has been amended to add language that reflects
the existing policy in the Direct Loan Program that a borrower who has
defaulted on the repayment of a Direct Loan generally is not eligible
for a deferment. However, comparable to Sec. 682.210(a)(8) in the FFEL
Program, Sec. 685.204(e) allows a borrower who has defaulted on a
Direct Loan to be eligible for a deferment if the borrower contacts the
Direct Loan Servicing Center and makes payment arrangements
satisfactory to the Secretary.
Section 685.205 has been corrected to state that a borrower, not
the endorser, must be the recipient of a national service educational
award in order to qualify for forbearance.
Section 685.212 has been amended to clarify which payments the
Secretary returns to a borrower when a loan is discharged. Once the
Secretary receives acceptable documentation that a borrower is eligible
for a specific discharge, any payments received during the period
between the date the borrower met the eligibility requirements and the
date the discharge was approved will be returned to the person who sent
the payment. Furthermore, any payments received after the date the
discharge was approved will be returned to the person who sent the
payment.
Section 685.214 has been amended to conform with the technical
corrections made in Sec. 685.301.
Section 685.215 has been amended to specify which loans under
subpart II of part A of title VII of the Public Health Service Act may
be consolidated into a Direct Consolidation Loan. Paragraph (d) of this
section is amended to reflect terminology consistent with the
definitions in Sec. 685.102(b). This section also has been amended to
specify that the limit on collection costs charged to a borrower who
consolidates a defaulted loan applies only to defaulted Direct Loans
and FFEL Program loans.
Section 685.301 clarifies that, although certain circumstances
allow for a late disbursement of a loan, a school must originate a loan
while the student meets the borrower eligibility requirements in
Sec. 685.200. The terminology in this section has been changed to
reflect that schools certify loan information in the Direct Loan
Program by means of the origination process.
Section 685.301 also has been amended to clarify that a Direct Loan
may be disbursed in a single installment
[[Page 29899]]
prior to the midpoint of the loan period if the date of the scheduled
disbursement coincides with the beginning of the next scheduled term
for which the school has an anticipated disbursement date. For example,
a borrower at a term-based school that uses quarter hours would be
allowed to receive the first and second Direct Loan disbursements in a
single installment at the beginning of the second quarter even though
this may occur prior to the mid-point of the loan period.
Section 685.303 has been amended to clarify that a school must
determine whether or not a student has continuously maintained
eligibility before Direct PLUS proceeds are disbursed to the parent
borrower. Paragraph (d) of this section has been amended to clarify
that a school may not make a late disbursement to a borrower that
exceeds the student's cost of attendance for the period of enrollment
completed by the student. Further, paragraph (d) clarifies that a
school may not make a late disbursement if the student's last recorded
date of attendance is earlier than the 30th day of the period of
enrollment if the loan was subject to the 30-day delayed disbursement
requirements for first-year, first-time borrowers. These requirements
are the same as in the FFEL Program.
Section 685.305 has been amended to clarify those procedures a
school must follow for determining the withdrawal date for a student
who did not return for the next scheduled term following a summer
break. This section also is amended to correct an error in the cross-
reference to the Student Assistance General Provisions regulations.
Institutional Eligibility
Section 600.5 has been amended to correct a technical error which
references the manner in which certified public accountants must
examine the accuracy of a proprietary institution's calculations
regarding the 85 percent rule contained in Sec. 600.5(a)(8). Paragraph
(e) of this section was mistakenly amended in the Federal Register of
November 29, 1994, to reference an accountant performing an ``agreed-
upon procedures attestation engagement.'' This paragraph has been
corrected to accurately reflect the Secretary's intent that a certified
public accountant must engage in an ``examination'' level attestation
agreement under which he or she examines management's assertions that
it satisfied the 85 percent requirement.
General Provisions
Section 668.15 has been amended to clarify that the audit described
in paragraph (e)(1) also may be performed by State auditors if they
meet the independence requirements of Government Auditing Standards.
Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking
In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553,
it is the practice of the Secretary to offer interested parties the
opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, the regulatory
changes in this document are necessary to correct minor technical
errors and omissions in the Direct Loan Program final regulations
published on December 1, 1994, the Institutional Eligibility
regulations, 34 CFR Part 600, and the Student Assistance General
Provisions regulations, 34 CFR Part 668. The changes in this document
do not establish any new substantive rules. Therefore, the Secretary
has determined that publication of a proposed rule is unnecessary and
contrary to the public interest under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
Executive Order 12866
These final regulations have been reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, the Secretary has
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with these final regulations are
those resulting from statutory requirements and those determined by the
Secretary as necessary for administering these programs effectively and
efficiently. Burdens specifically associated with information
collection requirements, if any, are identified and explained elsewhere
in this preamble under the heading Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of these final regulations, the Secretary has
determined that the benefits of the regulations justify the costs.
The Secretary has also determined that this regulatory action does
not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These regulations have been examined under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 and have been found to contain no information collection
requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these regulations will not have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities affected by these regulations are small institutions of
higher education. These regulations contain technical amendments
designed to clarify and correct current regulations. The changes will
not have a significant economic impact on the institutions affected.
Assessment of Educational Impact
The Secretary has determined that the regulations in this document
would not require transmission of information that is being gathered by
or is available from any other agency or authority of the United
States.
List of Subjects
34 CFR Parts 600 and 668
Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities,
Consumer protection, Education, Grant programs-education, Loan
programs-education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Student
Aid.
34 CFR Part 685
Administrative practice and procedure, Colleges and universities,
Education, Loan programs-education, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Student Aid, Vocational education.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers: 84.007 Federal
Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant Program; 84.032 Federal
Stafford Loan Program; 84.032 Federal PLUS Program; 84.032 Federal
Supplemental Loans for Students Program; 84.033 Federal Work Study
Program; 84.038 Federal Perkins Loan Program; 84.063 Federal Pell
Grant Program; 84.069 Federal State Student Incentive Grant Program;
84.268 William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program; and 84.272
National Early Intervention Scholarship and Partnership Program.)
Dated: June 3, 1996.
Richard W. Riley,
Secretary of Education.
The Secretary amends Parts 600, 668, and 685 of title 34 of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 685--WILLIAM D. FORD FEDERAL DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for Part 685 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1087a et seq., unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 685.102 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 685.102, paragraph (a)(3), introductory text, after the
word ``Loan''
[[Page 29900]]
remove the word ``Program''; in paragraph (b), in the definition of
``Federal Direct Consolidation Loan Program'', in paragraph (1), add
``, grace,'' after ``in-school''; in the definition of ``Satisfactory
repayment arrangement'', at the end of paragraph (1), add a new
sentence to read, ``A borrower may only obtain the benefit of this
paragraph with respect to renewed eligibility once.''.
3. In Sec. 685.200, paragraph (a)(1)(i), add ``, or accepted for
enrollment, on at least a half-time basis'' after the word
``enrolled''; in paragraph (b)(7)(iii), remove the word ``is'' after
the word ``history''; and paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 685.200 Borrower eligibility.
* * * * *
(c) Defaulted FFEL Program and Direct Loan borrowers. Except as
noted in Sec. 685.215(d)(1)(ii)(F), in the case of a student or parent
borrower who is currently in default on an FFEL Program or a Direct
Loan Program Loan, the borrower shall make satisfactory repayment
arrangements, as described in paragraph (2) of the definition of that
term under Sec. 685.102(b), on the defaulted loan.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 685.202, paragraph (a)(1)(i), before the first sentence,
add, ``Loans first disbursed prior to July 1, 1995.''; remove the
words, ``in repayment'' and add, in their place, ``during all
periods''; paragraph (a)(1)(ii) is revised; in paragraph (b)(1), add
the word ``unpaid'' before the word ``accrued''; in paragraph (b)(2),
add ``or a Direct Unsubsidized Consolidation Loan that qualifies for a
grace period'' after ``Direct Unsubsidized Loan'', add the word
``unpaid'' before the word ``interest''; in paragraph (b)(3), remove
the word ``For'' and add ``Notwithstanding Sec. 685.208(g)(5) and
Sec. 685.209(d)(3), for'' at the beginning of the sentence, add the
word ``unpaid'' after the words ``capitalizes the''; in paragraph
(b)(4), add the word ``unpaid'' after the word ``capitalizes'', remove
the words, ``payable by the borrower''; in paragraph (b)(5), add the
word ``unpaid'' after the word ``capitalize'', and remove the words
``payable by the borrower'' to read as follows:
Sec. 685.202 Charges for which Direct Loan Program borrowers are
responsible.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 1995.
(A) During the in-school, grace, and deferment periods. The
interest rate during any twelve-month period beginning on July 1 and
ending on June 30 is determined on the June 1 immediately preceding
that period. The interest rate is equal to the bond equivalent rate of
91-day Treasury bills auctioned at the final auction held prior to that
June 1 plus 2.5 percentage points, but does not exceed 8.25 percent.
(B) During all other periods. The interest rate during any twelve-
month period beginning on July 1 and ending on June 30 is determined on
the June 1 immediately preceding that period. The interest rate is
equal to the bond equivalent rate of 91-day Treasury bills auctioned at
the final auction held prior to that June 1 plus 3.1 percentage points,
but does not exceed 8.25 percent.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 685.204, in paragraph (b), remove ``paragraph (d)'' and
add, in its place, ``paragraphs (d) and (e)''; in paragraph (d)
introductory text, add ``borrower's first'' before ``Direct Loan'', and
add new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 685.204 Deferment.
* * * * *
(e) A borrower whose loan is in default is not eligible for a
deferment, unless the borrower has made payment arrangements
satisfactory to the Secretary.
Sec. 685.205 [Amended]
6. In Sec. 685.205, paragraph (a)(4), remove the words, ``or
endorser''.
7. In Sec. 685.212, paragraph (f) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 685.212 Discharge of a loan obligation.
* * * * *
(f) Payments received after eligibility for discharge. Upon receipt
of acceptable documentation and approval of the discharge request, the
Secretary returns to the sender, or, for a discharge based on death,
the borrower's estate, those payments received after the date that the
eligibility requirements for discharge were met but prior to the date
the discharge was approved. The Secretary also returns any payments
received after the date the discharge was approved.
* * * * *
Sec. 685.214 [Amended]
8. In Sec. 685.214, paragraph (a)(1)(iii), before ``in the
occupation,'' remove the word ``certified'' and add, in its place, the
word, ``originated''; in paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B), remove the word
``certified'' and add, in its place, the word, ``originated''.
9. In Sec. 685.215, paragraph (b)(19), add ``and Loans for
Disadvantaged Students (LDS) made under subpart II of part A of title
VII of the Public Health Service Act'' after ``(HPSL)''; paragraph
(b)(21) is removed; paragraph (b)(22) is redesignated as (b)(21); in
redesignated paragraph (b)(21), remove the word ``Loans'' and add, at
the beginning of the paragraph, the words ``Nursing loans''; in
paragraph (c)(3) remove ``(22)'' and add, in its place, ``(21)'';
paragraph (d) (1)(ii)(E) is revised; and, in paragraph (f)(1)(iii), add
``Direct Loan or FFEL Program'' before the word ``loan'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 685.215 Consolidation.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(E) In default but has made satisfactory repayment arrangements, as
defined in paragraph (2) of that term under Sec. 685.102(b), on the
defaulted loan; or
* * * * *
10. In Sec. 685.301, in the section heading, remove the word
``Certification'' and add, in its place, ``Origination''; paragraph
(a)(1) is revised; in paragraph (a)(3) introductory text, remove the
word ``certify'' and add, in its place, ``originate''; in paragraph
(a)(4)(ii), remove the word ``certifies'' and add, in its place,
``originates''; in paragraph (b)(2)(iv), add ``or if the date of the
first disbursement coincides with the beginning of the second or
subsequent semester, quarter, or similar division of the loan period
for which the loan was made,'' after ``made'' to read as follows:
Sec. 685.301 Origination of a loan by a Direct Loan Program school.
(a) * * *
(1) A school participating in the Direct Loan Program shall ensure
that any information it provides to the Secretary in connection with
loan origination is complete and accurate. A school shall originate a
Direct Loan while the student meets the borrower eligibility
requirements of Sec. 685.200. Except as provided in 34 CFR Part 668,
subpart E, a school may rely in good faith upon statements made in the
application by the student.
* * * * *
11. In Sec. 685.303, paragraph (b)(2)(i), add ``, or a parent in
the case of a PLUS Loan,'' after ``student'', remove the words ``whom
the school determines'' and add, in their place, ``if the school
determines the student''; remove ``or'' at the end of paragraph
(d)(3)(i), remove the period at the end of paragraph
[[Page 29901]]
(d)(3)(ii), and add, in its place, a semi-colon, and add new paragraphs
(d)(3) (iii) and (iv) to read as follows:
Sec. 685.303 Processing loan proceeds.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) A late disbursement to a borrower if the student's last
recorded day of attendance is earlier than the 30th day of the period
of enrollment for which the loan is intended if the loan was subject to
the delayed disbursement under Sec. 685.303(b)(4); or
(iv) A late disbursement that, including all prior disbursements,
exceeds a student's documented educational costs for the period of
enrollment completed by the student before the student ceased to be
enrolled at the school on at least a half-time basis.
* * * * *
12. Section 685.305 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 685.305 Determining the date of a student's withdrawal.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a school
shall follow the procedures in 34 CFR 668.22(j) for determining the
student's date of withdrawal.
(b) For a student who does not return for the next scheduled term
following a summer break, which includes any summer term(s) in which
classes are offered but students are not generally required to attend,
a school shall follow the procedures in 34 CFR 668.22(j) for
determining the student's date of withdrawal except that the school
must determine the student's date of withdrawal no later than 30 days
after the start of the next scheduled term.
(c) The school shall use the date determined under paragraph (a) or
(b) of this section for the purpose of reporting to the Secretary the
student's date of withdrawal and for determining when a refund must be
paid under Sec. 685.306.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1087 et seq.)
PART 600--INSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT
OF 1965, AS AMENDED
1. The authority citation for Part 600 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1088, 1091, 1094, 1099b, 1099c, and 1141,
unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 600.5 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 600.5 Proprietary institution of higher education.
* * * * *
(e)(1) An institution shall substantiate the required calculations
in paragraph (a)(8) of this section by having the certified public
accountant who prepares its audited financial statement required under
34 CFR 668.15 report on the accuracy of its determination that the
percentage of its revenues derived from title IV, HEA program funds is
not more than 85 percent of its revenues.
(2) The certified public accountant's report shall be based on
performing an examination-level ``attestation engagement'' in
accordance with the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
(AICPA's) Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements #3,
Compliance Attestation, and the certified public accountant shall
include that attestation report with the audit report referenced in
paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
(3) The certified public accountant's attestation report shall
indicate whether the institution's determination that the percentage of
its revenues derived from title IV, HEA program funds is not more than
85 percent of its revenues, is accurate, i.e. fairly presented in all
material respects.
* * * * *
PART 668--STUDENT ASSISTANCE GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 668 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1085, 1088, 1091, 1092, 1099c, and 1141,
unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 668.15 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 668.15, paragraph (e)(1), in the second sentence,
remove, ``certified public accountant'' and add, in its place,
``auditor''; remove ``generally accepted auditing standards'' and add,
in its place, ``Government Auditing Standards''.
[FR Doc. 96-14820 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14787 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29662-29664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14787]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[OH91-2; FRL-5506-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 3, 1995, Ohio submitted revisions to its
particulate matter plans for the Cleveland and Steubenville
nonattainment areas. These revisions were submitted to address plan
deficiencies that were identified by EPA in a final limited disapproval
of the particulate matter plans published in the Federal Register on
May 27, 1994. For the Cleveland area, these revisions provide earlier
attainment of the air quality standard and correct the deficient test
method disapproved in that rulemaking. For the Steubenville area, these
revisions include an administrative order for tightening controls at
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel's basic oxygen furnace, and provide a fully
updated modeling analysis demonstrating that the plan assures
attainment. EPA is approving these revisions and terminating the
potential for sanctions based on the deficiencies identified in the
rulemaking of May 27, 1994.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective July 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision and USEPA's analysis are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following addresses:
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and
Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AR-18J), Chicago,
Illinois 60604; and
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), Docket and Information Center (Air
Docket 6102) Room M1500, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John Summerhays, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection, Region 5, Chicago,
Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6067.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Ohio submitted major revisions to its particulate matter
regulations on November 14, 1991, with supplemental submittals on
December 4, 1991, and January 8, 1992. EPA proposed rulemaking on these
submittals on August 3, 1993, at 58 FR 41218, and published a notice of
final rulemaking on May 27, 1994, at 59 FR 27464, granting limited
approval/limited disapproval of these submittals. Although EPA approved
most of Ohio's regulations, EPA concluded that Ohio had not satisfied
selected requirements of the Clean Air Act applicable to its two
particulate matter nonattainment areas, i.e., Cuyahoga County
(including Cleveland) and the Steubenville area. This represented a
disapproval finding under Section 179(a)(2), thus initiating an 18-
month period after which sanctions were to be imposed in these areas
under Section 179(b) unless or until the deficiencies are remedied.
On November 3, 1995, Ohio submitted further revisions to its
particulate matter plans, seeking to remedy the deficiencies identified
in EPA's May 1994 rulemaking. On January 23, 1996 (at 61 FR 1727), EPA
proposed to approve the State's submittal and proposed to conclude that
all particulate matter SIP requirements were satisfied (except for new
source review requirements, which were not addressed in either the
January 1996 or the May 1994 rulemaking and are being addressed
separately). Simultaneously, EPA issued an interim final determination
that the deficiencies had been remedied (at 61 FR 1720), thereby
staying application of sanctions.
In brief, for Cuyahoga County, the deficiencies were (1) failure to
satisfy requirements for Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)
by December 1992; and (2) failure to assure attainment due to
deficiencies in the test method applicable to coke quenching. EPA
proposed to find that these deficiencies were addressed when Ohio
revised its rules to require a control strategy adequate to satisfy
RACM requirements by December 1993 and improved the test method for
coke quenching. For the Steubenville area, the deficiency was an
inadequate attainment demonstration due to, among other factors,
inadequate accounting for emissions from Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel's
basic oxygen furnace. EPA proposed to find this deficiency remedied by
submittal of Findings and Orders issued by Ohio to Wheeling-Pittsburgh
Steel requiring tightened control of basic oxygen furnace emissions and
a revised attainment demonstration. A more detailed discussion of the
prior deficiencies is provided in the Federal Register of May 27, 1994
(59 FR 27464), and a summary of that discussion and a more extensive
discussion of Ohio's submittal which remedied those deficiencies is
provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking of January 23, 1996 (61
FR 1727). Today's rule is final action on Ohio's November 1995
submittal and final action with respect to the previously identified
deficiencies.
At the time of the proposed rulemaking, Ohio had conducted a public
hearing in connection with its Cuyahoga County rule revisions but had
not yet held and submitted documentation of a public hearing with
respect to revisions to the Steubenville area attainment demonstration.
The State held a public hearing on the Steubenville area revisions on
January 22, 1996, and provided materials to EPA documenting this
hearing and demonstrating satisfaction of related public comment
requirements in its December 21, 1995, and March 13, 1996, submittals.
EPA has evaluated these materials and has concluded that the relevant
procedural requirements have been satisfied.
[[Page 29663]]
II. Comments on Proposed Rulemaking
One set of comments on the proposed rulemaking was received by EPA.
These comments were submitted by Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur on
behalf of Ford Motor Company (Ford). These comments urged EPA not to
rulemake on the State's November 1995 submittal alone, and instead
urged EPA to request that the State address Ford's concerns with the
existing particulate matter regulations and to conduct rulemaking on a
combined set of revised regulations. No comments were made concerning
EPA's proposed analysis of the State's November 1995 submittal.
EPA responds that it would be inappropriate to defer rulemaking on
the State's November 1995 submittal pending receipt of a prospective
future submittal, particularly in the absence of any expectation that
the prospective future submittal would alter EPA's views of the
existing submittal. EPA has an obligation to complete rulemaking in
timely fashion on any SIP revision requested by the State. Both EPA and
the State of Ohio have a particular interest in prompt completion of
this rulemaking because sanctions, while stayed by the interim final
determination, are nevertheless outstanding until final action
approving the corrections to the deficiencies is published. The
commenter does not claim that its requested rule revisions are mandated
by the Clean Air Act, and the commenter identifies no other basis for
EPA to require the State to conduct the desired rulemaking. In any
case, assuming that Ohio adopts and submits rule revisions addressing
Ford's concerns, EPA will undertake timely rulemaking on those rule
revisions as well, in accordance with EPA's obligations under the Clean
Air Act.
III. Today's Action
With respect to Cuyahoga County, EPA concludes that (1) the revised
rules now provide for RACM by December 1993; (2) the coke quench water
test method issue and the associated attainment demonstration issue
have been resolved; and (3) additional revisions to the limitations for
Ford's Cleveland Casting Plant do not jeopardize attainment. With
respect to the Steubenville area, EPA concludes that the State has now
submitted a fully approvable attainment demonstration for the area. In
particular, EPA is approving the rule revisions for Cuyahoga County and
the Findings and Order requiring control system enhancements at
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel's basic oxygen furnace.
Based on these findings, EPA concludes that Ohio's particulate
matter plans for the Cuyahoga County and Steubenville nonattainment
areas now satisfy all applicable requirements under Part D of the Clean
Air Act (except for new source review requirements, which are not
addressed here or in the May 1994 rulemaking and are being addressed
separately). Consequently, EPA finds that Ohio has remedied the
deficiencies identified in the rulemaking of May 27, 1994. This finding
fully terminates the potential for sanctions pursuant to that prior
rulemaking.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.)
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Act
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Act,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2).
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
Under Sections 202, 203 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995,
EPA must undertake various actions in association with rules that
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to the private sector, or to State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate.
EPA has determined that the approval action taken today does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 12, 1996. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air Pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: May 2, 1996.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter I, part 52, is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(110) to read
as follows:
Secs. 52.1870 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(110) On November 3, 1995, December 21, 1995, and March 21, 1996,
[[Page 29664]]
OEPA submitted revisions to its particulate matter plan, addressing
prior deficiencies in its plans for Cuyahoga and Jefferson Counties.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Rule 3745-17-03--Rule 3745-17-03--Measurement methods and
procedures, effective November 15, 1995.
(B) Rule 3745-17-04--Compliance time schedules, effective November
15, 1995.
(C) Rule 3745-17-12--Additional restrictions on particulate
emissions from specific air contaminant sources in Cuyahoga County,
effective November 15, 1995.
(D) Findings and Orders issued to the Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel
Corporation, signed by Donald Schregardus and effective on October 31,
1995.
(ii) Additional material--Dispersion modeling analyses for the
Steubenville area and for Cuyahoga County near Ford's Cleveland Casting
Plant.
[FR Doc. 96-14787 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14786 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania: Partial Approval of PM-10 Implementation Plan for the Liberty Borough Area of Allegheny County
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29664-29666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14786]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[SIPTRAX No. PA 20-1-4026; PA 31-1-4027; PA 39-1-4028; AD-FRL-5463-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania: Partial Approval of PM-10 Implementation Plan for the
Liberty Borough Area of Allegheny County
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving, in part, revisions to the Allegheny County
portion for the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) prepared
by the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) and formally submitted
by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP).
PADEP submitted the SIP revisions, in general, to satisfy the Clean Air
Act's (the Act's) requirements for control of particulate matter with
an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
(PM-10), and specifically, to satisfy the Act's requirements applicable
to the Liberty Borough area of Allegheny County, which is classified as
a moderate nonattainment area for the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for PM-10. EPA is approving the regulatory portions
the Commonwealth's submittals. EPA is deferring action, at this time,
on the attainment demonstration and associated air quality analyses
portion of one of the Commonwealth's submittals. This action is being
taken under section 110 of the Act.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule will become effective on July 12, 1996.
Addresses: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Air, Radiation, and Toxics Divisions, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19107; the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460; and the Allegheny County Health Department, Bureau of
Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, 301 39th Street,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas A. Casey, (215) 566-2194.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 11, 1995, EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (60 FR
18385). The NPR proposed full approval of three revisions to the
Allegheny County portion of the Pennsylvania SIP: a November 8, 1988
submittal which included the adoption of the PM-10 NAAQS and other
provisions to satisfy pre-1990 Clean Air Act Amendment requirements
pertaining to Group III PM-10 areas; a December 31, 1992 submittal
which consisted of regulations to reduce PM-10 emissions and to limit
visible emissions from several categories of fugitive dust sources; and
a January 6, 1995 submittal which included revised regulatory
provisions to reduce PM-10 emissions and an attainment demonstration of
the NAAQs for PM-10 with its associated technical air quality analyses.
Description of Today's Action
EPA is approving the Commonwealth's November 8, 1988 submittal,
December 31, 1992 submittal, and the regulatory portion of the January
6, 1994 submittal.
The underlying rationale for EPA's approval of these submittals is
provided in the April 11, 1995, NPR, referenced above, as well as in
the Technical Support Document (TSD), and will not be restated here.
Today's action is considered a partial approval because EPA is
deferring action at this time on the attainment demonstration portion
of the January 6, 1994 submittal and its associated air quality
analyses.
EPA is deferring action, at this time, on the attainment
demonstration portion of the January 6, 1994 submittal for two reasons.
First, EPA received adverse comments on those aspects on EPA's April
11, 1995 proposal related to the attainment demonstration and air
quality analyses, and is still considering those comments. Secondly,
since the time EPA's April 11, 1995 proposal on the SIP revisions
listed above, EPA has commenced rulemaking to determine whether or not
the Liberty Borough PM-10 nonattainment area attained the NAAQS by the
December 31, 1994 deadline required for moderate areas.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On September 19, 1995, EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (60 FR 48439) that proposes to find, pursuant to section
188(b)(2) of the Act, that Liberty Borough nonattainment area has
not attained the PM-10 NAAQS by the statutory attainment date of
December 31, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Public Comments
This section summarizes the public comments that were submitted
regarding EPA's proposed approval of the regulatory portions of the SIP
submittals, and provides EPA's responses to those comments. The public
comments received regarding EPA's proposed approval of the attainment
demonstration portion of the January 6, 1994 submittal will be not be
discussed in this notice but rather as part of any future rulemaking
actions by EPA on that attainment demonstration and its associated air
quality analyses. Nine letters of public comment were submitted on
EPA's April 11, 1995 proposal (60 FR 18385) which relate to the
regulatory portions of the Commonwealth's submittals upon which EPA is
taking final action. These comments can be divided in to two major
areas: enforcement and general support.
Enforcement Comment: Three commenters raised concerns that the ACHD
and the PADEP do not dedicate sufficient resources to enforcement, do
not inspect coke oven batteries often enough, and that EPA should,
therefore, disapprove the SIP because the Commonwealth has not
fulfilled its requirement under section 110(a)(2)(E) of the Act to
provide adequate personnel to implement the SIP.
Response: EPA has determined that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
satisfies section 110(a)(2)(E) of the Act.
General Support: Four commenters expressed general support for
EPA's April 11, 1995 proposed actions.
Final Action: EPA is approving, in part, revisions submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the Allegheny County portion of the
Pennsylvania SIP. Specifically EPA is approving a November 8, 1988
submittal which included the adoption of the PM-10 NAAQS and other
provisions to satisfy the pre-1990 Clean Air Act
[[Page 29665]]
Amendment requirements pertaining to Group III PM-10 areas; a December
31, 1992 submittal which consisted of regulations to reduce PM-10
emissions and to limit visible emissions from several categories of
fugitive dust sources; and the regulatory portion of a January 6, 1994
submittal which included revised and additional regulatory provisions
to reduce PM-10 emissions. EPA is deferring action at this time on the
attainment demonstration portion of the January 6, 1994 submittal and
on its associated air quality analyses.
EPA has reviewed these requests for revision of the federally-
approved state implementation plan for conformance with the provisions
of the 1990 amendments enacted on November 15, 1990.
The Agency has determined that this action conforms with those
requirements irrespective of the fact that one of the submittals
preceded the date of enactment.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
This action ha been classified as a Table 3 action for signature by
the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 12, 1996. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This partial approval of SIP revisions for the Liberty
Borough, Pennsylvania PM-10 nonattainment area may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter.
Dated: April 10, 1996.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Chapter I, title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart NN--Pennsylvania
2. Section 52.2020 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(90),
(c)(91), and (c)(92) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2020 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(90) Revisions to the Allegheny County portion of the Pennsylvania
SIP to adopt the PM-10 NAAQS and fulfill other Group III requirements,
submitted on November 8, 1988 by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources:
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter of November 8, 1988 from the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources transmitting revisions to Article XX of
Allegheny County Health Department Rules and Regulations.
(B) Revisions to the following sections of Article XX of Allegheny
County Health Department Rules and Regulations, effective August 22,
1988:
(1) Section 101, Definitions (definition of ``PM10'').
(2) Section 109, Ambient Air Quality Standards.
(3) Section 527, Areas Subject to Sections 521 through 526 (various
fugitive dust measures).
(4) Section 613, Ambient Measurements.
(5) Section 704, Episode Criteria.
(6) Section 801, Definitions. (Definitions of ``Attainment area,''
``Nonattainment area,'' ``Significant air quality impact,'' and
``Unclassified area'')
(7) Appendix 1, Attainment, Unclassifiable and Nonattainment Areas
of Allegheny County: deleted.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) Remainder of the November 8, 1988 submittal pertaining to the
Allegheny County portion of the Pennsylvania SIP to adopt the PM-10
NAAQS and fulfill other Group III requirements.
(91) Revisions to the Allegheny County portion of the Pennsylvania
SIP to reduce PM-10 emissions and visible emissions from several
categories of fugitive dust sources, submitted on December 31, 1992 by
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources:
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter of December 31 1992 from the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources transmitting revisions to Article XX of
Allegheny county Health Department Rules and Regulations.
(B) Revisions to the following sections of Article XX of Allegheny
County Health Department Rules and Regulations, effective November 1,
1992.
(1) Section 402, Particulate Mass Emissions (Paragraph A--Fuel
Burning or Combustion Equipment)
(2) Section 520, Coke Ovens (Paragraph J--Compliance Schedule)
(3) Section 521, Permit Source Premises.
(4) Section 521.1, Non-Permit Source Premises.
(5) Section 523, Permit Source Transport.
(6) Section 523.1, Non-Permit Source Transport.
(7) Section 524, Construction and Land Clearing.
[[Page 29666]]
(8) Section 527, Areas Subject to Sections 521 through 526.
(9) Section 602, Particulate Matter (test methods).
(10) Section 606, Visible Emissions (measurement).
(11) Section 607, Coke Oven Emissions (measurement).
(12) Section 608, Coke Oven Gas (measurement of hydrogen sulfide
content).
(ii) Additional material.
(A) Remainder of the December 31, 1992 submittal pertaining to the
Allegheny County portion of the Pennsylvania SIP to reduce PM-10
emissions and visible emissions from several categories of fugitive
dust sources.
(92) Revisions to the Allegheny County portion of the Pennsylvania
SIP to reduce PM-10 emissions including the newly created Allegheny
County Article XXI which both revised and added emission reduction
requirements for certain industrial boilers, various emission points at
US Steel's Clairton Coke Works and the Glassport Transportation Center,
new definitions related to coke oven gas emissions, and new test
methods for particulate matter; submitted by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources on January 6, 1994 and effective
February 1, 1994.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter of January 6, 1994 from the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources transmitting Article XXI of Allegheny County
Health Department Rules and Regulations.
(B) The newly created Article XXI of Allegheny County Health
Department Rules and Regulations in its entirety, effective February 1,
1994.
(1) Part A (sections 2101 et seq.), General, reserved in part:
(i) Section 2101. Short Titles.
(ii) Section 2101.3, Effective Date and Repealer.
(iii) Section 2101.20, Definitions.
(2) Part B (sections 2102 et seq.), Installation Permits, reserved.
(3) Part C (sections 2103 et seq.), Operating Permits and Licenses,
reserved.
(4) Part D (sections 2104 et seq.), Pollutant Emission Standards,
reserved in part.
(i) Section 2104.6, Particulate Mass Emissions, replaces section
402 of Article XX.
(5) Part E (sections 2105 et seq.), Sources Emission and Operating
Standards, reserved in part.
(i) Section 2105.21, Coke Ovens and Coke Oven Gas, replaces section
520.B. through 520.J. and section 530 of Article XX.
(ii) Section 2105.49, Fugitive Emissions, replaces section 528 of
Article XX.
(6) Part F (sections 2106 et seq.), Air Pollution Episodes,
reserved.
(7) Part G (sections 2107 et seq.), Methods, reserved in part:
(i) Section 2107.1, General.
(ii) Section 2107.2, Particulate Matter.
(8) Part H (sections 2108 et seq.), Compliance, reserved.
(9) Part I (sections 2109 et seq.), Enforcement, reserved.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) Remainder of the January 6, 1994 State submittal.
[FR Doc. 96-14786 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14784 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, Five Local Air Pollution Control Districts
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29659-29662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14784]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 014-0003a FRL-5464-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California
State Implementation Plan Revision, Five Local Air Pollution Control
Districts
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on revisions to the
California State Implementation Plan. The revisions concern rules from
the following: El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District
(EDCAPCD), Kern County Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD), Placer
County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), Santa Barbara County
Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD), and South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD). These new and revised rules control VOC
emissions from graphic arts operations. This approval action will
incorporate these rules into the federally approved SIP. The intended
effect of approving these rules is to regulate emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) in accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). In addition, the
final action on the SBCAPCD rule serves as a final determination that
the finding of nonsubmittal for this rule has been corrected and that
on the effective date of this action, the Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) clocks is stopped. Thus, EPA is finalizing the approval of these
revisions into the California SIP under provisions of the CAA regarding
EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for national primary and secondary
ambient air quality standards and plan requirements for nonattainment
areas.
DATES: This action is effective on August 12, 1996, unless adverse or
critical comments are received by July 12, 1996. If the effective date
is delayed, a timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the rules and EPA's evaluation report for each
rule are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX office
during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rules are
available for inspection at the following locations:
Rulemaking Section (A-5-3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M'' Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20460
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
El Dorado County APCD, 2850 Fairlane Court, Placerville, CA 95667
Kern County APCD, 2700 M. Street, Suite 290, Bakersfield, CA 93301
Placer County APCD, 11464 B. Avenue, Auburn, CA 95603
Santa Barbara County APCD, 26 Castilian Drive, B-23 Goleta, CA 93117
South Coast AQMD, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Erik H. Beck, Rulemaking Section (A-5-3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-1190. Internet E-mail:
[email protected].
[[Page 29660]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicability
The rules being approved into the California SIP include: EDCAPCD
Rule 231 ``Graphic Arts Operations''; KCAPCD Rule 410.7, ``Graphic
Arts''; PCAPCD Rule 239, ``Graphic Arts Operations''; SBCAPCD Rule 354,
``Graphic Arts''; and SCAQMD Rule 1130.1, ``Screen Printing
Operations''. These rules were submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) to EPA on the following dates in respective
order: November 30, 1994, May 30, 1991, October 13, 1995, July 13,
1994, and November 18, 1993. All of these rules are in effect
throughout their respective districts, except PCAPCD Rule 239. This
rule is applicable only within that part of Placer County that lies
within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin.
Background
On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment
areas under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977
(1977 Act or pre-amended Act), that included the Southeast Desert
Modified Air Quality Management Area, Santa Barbara--Santa Maria--
Lompoc Area, Sacramento Metro Area (which includes portions of El
Dorado County and Placer County), and the Los Angeles--South Coast Air
Basin. 43 FR 8964, 40 CFR 81.305. On May 26, 1988, EPA notified the
Governor of California, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the 1977
Act, that the EDCAPCD, KCAPCD, PCAPCD, SBCAPCD, and the SCAQMD portions
of the California SIP were inadequate to attain and maintain the ozone
standard and requested that deficiencies in the existing SIP be
corrected (EPA's SIP-Call). On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399,
codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. In amended section 182(a)(2)(A) of
the CAA, Congress statutorily adopted the requirement that
nonattainment areas fix their deficient reasonably available control
technology (RACT) rules for ozone and established a deadline of May 15,
1991 for states to submit corrections of those deficiencies.
Section 182(a)(2)(A) applies to areas designated as nonattainment
prior to enactment of the amendments and classified as marginal or
above as of the date of enactment. It requires such areas to adopt and
correct RACT rules pursuant to pre-amended section 172(b) as
interpreted in pre-amendment guidance.1 EPA's SIP-Call used that
guidance to indicate the necessary corrections for specific
nonattainment areas. The Los Angeles--South Coast Air Basin is
classified as extreme. The Sacramento Metro Area is classified as
severe. The Santa Barbara--Santa Maria--Lompoc Area is classified as
moderate; 2 therefore, these areas were subject to the RACT fix-up
requirement and the May 15, 1991 deadline.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Among other things, the pre-amendment guidance consists of
those portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987); ``Issues
Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,
Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register
Notice'' (Blue Book) (notice of availability was published in the
Federal Register on May 25, 1988); and the existing control
technique guidelines (CTGs).
\2\ The Los Angeles--South Coast Air Basin, Sacramento Metro
Area, and the Santa Barbara--Santa Maria--Lompoc Area retained their
designation of nonattainment and were classified by operation of law
pursuant to sections 107(d) and 181(a) upon the date of enactment of
the CAA. See 55 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). However, on April 25,
1995, EPA published a final rule granting the State's request to
reclassify the Sacramento Metro Area to severe from serious (60 CFR
20237). This reclassification became effective on June 1, 1995.
\3\ Note Bene: KCAPCD Rule 410.7 applies to that portion of Kern
County which falls outside the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District. This area is known as the Southeast
Desert Non-Air Quality Management Area, and its ozone designation is
unclassified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of California submitted many RACT rules for incorporation
into its SIP on the rule submittal dates listed in the Applicability
section above, including the rules being acted on in this document.
This document addresses EPA's direct-final action for EDCAPCD Rule 231
``Graphic Arts Operations''; KCAPCD Rule 410.7, ``Graphic Arts'';
PCAPCD Rule 239 ``Graphic Arts Operations''; SBCAPCD Rule 354,
``Graphic Arts''; and SCAQMD Rule 1130.1, ``Screen Printing
Operations''. EDCAPCD adopted Rule 231 on September 27, 1994. KCAPCD
adopted Rule 410.7 on May 6, 1991. PCAPCD adopted Rule 239 on June 8,
1995. SBCAPCD adopted Rule 354 on June 28, 1994. SCAQMD adopted Rule
1130.1 on July 9, 1993.
These submitted rules were found to be complete on the following
respective dates: January 30, 1995 (Rule 231); July 10, 1991 (Rule
410.7); November 28, 1995 (Rule 239); July 22, 1994 (Rule 354); and
December 23, 1993 (Rule 1130.1). The completeness determinations were
made pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth in 40
CFR part 51 Appendix V.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990
(55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA,
revised the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These rules control VOC emissions from graphic arts operations such
as screen printing, flexography, rotogravure, and others. VOCs
contribute to the production of ground level ozone and smog. These
rules were originally adopted as part of their air pollution control
agencies' efforts to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) for ozone and in response to EPA's SIP-Call and the section
182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement. The following is EPA's evaluation and
final action for this rule.
EPA Evaluation and Action
In determining the approvability of a VOC rule, EPA must evaluate
the rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and EPA
regulations, as found in section 110 and part D of the CAA and 40 CFR
part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans). The EPA interpretation of these requirements,
which forms the basis for today's action, appears in the various EPA
policy guidance documents listed in footnote 1. Among those provisions
is the requirement that a VOC rule must, at a minimum, provide for the
implementation of RACT for stationary sources of VOC emissions. This
requirement was carried forth from the pre-amended Act.
For the purpose of assisting state and local agencies in developing
RACT rules, EPA prepared a series of Control Technique Guideline (CTG)
documents. The CTGs are based on the underlying requirements of the Act
and specify the presumptive norms for what is RACT for specific source
categories. Under the CAA, Congress ratified EPA's use of these
documents, as well as other Agency policy, for requiring States to
``fix-up'' their RACT rules. See section 182(a)(2)(A). The CTG
applicable to all of these rules, except SCAQMD Rule 1130.1, ``Screen
Printing Operations'', is entitled, OAQPS Guideline Series--Control of
Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources--Volume
VII: Graphic Arts--Rotogravure and Flexography (Document Number EPA-
450/2-78-033). No CTG applies to SCAQMD Rule 1130.1. Accordingly, Rule
1130.1 was evaluated against interpretations of EPA policy found in the
Blue Book, referred to in footnote 1. The CTG and the Blue Book have
been set forth to ensure that VOC rules are fully enforceable and
strengthen or maintain the SIP.
EDCAPCD Rule 231 ``Graphic Arts Operations''; PCAPCD Rule 239
``Graphic Arts Operations''; SBCAPCD Rule 354, ``Graphic Arts''; and
SCAQMD Rule 1130.1, ``Screen Printing
[[Page 29661]]
Operations'', are new rules being approved into the SIP for the first
time. These rules have the following significant features:
Control emissions of VOC from rotogravure and flexography
printing and coating equipment (except SCAQMD Rule 1130.1);
Option of using emission control equipment or using
reduced VOC content inks and coatings;
Test methods for VOC content of coatings and inks;
Test methods for determining capture efficiency of an
emission control device;
Rule exemptions for firms emitting small quantities of
VOC.
In addition to the features listed above, SCAQMD Rule 1130.1 has
the following additional features:
Control of VOC emissions from screen printing operations;
Test methods for metal content of inks;
KCAPCD's submitted Rule 410.7 ``Graphic Arts,'' includes the
following significant changes from the current SIP:
Comprehensive revision of rule definitions;
Extension of the rule's applicability to include
letterpress, lithography, and screen printing;
Addition of recordkeeping requirements;
Addition of test methods;
Requirement to reduce VOC emissions from cleanup
operations;
Modified control device efficiency standards to require
more stringent controls.
EPA has evaluated the submitted rules and has determined that they
are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy.
Therefore, the following district rules are being approved under
section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the requirements of section
110(a) and Part D: EDCAPCD Rule 231 ``Graphic Arts Operations''; KCAPCD
Rule 410.7, ``Graphic Arts''; PCAPCD Rule 239 ``Graphic Arts
Operations''; SBCAPCD Rule 354, ``Graphic Arts''; and SCAQMD Rule
1130.1, ``Screen Printing Operations''.
Therefore, if this direct final action is not withdrawn, on August
12, 1996, the FIP clock associated with SBCAPCD Rule 354 is stopped.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future implementation
plan. Each request for revision to the state implementation plan shall
be considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
EPA is publishing this document without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be
effective August 12, 1996, unless, by July 12, 1996, adverse or
critical comments are received.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is
advised that this action will be effective August 12, 1996.
Regulatory Process
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises and
government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under sections 110 and 301(a) and subchapter I, Part
D of the CAA do not create any new requirements, but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify
that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities
affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship
under the CAA, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state
action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.
Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410 (a)(2).
Unfunded Mandates
Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22,
1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed
or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector or to
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of this state implementation plan or plan
revision, the State and any affected local or tribal governments have
elected to adopt the program provided for under Part D of the Clean Air
Act. These rules may bind State, local, and tribal governments to
perform certain actions and also require the private sector to perform
certain duties. The rules being approved by this action will impose no
new requirements because affected sources are already subject to these
regulations under State law. Therefore, no additional costs to State,
local, or tribal governments or to the private sector result from this
action. EPA has also determined that this final action does not include
a mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private
sector.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this action from review under Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation
Plan for the State of California was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: April 13, 1996.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
Subpart F of part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
[[Page 29662]]
Subpart F--California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs
(c)(185)(i)(A)(9), (194)(i)(G), (198)(i)(K), (207)(i)(B)(2), and
(225)(i)(B)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(185) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(9) Rule 410.7, adopted May 6, 1991.
* * * * *
(194) * * *
(i) * * *
(G) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
(1) Rule 1130.1, adopted July 9, 1993.
* * * * *
(198) * * *
(i) * * *
(K) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Rule 354, adopted June 28, 1994.
* * * * *
(207) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(2) Rule 231, adopted September 27, 1994.
* * * * *
(225) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(3) Rule 239, adopted June 8, 1995.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-14784 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-W
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14770 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan National Priorities List
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14770]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-5518-6]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Deletion of New Castle Spill Site from the National
Priorities List (NPL).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA, Region 3, announces the deletion of the New Castle Spill
Site, New Castle, Delaware, from the National Priorities List (NPL).
The NPL is Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA promulgated
the NCP pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended.
EPA and the State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control (DNREC) have determined that all appropriate
CERCLA actions have been implemented, that the Site poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment, and that no
further cleanup by responsible parties is necessary.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comprehensive information on this Site is available through
the public docket which is available for viewing at the Site
information repositories at the following locations: Hazardous Waste
Technical Information Center, 9th Floor, U.S. EPA, Region 3, 841
Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA, (215) 597-6633.
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control,
715 Grantham Lane, New Castle, DE, (302) 323-4540.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Dehnhard (3HW23), U.S. EPA
Region 3, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 597-
3167.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA announces the deletion of the New Castle
Spill Site located in New Castle, Delaware, from the National
Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is Appendix B of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300.
EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to
public health, welfare, or the environment and maintains the NPL as the
list of those sites. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial
actions financed by the Hazardous Substances Superfund Response Trust
Fund (Fund). Pursuant to CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. section 9605 (40 CFR
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP), any site deleted from the NPL remains
eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions in the event that
conditions at the site warrant such action in the future. Deletion of a
site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability or impede
agency efforts to recover costs associated with response efforts.
A Notice of Intent to Delete the New Castle Spill Site from the NPL
was published on March 21, 1996 in the Federal Register (56 FR 11597).
The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was
April 22, 1996. EPA received comments on the proposed deletion. The
responsiveness summary is attached.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended
as follows:
PART 300--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 191 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Appendix B--[Amended]
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the
site ``New Castle Spill, New Castle County, Delaware''.
Dated: May 16, 1996.
W. T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 3.
[FR Doc. 96-14770 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14760 Noncomplying, Misbranded, or Banned Products: Recodification of Statement of Policy Concerning Export and Procedures for Export
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29646-29650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14760]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Parts 1010 and 1019
Noncomplying, Misbranded, or Banned Products: Recodification of
Statement of Policy Concerning Export and Procedures for Export
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Amendment of rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is recodifying and consolidating its
regulations governing Procedures for Export of Noncomplying Products
and policy statement concerning Exportation of Noncomplying,
Misbranded, or Banned Products. The regulations governing procedures
for export of noncomplying products, originally codified as 16 CFR part
1019, are recodified as 16 CFR part 1019, subpart
[[Page 29647]]
A. The policy statement, originally codified at 16 CFR part 1010, is
recodified as 16 CFR part 1019, subpart B. Because both the regulations
and the policy statement are applicable to export of noncomplying,
misbranded, or banned products, the Commission is combining them in one
place in the Code of Federal Regulations for the convenience of people
interested in the export of such products. The substantive provisions
of the regulations and policy statement are unchanged.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This amendment is effective June 12, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis C. Kacoyanis, Trial Attorney,
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Division of Administrative
Litigation, Washington, DC 20207; telephone (301) 504-0262, extension
1346.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Notification of Proposed Export of Noncomplying Products
The Consumer Product Safety Authorization Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-
631, November 10, 1978) amended the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA),
the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) and the Flammable Fabrics
Act (FFA) by adding certain export notification requirements to those
statutes. In particular, persons and firms who intend to export
products that do not comply with applicable requirements of those
statutes or regulations issued under their authority must notify the
Commission at least 30 days before the proposed exportation. The 1978
amendments also require the Commission to transmit any notification of
proposed export of noncomplying products to the country of intended
destination. The export notification requirements are codified in
section 18(b) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2067(b)), in section 14(d) of the
FHSA (15 U.S.C. 1273(d), and in section 15(c) of the FFA (15 U.S.C.
1202(c)).
In 1980, the Commission issued regulations to implement the export
notification provisions of the 1978 amendments. 45 FR 5306 (August 8,
1980). These regulations set forth the procedures to be used (i) by
persons and firms to give notice of proposed exportation of
noncomplying products, and (ii) by the Commission to notify the
government of the country of intended destination. 16 CFR part 1019.
B. Policy Statement on Export of Noncomplying Products
In 1984, the Commission published a statement of policy concerning
the circumstances where the CPSA, FHSA, and FFA permit export of
products that fail to comply with an applicable statute, standard, or
regulation. 49 FR 39663 (October 10, 1984). 16 CFR part 1010.
C. Recodification
For the convenience of people interested in exporting noncomplying
products, the Commission is combining and recodifying parts 1010 and
1019 into part 1019 of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The
regulations governing procedures for export of noncomplying products,
originally codified at 16 CFR part 1019, are recodified as 16 CFR part
1019, subpart A. The policy statement, originally codified at 16 CFR
part 1010, is recodified as 16 CFR part 1019, subpart B. The
substantive provisions of the regulations and policy statement are
unchanged. However, references in the export notification regulations
to the ``Associate Executive Director for Compliance and Enforcement''
have been changed to ``Assistant Executive Director for Compliance,''
to reflect recent changes to the organization of the Commission staff.
Generally, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires agencies
to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and provide opportunity for
public comment before issuing, amending, or revoking a regulation. 5
U.S.C. 553. However, the APA provides that the requirement for notice
of proposed rulemaking is not applicable when the agency finds for good
cause that notice of proposed rulemaking and public participation are
``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
The Commission finds for good cause that notice of proposed
rulemaking and public participation are unnecessary because the only
purpose of this amendment is to recodify the regulations and policy
statement for ease of reference. No substantive changes are being made.
The APA also requires that a substantive rule must be published at
least 30 days before its effective date unless the agency finds for
good cause that such delay is not needed. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). For the
reasons stated above, the Commission finds good cause not to delay the
effective date of the recodification and amendment. Consequently, they
shall become effective immediately.
D. Conclusion
Under the authority of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure
Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2067), the Federal
Hazardous Substances Act (15 U.S.C. 1263, 1264, and 1273), and the
Flammable Fabrics Act (15 U.S.C. 1202) the Commission hereby amends
title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter II, Subchapter A
to read as follows:
PART 1010--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]
1. Part 1010 is removed and reserved.
2. Part 1019 is revised to read as follows:
PART 1019--EXPORT OF NONCOMPLYING, MISBRANDED, OR BANNED PRODUCTS
Subpart A--Procedures for Export of Noncomplying, Misbranded, or Banned
Products
Sec.
1019.1 Purpose, applicability, and exemptions.
1019.2 Definitions.
1019.3 General requirements for notifying the Commission.
1019.4 Procedures for notifying the Commission; content of
notification.
1019.5 Time notification must be made to Commission; reductions of
time.
1019.6 Changes to notification.
1019.7 Commission notification of foreign governments.
1019.8 Confidentiality.
Subpart B--Statement of Policy and Interpretation Concerning Export of
Noncomplying, Misbranded, or Banned Products
1019.31 Purpose and scope.
1019.32 Statutory provisions.
1019.33 Statement of policy and interpretation.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1196, 1202, 1263, 1264, 1273, 2067, 2068.
Subpart A--Procedures for Export of Noncomplying, Misbranded, or
Banned Products
Sec. 1019.1 Purpose, applicability, and exemptions.
(a) Purpose. The regulations in this subpart A of this part 1019
establish the procedures exporters must use to notify the Consumer
Product Safety Commission of their intent to export from the United
States products which are banned or fail to comply with an applicable
safety standard, regulation, or statute. These regulations also set
forth the procedures the Commission uses in transmitting the
notification of export of noncomplying products to the country to which
those products will be sent. The Consumer Product Safety Act
Authorization Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-631), which became effective
November 10, 1978, established these notification requirements and
authorizes the Commission to issue regulations to implement them.
[[Page 29648]]
(b) Applicability. These regulations apply to any person or firm
which exports from the United States and item which is:
(1) A consumer product that does not conform to an applicable
consumer product safety rule issued under sections 7 and 9 of the
Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056, 2058), or which has been
declared to be a banned hazardous product under provisions of sections
8 and 9 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 2057, 2058); or
(2) A misbranded hazardous substance or a banned hazardous
substance within the meaning of sections 2(p) and 2(q) of the Federal
Hazardous Substances Act (15 U.S.C. 1261); or
(3) A fabric or related material or an item of wearing apparel or
interior furnishing made of fabric or related material which fails to
conform with an applicable flammability standard or regulations issued
under section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act (15 U.S.C. 1191, 1193).
(c) Exemption for certain items with noncomplying labeling. The
exporter of an item that fails to comply with a standard or regulation
only because it is labeled in a language other than English need not
notify the Commission prior to export if the product is labeled with
the required information in the language of the country to which the
product will be sent.
(d) Exemption for samples. The exporter of an item that fails to
comply with a standard or regulation, but which is intended for use
only as a sample and not for resale, need not notify the Commission
prior to export, if the item is conspicuously and labeled in English
with the statement: ``Sample only. Not for resale.'' (The Commission
encourages exporters to provide this label, in addition, in the
language of the importing country, but does not require the foreign
language labeling.) To qualify as a sample shipment under this
exemption, the quantity of goods involved must be consistent with
prevalent trade practices with respect to the specific product.
(e) Exemption for items not in child-resistant packaging. The
exporter of an item which is a ``misbranded hazardous substance''
within the meaning of section 2(p) of the Federal Hazardous Substances
Act (15 U.S.C. 1261(p)) only because it fails to comply with an
applicable requirement for child-resistant packaging under the Poison
Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 (15 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.) need not
notify the Commission prior to export.
Sec. 1019.2 Definitions.
As used in this subpart A of this part 1019:
(a) Consignee means the person, partnership, corporation or entity
in a foreign country to whom noncomplying goods are sent;
(b) Export means to send goods outside the United States or United
States possessions for purposes of trade, except the term does not
apply to sending goods to United States installations located outside
the United States or its possessions;
(c) Exporter means the person, partnership, corporation or entity
that initiates the export of noncomplying goods;
(d) Noncomplying goods means any item described in Sec. 1019.1(b),
except for those items excluded from the requirements of these
regulations by Sec. 1019.1 (c), (d), and (e).
Sec. 1019.3 General requirements for notifying the Commission.
Not less than 30 days before exporting any noncomplying goods
described in Sec. 1019.1(b), the exporter must file a statement with
the Consumer Product Safety Commission, as described in Secs. 1019.4
and 1019.5 of this subpart A. The exporter need not notify the
Commission about the export of items described in Sec. 1019.1 (c), (d),
or (e). As described in Sec. 1019.5, the exporter may request the
Commission to allow the statement to be filed between 10 and 29 days
before the intended export, and the request may be granted for good
cause.
Sec. 1019.4 Procedures for notifying the Commission; content of the
notification.
(a) Where notification must be filed. The notification of intent to
export shall be addressed to the Assistant Executive Director for
Compliance, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207.
(b) Coverage of notification. An exporter must file a separate
notification for each country to which noncomplying goods are to be
exported. Each notification may include a variety of noncomplying goods
being shipped to one country. The notification may include goods
intended to be shipped to one country in any one year, unless the
Assistant Executive Director of Compliance directs otherwise in
writing.
(c) Form of notification. The notification of intent to export must
be in writing and must be entitled: ``Notification of Intent to Export
Noncomplying Goods to [indicate name of country].'' The Commission has
no notification forms, but encourages exporters to provide the required
information in the order listed in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this
section.
(d) Content of notification; required information. The notification
of intent to export shall contain the information required by this
subsection. If the notification covers a variety of noncomplying goods
the exporter intends to export to one country, the information required
below must be clearly provided for each class of goods, and may include
an estimate of the information required in paragraphs (d) (3) and (5)
of this section. The required information is:
(1) Name, address and telephone number of the exporter;
(2) Name and address of each consignee;
(3) Quantity and description of the goods to be exported to each
consignee, including brand or trade names or model or other identifying
numbers;
(4) Identification of the standards, bans, regulations and
statutory provisions applicable to the goods being exported, and an
accurate description of the manner in which the goods fail to comply
with applicable requirements; and
(5) Anticipated date of shipment and port of destination.
(e) Optional information. In addition to the information required
by paragraph (d) of this section, the notification of intent to export
may contain, at the exporter's option, the following information:
(1) Copies of any correspondence from the government of the country
of destination of the goods indicating whether the noncomplying goods
may be imported into that country; and
(2) Any other safety-related information that the exporter believes
is relevant or useful to the Commission or to the government of the
country of intended destination.
(f) Signature. The notification of intent to export shall be signed
by the owner of the exporting firm if the exporter is a sole-
proprietorship, by a partner if the exporter is a partnership, or by a
corporate officer if the exporter is a corporation.
Sec. 1019.5 Time notification must be made to Commission; reductions
of time.
(a) Time of notification. The notification of intent to export must
be received by the Commission's Assistant Executive Director for
Compliance at least 30 days before the noncomplying goods are to leave
the customs territory of the United States. If the notification of
intent to export includes more than one shipment of noncomplying goods
to a foreign country, the Assistant Executive Director for Compliance
must
[[Page 29649]]
receive the notification at least 30 days before the first shipment of
noncomplying goods is to leave the customs territory of the United
States.
(b) Incomplete notification. Promptly after receiving notification
of intent to export, the Assistant Executive Director will inform the
exporter if the notification of intent to export is incomplete and will
described which requirements of Sec. 1019.4 are not satisfied. The
Assistant Executive Director may inform the exporter that the 30-day
advance notification period will not begin until the Assistant
Executive Director receives all the required information.
(c) Requests for reduction in 30-day notification requirement. Any
exporter may request an exemption from the requirement of 30-day
advance notification of intent to export by filing with the
Commission's Assistant Executive Director for Compliance (Washington,
DC 20207) a written request that the time be reduced to a time between
10 and 30 days before the intended export. The request for reduction in
time must be received by the Assistant Executive Director for
Compliance at least 3 working days before the exporter wishes the
reduced time period to begin. The request must:
(1) Be in writing;
(2) Be entitled ``Request for Reduction of Time to File
Notification of Intent to Export Noncomplying Goods to [indicate name
of country]'';
(3) Contain a specific request for the time reduction requested to
a time between 10 and 30 days before the intended export); and
(4) Provide reasons for the request for reduction in time.
(d) Response to requests for reduction of time. The Assistant
Executive Director for Compliance has the authority to approve or
disapprove requests for reduction of time. The Assistant Executive
Director shall indicate the amount of time before export that the
exporter must provide the notification. If the request is not granted,
the Assistant Executive Director shall explain the reasons in writing.
Sec. 1019.6 Changes to notification.
If the exporter causes any change to any of the information
required by Sec. 1019.4, or learns of any change to any of that
information, at any time before the noncomplying goods reach the
country of destination, the exporter must notify the Assistant
Executive Director for Compliance within two working days after causing
or learning of such change, and must state the reason for any such
change. The Assistant Executive Director will promptly inform the
exporter whether the 30-day advance notification period will be
discontinued, and whether the exporter must take any other steps to
comply with the advance notification requirement.
Sec. 1019.7 Commission notification of foreign governments.
After receiving notification from the exporter, or any changes in
notification, the Assistant Executive Director for Compliance shall
inform on a priority basis the appropriate government agency of the
country to which the noncomplying goods are to be sent of the
exportation and the basis on which the goods are banned or fail to
comply with Commission standards, regulations, or statutes, and shall
send all information supplied by the exporter in accordance with
Sec. 1019.4(d). The Assistant Executive Director shall also enclose any
information supplied in accordance with Sec. 1019.4(e), but he or she
may also state that the Commission disagrees with or takes no position
on its content, including its relevance or accuracy. The Assistant
Executive Director shall take whatever other action is necessary to
provide full information to foreign countries and shall also work with
and inform the U.S. State Department and foreign embassies and
international organizations, as appropriate. The Assistant Executive
Director shall also seek acknowledgment of the notification from the
foreign government. Foreign governments intending to prohibit entry of
goods that are the subject of a notification from the Commission should
initiate action to prevent such entry and should notify the exporter
directly of that intent.
Sec. 1019.8 Confidentiality.
If the exporter believes any of the information submitted should be
considered trade secret or confidential commercial or financial
information, the exporter must request confidential treatment, in
writing, at the time the information is submitted or must indicate that
a request will be made within 10 working days. The Commission's
regulations under the Freedom of Information Act, 16 CFR part 1015,
govern confidential treatment of information submitted to the
Commission.
Subpart B--Statement of Policy and Interpretation Concerning Export
of Noncomplying, Misbranded, or Banned Products
Sec. 1019.31 Purpose and scope.
(a) This subpart B of this part 1019 states the policy of the
Consumer Product Safety Commission and its interpretation of the
Consumer Product Safety Act and the Federal Hazardous Substances Act
with regard to exportation of products which have been sold, offered
for sale, or distributed in commerce for use in the United States
which:
(1) Fail to comply with an applicable consumer product safety
standard or banning rule issued under provisions of the Consumer
Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.); or
(2) Are ``misbranded hazardous substances'' or ``banned hazardous
substances'' as those terms are used in the Federal Hazardous
Substances Act (15 U.S.C. 1261 et seq.).
(b) The policy expressed in this subpart B of part 1019 does not
apply to any of the following products:
(1) Products which could be regulated only under provisions of the
Consumer Product Safety Act but which are not subject to a consumer
product safety standard or banning rule issued under that Act.
(2) Consumer products which are subject to and fail to comply with
an applicable standard or banning rule issued under provisions of the
Consumer Product Safety Act but which have never been distributed in
commerce for use in the United States. See section 18(b) of the
Consumer Product Safety Act 15, U.S.C. 2067(b), and subpart A of this
part 1019 for requirements governing export of such products.)
(3) Products which could be regulated under one or more sections of
the Federal Hazardous Substances Act but which are neither ``misbranded
hazardous substances'' nor ``banned hazardous substances'' as those
terms are used in the Act.
(4) Products which are ``misbranded hazardous substances'' or
``banned hazardous substances'' as those terms are used in the Federal
Hazardous Substances Act but which have never been sold or offered for
sale in domestic commerce. (See sections 5(b) and 14(d) of the Federal
Hazardous Substances Act (15 U.S.C. 1264(b) and 1273(d) and subpart A
of this part 1019 for requirements governing export of such products.)
(5) Products for which the Commission has granted an exemption from
an applicable standard, ban, or
[[Page 29650]]
labeling requirement under the CPSA, FHSA, or FFA, in accordance with
provisions of 16 CFR 1009.9. (These products remain subject to the
notification requirements of subpart A of this part 1019.)
(6) Products which fail to comply with an applicable standard of
flammability issued under provisions of the Flammable Fabrics Act (15
U.S.C. 1191 et seq.). The Commission's policy regarding export of such
products is set forth in the Commission's Memorandum Decision and Order
In the Matter of Imperial Carpet Mills, Inc., CPSC Docket No. 80-2,
July 7, 1983, and allows export without regard to whether the products
have been distributed in domestic commerce. (See section 15 of the
Flammable Fabrics Act, 15 U.S.C. 1202, and subpart A of this part 1019
for requirements governing export of such products.)
Sec. 1019.32 Statutory provisions.
(a) Section 18(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C.
2057(a)) states:
This Act [the Consumer Product Safety Act] shall not apply to
any consumer product if: (1) It can be shown that such product is
manufactured, sold, or held for sale for export from the United
States (or that such product was imported for export), unless (A)
such consumer product is in fact distributed in commerce for use in
the United States, or (B) the Commission determines that exportation
of such product presents an unreasonable risk of injury to consumers
within the United States, and (2) such consumer product when
distributed in commerce, or any container in which it is enclosed
when so distributed, bears a stamp or label stating that such
consumer product is intended for export; except that this Act shall
apply to any consumer product manufactured for sale, offered for
sale, or sold for shipment to any installation of the United States
located outside of the United States.
(b) Section 4 of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15 U.S.C.
1263) states in part:
The following acts and the causing thereof are hereby
prohibited: (a) The introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of any misbranded hazardous substance or banned
hazardous substance. * * * (c) The receipt in interstate commerce of
any misbranded hazardous substance or banned hazardous substance and
the delivery or proffered delivery thereof for pay or otherwise.
(c) Section 5(b) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15 U.S.C.
1264(b)) provides in part:
No person shall be subject to the penalties of this section * *
* (3) for having violated subsection (a) or (c) of section 4 with
respect to any hazardous substance shipped or delivered for shipment
for export to any foreign country, in a package marked for export on
the outside of the shipping container and labeled in accordance with
the specifications of the foreign purchaser and in accordance with
the laws of the foreign country, but if such hazardous substance is
sold or offered for sale in domestic commerce, or if the Consumer
Product Safety Commission determines that exportation of such
substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to persons
residing within the United States, this clause shall not apply.
Sec. 1019.33 Statement of policy and interpretation.
(a) In its enforcement of the Consumer Product Safety Act, the
Commission interprets the provisions of that Act to prohibit the export
of products which fail to comply with an applicable consumer product
safety standard or banning rule issued under that Act if those products
have at any time been distributed in commerce for use in the United
States.
(b) In its enforcement of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, the
Commission interprets the provisions of the Act to prohibit the export
of products which are misbranded substances or banned hazardous
substances as those terms are used in that Act if those products have
at any time been sold or offered for sale in domestic commerce.
Dated: June 6, 1996.
Sadye E. Dunn,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 96-14760 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14756 Irish Potatoes Grown in Colorado; Assessment Rate
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29635-29636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14756]
========================================================================
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. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 29635]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 948
[Docket No. FV96-948-1IFR]
Irish Potatoes Grown in Colorado; Assessment Rate
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim final rule establishes an assessment rate for the
Colorado Potato Administrative Committee, Northern Colorado Office
(Area III) (Committee) under Marketing Order No. 948 for the 1996-97
and subsequent fiscal periods. The Committee is responsible for local
administration of the marketing order which regulates the handling of
Irish potatoes grown in Colorado. Authorization to assess potato
handlers enables the Committee to incur expenses that are reasonable
and necessary to administer the program.
DATES: Effective on July 1, 1996. Comments received by July 12, 1996,
will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this rule. Comments must be sent in triplicate to the Docket
Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room
2523-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456, FAX 202-720-5698. Comments should
reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue
of the Federal Register and will be available for public inspection in
the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Sue Clark, Marketing Order
Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O.
Box 96456, room 2523-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456, telephone 202-720-
9918, FAX 202-720-5698, or Dennis L. West, Northwest Marketing Field
Office, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, Green-Wyatt Federal
Building, room 369, 1220 Southwest Third Avenue, Portland, OR 97204,
telephone 503-326-2724, FAX 503-326-7440.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing
Agreement No. 97 and Order No. 948, both as amended (7 CFR part 948),
regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Colorado,
hereinafter referred to as the ``order.'' The order is effective under
the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C.
601-674), hereinafter referred to as the ``Act.''
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this rule in
conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, Colorado
potato handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the
order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the
assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable
potatoes beginning July 1, 1996, and continuing until amended,
suspended, or terminated. This rule will not preempt any State or local
laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted
therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on
the petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the
petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States
in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or
her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the
Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not
later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the
economic impact of this rule on small entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in
that they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 85 producers of Colorado Area III potatoes
in the production area and approximately 15 handlers subject to
regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers have
been defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as
those having annual receipts of less than $500,000, and small
agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts
are less than $5,000,000. The majority of Colorado Area III potato
producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.
The Colorado potato marketing order provides authority for the
Committee, with the approval of the Department, to formulate an annual
budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer
the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of
Colorado Area III potatoes. They are familiar with the Committee's
needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and
are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and
assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a
public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity
to participate and provide input.
In Colorado, both a State and a Federal marketing order operate
simultaneously. The State order authorizes promotion, including paid
advertising, which the Federal order does not. All expenses in this
category are financed under the State order. The jointly operated
programs consume about equal administrative time and the two orders
continue to split administrative costs equally.
[[Page 29636]]
The Committee met on April 11, 1996, and unanimously recommended
1996-97 expenditures of $24,462.50 and an assessment rate of $0.01 per
hundredweight of potatoes. In comparison, last year's budgeted
expenditures were $27,362.50. The assessment rate of $0.01 is $0.01
less than last year's established rate. Major expenditures recommended
by the Committee for the 1996-97 year include $11,500 for the manager's
salary, $2,400 for rent, and $1,500 for office supplies, the same as in
1995-96.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by
dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of Colorado Area
III potatoes. Potato shipments for the year are estimated at 1,450,750
hundredweight which should provide $14,507.50 in assessment income.
Income derived from handler assessments, interest, and rent from the
sublease of office space to the State inspection service, along with
funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, will be adequate to
cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve at the beginning of the
1996-97 fiscal period are estimated at $36,551. Funds in the reserve
will be kept within the maximum permitted by the order.
While this rule will impose some additional costs on handlers, the
costs are in the form of uniform assessments on all handlers. Some of
the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these
costs will be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the
marketing order. Therefore, the AMS has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in
effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by the
Secretary upon recommendation and information submitted by the
Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate is effective for an indefinite
period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each
fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider
recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and
times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or the
Department. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested
persons may express their views at those meetings. The Department will
evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to
determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed.
Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's
1996-97 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods will be reviewed
and, as appropriate, approved by the Department.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including
the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other
available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as
hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of
the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good
cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public
interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into
effect, because: (1) The Committee needs to have sufficient funds to
pay its expenses which are incurred on a continuous basis; (2) the
1996-97 fiscal period begins on July 1, 1996, and the marketing order
requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal period apply to
all assessable potatoes handled during such fiscal period; (3) handlers
are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by the
Committee at a public meeting and is similar to other assessment rate
actions issued in past years; and (4) this interim final rule provides
a 30-day comment period, and all comments timely received will be
considered prior to finalization of this rule.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 948
Marketing agreements, Potatoes, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 948 is
amended as follows:
PART 948--IRISH POTATOES GROWN IN COLORADO
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 948 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. A new Sec. 948.215 is added to read as follows:
Note: This section will appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Sec. 948.215 Assessment rate.
On and after July 1, 1996, an assessment rate of $0.01 per
hundredweight is established for Colorado Area III potatoes.
Dated: June 3, 1996.
Sharon Bomer Lauritsen,
Acting Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-14756 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14730 Editorial Changes to Policies Relating to Accounts and Reports
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29645-29646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14730]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
14 CFR Part 399
RIN 2105-AC43
Editorial Changes to Policies Relating to Accounts and Reports
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation amends its regulations in
order to remove redundant provisions. This rule makes no substantive
changes to current regulations. This action is taken in response to the
President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on July 12, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bernie Stankus, Regulations Division,
Office of Airline Information, K-25, U.S. Department of Transportation,
400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4387, or M.
Clay Moritz, (202) 366-4385.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Purpose
Subpart D of 14 CFR Part 399 is being removed as superfluous.
Section 399.50 is redundant to section 241.22(c); section 399.51 is
redundant to section 241.22(b)(3); and section 399.52 is redundant to
section 241.2-4(d). The policies regarding extensions of time for
filing reports, confidential treatment of unaudited preliminary year-
end reports, and retroactive adjustments of expenses remain unchanged.
Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment Unnecessary
Since this change relates to departmental management, organization,
procedure, and practice, notice and comment are unnecessary. The
changes made in this document are ministerial, removing redundant
material.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866. It has not been
[[Page 29646]]
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that order. It is
not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). As
this rule removes redundant provisisons, it will not impose any costs
on the public.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. It is
editorial in nature and will not change the underlying Departmental
policy.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains no reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
Federalism
The Department of Transportation has analyzed this rule under the
principles and criteria in Executive Order 12612 and has determined
that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
National Environmental Protection Act
The Department of Transportation has also analyzed the proposed
amendments for the purpose of the National Environmental Protection
Act. The amendments will not have any impact on the quality of the
human environment.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 399
Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Air rates and
fares, Air taxis, Consumer protection, Small businesses.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Department of
Transportation amends 14 CFR Part 399 as set forth below.
PART 399--STATEMENTS OF GENERAL POLICY
1. The authority citation for part 399 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. chapters 401, 411, 413, 415, 417, 419, 461.
Sec. 399.50 [Removed]
2. Section 399.50 is removed.
Sec. 399.51 [Removed]
3. Section 399.51 is removed.
Sec. 399.52 [Removed]
4. Section 399.52 is removed.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 31, 1996.
Charles Hunnicutt,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-14730 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14692 Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Model L-1011-385 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29642-29645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14692]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-NM-104-AD; Amendment 39-9667; AD 96-12-24]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Model L-1011-385 Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that
is applicable to all Lockheed Model L-1011-385 series airplanes. This
action requires inspections to detect cracking and other discrepancies
of certain web-to-cap fasteners of the rear spar between inner wing
stations (IWS) 310 and 343, and of the web area around those fasteners;
and various follow-on actions. This AD also provides for an optional
modification which, if accomplished, will defer the initiation of the
inspections for a certain period of time. This amendment is prompted by
a report of fatigue cracking in the web of the rear spar of the wing.
The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent such fatigue
cracking, which could result in failure of the rear spar of the wing
and consequent fuel spillage.
DATES: Effective June 27, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of June 27, 1996.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before August 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM-104-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from
Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Support Company, Field Support
Department, Dept. 693, Zone 0755, 2251 Lake Park Drive, Smyrna, Georgia
30080. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,
Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, Small Airplane Directorate,
Campus Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2-160, College Park,
Georgia; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Peters, Aerospace Engineer,
Branch, ACE-116A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, Small
Airplane Directorate, Campus Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2-
160, College Park, Georgia 30337-2748; telephone (404) 305-7367; fax
(404) 305-7348.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA received a report indicating that
fatigue cracking was found on the web of the rear spar of the wing on a
Lockheed Model L-1011-385 series airplane that had accumulated
approximately 18,900 total landings. The crack, which was 24 inches
long, grew rapidly in a downward direction at a 45-degree angle and
stopped behind the trunnion fitting of the main landing gear.
Consequently, the airplane began leaking fuel during final taxi.
Fatigue cracking in the web of the rear spar of the wing can
originate in the fasteners common to the web and the vertical leg of
the upper cap. Such cracking can grow and remain undetected for a
significant period of
[[Page 29643]]
time because the crack can propagate on the interior (fuel side) of the
web before it breaches the aft side (flap side) of the web. Such
fatigue cracking, if not detected and corrected in a timely manner,
could result in failure of the rear spar of the wing and consequent
fuel spillage.
Other Relevant Rules
The FAA previously issued AD 96-07-13, amendment 39-9563 (61 FR
16379, April 15, 1996), which requires various X-ray, eddy current, and
ultrasonic inspections to detect fatigue cracking of certain areas of
the rear spar caps, web, skin, and certain fastener holes; and repair
or modification, if necessary. The inspections are required to be
repeated at intervals of 2,000 flight cycles. That AD was prompted by
reports of fatigue cracks in the caps, web, and skin of the wing rear
spar inboard of inner wing station 346. The actions specified by that
AD are intended to prevent rupture of the rear spar, which could result
in extensive damage to the wing and fuel spillage.
The fatigue cracking that was the subject of the recent in-service
incident, described above, indicates that fatigue cracking in the area
of the web of the rear spar of the wing apparently can occur and
propagate at a faster rate and at a reduced threshold than previously
realized. In light of this, the FAA is considering revising AD 96-07-13
to reduce the repetitive inspection intervals to ensure that fatigue
cracking can be found in a more timely manner. (The FAA indicated this
in the preamble to that AD.)
Explanation of Relevant Service Information
The FAA has reviewed and approved Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin
093-57-218, dated April 11, 1996. Part I of the service bulletin
describes procedures for repetitive visual inspections to detect
fatigue cracking and other discrepancies (i.e., corrosion, fastener
looseness, nicks, scratches, or other surface damage) of certain web-
to-cap fasteners of the rear spar between inner wing stations (IWS) 310
and 343, and of the web area around those fasteners; and various
follow-on actions. The follow-on actions include repetitive visual
inspections, eddy current surface scan (ECSS) inspections, bolt hole
eddy current (BHEC) inspections, and repair.
Part II of the service bulletin describes procedures for an
optional modification that will allow the initiation of the visual
inspections to be deferred for a period of time. The modification
involves removing certain web-to-cap fasteners, verifying that the
subject fastener holes are free of cracks, cold working the fastener
holes, and replacing the fasteners with oversize fasteners.
Explanation of the Requirements of the Rule
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other Model L-1011-385 series airplanes of the same
type design, this AD is being issued to prevent fatigue cracking in the
web of the rear spar of the wing, which could result in failure of the
rear spar of the wing and consequent fuel spillage. This AD requires
repetitive visual inspections to detect cracking and other
discrepancies of certain web-to-cap fasteners of the rear spar between
IWS 310 and IWS 343, and of the web area around those fasteners; and
various follow-on actions. This AD also provides for an optional
modification which, if accomplished, will allow the initiation of the
visual inspections to be deferred for a certain period of time. The
actions are required to be accomplished in accordance with the Lockheed
service bulletin described previously.
The inspections that are required by this AD are in addition to--
not in lieu of--those currently required by AD 96-07-13, amendment 39-
9563.
Differences between the Rule and the Referenced Service Information
Operators should note that, although the Lockheed service bulletin
specifies that the manufacturer must be contacted for disposition of
certain conditions, this AD requires that the repair of those
conditions be accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate.
Determination of Rule's Effective Date
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for
making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Comments Invited
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves
requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by
notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on
this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire.
Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted
in triplicate to the address specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments will
be considered, and this rule may be amended in light of the comments
received. Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and
suggestions is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of the
AD action and determining whether additional rulemaking action would be
needed.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be
available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the
Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that
summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this
AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 96-NM-104-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency
regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe
condition in aircraft, and that it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further
that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is
determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be
significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final
regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket.
A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the
location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
[[Page 29644]]
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-12-24 Lockheed: Amendment 39-9667. Docket 96-NM-104-AD.
Applicability: All Model L-1011-385 series airplanes,
certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise 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: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent fatigue cracking on the web of the rear spar of the
wing, which could result in failure of the rear spar of the wing and
consequent fuel spillage, accomplish the following:
(a) Perform a visual inspection to detect signs of cracking and
other discrepancies (i.e., corrosion, fastener looseness, nicks,
scratches, or other surface damage) of the web-to-cap fasteners of
the rear spar between inner wing stations (IWS) 310 and 343, as
specified in Figure 2 of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-218, dated
April 11, 1996; and of the web area around those fasteners; in
accordance with Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions of that
service bulletin. Perform the inspection at the applicable time
specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD:
(1) Except as provided by paragraph (a)(2) of this AD: Perform
the initial inspection prior to the accumulation of the number of
landings specified as the ``inspection threshold'' in Table I of
Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-218, dated April 11, 1996, or
within 10 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later.
(2) For airplanes on which the wing rear spar has been modified
prior to the effective date of this AD in accordance with one of the
Lockheed service bulletins listed in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this
AD, accomplish the inspection as follows:
(i) Perform the initial inspection prior to the accumulation of
the number of landings specified as the ``inspection threshold'' in
Table I of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-218, dated April 11,
1996, calculated from the time the wing rear spar was modified
(rather than from the date of manufacture of the airplane), or
within 10 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later.
(ii) This paragraph applies to airplanes on which the wing rear
spar has been modified in accordance with one of the following
service bulletins:
Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-184, Revision 6, dated
October 28, 1991, or Revision 7, dated December 6, 1994; or
Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-196, Revision 5, dated
October 28, 1991, or Revision 6, dated December 6, 1994; or
Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision 3, dated
October 28, 1991, or Revision 4, dated March 27, 1995; or
Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-215, dated April 11,
1996.
(b) If no sign of cracking or other discrepancy is found during
the inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD, repeat that
inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed the number of
landings specified as the ``repeat visual inspection interval'' in
Table I of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-218, dated April 11,
1996.-
(c) If any sign of cracking is found during an inspection required
by paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD, prior to further flight, perform
either eddy current surface scan (ECSS) inspections, or bolt hole eddy
current (BHEC) inspections, as appropriate, to confirm cracking, in
accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-218, dated April 11,
1996. -
(1) If no cracking is confirmed, repeat the inspection specified in
paragraph (a) of this AD at intervals not to exceed the number of
landings specified as the ``repeat visual inspection interval'' in
Table 1 of the service bulletin. -
(2) If any cracking is confirmed, prior to further flight, repair
it in accordance with the service bulletin. -
(d) Accomplishment of the modification specified in Part II of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-218,
dated April 11, 1996, and in accordance with that service bulletin,
allows the visual inspections required by paragraph (a) of this AD to
be deferred for the period specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this AD. -
(1) If any condition (i.e., number of fasteners per stiffener bay,
or cracking) is identified during the accomplishment of the
modification that exceeds the limits specified in paragraph B.3. of
Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin,
prior to further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved by
the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate. -
(2) Within 5,000 landings following accomplishment of the
modification, perform the visual inspection required by paragraph (a)
of this AD. Thereafter, repeat that inspection at intervals not to
exceed the number of landings specified as the ``repeat visual
inspection interval'' in Table I of the service bulletin. -
(e) 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, ACO. Operators shall submit their requests
through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add
comments and then send it to the Manager, Atlanta ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Atlanta ACO.
-(f) 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. -
(g) The actions shall be done in accordance with Lockheed L-1011
Service Bulletin 093-57-218, dated April 11, 1996. 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 Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Support Company, Field
Support Department, Dept. 693, Zone 0755, 2251 Lake Park Drive, Smyrna,
Georgia 30080. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA,
Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, Small Airplane Directorate,
Campus Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2-160, College Park,
Georgia; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC. -
(h) This amendment becomes effective on June 27, 1996.
[[Page 29645]]
Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 5, 1996.
James V. Devany,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-14692 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14688 Reimbursement for Providing Financial Records; Recordkeeping Requirements for Certain Financial Records
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29638-29641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14688]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 219
[Regulation S; Docket No. R-0906]
Reimbursement for Providing Financial Records; Recordkeeping
Requirements for Certain Financial Records
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board)
has approved amendments to Subpart A of Regulation S, which implements
the requirement under the Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA) that
the Board establish the rates and conditions under which payment shall
be made by a government authority to a financial institution for
assembling or providing financial records pursuant to RFPA. These
amendments update the fees to be charged and streamline the subpart
generally.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Boutilier, Senior Counsel
(202/452-2418), Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. For users of the
Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), please contact Dorothea
Thompson (202/452-3544).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 1115 of the RFPA (12 U.S.C. 3415) requires the Board to
establish, by regulation, the rates and conditions under which payment
is made by a Government authority to a financial institution for
searching for, reproducing, or transporting data required or requested
under the RFPA. Shortly after the RFPA was adopted, the Board issued
Regulation S (12 CFR 219) to implement this provision (44 FR 55812,
September 28, 1979). In January 1995, the Board adopted a new Subpart B
of Regulation S 1 and designated this part of Regulation S as
Subpart A (60 FR 231, January 3, 1995). No substantive changes were
made in that rulemaking to the newly designated Subpart A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In a rulemaking issued on April 1, 1996 (61 FR 14382), the
effective date of Subpart B was delayed until May 28, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 303 of the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103-325 (12 U.S.C. 4803),
the Board reviewed Subpart A of Regulation S and issued for comment
proposed amendments to update it (60 FR 65599, December 20, 1995). The
proposed amendments eliminated unnecessary provisions and updated the
rates to be paid and the exceptions to the provisions of this Subpart.
Summary of comments: The Board received 21 comments on the proposed
revisions--19 from banks or bank holding companies, one from a trade
association, and one from a Federal Reserve Bank. All comments
supported updating and streamlining the provisions of the regulation.
Several comments, however, requested further changes in the proposed
regulation. These requests for additional changes covered two
categories--the proposed fee structure, and the exemptions from the
fees.
Fees. Ten of the 21 comments requested further changes in the fee
schedule. The current fees are $10.00 per hour for search and
processing time, and $.15 per page for reproduction. The proposed fees
provided for two levels of reimbursement for search and processing
time: clerical time at $11.00 per hour, and managerial time at $17.00
per hour. Proposed fees for reproduction were left at $.15 per page. Of
the nine comments that specifically discussed the reimbursement rate
for search and processing, six supported the proposed fees and three
requested increased fees. Of the ten comments that focused on the
proposed reproduction fees, two supported the proposed fees and eight
requested that they be raised. The suggested reproduction fees ranged
from $.25 to $3.00 per page for paper copies, and $.25 to $3.00 for
microfiche copies.
Other miscellaneous comments on the fee schedule included two
comments requesting that fees be periodically adjusted to account for
inflation, a request for a definition of the terms ``clerical/
technical'' and ``manager/supervisory'', a request that a new category
be added for reimbursement for legal advice, and a request that the
regulation specify that search/processing time should be billed in 15-
minute increments.
Exceptions. The proposed regulation updated the list of statutory
exceptions wherein a financial institution is not entitled to
reimbursement under the RFPA. Eight of the 21 commenters objected to
these exceptions, stating that they cover the vast majority of the
searches required. These objections focused primarily on the exception
for requests from the IRS, and requests for a corporation's banking
records. The American Bankers Association, while acknowledging that the
exceptions are set by statute, not the Board, stated that these
exceptions ``effectively exclude
[[Page 29639]]
98% of all situations in which banks gather such records.''
Based upon the comments received, the Board has made some
adjustments to the reimbursement schedule.
I. Definitions
The definitions in Subpart A reiterate the statutory definitions
from the RFPA for the applicable terms of this Subpart. The definition
for ``directly incurred costs'' has been removed and incorporated into
the section concerning cost reimbursement.
II. Cost Reimbursement
This section has been streamlined and reorganized to place the
rates in a separate Appendix A for clarity and ease of amendment when
updating the rates. The amendments also recognize that courts issuing
orders or subpoenas in connection with grand jury proceedings must pay
the rates set by Subpart A.
III. Rates
The Board has established uniform rates for all depository
institutions, regardless of size or location, in the belief that
administration of a complex fee schedule would be difficult.
A. Reproduction
The rates for reproduction set forth in Appendix A to Sec. 219.3
have been increased based upon the comments received. Eight out of ten
comments on the duplication rates stated that they were too low. There
was not a consensus, however, among the commenters on the appropriate
amount of the increase: two suggested $.25 per page, two suggested $.50
per page, two suggested $1.00 or more per page, and two just requested
a minimal increase in the rate. The comments recommending significantly
higher fees did not provide supporting information on the direct costs
of duplication, and the statute provides for reimbursement of ``costs *
* * directly incurred in * * * reproducing * * *.'' A plurality of the
comments, however, recommended a minimal increase in the fees, and some
provided supporting information on costs. Therefore, the Board has
raised the reimbursement rate for photocopying to $.25 per page. Other
commenters suggested that the reimbursement rate for duplication of
microfiche also was inadequate, based upon the costs to the bank.
Accordingly, the Board modified the reimbursement schedule to increase
the rate for reproduction of paper copies of microfiche from $.15 to
$.25 to match the photocopying rate, and increase the rate for
duplication of microfiche from $.30 to $.50 per microfiche.
B. Search and Processing
The fees for search and processing have not been changed from those
issued for comment. These rates are separated into two categories--
clerical/technical and manager/supervisory. Any search for sensitive
customer records is likely to involve both clerical staff and
managerial staff, who are paid at different levels. The rates set for
this reimbursement were calculated using the 1994 Bank Cash
Compensation Survey done by the Bank Administration Institute (BAI).
Based upon the job descriptions in the Cash Compensation Survey, the
position of Supervisor, Bookkeeping 2 was used to calculate the
managerial rate. The calculation was made based upon the total
compensation (with bonus) for all banks on a national average ($27,600)
divided by 2080 hours, adjusted up by 25% to cover benefits, and
further adjusted by 3% for inflation since 1994. The clerical rate was
calculated in the same way, but using an average of the two job
positions of Clerk II 3 (Bookkeeping and Operations @ $18,100) and
Clerk I 4 (Bookkeeping and Operations @ $15,100).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ BAI describes this position as follows: ``Direct supervision
of assigned nonexempt staff in the bookkeeping area with particular
emphasis on work flow to meet time deadlines. Includes training
staff, planning work schedules, recommending and implementing staff
needs, pay raises, etc. Coordinates the section's activities with
other areas of the bank. Handles the more involved problems and
calls from dissatisfied customers.''
\3\ BAI describes this position as follows: ``Performs a variety
of clerical duties in the bookkeeping department. Duties may include
filing checks, overdrafts and stop payments, reconciling,
computerized operations, preparing statements and reports, etc. May
do exclusively DDA, adjustments, reconciling, etc. or a combination
of activities. Handles more complex and difficult customer problems;
requires minimal supervision.''
\4\ BAI describes this position as follows: ``Performs the same
duties of a Bookkeeping and Operations Clerk II only may have less
experience. Requires direct supervision.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Exceptions
This section has been updated to reflect changes in the exceptions
listed by the RFPA. Although many comments were critical of the listed
exceptions, the Board cannot change or eliminate them, because they are
set by statute. They are merely set forth in the regulation to assist
depository institutions in correctly applying the reimbursement
schedule.
V. Conditions for Payment and Payment Procedures
One commenter suggested that the rule require time to be billed in
15-minute increments, as the existing regulation does. Accordingly, the
Board has amended the section on itemized billing to state that the
time should be billed in 15-minute increments. No other changes have
been made to these two sections.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605, the Board certifies that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The final rule confers a benefit on financial institutions,
including small financial institutions, by providing for reimbursement
of certain costs incurred in complying with a requirement to assemble
and produce financial records.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. Ch. 35; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed
the rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of
Management and Budget.
The Right to Financial Privacy Act mandates that each financial
institution maintain a record of instances in which it releases a
consumer's financial information to a government agency. Generally, the
institution may not release records until the government agency has
notified the consumer of its intent to request the record, together
with the reason for the request. Normally, the agency may not obtain
records unless it has a subpoena, a search warrant, or an authorization
from the consumer.
The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and an organization
is not required to respond to, this information collection unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number
for the Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements in Connection with
the Right to Financial Privacy Act is 7100-0203.
Because the records would be maintained at banks, no issue of
confidentiality under the Freedom of Information Act arises.
This final regulation, 12 CFR part 219, has no effect upon the
paperwork burden associated with the Recordkeeping and Disclosure
Requirements in Connection with the Right to Financial Privacy Act.
That hour burden is estimated to be 22 minutes per response. It is
estimated that the frequency of response at state member banks is 30
responses per year. Thus the annual hour burden across the 1,042 state
member banks is estimated to be 11,462 hours. Based on an hourly cost
of $20, the annual cost to the public is estimated to be $229,240.
[[Page 29640]]
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of
this collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Mary
M. McLaughlin, Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer, Division of
Research and Statistics, Mail Stop 97, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 and to the Office of
Management and Budget, Paperwork Project (7100-0203), Washington, DC
20503.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 219
Banks, banking, Currency, Federal Reserve System, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 12 CFR Part 219, as
amended at 60 FR 231 and 44144, and 61 FR 14382, effective May 28,
1996, is amended as set forth below.
PART 219--REIMBURSEMENT FOR PROVIDING FINANCIAL RECORDS;
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN FINANCIAL RECORDS
(REGULATION S)
Subpart A--Reimbursement to Financial Institutions for Providing
Financial Records
1. The authority citation for Subpart A continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 3415.
2. Subpart A is amended by revising Secs. 219.2 through 219.6 to
read as follows:
Sec. 219.2 Definitions.
For the purposes of this subpart, the following definitions shall
apply:
Customer means any person or authorized representative of that
person who uses any service of a financial institution, or for whom a
financial institution acts or has acted as a fiduciary in relation to
an account maintained in the person's name. Customer does not include
corporations or partnerships comprised of more than five persons.
Financial institution means any office of a bank, savings bank,
card issuer as defined in section 103 of the Consumers Credit
Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 1602(n)), industrial loan company, trust
company, savings association, building and loan, or homestead
association (including cooperative banks), credit union, or consumer
finance institution, located in any State or territory of the United
States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or
the Virgin Islands.
Financial record means an original or copy of, or information known
to have been derived from, any record held by a financial institution
pertaining to a customer's relationship with the financial institution.
Government authority means any agency or department of the United
States, or any officer, employee or agent thereof.
Person means an individual or a partnership of five or fewer
individuals.
Sec. 219.3 Cost reimbursement.
(a) Fees payable. Except as provided in Sec. 219.4, a government
authority, or a court issuing an order or subpoena in connection with
grand jury proceedings, seeking access to financial records pertaining
to a customer shall reimburse the financial institution for reasonably
necessary costs directly incurred in searching for, reproducing or
transporting books, papers, records, or other data as set forth in this
section. The reimbursement schedule for a financial institution is set
forth in Appendix A to this section. If a financial institution has
financial records that are stored at an independent storage facility
that charges a fee to search for, reproduce, or transport particular
records requested, these costs are considered to be directly incurred
by the financial institution and may be included in the reimbursement.
(b) Search and processing costs. (1) Reimbursement of search and
processing costs shall cover the total amount of personnel time spent
in locating, retrieving, reproducing, and preparing financial records
for shipment. Search and processing costs shall not cover analysis of
material or legal advice.
(2) If itemized separately, search and processing costs may include
the actual cost of extracting information stored by computer in the
format in which it is normally produced, based on computer time and
necessary supplies; however, personnel time for computer search may be
paid for only at the rates specified in Appendix A to this section.
(c) Reproduction costs. The reimbursement rates for reproduction
costs for requested documents are set forth in Appendix A to this
section. Copies of photographs, films, computer tapes, and other
materials not listed in Appendix A to this section are reimbursed at
actual cost.
(d) Transportation costs. Reimbursement for transportation costs
shall be for the reasonably necessary costs directly incurred to
transport personnel to locate and retrieve the requested information,
and to convey such material to the place of examination.
Appendix A to Sec. 219.3--Reimbursement Schedule
Reproduction:
Photocopy, per page--$.25
Paper copies of microfiche, per frame--$.25
Duplicate microfiche, per microfiche--$.50
Computer diskette--$5.00
Search and Processing:
Clerical/Technical, hourly rate--$11.00
Manager/Supervisory, hourly rate--$17.00
Sec. 219.4 Exceptions.
A financial institution is not entitled to reimbursement under this
subpart for costs incurred in assembling or providing financial records
or information related to:
(a) Security interests, bankruptcy claims, debt collection. Any
financial records provided as an incident to perfecting a security
interest, proving a claim in bankruptcy, or otherwise collecting on a
debt owing either to the financial institution itself or in its role as
a fiduciary.
(b) Government loan programs. Financial records that are necessary
to permit the appropriate government authority to carry out its
responsibilities under a government loan, loan guaranty or loan
insurance program.
(c) Nonidentifiable information. Financial records that are not
identified with or identifiable as being derived from the financial
records of a particular customer.
(d) Financial supervisory agencies. Financial records disclosed to
a financial supervisory agency in the exercise of its supervisory,
regulatory, or monetary functions with respect to a financial
institution.
(e) Internal Revenue summons. Financial records disclosed in
accordance with procedures authorized by the Internal Revenue Code.
(f) Federally required reports. Financial records required to be
reported in accordance with any federal statute or rule promulgated
thereunder.
(g) Government civil or criminal litigation. Financial records
sought by a government authority under the Federal Rules of Civil or
Criminal Procedure or comparable rules of other courts in connection
with litigation to which the government authority and the customer are
parties.
(h) Administrative agency subpoenas. Financial records sought by a
government authority pursuant to an administrative subpoena issued by
an administrative law judge in an adjudicatory proceeding subject to 5
U.S.C. 554, and to which the government authority and the customer are
parties.
(i) Investigation of financial institution or its noncustomer.
Financial
[[Page 29641]]
records sought by a government authority in connection with a lawful
proceeding, investigation, examination, or inspection directed at the
financial institution in possession of such records, or at an entity
that is not a customer as defined in Sec. 219.2 of this part.
(j) General Accounting Office requests. Financial records sought by
the General Accounting Office pursuant to an authorized proceeding,
investigation, examination, or audit directed at a government
authority.
(k) Federal Housing Finance Board requests. Financial records or
information sought by the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB) or any
of the Federal home loan banks in the exercise of the FHFB's authority
to extend credit to financial institutions or others.
(l) Department of Veterans Affairs. The disclosure of the name and
address of any customer to the Department of Veterans Affairs where
such disclosure is necessary to, and used solely for, the proper
administration of benefits programs under laws administered by that
Department.
Sec. 219.5 Conditions for payment.
(a) Direct costs. Payment shall be made only for costs that are
both directly incurred and reasonably necessary to provide requested
material. Search and processing, reproduction, and transportation costs
shall be considered separately when determining whether the costs are
reasonably necessary.
(b) Compliance with legal process, request, or authorization. No
payment may be made to a financial institution until it satisfactorily
complies with the legal process, the formal written request, or the
customer authorization. When the legal process or formal written
request is withdrawn, or the customer authorization is revoked, or
where the customer successfully challenges disclosure to a grand jury
or government authority, the financial institution shall be reimbursed
for the reasonably necessary costs incurred in assembling the requested
financial records prior to the time the financial institution is
notified of such event.
(c) Itemized bill or invoice. No reimbursement is required unless a
financial institution submits an itemized bill or invoice specifically
detailing its search and processing, reproduction, and transportation
costs. Search and processing time should be billed in 15-minute
increments.
Sec. 219.6 Payment procedures.
(a) Notice to submit invoice. Promptly following a service of legal
process or request, the court or government authority shall notify the
financial institution that it must submit an itemized bill or invoice
in order to obtain payment and shall furnish an address for this
purpose.
(b) Special notice. If a grand jury or government authority
withdraws the legal process or formal written request, or if the
customer revokes the authorization, or if the legal process or request
has been successfully challenged by the customer, the grand jury or
government authority shall promptly notify the financial institution of
these facts, and shall also notify the financial institution that it
must submit an itemized bill or invoice in order to obtain payment of
costs incurred prior to the time of the notice to the financial
institution receives this notice.
Sec. 219.7 [Removed]
3. Section 219.7 is removed.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, June 5, 1996.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-14688 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14630 Bifenthrin; Pesticide Tolerance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29676-29678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14630]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 5F4485/R2232; FRL-5364-3]
RIN 2070-AB78
Bifenthrin; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule establishes a tolerance for residues of the
pesticide bifenthrin in or on the raw agricultural commodity
strawberries. The regulation to establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of the pesticide was requested in a petition submitted by
FMC Corporation.
Effective Date: This regulation becomes effective June 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
document control number [PP 5F4485/R2232], 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
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 Highway, 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:
opp-docket epamail.epa.gov.
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 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
5F4485/R2232]. 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, telephone number, and e-mail address: Rm.
204, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, (703) 305-
6100; e-mail: [email protected] epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA issued a notice, published in the
Federal Register of June 15, 1995 (60 FR 31466), which announced that
FMC Corporation, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, had
submitted a pesticide petition (PP 5F4485) 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 residues of the pyrethroid bifenthrin (2-methyl(1,1-biphenyl)-3-
yl)methyl-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoro-1-propenyl-2,2-
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate) in or on the raw agricultural
commodity strawberries at 3.0 parts per million (ppm).
No comments were received in response to the notice of filing.
The scientific data submitted in support of this petition and other
relevant material have been evaluated. The toxicological and metabolism
data considered in support of this tolerance are discussed in detail in
a related document published in the Federal Register of June 22, 1994
(59 FR 32167).
A chronic dietary exposure/risk assessment has been performed for
bifenthrin using a Reference Dose (RfD) of 0.015 mg/kg of bwt/day. The
RfD was based on a No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) of 1.5 mg/kg/day
from the 1-year study in dogs and a safety factor of 100. The endpoint
effect of concern was intermittent tremors in test animals at the
lowest effect level. The chronic exposure analysis was performed using
tolerance level residues and 100 percent crop treated information. The
current estimated dietary exposure for the
[[Page 29677]]
overall U.S. population resulting from established tolerances is
0.002641 mg/kg of bwt/day, which represents 17.6 percent of the RfD,
and for non-nursing infants (< 1 yr old) the subgroup population
exposed to the highest risk the estimated dietary exposure is 0.008183,
which represents 54.6 percent of the RfD. The current action will
increase the exposure for the overall U.S. population to 0.002745 mg/kg
of bwt/day or 18.3 percent of the RfD and for non-nursing infants (< 1
yr old) to 0.008265 mg/kg of bwt/day or 55.1 percent of the RfD.
Generally speaking, the Agency has no concern if for all published and
proposed tolerances dietary exposure is less than the RfD.
Because there was a sign of developmental effects seen in animal
studies, the Agency used the rat developmental toxicity study with a
maternal NOEL of 1 mg/kg/day to assess acute dietary exposure and
determine a margin of exposure (MOE) for the overall U.S. population
and certain subgroups. Since the toxicological end-point pertains to
developmental toxicity, the population group of concern for this
analysis is women age 13 and above, the subgroup which most closely
approximates women of child-bearing age. The MOE is calculated as the
ratio of the NOEL to the exposure. For this analysis the Agency
calculated the MOE for women age 13 and above to be 200. Generally
speaking, MOE's greater than 100 for data derived from animal studies
are regarded as showing no appreciable risk.
The metabolism of the chemical in plants and animals for the use is
adequately understood. Secondary residues occurring in livestock and
their by-products are not expected since there are no known animal feed
stock uses for strawberries. Adequate analytical methodology (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 for publication in the
Pesticide Analytical Manual, Vol. II (PAM II). Because of the long lead
time for publication of the method in PAM II, the analytical
methodology is being made available in the interim to anyone interested
in pesticide enforcement when requested from Calvin Furlow, Public
Response and Program Resource Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and
telephone number: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson-Davis Hwy.,
Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 305-5232.
The tolerances established by amending 40 CFR part 180 will be
adequate to cover residues in or on strawberries. The pesticide is
considered useful for the purposes which it is sought and capable of
achieving the intended physical or technical effect. 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
would 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 and/or request a hearing 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 5F4485/R2232] (including comments and data submitted
electronically). A public version of this record, including printed,
paper version 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, Crystall 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 all comments 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. 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 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. 96-354, 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
[[Page 29678]]
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: May 28, 1996.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended to read as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation of part 180 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a.
2. Section 180.442 is amended by redesignating and revising the
current introductory text and commodity table as paragraph (a) and
adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.442 Bifenthrin; tolerances for residues.
(a) Tolerances, to expire November 15, 1997, are established for
residues of the pyrethroid bifenthrin, (2-methyl(1,1-biphenyl)-3-
yl)methyl-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoro-1-propenyl)-2,2-
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, in or on the following commodities:
* * * * *
(b) Tolerances, are established for residue of the pyrethroid
bifenthrin, (2-methyl(1,1-biphenyl)-3-yl)methyl-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoro-1-propenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, in or on the
following commodity:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strawberries.............................. 3.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-14630 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14629 Imidacloprid; Pesticide Tolerance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29674-29676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14629]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 5F4522/R2237; FRL-5367-8]
RIN 2070-AB78
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 leafy green vegetables.
Bayer Corporation (formerly Miles, Inc.) requested this regulation to
establish these maximum permissible levels for residues of the
insecticide.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation became effective May 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
docket control number, [PP 5F4522/R2237], 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
[[Page 29675]]
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.
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 July 26, 1995 (60 FR 38333) (FRL-4958-2), which announced that Bayer
Corporation, 8400 Hawthorn Road, P.O. Box 4913, Kansas City, MO 64120-
0013, had submitted pesticide petition 5F4522 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 leafy green vegetables (including
amaranth; arrugual; chervil; chrysanthemum, edible-leaved;
chrysanthemum, garland; corn salad; cress, garden; cress upland;
dandelion; dock; endive; orach; parsley; purslane, garden; purslane,
winter; radicchio, (red chicory; spinach; spinach, New Zealand; and
spinach vine). There were no comments or request for referral to an
advisory committee received in response to this notice of filing.
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 proposed
tolerance will increase the TMRC by 0.000172 mg/kg/day representing an
increase in the ADI of 0.3%. Thus, the TMRC will be 0.008358 mg/kg/day
utilizing 14.7% of the RfD. For exposure of the most highly exposed
subgroups in the population, non-nursing infants (< 1 year old), the
TMRC for the published and proposed tolerances is 0.01547 mg/kg/day.
This is equal to 27.1% 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-chloropyridinyl moiety using a permanganate oxidation, silyl
derivatization, and capillary GC-MS selective ion monitoring. There is
also a compound specific HPLC-UV method available. 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 use as directed. There are no livestock feed
stuffs associated with the commodation in the petition.
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. 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 a 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
[[Page 29676]]
``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: May 28, 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 by revising the table therein by
adding and alphabetically inserting the following commodities to read
as follows:
Sec. 180.472 1-[(6-Chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-2-imidazolidinimine;
tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Leafy greens subgroup 3.5
Leafy vegetables crop group 3.5
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-14629 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14616 Interlocking Relationships Between an Air Carrier and a Person Controlling Another Air Carrier
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14616]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 399
RIN 2105-AC54
Interlocking Relationships Between an Air Carrier and a Person
Controlling Another Air Carrier
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; removal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action removes a outdated policy statement of the Civil
Aeronautics Board concerning interlocking agreements between an air
carrier and a person controlling an air carrier. The action is in
response to the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative and is
designed to eliminate an obsolete provision.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 12, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander J. Millard, Office of the
General Counsel, Room 4102, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, or by telephone at (202)
366-9285.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This regulation was promulgated by the now-
defunct Civil Aeronautics Board in 1967 (32 FR 3818, March 8, 1967).
The Civil Aeronautics Board issued this regulation to make it clear
that section 409 was to be interpreted as prohibiting interlocking
relationships between an air carrier and a person controlling an air
carrier. Section 409, however, along with the authority of the
Secretary of Transportation under this section, ceased to be effective
on January 1, 1989. See Civil Aeronautics Board Sunset Act of 1984,
Public Law 98-443, 98 Stat. 1703, section 3(c)(7). Consequently, the
instant regulation is obsolete and should be removed.
This final rule is considered to be a nonsignificant rulemaking
under DOT's regulatory policies and procedures, 44 FR 11034. The final
rule was not subject to review by the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs pursuant to Executive Order 12866. The rule will
have no economic impact, and accordingly no regulatory evaluation has
been prepared. The final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has
been determined that it does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The
rule has also been reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I
certify that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the meaning of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. There are no paperwork burdens associated
with this rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Because this rule
simply removes an obsolete provision, notice and comment are
unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 399
Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Air rates and
fares, Air taxis, Consumer protection, Small business.
For the reasons set forth above, the Department of Transportation
is amending 14 CFR part 399 to read as follows:
PART 399--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 399 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. Chapters 401, 411, 413, 415, 417, 419, 161.
Sec. 399.92 [Removed]
2. Section 399.92 is removed.
Issued this 31st day of May 1996 at Washington, DC.
Charles A. Hunnicutt,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-14616 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14589 Pacific Halibut Fisheries; 1996 Halibut Landing Report No. 2
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29695-29696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14589]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 301
[Docket No. 960111003-6068-03; I.D. 060496A]
Pacific Halibut Fisheries; 1996 Halibut Landing Report No. 2
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: In season action.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, on behalf of
the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), publishes these
inseason actions pursuant to IPHC regulations approved by the U.S.
Government to govern the Pacific halibut fishery. This action is
intended to enhance the conservation of the Pacific halibut stock.
EFFECTIVE DATES: Oregon sport halibut season closure: 11:59 p.m. May
25, 1996 until May 26, 1996; Southwest Washington coast sport halibut
fishery closure: 11:59 p.m., May 26, 1996 until May 27, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Pennoyer, 907-586-7221; William
W. Stelle, Jr., 206-526-6140; or Donald McCaughran, 206-634-1838.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The IPHC, under the Convention between the
United States of America and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut
Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (signed at Ottawa,
Ontario, on March 2, 1953), as amended by a Protocol Amending the
Convention (signed at Washington, DC, on March 29, 1979), has issued
this inseason action pursuant to IPHC regulations governing the Pacific
halibut fishery.
[[Page 29696]]
The regulations have been approved by NMFS (60 FR 14651, March 20,
1995, and amended at 61 FR 11337, March 20, 1996). On behalf of the
IPHC, this inseason action is published in the Federal Register to
provide additional notice of its effectiveness, and to inform persons
subject to the inseason action of the restrictions and requirements
established therein.
In Season Action
1996 Halibut Landing Report No. 2
First Oregon Sport Halibut Season to Close May 25
The preliminary catch estimate for the 1996 sport halibut fishery
between Cape Falcon (45 deg.46 deg.00'' N. lat.) and the Florence North
Jetty (Siuslaw River, 44 deg.01 deg.08'' N. lat.) indicates the 64,392
lb (29.20 metric tons (mt)) catch limit will be reached on May 25.
Therefore, the sport halibut fishery in this area will close at 11:59
p.m. on May 25.
Sport fishing for Pacific halibut will reopen on May 26 and remain
open through August 1, 7 days a week, only in the area inside the 30-
fathom curve nearest to the coastline as plotted on National Ocean
Service charts numbered 18520, 18580, and 18600 from Cape Falcon to the
Florence North Jetty (Siuslaw River), or until 6,629 lb (3.0 mt) are
estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the IPHC,
whichever occurs first. Any poundage remaining unharvested after the
earlier season will be added to this season. The daily bag limit
remains two halibut per person, one with a minimum overall size limit
of 32 inches (81.28 centimeters (cm)) and the second with a minimum
overall size limit of 50 inches (127.0 cm).
First Southwest Washington Coast Sport Halibut Fishery Season to Close
May 26
The sport halibut fishery off the Southwest Washington coast
(Queets River south to Leadbetter Point) will reach the sub-quota of
14,222 lb at the conclusion of fishing on Sunday, May 26. Therefore,
the fishery will close at 11:59 p.m. on Sunday, May 26.
In accordance with the preseason catch sharing plan developed by
the Pacific Fishery Management Council, this fishery will immediately
reopen on Monday, May 27, only in the near-shore area (south of the
Queets River to 47 deg.00 deg.00'' N. lat. and east of
124 deg.40 deg.00'' W. long.), until the remaining quota of about 1,000
pounds is reached. The fishery will be open 7 days a week, with a one
fish bag limit and no minimum size limit, until the remaining quota is
harvested and the season is closed by the Commission or until September
30, whichever occurs first.
Dated: June 4, 1996.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-14589 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14455 Description of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Idaho; Correction to Boundary of the Power-Bannock Counties Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area to Exclude the Inkom Area
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29667-29672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14455]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[ID14-6994a; FRL-5515-1 ]
Description of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of
Idaho; Correction to Boundary of the Power-Bannock Counties Particulate
Matter Nonattainment Area to Exclude the Inkom Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule, correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action corrects EPA's announcement of the boundary of the
Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area (particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers) in the State of Idaho. The boundary of the Power-Bannock
Counties PM-10 nonattainment area is being corrected to exclude that
portion east of the Inkom Gap, a geographic feature separating the
Inkom area from the rest of the
[[Page 29668]]
nonattainment area. New analysis of air quality data existing at the
time of the original area designation indicates that the Inkom area, at
the time of and prior to designation, had never violated the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM-10. Additional current
information also indicates that the Inkom area has not and is not
predicted to violate the PM-10 standard into the foreseeable future.
This action will remove the City of Inkom and the surrounding area from
the nonattainment area. With this correction, the Part D new source
review requirements of the Clean Air Act will no longer apply to
sources in the Inkom area. Instead, new or modified major sources of
particulate matter would be subject to the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) requirements.
DATES: This action will be effective on August 12, 1996 unless adverse
or critical comments are received by July 12, 1996. If the effective
date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to
Steven K. Body, Office of Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. Copies of the
documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection
during normal business hours at the same address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven K. Body, (206) 553-0782, or by
mail at the Region 10 address above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. In General
Section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act sets out the general
process by which areas were to be designated nonattainment for PM-10
upon enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (the ``Act'' or
``CAA''). The procedure that is relevant for the Power-Bannock Counties
PM-10 nonattainment area is stated in section 107(d)(4)(B)(i) of the
Act, which provides that each area that had been identified by EPA as a
PM-10 Group I area prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (these
were areas that, at the time the particulate matter indicator was
changed from TSP to PM-10, were estimated to have a high probability of
exceeding the PM-10 NAAQS) be designated nonattainment for PM-10 by
operation of law upon enactment of the 1990 Amendments. While EPA
believes that, in general, the language of this section would appear to
preclude any exercise of EPA discretion to modify these initial
nonattainment area designations, EPA also believes that section
107(d)(4)(B)(i)'s explicit reliance on the Agency's prior Group I
determinations provides the basis for an exception to the general rule.
By requiring that all Group I areas be among the initial areas
designated nonattainment upon enactment of the 1990 CAAA, Congress
relied on EPA's expertise and judgment in determining, based on an
analysis of relevant air quality information, those areas for which a
PM-10 nonattainment status was merited. EPA does not believe that
Congress intended initial PM-10 areas to be designated nonattainment
based on a clearly erroneous Group I determination. Thus, one exception
to the non-initial designation modification principle is where, prior
to enactment of the 1990 Amendments, EPA mistakenly construed then-
existing air quality data and, as a consequence, incorrectly identified
an area as being among the Group I areas that were subsequently
reference in section 107(d)(4)(B)(i) of the Act. See 56 FR 37654, 37656
(August 8, 1991).
As discussed below, EPA believes that such a clear identification
error occurred in the case of the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10
nonattainment area. That is, EPA believes that it acted in error in
including the Inkom area as part of the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10
nonattainment area. Accordingly, under the authority of section
110(k)(6) of the Act, and based on the State's request, EPA is revising
the boundary of the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area to
exclude the Inkom area. Although this boundary correction action is not
subject to the legal requirements for public notice and comment, EPA is
providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this action in
order to foster public participation and avoid further error.
B. Designation of the Area as Nonattainment
Prior to promulgation of the PM-10 NAAQS on July, 1, 1987 (52 FR
24672), total suspended particulate (TSP) was the indicator for
particulate matter. In the Pocatello vicinity, the TSP nonattainment
area consisted of the 12 square mile industrial area approximately 10
miles west of downtown Pocatello. See 49 FR 11177 (March 26, 1984). Two
major stationary sources of particulate matter, FMC Corporation's
elemental phosphorus facility and J.R. Simplot Company's phosphate
fertilizer facility, are located in the industrial complex. This TSP
nonattainment area did not include the City of Pocatello.
After promulgation of the PM-10 standard, EPA published a list of
``PM-10 Group I areas,'' areas with a strong likelihood of violating
the PM-10 NAAQS and requiring substantial revisions to their existing
state implementation plans. See 52 FR 29383 (August 7, 1987). The
August 7, 1987, document listed ``Pocatello'' as a Group I ``area of
concern'' and identified that area as including both Power and Bannock
Counties. 52 FR 29385. In October 1990, EPA issued a document
clarifying the description of certain Group I areas of concern. 55 FR
45799 (October 31, 1990). This document described the area of concern
as the ``City of Pocatello'' in Power and Bannock Counties and further
explained that: ``When cities or towns are shown, the area of concern
is defined by the municipal boundary limits as of the date of this
notice.'' 55 FR 45801 n. 2. The City of Pocatello, however, lies only
in Bannock County. In addition, the City of Pocatello does not include
either the FMC facility or the J.R. Simplot facility in the industrial
complex. Considering the original TSP nonattainment area boundary, it
would seem apparent that any potential PM-10 nonattainment site for
this area would have included the industrial complex, including the two
major stationary sources located there. However, the erroneous boundary
description for this area on the PM-10 Group I areas list remained, as
explained above, and became the boundary description for the PM-10 area
that was designated nonattainment by operation of law upon enactment of
the 1990 Amendments. Given the above inconsistencies, it seems evident
that the current boundaries of the Pocatello PM-10 nonattainment area
were and are incorrect.
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments became effective November 15,
1990. As discussed above, section 107(d)(4)(By)(i) required that all
Group I areas be designated nonattainment for PM-10 by operation of law
upon enactment of the 1990 Amendments. In March 1991, EPA published a
Federal Register document announcing all the areas, including all the
Group I areas, designated under the amended Act as PM-10 nonattainment
areas. 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). The document identified the ``City
of Pocatello'' in Power and Bannock Counties as such an area, and
provided the public an opportunity to comment. As the document
indicated, EPA's solicitation of public comment on the nonattainment
area boundaries did not stem from any legal obligation, because neither
the initial designations nor the
[[Page 29669]]
initial classifications for PM-10 were subject to the requirements for
notice-and-comment rulemaking under either the Administrative
Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553-657) or section 307(d) of the Clean Air
Act. See generally 56 FR 11103; see also 56 FR 36755 & n. 2. Rather, as
a matter of policy, EPA requested public comment on the document in
order to facilitate public participation and avoid errors.
In response to EPA's March 1991 Federal Register document, the
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) submitted comments to
EPA indicating what portion of the Pocatello area in Power and Bannock
Counties IDEQ believed should be designated nonattainment for PM-10.
The area described by IDEQ was approximately 260 square miles of lands
in Power and Bannock counties that included lands under State
jurisdiction and both trust and fee lands within the Fort Hall Indian
Reservation. The area also included the two major stationary sources in
the industrial complex, the Cities of Chubbuck and Pocatello and
certain areas east of Inkom Gap. The area east of Inkom Gap includes
the City of Inkom, a small community approximately 15 miles southeast
of downtown Pocatello, and a cement plant operated by Ash Grove Cement
Company, which is a major stationary source of PM-10 (see discussion
later in this document regarding the emissions impact of this
facility).
In August 1991, EPA used its authority under section 110(k)(6) of
the Act to make corrections in nonattainment area designations and
descriptions for several Group I areas based on information submitted
by commenters on the March 1991 document. 56 FR 37656 (August 8, 1991).
EPA included in that document corrections and clarifications to the
boundary description of the Pocatello nonattainment area consistent
with IDEQ's request. In correcting the Power-Bannock Counties listing,
EPA noted that the prior boundary description for this nonattainment
area as ``the City of Pocatello'' was clearly erroneous since Pocatello
lies only in Bannock County, and that EPA and the State had originally
intended that certain areas surrounding the City of Pocatello in both
Power and Bannock Counties be included in the nonattainment area. 56 FR
37658, 37664. In formally codifying the final designations,
classifications, and boundaries of areas in the country with respect to
PM-10 (and other NAAQS) in November 1991, EPA further refined the
description of the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area by
clearly specifying those lands in the nonattainment area which are
within the exterior boundary of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation and
those lands in the nonattainment area that are State lands. 56 FR
56694, 56749 (November 6, 1991). However, neither the August nor the
November 1991 documents addressed the question of whether the portion
of the nonattainment area east of the Inkom Gap was properly included
in the boundary description.
II. This Action
A. Correction of the Boundary of the Nonattainment Area
On May 23, 1995, IDEQ submitted to EPA additional analysis of data
that were available at the time of enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments in support of a request to once again correct the Power-
Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area boundary. The State's
submittal asked EPA to exclude that portion east of the Inkom Gap and
to simultaneously redesignate the Inkom area to attainment. Based on
the data information, EPA believes that the State has demonstrated that
inclusion of the Inkom area in the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10
nonattainment area prior to the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act
was in error.
IDEQ's additional analysis is based upon monitored TSP data from
two locations in Inkom during the 1970s and 1980s. IDEQ operated a
sampler at the U.S. Post Office during 1972 and again from 1974 through
1986. In 1986, IDEQ moved the sampler to a well pump station owned by
the City of Inkom located on Highway 30, approximately one mile north
of the Post Office. Monitoring continued at this location until it was
discontinued on December 1, 1988. The State's additional analysis of
the TSP data collected by IDEQ during the 1970s and 1980s converting
TSP data to PM-10 data using a general ratio of PM-10 to TSP
demonstrates that the Inkom area has not experienced a violation of the
PM-10 NAAQS since 1981, well before promulgation of the PM-10 NAAQS on
July 1, 1987. The data submitted by IDEQ also shows a substantial
improvement in air quality in the Inkom area after 1982. In addition,
IDEQ submitted emission reduction information (which included both
historical actual emission estimates and allowable emission rates for
the Ash Grove Cement facility) for the Inkom area that demonstrates
that the PM-10 NAAQS has been protected since 1988, when monitoring in
the area ceased, because of reduced emissions. For a further discussion
of the air quality data and the emission reductions that have been
achieved in the area, please refer to the IDEQ submittal in the docket.
Section 110(k)(6) of the Act authorizes EPA, upon a determination
that EPA's action in approving, disapproving or promulgating any State
Implementation Plan or plan revision (or any part thereof) was in
error, to revise the action as appropriate in the same manner as the
approval, disapproval, or promulgation. In making such a correction,
EPA must provide such determination and the basis for it to the State
and the public. By this document, EPA is notifying the State of Idaho,
the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and the public that EPA is correcting the
boundary of the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area to
exclude the area east of Inkom Gap, thus excluding the City of Inkom
and Ash Grove Cement's facility. The basis for this boundary correction
is that the State of Idaho, which requested in 1991 that the Inkom area
be included in the Power-Bannock County PM-10 nonattainment area, has
now submitted valid data information to EPA showing that its 1991
request was in error and asking EPA to correct the boundary
description. Had the State of Idaho presented this information either
before the clarification of the Group I listing of October 31, 1990, or
before the August 8, 1991, clarification of the PM-10 nonattainment
area boundary, EPA would have excluded the Inkom area from the Power-
Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area.
Accordingly, as of the effective date of this action, the North-
South boundary along the eastern edge of the Power-Bannock Counties PM-
10 nonattainment area will be defined as the line between the West \1/
2\ and East \1/2\ of:
Sections 10, 15, 22, 27, 34 of T6S, R35E,
Sections 3, 10, 15, 22, 27, 34 of T7S, R35E, and
Section 3 of T8S, R35E
Although neither the Administrative Procedures Act nor the Clean
Air Act legally obligate EPA to provide the public an opportunity to
comment on this correction, EPA is inviting the State, the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes, and the public to comment on this action to foster
public participation and avoid error. EPA will consider any written
comments on this action that are received by July 12, 1996. This
correction will become effective on August 12, 1996. This will provide
sufficient time for EPA to make any adjustments to this correction that
are appropriate in light of the comments.
[[Page 29670]]
In making this boundary correction, EPA notes that IDEQ has also
provided information showing that significant emission reductions have
been achieved at the Ash Grove Cement facility since 1990 and that Ash
Grove Cement is now operating under a 1995 IDEQ-issued and federally
enforceable operating permit that establishes emission limits that will
protect the NAAQS into the future. IDEQ has also provided information
showing that emissions from sources in the Inkom area are not expected
to contribute to violations of the PM-10 NAAQS in other portions of the
Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area because the Inkom Gap,
a constriction in the Portneuf River Valley formed by a mountain ridge
rising 1500 feet above the valley floor on either side of the river,
effectively provides a natural barrier between the airsheds of Inkom
and Pocatello and prevents transport of emissions between them.
Finally, IDEQ has committed to monitor air quality at two locations in
the Inkom area and to monitor meteorology at one location in the Inkom
area. Air quality monitoring has already begun in a residential area
near the elementary school in Inkom and a second air quality monitor,
located at the site of the expected maximum impact of Ash Grove
Cement's facility, began operation on October 12, 1995.
In correcting the boundary of the Power-Bannock PM-10 nonattainment
area to exclude the Inkom area, EPA has relied on the data available
prior to August 1991, when EPA announced the boundary description,
along with subsequent analysis of those data. The information submitted
by IDEQ regarding emission reductions and emission limitations since
that time and IDEQ's commitments to monitor air quality in the Inkom
area in the future were not regarded by EPA as a basis for the
correction. However, this information and the State's commitments do
provide additional assurance that the NAAQS will be protected in the
Inkom area into the future. EPA would be reluctant to revise through
correction the description of a nonattainment area based on information
available before EPA's initial erroneous boundary description if data
collected since the initial erroneous boundary description indicated
that the area was not in attainment of, or would be expected to soon
violate, the NAAQS.
B. State's Request to Redesignate the Inkom Area to Attainment
The State has also requested that the Inkom area be redesignated to
attainment. EPA declines to grant this portion of the State's request
at this time, because to do so would undermine the planning
requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act for redesignation of a
nonattainment area (or portion thereof) to attainment. EPA may
redesignate an area to attainment if:
(i) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the
NAAQS;
(ii) The Administrator has fully approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under section 110(k) of the Act;
(iii) The Administrator determines that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions
resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan and
applicable federal air pollutant control regulations and other
permanent and enforceable reductions;
(iv) The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for
the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the Act; and,
(v) The State containing such area has met all the requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the Act.
The State of Idaho has not provided sufficient information to allow
EPA to make these findings for the Inkom area. Therefore, EPA is not
granting the State's request to redesignate the Inkom area to
attainment. Thus, this correction to the nonattainment area boundary
will result in the Inkom area being designated ``unclassifiable'' for
PM-10. This designation is the same designation as most rural areas
within the State of Idaho, and is the designation the Inkom area would
have had in August 1991 had it not been erroneously included in the
Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area.
III. Implications of this Action
Upon the effective date of this rule, the Inkom area, which is
currently designated nonattainment for PM-10, will revert to a
designation of ``unclassifiable'' for PM-10. A revised description of
the boundary for the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area is
set forth in the table below, which shows the corrections that will be
made to the Table in Part 81.
As a result of today's action, new or modified major stationary
sources of particulate matter in the Inkom area will be subject to
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements of Part C of
the Act rather than the New Source Review requirements of Part D of the
Act. In addition, the State no longer needs to include the Inkom area
in the planning requirements for the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10
nonattainment area. However, removing the Inkom area from the Power-
Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment area does not protect any source
in the area from requirements for additional control technology if the
source's emissions are determined in the future to contribute to
violations of a NAAQS in the Power-Bannock Counties PM-10 nonattainment
area or elsewhere and if such control technology is necessary to attain
the NAAQS.
As discussed above, based on the information submitted by the
State, EPA believes that the NAAQS in the Inkom area has been protected
through the present and will also be protected into the foreseeable
future. Should one of the State's monitors record a violation of the
PM-10 or other particulate matter NAAQS in the future, however, EPA
will proceed immediately to redesignate the Inkom area to
nonattainment.
IV. Administrative Review
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the CAA
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the state is already imposing. Therefore, because the federal SIP-
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under the CAA,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of
[[Page 29671]]
$100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
The EPA has reviewed this request for revision of the federally-
approved SIP for conformance with the provisions of the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments enacted on November 15, 1990. The EPA has determined
that this action conforms with those requirements.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be
effective August 12, 1996 unless, by July 12, 1996, adverse or critical
comments are received.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is
advised that this action will be effective August 12, 1996.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 12, 1996. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2), 42 U.S.C.
7607(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Designation of areas for air quality
planning purposes.
Dated: May 29, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
U.S. EPA Administrator.
PART 81--[AMENDED]
Chapter I, Title 40 of the code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. Section 81.313 is amended by revising the entry for ``Bannock
and Power Counties'' in the ``Idaho PM-10 Nonattainment Areas'' table
to read as follows:
Sec. 81.313 Idaho
* * * * *
Idaho--PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Type Date Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
Power-Bannock Counties, part of:
(Pocatello)
State Lands 11/15/90 Nonattainment............ 11/15/90 Moderate
T.5S, R.34E Sections 25-
36;
T.5S, R.35E Section 31;
T.6S, R.34E Sections 1-
36;
T.6S, R.35E Sections 5-9,
16-21, 28-33
Plus the West \1/2\ of
Sections 10, 15, 22, 27,
34
T.7S, R.34E Sections 1-4,
10-14, and 24
T.7S, R.35E Sections 4-9,
16-21, 28-33
Plus the West \1/2\ of
Sections 3, 10, 15, 22,
27, 34
T.8S, R.35E, Section 4
Plus the West 1/2 of
Section 3
Fort Hall Indian Reservation:
T.5S, R.34E Sections 15-
23;
T.5S, R.33E Sections 13-
36
T.6S, R.33E Sections 1-36
T.7S, R.33E Sections 4,
5, 6
T.7S, R 34E Section 8
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 29672]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-14455 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14452 Pesticide Tolerance for 1-[[2-(2,4-Dichlorophenyl)-4-Propyl-1,3- Dioxolan-2-yl]Methyl]-1H-1,2,4-Triazole
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29672-29674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14452]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 2F4086/R2238; FRL-5368-4]
RIN 2070-AB78
Pesticide Tolerance for 1-[[2-(2,4-Dichlorophenyl)-4-Propyl-1,3-
Dioxolan-2-yl]Methyl]-1H-1,2,4-Triazole
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule establishes a tolerance for combined residues of the
fungicide 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-
yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole and its metabolites determined as 2,4-
dichlorobenzoic acid and expressed as parent compound in or on the raw
agricultural commodities oat grain at 0.1 parts per million (ppm), oat
straw at 1.0 ppm, oat forage at 10.0 ppm, and oat hay at 30.0 ppm. The
regulation to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of the
fungicide was requested in a petition submitted by Ciba-Geigy Corp.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective June 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
document control number, [PP 2F4086/R2238], 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 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 2F4086/R2238] . 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: 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) 305-6226; e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA issued a notice (FRL-4971-5), published
in the Federal Register of November 15, 1995 (60 FR 57420), which
announced that Ciba-Geigy Corp., P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419
had submitted pesticide petition (PP) 2F4086 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
combined residues of the fungicide 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-
1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H -1,2,4-triazole in or on the raw
agricultural commodities oat grain at 0.1 ppm, oat straw at 1.0 ppm,
oat forage at 10.0 ppm, and oat hay at 30.0 ppm.
There were no comments received in response to the notice of
filing.
The scientific data submitted in the petition and other relevant
material have been evaluated. The data considered in support of the
tolerance include:
1. Plant and animal metabolism studies.
2. Residue data for crop and livestock commodities.
3. Two enforcement methods and multiresidue method testing data.
4. A 90-day rat feeding study with a no-observable-effect level
(NOEL) of 12 mg/kg/day.
5. A 90-day dog feeding study with a NOEL of 1.25 mg/kg/day.
6. A rabbit developmental toxicity study with a maternal NOEL of
100 mg/kg/day and a developmental toxicity NOEL of Greater than 400 mg/
kg/day (highest dose tested) (HDT)).
7. A rat teratology study with a maternal NOEL of 30 mg/kg/day and
a developmental toxicity NOEL of 30 mg/kg/day.
8. A 2-generation rat reproduction study with a reproductive NOEL
of 125 mg/kg/day (HDT) and a developmental toxicity NOEL of 25 mg/kg/
day.
9. A 1-year dog feeding study with a NOEL of 1.25 mg/kg/day.
10. A 2-year rat chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study with a NOEL
of 5 mg/kg/day with no carcinogenic potential under the conditions of
the study up to and including approximately 125 mg/kg/day, the highest
dose tested.
11. A 2-year mouse chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study with a
NOEL of 15 mg/kg/day and with a statistically significant increase in
combined adenomas and carcinomas of the liver in male mice at
approximately 375 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested.
12. Ames test with and without activation, negative.
13. A mouse dominant-lethal assay, negative.
14. Chinese hamster nucleus anomaly, negative.
15. Cell transformation assay, negative.
Ciba-Geigy submitted information which resolved the previously
outstanding concerns about the nature of the residue in ruminants, an
explanation of recovery calculations, and an explanation of the crop
field trial protocol. Data gaps exist concerning dosing in the mouse
carcinogenicity study. These data requirements were required under
reregistration, pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.
As part of EPA's evaluation of potential human health risks, 1-
[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H- 1,2,4-
triazole has been the subject of five Peer Reviews and one Scientific
Advisory Panel (SAP) meeting.
The fungicide 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-
yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole was originally evaluated by the Peer
Review Committee on January 15, 1987, and classified as a Group C
(possible human) carcinogen with a recommendation made for the
quantification of estimated potential human risk using a linearized
low-dose extrapolation. The method resulted in the establishment of a
Q* of 7.9 x 10-2 (mg/kg/day)-1.
The Peer Review Committee's decision was presented to the FIFRA
Scientific Advisory Panel on March 2, 1988. The Panel did not concur
with the committee's overall assessment of the
[[Page 29673]]
weight-of-evidence on the carcinogenicity of 1-[[2-(2,4-
dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole.
The Panel recommended placing the chemical in Group D, indicating that
the Group C classification was based on minimal evidence. The Panel's
determination that EPA's Group C classification was based on minimal
evidence was due to the fact that the incidence of liver tumors in male
mice only occurred when the mice were given an excessive chemical dose.
As part of a fifth Peer Review, EPA considered additional
information provided by the registrant in support of the registrant's
argument that the high dose was excessively toxic in the mouse
carcinogenicity study. It further argued that the data from the high
dose (2,500 ppm) should not be included in the evaluation of
carcinogenic potential of -[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-
dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole. In support of these arguments,
the registrant provided two subchronic oral toxicity studies in mice.
Ciba-Geigy also provided a reread of the pathology slides from a mouse
oncogenicity study which it felt indicated sufficient concurrent liver
toxicity at 2,500 ppm to document that this dose was excessive. These
findings were not present in the original pathology report. Owing to
the inconsistency in Ciba-Geigy's report and the original report, the
Agency requested that an independent (third) evaluation of the
pathology slides be made to determine if the pathology reported could
be confirmed. The results of this (third) pathology evaluation were
used in the fifth Peer Review in place of data resulting from the
earlier evaluations provided by Ciba-Geigy.
The Peer Review Committee considered the following facts regarding
the toxicology data on 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4- propyl-1,3-
dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole in a weight-of-evidence
determination of carcinogenic potential:
1. Increased numbers of adenomas (increased trend and pairwise
comparison) were found in the livers of male CD1 mice given 2,500 ppm
of 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-
1,2,4-triazole in their diet.
2. The treated animals had earlier fatalities than the controls.
3. The numbers of carcinomas were increased (trend only) in male
mice only at the 2,500 ppm dose level. Tumors were not significantly
increased at the 500 ppm dose level. Adenomas observed in the treated
animals were larger and more numerous than those in controls; however,
the tumor type (adenoma) was the same.
4. No excessive number of tumors was found in female mice.
5. In a rat study conducted with acceptable doses of 1-[[2-(2,4-
dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2, 4-triazole,
no excessive numbers of tumors were found.
The Peer Review Committee determined, based on the additional
information submitted by Ciba-Geigy from two 90-day subchronic studies
in mice that the 2,500 ppm dose used in the 2-year chronic study
exceeded the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) based on the endpoint of
hepatic necrosis, and the 500 ppm dose used in the chronic study was
inadequate to assess the carcinogenicity of 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-
4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole. Based on the
third pathology evaluation of the chronic study, the Peer Review
Committee disagreed with Ciba-Geigy's argument that the study showed
excessive toxicity at the 2,500 ppm dose. However, the Peer Review
Committee concluded that the 90-day subchronic studies are a better
measure of what would be an MTD.
Based upon these findings, the Peer Review Committee agreed that
the classification for 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-
dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole should remain a Group C
(possible human) carcinogen and recommended against the previously used
Q* (viz. 0.079) for risk assessment purposes. For the purpose of
risk characterization the Peer Review Committee recommended that the
reference dose (RfD) approach should be used for quantification of
human risk. This decision was based on the disqualification of the high
dose (2,500 ppm), making the data inappropriate for the calculation of
Q*. Because the middle dose (500 ppm) was not considered
sufficiently high enough for assessing the carcinogenic potential of 1-
[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-
triazole, EPA has requested an additional mouse study at intermediate
dose levels in male mice only. EPA does not expect that these data will
significantly change the above cancer assessment that 1-[[2-(2,4-
dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole
poses a negligible risk to humans.
The reference dose for 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl- 1,3-
dioxolan-2-yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole is 0.013 mg/kg/day, and based
on a NOEL of 1.25 mg/kg/day and an uncertainty factor of 100. The NOEL
is taken from a 1-year dog feeding study that demonstrated irritation
of the stomach in males as an endpoint effect. The Anticipated Residue
Contribution (ARC) from the current action is estimated at 0.000872 mg/
kg/day and utilizes 7% of the RfD of the general population of the 48
states. The ARC for the most highly exposed subgroup, non-nursing
infants less than 1 year old is 0.00405 or mg/kg/day (31% of the RfD).
The nature of the residue in plants and animals is adequately
understood and an adequate analytical method, gas chromatography, is
available for enforcement purposes. Adequate animal tissue, milk, and
egg tolerances exist to cover secondary residues incurred in those
commodities from the proposed uses.
The enforcement methodology has been submitted to the Food and Drug
Administration for publication in the Pesticide Analytical Manual,
Volume II (PAM II). Because of the long lead time for publication of
the method in PAM II, the analytical methodology is being made
available in the interim to anyone interested in pesticide enforcement
when requested from: Calvin Furlow, Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm. 1132,
CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202 (703) 305-
5232.
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
[[Page 29674]]
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 2F4086/R2238] (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 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.
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
consideration as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994).
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).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 23, 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. 180.434, by revising the introductory text to paragraph
(a) and by adding alphabetically the entries for ``oats, grain,''
``oats, straw,'' ``oats, forage,'' and ``oats, hay'' to the table in
paragraph (a), to read a follows:
Sec. 180.434 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-
yl]methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole; tolerances for residues.
(a) Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the
fungicide 1-[[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-propyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-yl]
methyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole and its metabolites determined as 2,4-
dichlorobenzoic acid and expressed as parent compound in or on the
following raw agricultural commodities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Oats, grain................................................ 0.1
Oats, straw................................................ 1.0
Oats, forage............................................... 10.0
Oats, hay.................................................. 30.0
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-14452 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14138 Microwave Facilities Operating in 1850-1990 MHz (2GHz) Band; Relocation Costs Sharing
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29679-29695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14138]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 15, 22, 24, and 101
[WT Docket No. 95-157; RM-8643; FCC 96-196]
Microwave Facilities Operating in 1850-1990 MHz (2GHz) Band;
Relocation Costs Sharing
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: By this First Report and Order, the Commission changes and
clarifies certain aspects of the microwave relocation rules adopted in
our Emerging Technologies proceeding, ET Docket No. 92-9. The
Commission also adopts a plan for sharing the costs of relocating
microwave facilities currently operating in the 1850 to 1990 MHz (``2
GHz'') band, which has been allocated for use by broadband Personal
Communications Services (``PCS''). The Commission's plan establishes a
mechanism whereby PCS licensees that incur costs to relocate microwave
links receive reimbursement for a portion of those costs from other PCS
licensees that also benefit from the resulting spectrum clearance. The
Commission conditions the cost-sharing plan, however, on selection of
one or more entities or organizations to administer the plan.
EFFECTIVE DATES: Sections 15.307 and 22.602 are effective August 12,
1996.
[[Page 29680]]
Sections 24.5, 24.237, 24.238, 24.239, 24.241, 24.243, 24.245, 24.247,
24.249, 24.251 and 24.253 will become effective August 12, 1996, and
will become applicable on the date that the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau selects a clearinghouse to administer the cost-sharing plan. The
Commission will publish a document announcing the selection of the
clearinghouse at a later date. Sections 101.3, 101.69, 101.71, 101.73,
101.75, 101.77, 101.79, 101.81, and 101.147 will become effective
August 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Hamra (202) 418-0620, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the First Report and
Order, adopted April 24, 1996 and released April 30, 1996. For
information regarding the proposed plan for sharing the costs of
microwave relocation, see Amendment to the Commission's Rules Regarding
a Plan for Sharing the Costs of Microwave Relocation, Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No. 95-157, 60 FR 55529 (November 1,
1995) (``Cost-Sharing Notice''). Part 101 will become effective August
1, 1996. See 61 FR 26670 (May 28, 1996). The complete text of this
First Report and Order is available for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room 230, 1919 M
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and also may be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, at
(202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037.
I. Background
1. In the First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule
Making in ET Docket No. 92-9, 57 FR 49020 (October 29, 1992) the
Commission reallocated the 1850-1990, 2110-2150, and 2160-2200 MHz
bands from private and common carrier fixed microwave services to
emerging technology services. The Commission also established
procedures for 2 GHz microwave incumbents to be relocated to available
frequencies in higher bands or to other media, by encouraging
incumbents to negotiate voluntary relocation agreements with emerging
technology licensees or manufacturers of unlicensed devices when
frequencies used by the incumbent are needed to implement the emerging
technology. The First Report and Order stated that, should negotiations
fail, the emerging technology licensee could request involuntary
relocation of the incumbent, provided that the emerging technology
service provider pays the cost of relocating the incumbent to a
comparable facility. In the Commission's Third Report and Order in ET
Docket No. 92-9, 58 FR 46547 (September 2, 1993) as modified on
reconsideration by the Memorandum Opinion and Order, 59 FR 19642 (April
25, 1994) the Commission established additional details of the
transition plan to enable emerging technology providers to relocate
incumbent facilities. The relocation process consists of two
negotiation periods that must expire before an emerging technology
licensee may request involuntary relocation. The first is a fixed two-
year period for voluntary negotiations--three years for public safety
incumbents, e.g., police, fire, and emergency medical--commencing with
the Commission's acceptance of applications for emerging technology
services, during which the emerging technology providers and microwave
licensees may negotiate any mutually acceptable relocation agreement.
Negotiations are strictly voluntary. If no agreement is reached, the
emerging technology licensee may initiate a one-year mandatory
negotiation period--or two-year mandatory period if the incumbent is a
public safety licensee--during which the parties are required to
negotiate in good faith.
2. Should the parties fail to reach an agreement during the
mandatory negotiation period, the emerging technology provider may
request involuntary relocation of the existing facility. Involuntary
relocation requires that the emerging technology provider (1) guarantee
payment of all costs of relocating the incumbent to a comparable
facility; (2) complete all activities necessary for placing the new
facilities into operation, including engineering and frequency
coordination; and (3) build and test the new microwave (or alternative)
system. Once comparable facilities are made available to the incumbent
microwave operator, the Commission will amend the 2 GHz license of the
incumbent to secondary status. After relocation, the microwave
incumbent is entitled to a one-year trial period to determine whether
the facilities are indeed comparable, and if they are not, the emerging
technology licensee must remedy the defects or pay to relocate the
incumbent back to its former or an equivalent 2 GHz frequency.
3. Under these procedures, it is possible for a relocation
agreement between a PCS licensee and a microwave incumbent to have
spectrum-clearing benefits for other PCS licensees as well. First, some
microwave spectrum blocks overlap with one or more PCS blocks, because
the spectrum in the 1850-1990 MHz band was assigned differently in the
two services. Second, incumbents' receivers may be susceptible to
adjacent or co-channel interference from PCS licensees in more than one
PCS spectrum block. For example, a microwave link located partially in
Block A, partially in Block D, and adjacent to Block B, may cause
interference to or receive interference from PCS licensees that are
licensed in each of those blocks. Third, because most 2 GHz microwave
licensees operate multi-link systems, PCS licensees may be asked to
relocate links that do not directly encumber their own spectrum or
service area in order to obtain the microwave incumbent's voluntary
consent to relocate. Finally, the Unlicensed PCS Ad Hoc Committee for 2
GHz Microwave Transition and Management Inc. (``UTAM''), the frequency
coordinator for the PCS spectrum designated for unlicensed devices,
expects that some licensed PCS providers will have to relocate links in
the unlicensed band that are paired with links in licensed PCS
spectrum. The Commission has designated UTAM to coordinate relocation
in the 1910-1930 MHz band, which has been reallocated for unlicensed
PCS devices. Once the 1910-1930 MHz band is clear, or there is little
risk of interference to the remaining incumbents, and UTAM has
recovered its relocation costs, UTAM's role will end and it will be
dissolved.
4. Because the Commission is licensing PCS providers at different
times and multiple PCS licensees may benefit from the relocation of a
microwave system or even a single link, the first PCS licensee in the
market potentially bears a disproportionate share of relocation costs.
Subsequent PCS licensees to enter the market may therefore obtain a
windfall. As a result of this potential ``free rider'' problem, the
first PCS licensee in the market might not relocate a link or might
delay its deployment of PCS if it believes that another PCS licensee
will relocate the link first, thus paying for some or all of the
relocation costs. In addition, unless cost-sharing is adopted, PCS
licensees might not engage in relocation that is cost-effective if
viewed from an industry-wide perspective. For example, a link that
encumbers two PCS blocks might not be moved if the cost is greater than
the benefit to any single licensee, even though the joint benefit
received by two or more licensees exceeds the cost of relocating the
link.
5. In 1994, PCIA proposed a cost-sharing plan to alleviate the free
rider problem, which the Commission found to be attractive in theory
but dismissed
[[Page 29681]]
as underdeveloped. On May 5, 1995, Pacific Bell (``PacBell'') filed a
Petition for Rulemaking. In its petition, PacBell proposed a detailed
cost-sharing plan in which PCS licensees on all blocks, licensed and
unlicensed, would share in the cost of relocating microwave stations.
On May 16, 1995, the Commission requested comment on PacBell's
proposal. Most parties that commented on PacBell's Petition for
Rulemaking supported the cost-sharing concept, although the comments
reflected some differences regarding the details of the proposal. On
October 12, 1995, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rule
Making, 60 FR 55529 (November 1, 1995) which sought comment on a
modified version of the plan proposed by PacBell.
6. The Commission released and adopted, with this First Report and
Order, a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 61 FR 24470 (May 15,
1996).
II. First Report and Order
7. In the Cost-Sharing Notice, the Commission proposed a number of
changes and clarifications to the microwave relocation rules adopted in
the Emerging Technologies docket. The Commission suggested that
additional guidance with respect to certain aspects of its rules would
facilitate negotiations, reduce disputes, and expedite deployment of
PCS. As explained below, the Commission adopts many of the changes and
clarifications the Commission proposed, along with some suggestions
made by commenters. By adopting these rule changes and clarifications,
as well as the cost-sharing plan discussed in Section B, infra, the
Commission intends to expedite the clearing of the 2 GHz band and the
introduction of PCS to the public, while protecting the rights of
incumbents. The Commission seeks to promote an efficient and equitable
relocation process, which minimizes transaction costs and maximizes
benefits for all parties, including incumbents, PCS licensees, and the
public.
A. Microwave Relocation Rules
1. Voluntary Negotiations
8. The Commission agrees with commenters who argue that the public
interest would not be served by changing the rules regarding the
voluntary period for the A and B blocks at this time. First, the A and
B block licensees who are now negotiating with incumbents were on
notice of the voluntary period when they bid for their licenses, and
they presumably have factored the length of the period and the
potential cost of relocation into their bids. They have offered no
persuasive justification to shorten the period now. Second, the
Commission notes that many voluntary agreements have already been
reached or are now being negotiated between A and B block licensees and
incumbents. The Commission is concerned that altering the voluntary
period could inadvertently delay the deployment of PCS, because
negotiations are likely to be interrupted while parties reassess their
bargaining positions. Nevertheless, the Commission agrees with PCS
licensees that changing the negotiation period for blocks other than
the A and B blocks may not raise the same concerns, because
negotiations in these blocks have not commenced.
9. Whether or not the negotiation periods are changed, the
Commission also agrees with PCS licensees that additional information
about the value of an incumbent's system, the estimated amount of time
it would take to relocate the incumbent, and the anticipated cost of
relocation may help facilitate negotiations during the voluntary
period, as the Commission suggested in the Cost-Sharing Notice.
Therefore, the Commission will require that, if the parties have not
reached an agreement within one year after the commencement of the
voluntary period, the incumbent must allow the PCS licensee, if the PCS
licensee so chooses, to gain access to the microwave facilities to be
relocated so that an independent third party can examine the
incumbent's 2 GHz system and prepare an estimate of the cost and the
time needed to relocate the incumbent to comparable facilities. The PCS
licensee must pay for any such cost estimate. Because the one-year
anniversary of the commencement of the voluntary period for A and B
block licensees has already passed, this requirement shall become
effective for the A and B block on the effective date of the rules
adopted in this proceeding. The Commission disagrees with incumbents
that a cost estimate paid for by the PCS licensee changes the nature of
the voluntary period, because participation in negotiations remains
voluntary.
10. Finally, although the Commission is not altering the basic
structure or length of the voluntary period for A and B block PCS
licensees, the Commission emphasizes that its rules provide incentives
for voluntary agreements. The Commission has stated in the past that
PCS licensees may choose to offer incumbents premiums to relocate
quickly. ``Premiums'' could include: replacing the analog facilities
with digital facilities, paying all of the incumbent's transactions
costs, or relocating an entire system as opposed to just the
interfering links. These incentives are available only to microwave
incumbents who consent to relocation by negotiation. By contrast, PCS
licensees are not obligated to pay for such premiums during an
involuntary relocation, which is discussed in Section IV(A)(3), infra.
2. Mandatory Negotiations
11. As the comments on this issue demonstrate, the question of
whether parties are negotiating in good faith typically requires
consideration of all the facts and circumstances underlying the
negotiations, and thus is likely to depend on the specific facts in
each case. The Commission is concerned that creating a presumption that
a party is acting in good or bad faith, as proposed in the Cost-Sharing
Notice, may slow down resolution of disputes by prompting parties to
bring claims of bad faith to the Commission prematurely rather than
focusing on resolving the underlying disputes through the negotiation
process. For these reasons, the Commission declines to adopt its
proposal creating a presumption that a party who declines an offer of
comparable facilities is acting in bad faith. Instead, the Commission
concludes that good faith should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis
under basic principles of contract law. Nevertheless, the Commission
agrees with those commenters who suggest that guidance with respect to
the factors the Commission will consider if a dispute arises over good
faith would be helpful.
12. First, the Commission believes that good faith requires each
party to provide information to the other that is reasonably necessary
to facilitate the relocation process. For example, upon request by a
PCS licensee, the Commission expects incumbents to allow inspection of
their facilities by the PCS licensee and to provide any other
information that the PCS licensee needs in order to evaluate the cost
of relocating the incumbent to comparable facilities. Second, when
evaluating claims that a party has not negotiated in good faith, the
Commission will consider, inter alia, the following factors: (1)
whether the PCS licensee has made a bona fide offer to relocate the
incumbent to comparable facilities; (2) if the microwave incumbent has
demanded a premium, the type of premium requested (e.g., whether the
premium is directly related to relocation, such as system-wide
relocations and analog-to-digital conversions, versus other types of
[[Page 29682]]
premiums) and whether the value of the premium as compared to the cost
of providing comparable facilities is disproportionate (i.e., whether
there is a lack of proportion or relation between the two); (3) what
steps the parties have taken to determine the actual cost of relocation
to comparable facilities; and (4) whether either party has withheld
information requested by the other party that is necessary to estimate
relocation costs or to facilitate the relocation process.
13. To ensure that parties do not bring frivolous bad faith claims,
the Commission will also require any party alleging a violation of the
Commission's good faith requirement to provide an independent estimate
of the relocation costs of the facilities in question. Independent
estimates must include a specification for the comparable facility and
a statement of the costs associated with providing that facility to the
incumbent licensee. These cost estimates are similar to the cost
estimates that the Commission requires if a dispute arises over
comparable facilities during the involuntary relocation period. The
Commission believes that requiring such estimates will assist them in
determining whether the parties are negotiating in good faith. Finally,
the Commission agrees with those commenters who argue that penalties
for failure to negotiate in good faith should be imposed on a case-by-
case basis. The Commission emphasizes, however, that they intend to use
the full realm of enforcement mechanisms available to them in order to
ensure that licensees bargain in good faith.
3. Involuntary Relocation
14. If no agreement is reached during either the voluntary or
mandatory negotiation period, a PCS licensee may initiate involuntary
relocation procedures. Under involuntary relocation, the incumbent is
required to relocate, provided that the PCS licensee meets the
conditions under the Commission's rules for making the incumbent whole,
such as providing the incumbent with comparable facilities.
a. Comparable Facilities
15. The Commission concludes that the factors they have
identified--communications throughput, system reliability, and
operating costs--will be the three factors used to determine when a
facility is comparable. As the Commission stated in the Cost-Sharing
Notice, the Commission believes that providing guidance with respect to
the term comparable facilities will facilitate negotiations and reduce
disputes. The record in this proceeding also supports adoption of the
factors the Commission has identified. Each factor is discussed in more
detail below.
16. Communication Throughput. The Commission defines communications
throughput as the amount of information transferred within the system
in a given amount of time. For analog systems the throughput is
measured by the number of voice channels, and for digital systems it is
measured in bits per second (``bps''). Therefore, if analog facilities
are being replaced by analog facilities, the PCS licensee will be
required to provide the incumbent with an equivalent number of 4 kHz
voice channels. If an existing digital system is being replaced by
digital facilities, the PCS licensee will be required to provide the
incumbent with equivalent data loading bps in order for the system to
be considered comparable. The Commission agrees with commenters that
the more difficult issue will be determining equivalent throughput when
analog equipment is being replaced with digital equipment, which can be
like comparing ``apples with oranges.'' If disputes arise, the
Commission will determine on a case-by-case basis whether comparable
throughput has been achieved. For guidance, the Commission plans to
refer to other parts of its rules where analog-digital comparisons have
been made, such as the minimum channel loading requirements for fixed
point-to-point microwave systems in Section 21.710(d).
17. The Commission also concludes that, during involuntary
relocation, PCS licensees will only be required to provide incumbents
with enough throughput to satisfy their needs at the time of
relocation, rather than to match the overall capacity of the system, as
some microwave incumbents suggest. For example, the Commission will not
require that a 2 GHz incumbent with 5 MHz of bandwidth be relocated to
a 5 MHz bandwidth, 6 GHz location when its current needs only justify a
1.25 MHz bandwidth system. If a dispute arises, the Commission will
determine what an incumbent's needs are by looking at actual system use
rather than total capacity at the time of relocation. The Commission
expressly adopted channelization plans for the 6 GHz band with
bandwidth requirements ranging from 400 kHz to 30 MHz to increase the
efficiency of use by point-to-point microwave operations. Although the
Commission recognizes that this policy may affect an incumbent's
ability to increase its capacity over time, the Commission agrees with
PCS licensees that the public interest would not be served if spectrum
is automatically held in reserve for all incumbents with the
expectation that some may require additional capacity in the future.
The Commission's goal is to foster efficient use of the spectrum, which
would be thwarted if all incumbents are relocated to systems with
capacity that exceeds their current needs. Also, limiting spectrum to
current needs serves the public interest, because the Commission
believes that it will promote the development of spectrum-efficient
technology capable of increasing capacity without increasing bandwidth.
18. Reliability. The Commission defines system reliability as the
degree to which information is transferred accurately within the
system. As stated in the Cost-Sharing Notice, the reliability of a
system is a function of equipment failures (e.g., transmitters, feed
lines, antennas, receivers, battery back-up power, etc.), the
availability of the frequency channel due to propagation characteristic
(e.g., frequency, terrain, atmospheric conditions, radio-frequency
noise, etc.), and equipment sensitivity. The Commission defines
comparable reliability as that equal to the overall reliability of the
incumbent system, and the Commission will not require the system
designer to build the radio link portion of the system to a higher
reliability than that of the other components of the system. For
example, if an incumbent system had a radio link reliability of 99.9999
percent, but an overall reliability of only 99.999 percent because of
limited battery back-up power, the Commission requires that the new
system have a radio link reliability of 99.999 percent to be considered
comparable. For digital data systems this would be measured by the
percent of time the bit error rate (``BER'') exceeds a desired value,
and for analog or digital voice transmissions this would be measured by
the percent of time that audio signal quality met an established
threshold. Under this approach, for a replacement digital system to be
comparable, the data rate throughput must be equal to or greater than
that of the incumbent system with an equal or greater reliability. If
an analog voice system is replaced with a digital voice system the
resulting frequency response, harmonic distortion, signal-to-noise
ratio, and reliability would be the factors considered. The Commission
declines to adopt AUE's request that the Commission include a ``system
age'' component that takes into account how the age of a given system
can affect system reliability, because the
[[Page 29683]]
Commission does not have enough information to determine how age will
affect a given system. Moreover, the Commission believes that older
equipment of high quality may be as reliable as newer equipment of low
quality.
19. Operating Costs. The Commission defines operating costs as the
cost to operate and maintain the microwave system. These costs fall
into several categories. First, the incumbent must be compensated for
any increased recurring costs associated with the replacement
facilities (e.g., additional rental payments, increased utility fees).
Although the Commission originally proposed that recurring costs should
be limited to a ten-year license term, the Commission is persuaded by
PCS licensees that a five-year time period--which is the length of a
microwave license in the 1850-1990 MHz band--is a more appropriate time
frame, because it strikes an appropriate balance between the burden
placed on PCS licensees who must relocate many incumbents, and the
burden placed on incumbents that are being forced to relocate.
Furthermore, the Commission believes that the five-year time period is
not unfair to incumbents because, by five years from now, many
incumbents would have been forced to bear some of these costs
themselves--such as increased rents--if they had not already been
relocated by PCS licensees. Moreover, the Commission is also persuaded
that a five-year time period provides incumbents with sufficient time
for budget planning and resource allocation to meet such expenses once
the five-year period expires. Finally, the Commission concludes that a
PCS licensee is permitted but not required to satisfy its obligation by
making a lump-sum payment based on present value using current interest
rates, as suggested by some incumbents.
20. Second, increased maintenance costs must be taken into
consideration when determining whether operating costs are comparable.
As several commenters point out, maintenance costs associated with
analog systems are frequently higher than the costs for equivalent
digital systems, because manufacturers are producing mostly digital
equipment and analog replacement parts can be difficult to find. The
Commission declines to adopt API's suggestion that ``serviceability''--
which would require that access to those elements essential to
restoration of service be equal to or greater than the original
system--should be adopted as a fourth element, however, because the
Commission believes that the ease of servicing the equipment will
affect repair costs, which will be factored into operating costs.
Furthermore, the Commission agrees with incumbents that, in some
instances, the operating costs of 6 GHz analog equipment might be so
high that analog replacement facilities would not qualify as
comparable. On the other hand, if an available analog replacement
system would provide equivalent technical capability without increasing
the incumbent's operating costs or sacrificing any of the other factors
the Commission has identified, the Commission agrees with PCS licensees
that such an analog system would be acceptable. In sum, the
Commission's goal is to ensure that incumbents are no worse off than
they would be if relocation were not required, not to guarantee
incumbents superior systems at the expense of PCS licensees.
21. Trade Offs. The Commission also concludes that comparable
replacement facilities may not be provided by trading off any of the
system parameters discussed above. Thus, the Commission agrees with
incumbents that PCS licensees should not be permitted to compromise on
one aspect of comparability, such as system reliability, by
compensating with another factor, such as increased throughput. Based
on the record in this proceeding, the Commission believes that the
factors the Commission has identified are central to the concept of
comparability, and therefore the replacement system provided to an
incumbent during an involuntary relocation must be at least equivalent
to the incumbent's existing system with respect to system reliability,
throughput, and operating costs. However, other aspects of the system
(e.g., bandwidth) do not have to be equivalent to the incumbent's
original 2 GHz system. As PCS licensees point out, it might be possible
to achieve comparability with respect to the three main factors, even
though all of the features on the replacement equipment are not
identical to those of the original system. Other media, such as land
lines, would also be acceptable, provided that comparability is
achieved.
22. Depreciation. In the Cost-Sharing Notice, the Commission also
sought comment on whether and how depreciation of equipment and
facilities should be taken into account, and whether it would be
appropriate for a PCS licensee to compensate an incumbent only for the
depreciated value of the old equipment. Some PCS licensees contend that
depreciation should be taken into account during the mandatory period
as a means of encouraging incumbents to accept offers during the
voluntary period. The Commission is persuaded by incumbents, however,
that compensation for the depreciated value of old equipment would not
enable them to construct a comparable replacement system without
imposing costs on the incumbent, which would be inconsistent with the
Commission's relocation rules. The Commission therefore concludes that
the depreciated value of old equipment should not be a factor when
determining comparability.
b. Relocating Individual Links
23. The Commission affirms its decision in the 1994 Memorandum
Opinion and Order that PCS licensees are obligated to pay to relocate
incumbents to comparable facilities only with respect to the specific
microwave links for which their systems pose an interference problem.
Thus, the Commission clarifies that PCS licensees are not under an
obligation to move an incumbent's entire system at once, unless all of
the links in the incumbent's system would be subject to interference by
the PCS licensee. Although system-wide relocations may be preferable
and less disruptive to the incumbent, the Commission concludes that it
would be inappropriate to increase a PCS licensee's monetary
obligation, e.g., by requiring it to pay to relocate links that it
never intended to move, after the licenses have already been auctioned.
In fact, several commenters--particularly those bidding in the C block
auction--have stated in their comments that they are intentionally
designing their systems in such a way that existing links will not have
to be relocated. Moreover, incumbents are not harmed by this policy
because, as PCS licensees point out, many incumbents already operate
networks that consist of both 2 GHz and 6 GHz links or a combination of
digital and analog technology. Furthermore, the Commission's rules
protect microwave operations by requiring PCS licensees to provide
incumbents with a seamless transition from their old facilities to the
replacement facilities. Thus, if providing a seamless transition
requires it, PCS licensees must relocate additional links or pay for
additional costs associated with integrating the new links into the old
system, such as employing a different modulation technique to preserve
the system's overall integrity. If problems arise, the PCS licensee is
required under the Commission's rules to remedy the situation.
24. To ease the burden on incumbents, the Commission has adopted a
cost-sharing plan to promote
[[Page 29684]]
the relocation of all links in a system at the same time. By enabling
PCS licensees to collect reimbursement from subsequent licensees that
benefit from the relocation, the Commission believes that its cost-
sharing plan will promote a larger number of system-wide relocations.
c. Transaction Expenses
25. The Commission concludes that incumbents should be reimbursed
only for legitimate and prudent transaction expenses that are directly
attributable to an involuntary relocation, subject to a cap of two
percent of the ``hard'' costs involved (e.g., equipment, new towers,
site acquisition). Although the Commission proposed in the Cost-Sharing
Notice that PCS licensees should not be required to reimburse
incumbents for any ``extraneous'' expenses, such as fees for attorneys
and consultants, the Commission is persuaded by commenters that some
reimbursement for outside assistance is necessary, because not all
incumbents have expertise in these fields within their organizations.
The Commission concludes that PCS licensees are not required to pay
incumbents for internal resources devoted to the relocation process,
however, because such expenses are difficult to determine and would be
too hard for a PCS licensee to verify. Moreover, the benefits
incumbents receive as a result of relocation, such as superior
equipment, are likely to outweigh any internal costs they incur.
26. To prevent abuses, PCS licensees will not be required to
reimburse incumbents for transaction costs that exceed two percent of
the hard costs associated with an involuntary relocation. Rather than
adopt a cap on the dollar amount that can be spent on transaction
expenses, the Commission believes that a percentage of the total hard
costs, as suggested by Cox & Smith, is more appropriate. Therefore, if
complicated and costly actions, such as land acquisition, are required
to accomplish relocation, the permissible amount of reimbursement for
transaction costs would be higher. The Commission also believes that a
two-percent cap is reasonable and strikes a fair balance between the
concerns of PCS licensees and microwave incumbents. The Commission
derived two percent from CIPCO's suggested cap of $5,000 per link,
which is two-percent of $250,000--the amount the Commission has
determined to be the average cost of relocating a link. Furthermore,
PCS licensees will not be required to pay for transaction costs
incurred by incumbents during the voluntary or mandatory negotiation
periods once an involuntary relocation is initiated, nor will they be
required to pay for fees that cannot be legitimately tied to the
provision of comparable facilities, such as consultant fees for
determining how much of a premium payment PCS licensees would be
willing to pay. The Commission agrees with PCS licensees that they
should not have to reimburse incumbents for such fees, because it would
encourage incumbents to view the relocation process as a business
opportunity. Furthermore, requiring PCS licensees to pay such fees does
not serve the public interest, because added expenses are likely to be
passed on to the public in the form of increased PCS subscriber fees.
d. Twelve-Month Trial Period
27. As a preliminary matter, the Commission clarifies that the
twelve-month trial period is only automatic if an involuntary
relocation occurs. Therefore, if the parties decide that a trial period
should be established for relocations that occur during the voluntary
and mandatory period, they must provide for such a period in the
relocation contract.
28. Because our proposed clarifications to the twelve-month trial
period received broad record support, the Commission adopts the
following clarifications to Section 94.59(e) of our rules:
(1) The trial period will commence on the date that the incumbent
begins full operation (as opposed to testing) on the replacement link;
and
(2) An incumbent's right to a twelve-month trial period resides
with the incumbent as a function of the Commission's relocation rules,
regardless of whether the incumbent has previously surrendered its
license. If, however, a microwave licensee has retained its 2 GHz
authorization during the trial period, it is required to return the
license to the Commission at the conclusion of that period.
In Commission's initial rule, 47 CFR Sec. 94.59(c), the Commission
stated that they would convert the microwave incumbent to secondary
status after the replacement system is built and the microwave
incumbent has been provided with a reasonable amount of time to
determine comparability. The Commission sees no reason, however, for
the incumbent to retain its 2 GHz license once it has been relocated.
The Commission declines to adopt the suggestion that the Commission's
twelve-month trial period should be extended or begin again if a
problem arises. The Commission concludes that incumbents are adequately
protected without such an extension because, by the end of the twelve-
month period, the Commission's rules require that they be operating on
facilities that are comparable. If at the end of the twelve months the
PCS licensee has still failed to meet this requirement, it must
relocate the incumbent back to its former or equivalent 2 GHz
frequencies. Thus, the expiration of the twelve-month period does not
leave the incumbent without further recourse.
29. As a related matter, the Commission clarifies that, even after
the PCS licensee has initiated the involuntary relocation process, a
mutually acceptable agreement will still be permissible. If the parties
do sign an agreement specifying their own terms, the Commission will
treat the agreement in the same manner as the Commission treats
agreements that are consummated during the voluntary and mandatory
periods, and the parties will be bound by contract rather than our
rules. The Commission agrees with commenters that neither incumbents
nor PCS licensees are harmed by such a policy, because neither party is
obligated to enter into such an agreement. If the agreement falls
through, however, the incumbent will be subject to involuntary
relocation.
30. Finally, the Commission declines to reduce the trial period to
one month as suggested by PCS licensees. The Commission agrees with
incumbents that twelve months is an appropriate time period, because it
gives the incumbent the opportunity to ensure that the facilities
function properly during changes in climate and vegetation. The
Commission also takes this opportunity to clarify that PCS licensees
are not required to leave the incumbent's former 2 GHz spectrum vacant
during the twelve-month trial period. The Commission agrees with PCIA
that requiring PCS licensees to hold this spectrum in reserve would
delay the deployment of PCS for at least one year, which does not serve
the public interest. The Commission also clarifies that, if the
microwave incumbent demonstrates that the new facilities are not
comparable to the former facilities, the PCS licensee must remedy the
defects or pay to relocate the microwave licensee to one of the
following: its former or equivalent 2 GHz channels, another comparable
frequency band, a land-line system, or any other facility that
qualifies as comparable.
[[Page 29685]]
e. Request for Clarification of Involuntary Relocation Procedures
31. The Commission believes that AT&T Wireless, et al., have raised
legitimate issues regarding the procedures for implementing involuntary
relocation at the conclusion of the mandatory negotiation period. The
issues raised in their letter, however, were not included in the Cost-
Sharing Notice, nor were they raised in any of the regularly filed
comments or reply comments in this proceeding. Because of the relative
lateness of the parties' ex parte filing and the lack of opportunity
for other parties to comment, the Commission declines to address these
issues at this time. Nevertheless, the Commission encourages the
parties to the April 15 letter or any other interested parties to file
a petition for rulemaking on the issues raised in the letter.
4. Public Safety Certification
32. The Commission agrees with PCS licensees that certification is
necessary to ensure that only those public safety incumbents meriting
special status are allowed the advantages of extended negotiation
periods. The Commission also agrees with incumbents, however, that
self-certification is appropriate, because self-certification will not
burden public agencies with time-consuming reporting requirements. The
Commission declines to adopt the suggestion made by AT&T that all
public safety incumbents should be required to apply to the Commission
for certification, because such a requirement would be administratively
burdensome for the Commission and could delay negotiations.
Furthermore, the Commission believes that PacBell's concerns about
biased public agencies are overstated, because the Commission does not
believe public agencies will be inclined to falsify the certification.
33. The Commission concludes that, in order for a public safety
licensee to qualify for extended negotiation periods under the
Commission's rules, the department head responsible for system
oversight must certify to the PCS licensee requesting relocation that:
(1) The agency is a licensee in the Police Radio, Fire Radio,
Emergency Medical, Special Emergency Radio Services, or that it is a
licensee of other Part 94 facilities licensed on a primary basis under
the eligibility requirements of Part 90, Subparts B and C; and
(2) the majority of communications carried on the facilities at
issue involve safety of life and property.
A public safety licensee must provide certification within 30 days
of a request from a PCS licensee or the PCS licensee may presume that
special treatment is inapplicable to the incumbent. If an incumbent
falsely certifies to a PCS licensee that it qualifies for the extended
time periods, the incumbent will be in violation of the Commission's
rules and subject to appropriate penalties. Such an incumbent would
also immediately become subject to the non-public safety time periods.
5. Dispute Resolution
34. Because relocations that occur pursuant to agreements arrived
at during the voluntary and mandatory period are relocations pursuant
to private contracts, the Commission anticipates that parties will
pursue common law contract remedies if a dispute arises. Thus, if
parties do not agree to use alternative dispute resolution techniques,
the Commission expects that they will file suit in a court of competent
jurisdiction.
35. To the extent that disputes arise over violation of the
Commission's rules (e.g., the good faith requirement, involuntary
relocation procedures), the Commission has stated that parties are
encouraged to use ADR techniques. Commenters agree that resolution of
such disputes entirely by the Commission's adjudication processes would
be time consuming and costly to all parties. Therefore, the Commission
continues to encourage parties to employ ADR techniques when disputes
arise.
6. Ten Year Sunset
36. As the Commission stated in the Cost-Sharing Notice, the
Commission continues to believe that an emerging technology licensee's
obligation to relocate 2 GHz microwave incumbents should not continue
indefinitely; however, the Commission is also persuaded by incumbents
that immediate conversion to secondary status in the year 2005 may not
be necessary, especially with respect to rural links that would not
interfere with any PCS systems. To strike a fair balance between these
competing interests, the Commission concludes that 2 GHz microwave
incumbents will retain primary status unless and until an emerging
technology licensee requires use of the spectrum, but that the emerging
technology licensee will not be obligated to pay relocation costs after
the relocation rules sunset, i.e., ten years after the voluntary period
begins for the first emerging technology licensees in the service
(which is April 4, 2005, for PCS licensees and unlicensed PCS). Once
the relocation rules sunset, an emerging technology licensee may
require the incumbent to either cease operations or pay to relocate
itself to alternate facilities, provided that the emerging technology
licensee intends to turn on a system within interference range of the
incumbent, as determined by TIA Bulletin 10-F or any standard successor
thereto. Notification must be in writing, and the emerging technology
licensee must provide the incumbent with no less than six months to
vacate the spectrum. Emerging technology licensees may provide notice
prior to the date that the relocation rules sunset, but may not turn on
their systems until after that date. After the six-month notice period
has expired, the incumbent will be required to turn its 2 GHz license
back into the Commission, unless the parties have entered into an
agreement which allows the incumbent to continue to operate on a
mutually agreed upon basis. The Commission concludes that their
decision promotes spectrum efficiency, because it allows microwave
incumbents to continue to operate in the 2 GHz band until their
spectrum is needed by an emerging technology licensee.
37. The Commission believes that a sunset date for the Commission's
microwave relocation rules serves the public interest, because it
provides certainty to the process and prevents the emerging technology
licensee from being required to pay for relocation expenses
indefinitely. Moreover, the Commission agrees with commenters that ten
years provides incumbents with sufficient time (1) to negotiate a
relocation agreement or (2) to plan for relocation themselves. In fact,
well over ten years will have passed since the Commission first
announced our intention to reallocate 2 GHz spectrum to foster the
introduction of emerging technologies services in 1992. In other
services, the Commission has provided incumbents with even less time to
complete relocation. For example, private operational fixed microwave
stations in the 12 GHz band received only five years to relocate their
facilities before they became secondary to the Direct Broadcast
Satellite (``DBS'') Service.
38. The Commission also believes that adopting a sunset date is
important, because it will provide 2 GHz microwave incumbents with an
incentive to relocate to other bands when it comes time to change or
replace their equipment. At the current time, the Commission's
licensing records indicate that most 2 GHz microwave incumbents use
analog equipment. APCO contends that operating 2 GHz analog microwave
systems is becoming infeasible, because analog systems are
[[Page 29686]]
now outdated and replacement parts will soon be difficult, if not
impossible, to find. APCO also states that most incumbents have long-
term plans to replace their analog systems with digital systems once
the useful life of current equipment has expired and/or adequate
funding has been found. As BellSouth points out, by the time the sunset
date arrives, much of the microwave equipment operating today at 2 GHz
is likely to be either fully amortized or in need of replacement. The
Commission believes that informing 2 GHz incumbents that they will have
to cover their own relocation expenses after ten years will encourage
incumbents to relocate to another band when they replace existing
equipment. By contrast, if emerging technology licensees are required
to pay to relocate incumbents regardless of when the relocation occurs,
incumbents will have little incentive to make such a transition to an
alternate band voluntarily. For similar reasons, the Commission rejects
the argument by incumbents that PCS licensees should be required to
make relocation offers prior to the sunset date to all incumbents
located within their market area. Again, incumbents would have no
incentive to change out their own systems voluntarily if they knew that
PCS licensees would be required to cover the expenses for them at a
later date. Furthermore, even if the Commission had not reallocated the
spectrum, these incumbents would have had to plan ahead for repair
costs, replacement equipment, and infrastructure improvement. Given
that most incumbents will incur significant expenses in any event when
they replace their analog system with digital equipment, the Commission
believes that providing an incentive to incumbents to relocate
voluntarily at the same time they purchase new equipment serves the
public interest. In sum, the Commission believes that the benefits of
imposing a sunset date outweigh the burdens, if any, that such a date
may impose.
39. Finally, the Commission believes that six months is a
reasonable amount of time for most incumbents to relocate their
facilities, especially because they will have been on notice for ten
years that they might be requested to move. Nevertheless, the
Commission acknowledges that special circumstances might warrant an
extension of the six-month period in some instances to enable the
incumbent to complete relocation activities. If the incumbent is unable
to move or cannot complete relocation in time, the Commission
encourages the parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution. In
the event that the parties cannot agree on a schedule or an alternative
arrangement, the Commission will entertain extension requests on a
case-by-case basis. However, the Commission intends to grant such
extensions only if the incumbent can demonstrate that: (1) it cannot
relocate within the six-month period (e.g., because no alternative
spectrum or other reasonable option is available), and (2) the public
interest would be harmed if the incumbent is forced to terminate
operations (e.g., if public safety communications services would be
disrupted).
B. Cost-Sharing Plan
1. Overview
40. The Commission adopts its proposed plan with a few
modifications suggested by commenters. The Commission believes that
cost-sharing serves the public interest because (1) it will distribute
relocation costs more equitably among PCS licensees, and (2) it will
promote the relocation of entire microwave systems at once, which will
benefit microwave incumbents. The Commission also believes that cost-
sharing will accelerate the relocation process for the PCS band as a
whole, thus promoting more rapid deployment of service to the public.
Furthermore, the Commission concludes that the benefits of cost-sharing
outweigh the costs that may be incurred by licensees who become subject
to reimbursement obligations. Under the plan, these licensees will be
required to pay reimbursement obligations only when they have
benefitted from the spectrum-clearing efforts of another party.
Moreover, as discussed in greater detail below, the Commission is
adopting limits on reimbursement to ensure that licensees subject to
the plan do not bear a disproportionate cost. The Commission concludes
that these provisions amply protect the interests of such licensees.
41. Under the Commission's cost-sharing plan, a PCS licensee
obtains reimbursement rights for a particular link on the date that it
signs a relocation agreement with the microwave incumbent operating on
the link at issue. Within ten business days of the date the agreement
is signed, the PCS licensee submits documentation of the agreement to a
non-profit clearinghouse, which will be selected by the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau (``Bureau''). If the clearinghouse has not
yet been selected, the PCS relocator will be responsible for submitting
documentation of a relocation agreement within ten business days of the
date that the Bureau announces that the clearinghouse has been
established and has begun operation.
42. Prior to commencing commercial operation, each PCS licensee is
required to send a prior coordination notification (``PCN'') to all
existing users in the area. At the same time, each PCS licensee shall
file a copy of the PCN with the clearinghouse. The clearinghouse will
then apply an objective test to determine whether the proposed base
station would have posed an interference problem to the relocated link.
If the test shows that the proposed base station is close enough to
have posed an interference problem, the clearinghouse will notify the
subsequent licensee that it is required to reimburse the PCS relocator
under the cost-sharing formula for a portion of the expenses the
relocator incurred to move the link. UTAM will be required to reimburse
PCS relocators who relocate microwave links that were operating in the
unlicensed PCS band.
43. The clearinghouse will determine the amount that the subsequent
PCS licensee must pay the relocator through the use of a cost-sharing
formula. The formula takes into consideration such factors as the
actual amount paid to relocate the link and the number of PCS licensees
that would have interfered with the link. All calculations will be done
on a per-link basis. The reimbursement amount also decreases over time
to reflect the fact that the initial PCS relocator has received the
benefit of being first to market, and to ensure that the PCS relocator
pays the largest amount, which the Commission believes will provide an
incentive to the relocator to limit relocation expenses. As an
additional protection for later-entrants, the Commission has imposed a
cap of $250,000 per link, with an additional $150,000 if a new or
modified tower is required, on the amount that a PCS relocator may
recoup for the relocation of each individual microwave link. PCS
relocators are entitled to full reimbursement, up to the cap, for
relocating non-interfering links fully outside their market area or
licensed frequency band. Also, costs that are incurred prior to the
selection of a clearinghouse will be reimbursable after a clearinghouse
is established.
44. Once a PCS licensee receives written notification from the
clearinghouse of its reimbursement obligation, it must pay the entire
amount owed within thirty calendar days, with the exception of those
small businesses that qualify for installment payments under the
Commission's auction rules. UTAM will be required to
[[Page 29687]]
reimburse a PCS relocator once a county is cleared of enough microwave
links to enable unlicensed PCS devices to operate. Because UTAM
receives its funding in small increments over an extended period of
time, UTAM will be permitted to satisfy its reimbursement obligation by
making quarterly installment payments to the PCS relocator over a
period of five years, at an interest rate of prime plus three percent.
45. The cost-sharing plan will sunset for all PCS licensees ten
years after the date that voluntary negotiations commenced for A and B
block licensees, on April 4, 2005. However, the sunset date will not
eliminate the existing obligations of PCS licensees that are paying
their portion of relocation costs on an installment basis. Those
licensees must continue their payments until the obligation is
satisfied. Finally, while the Commission concludes that the cost-
sharing plan is in the public interest, the Commission is conditioning
its adoption of these rules on approval of an entity or organization to
administer the plan. Once an administrator is selected, the cost-
sharing rules will take effect.
46. Participation in Cost-Sharing Plan. By this Report and Order,
the Commission mandates that all PCS licensees benefitting from
spectrum clearance by other PCS licensees must contribute to such
relocation costs. As the Commission emphasized in the Cost-Sharing
Notice, however, PCS licensees remain free to negotiate alternative
cost-sharing terms. The Commission also agrees with commenters that
allowing PCS licensees to enter into such private agreements serves the
public interest, because it adds flexibility to the cost-sharing
process and may enable such parties to save both time and the
administrative expense of seeking reimbursement from a clearinghouse.
The Commission therefore concludes that licensees are not required to
participate in the Commission's cost-sharing plan if they enter into
alternative cost-sharing agreements. The Commission also agrees with
commenters that all parties to a separate agreement will still be
liable under the cost-sharing plan to other PCS licensees that incur
relocation expenses. Finally, the Commission concludes that parties to
a private cost-sharing agreement may also seek reimbursement through
the clearinghouse from PCS licensees that are not parties to the
agreement.
2. Dispute Resolution Under the Cost-Sharing Plan
47. The Commission agrees with those commenters who argue that
disputes arising out of the cost-sharing plan, such as disputes over
the amount of reimbursement required, should be brought to the
clearinghouse first for resolution. At the time the dispute is brought
to the clearinghouse, the parties will be required to submit
appropriate documentation, e.g., an independent appraisal of the
equipment expenses at issue, to support their position. To the extent
that disputes cannot be resolved by the clearinghouse, the Commission
encourages parties to use expedited ADR procedures, such as binding
arbitration, mediation, or other ADR techniques. At this time, the
Commission does not designate a specific penalty for failure to comply
with cost-sharing requirements; however, the Commission emphasizes that
they intend to use the full realm of enforcement mechanisms available
to them in order to ensure that reimbursement obligations are
satisfied.
3. Administration of the Cost-Sharing Plan
48. The Commission agrees with those commenters who suggest that
the clearinghouse administrator should be selected through an open
process. The Commission also believes it is essential for the plan to
be administered by industry to the fullest extent possible. Therefore,
before the Commission implements the plan, the Commission will seek
specific proposals from parties who wish to act as administrator and
will request public comment on any such proposals.
49. The Commission delegates to the Wireless Bureau the authority
to select one or more entities to create and administer a neutral, not-
for-profit clearinghouse. Selection shall be based on criteria
established by the Bureau. The Bureau shall publicly announce the
criteria and solicit proposals from qualified parties. Once such
proposals have been received, and an opportunity has elapsed for public
comment on them, the Bureau shall make its selection. When the Bureau
selects an administrator, it shall announce the effective date of the
cost-sharing rules.
C. Licensing Issues
50. As of the effective date of the new rules, the Commission will
grant pending and newly filed applications for all major modifications
and all extensions to existing 2 GHz microwave systems on a secondary
basis. The Commission will grant primary status for the following
limited number of technical changes: decreases in power, minor changes
in antenna height, minor location changes (up to two seconds), any data
correction which does not involve a change in the location of an
existing facility, reductions in authorized bandwidths, minor changes
in structure heights, changes in ground elevation (but preserving
centerline height), and changes in equipment. All other modifications
will be permitted on a secondary basis, unless (1) the incumbent
affirmatively justifies primary status, and (2) the incumbent
establishes that the modification would not add to the relocation costs
of PCS licensees. The Commission declines to adopt the suggestion made
by PCS licensees that no modifications should be allowed even on a
secondary basis, because some incumbents might not need to relocate for
several years, and they should be permitted to make modifications to
their systems during that time period. The Commission also disagrees
with incumbents that the Commission's licensing policy should be
expanded, because the Commission believes that limiting primary site
grants is necessary to protect the interests of PCS licensees. In sum,
the Commission believes that granting secondary site authorizations
serves the public interest, because it balances existing licensees'
need to expand their systems with the goal of minimizing the number of
microwave links that PCS licensees must relocate.
51. Furthermore, the Commission clarifies that secondary operations
may not cause interference to operations authorized on a primary basis,
and they are not protected from interference from primary operations.
Thus, an incumbent operating under a secondary authorization must cease
operations if it poses an interference problem to a PCS licensee.
However, prior to commencing operations, PCS licensees are obligated to
provide all incumbents that are operating within interference range,
regardless of whether an incumbent is operating under a primary or a
secondary site authorization, with thirty days notice that they will be
commencing operations in the vicinity. Finally, PCS licensees are under
no obligation to pay to relocate secondary links that exist within
their market area and frequency block.
D. Application to Other Emerging Technology Licensees
52. The Commission agrees with AT&T that the cost-sharing plan and
rule clarifications adopted in this proceeding should apply to all
emerging technology services, including those
[[Page 29688]]
services in the 2110-2150 and 2160-2200 GHz band that have not yet been
licensed, because the microwave relocation rules already apply to all
emerging technology services. For the same reasons that these changes
will facilitate the deployment of PCS, the Commission believes these
changes will also facilitate the deployment of other emerging
technology services. For example, these changes and clarifications will
provide additional guidance and help to accelerate negotiations between
the parties. However, as new services develop, the Commission may
review its relocation rules and make modifications to these rules where
appropriate. In addition, while the Commission concludes that cost-
sharing should apply to all emerging technology services, the
Commission does not adopt specific cost-sharing rules for new services
at this time, but will develop such rules in future proceedings.
III. Conclusion
53. The Commission believes that the rules adopted in this Report
and Order will promote the public policy goals set forth by Congress.
The cost-sharing formula adopted herein will facilitate the rapid
relocation of microwave facilities operating in the 2 GHz band, and
will allow PCS licensees to offer service to the public in an
expeditious manner.
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
Notice of Proposed Rule Making in WT Docket No. 95-157, RM-8643. The
Commission has prepared a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the
expected impact on small entities of the proposals suggested in this
document. Written comments were requested. The Commission's final
analysis is as follows:
Need for and purpose of the action: This rulemaking proceeding has
implemented Congress' goal of encouraging emerging technologies and
bringing innovative commercial wireless services to the public in an
efficient manner. The cost-sharing plan will promote the efficient
relocation of microwave licensees by encouraging PCS licensees to
relocate entire microwave systems rather than individual microwave
links. A cost-sharing plan is necessary to enhance the speed of
relocation and provide an incentive to PCS licensees to negotiate
system-wide relocation agreements with microwave incumbents. This
action will result in faster deployment of PCS and delivery of service
to the public. The Commission has also clarified some terminology
regarding certain aspects of the Commission's rules for microwave
relocation contained in the Commission's Emerging Technologies
proceeding, Docket No. 92-9.
Issues raised in response to the IRFA: The American Public Power
Association (``APPA'') states that conversion of 2 GHz microwave
systems to secondary status in the year 2005 would have a particularly
severe impact on the limited budgets of small, non-profit public
utility systems.
Significant alternatives considered and rejected: Although the
Commission has decided not to convert microwave incumbents to secondary
status automatically as the Commission proposed in the Cost-Sharing
Notice, microwave incumbents will be required to pay for their own
relocation costs after the sunset date. The Commission has considered
the impact of the ten year sunset date, and the Commission has
determined that the benefits of imposing a sunset date outweigh the
burdens such a date may impose on these incumbents. For further
discussion, see Section IV(A)(6), supra.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This First Report and Order contains either a proposed or modified
information collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information
collections contained in this First Report and Order, as required by
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments should
address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Further Information. For additional information concerning the
information collections contained in this Report and Order, contact
Dorothy Conway at (202) 418-0217, or via the Internet at
[email protected].
Supplementary Information:
Title: Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding a Plan for
Sharing the Costs of Microwave Relocation, First Report and Order.
Type of Review: Revision to existing collection.
Respondents: Personal Communications Service licensees that
relocate existing microwave operators, subsequent Personal
Communications Service applicants potentially benefitted by such
relocation, and incumbent microwave operators.
Number of Respondents: Approximately 2,000.
Estimated Time Per Response: One hour to compose, type and mail the
information to the requesting party.
Total Annual Burden: Approximately 2,000 hours.
Estimated Costs Per Respondent: Assuming that respondent uses one
attorney at $200/hour to compose, type and mail the information to the
requesting party, respondents' costs are estimated at approximately
$200 per one-time response.
Needs and Uses. The Commission recently adopted a First Report and
Order regarding a plan for sharing the costs of relocating microwave
facilities currently operating in the 1850 to 1990 MHz (2 GHz) band,
which has been allocated for use by broadband Personal Communications
Services (PCS). Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding a Plan
for Sharing the Costs of Microwave Relocation, First Report and Order,
adopted April 25, 1996. The First Report and Order establishes a
mechanism whereby PCS licensees that incur costs to relocate microwave
links would receive reimbursement for a portion of those costs from
other PCS licensees that also benefit from the resulting clearance of
the spectrum.
The First Report and Order concludes, inter alia, that in order for
a public safety licensee to qualify for extended negotiation periods
under the Commission's Rules, the department head responsible for
system oversight must certify to the PCS licensee requesting relocation
that:
(1) the agency is a licensee in the Police Radio, Fire Radio,
Emergency Medical, Special Emergency Radio Services, or that it is a
licensee of other Part 94 facilities licensed on a primary basis under
the eligibility requirements of Part 90, Subparts B and C; and
(2) the majority of communications carried on the facilities at
issue involve safety of life and property.
A public safety licensee must provide certification within 30 days
of a request from a PCS licensee, or the PCS licensee may presume that
special treatment is inapplicable to the incumbent.
[[Page 29689]]
In addition, the First Report and Order concludes that good faith
negotiation between parties involved in microwave relocation requires
each party to provide information to the other that is reasonably
necessary to facilitate the relocation process. For example, upon
request by a PCS licensee, the Commission expects incumbents to provide
any information that the PCS licensee needs in order to evaluate the
cost of relocating the incumbent to comparable facilities.
The legal authority for this proposed information collection
includes 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r) and
332. The information collection would not affect any FCC Forms. The
proposed collection would increase minimally the burden on public
safety licensees seeking to qualify for an extended negotiation period
by requiring such a licensee to self-certify to the PCS licensee
requesting relocation that it is indeed a public safety licensee, and
by requiring that licensees share information in good faith.
C. Ex Parte Rules--Non-Restricted Proceeding
This is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking proceeding.
Ex parte presentations are permitted except during the Sunshine Agenda
period, provided they are disclosed as provided in Commission rules.
D. Authority
Authority for issuance of this Report and Order is contained in the
Communications Act, Sections 4(i), 7, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r),
and 332, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 154(i), 157, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r),
332, as amended.
E. Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered that Section 15.307 is amended as set
forth below and will become effective August 12, 1996.
It is further ordered that Section 22.602 is amended as set forth
below and will become effective August 12, 1996.
It is further ordered that Sections 24.5, 24.237, 24.239. 24.241,
24.243, 24.245, 24.247, 24.249, 24.251, 24.251 and 24.253 are amended
as set forth below.
It is further ordered that the cost-sharing plan is conditioned on
approval by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau of an entity (or
entities) to administer the plan, as described in Section IV(B)(3),
supra.
It is further ordered that Part 24 rule changes will become
applicable on the date that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
selects a clearinghouse to administer the cost-sharing plan. The
Commission will issue a public announcement after the selection has
been made.
It is further ordered that Sections 101.3, 101.67, 101.69, 101.71,
101.73, 101.75, 101.77, 101.79, 101.81 and 101.147, the new Part 101
(effective August 1, 1996) of the Commission's rules are amended as set
forth below and will become effective August 1, 1996.
It is further ordered that rules requiring Paperwork Reduction Act
approval shall become effective upon approval by the Office of
Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law No. 104-13;
It is further ordered that, as of the effective dates of the rules
listed herein, the Commission will only grant primary status to
applications for minor modifications that would not add to the
relocation costs of PCS licensees, as described in Section IV(C) supra.
It is further ordered that, as of the effective dates of the rules
listed herein, the Commission will grant applications for major
modifications and extensions to existing 2 GHz microwave systems only
on a secondary basis, as described in Section IV(C) supra.
It is further ordered that the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, as
required by Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and as set
forth in Section VII(A) is adopted.
It is further ordered that the Secretary shall send a copy of this
First Report and Order to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 15
Radio.
47 CFR Part 22
Radio.
47 CFR Part 24
Personal communications services.
47 CFR Part 101
Fixed microwave services.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Rule Changes
Parts 15, 22, 24 and 101 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of
Federal Regulations are amended as follows:
PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
1. The authority citation for Part 15 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 304, 307 and 544A.
2. Section 15.307 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (f) and
(g) to read as follows:
Sec. 15.307 Coordination with fixed microwave service.
(a) UTAM, Inc. is designated to coordinate and manage the
transition of the 1910-1930 MHz band from the Private Operational-Fixed
Microwave Service (OFS) operating under Part 101 of this chapter to
unlicensed PCS operations,
* * * * *
(f) At such time as the Commission deems that the need for
coordination between unlicensed PCS operations and existing Part 101
Private Operational-Fixed Microwave Services ceases to exist, the
disabling mechanism required by paragraph (e) of this section will no
longer be required.
(g) Operations under the provisions of this subpart are required to
protect systems in the Private Operational-Fixed Microwave Service
operating within the 1850-1990 MHz band until the dates and conditions
specified in Secs. 101.69 through 101.73 of this chapter for
termination of primary status. Interference protection is not required
for Part 101 stations in this band licensed on a secondary basis.
* * * * *
PART 22--PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES
3. The authority citation for Part 22 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, unless otherwise noted.
4. Section 22.602 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 22.602 Transition of the 2110-2130 and 2160-2180 MHz channels to
emerging technologies.
The microwave channels listed in Sec. 22.591 have been allocated
for use by emerging technologies (ET) services. No new systems will be
authorized under this part. The rules in this section provide for a
transition period during which exis
FR Doc. 96-14138 Microwave Facilities Operating in 1850-1990 MHz (2GHz) Band; Relocation Costs Sharing
ting Paging and Radiotelephone
Service (PARS) licensees using these channels may relocate operations
to other media or to other fixed channels, including those in other
microwave bands. For PARS licensees relocating operations to other
microwave bands, authorization must be obtained under Part 101 of this
chapter.
[[Page 29690]]
(a) Licensees proposing to implement ET services may negotiate with
PARS licensees authorized to use these channels, for the purpose of
agreeing to terms under which the PARS licensees would--
(1) Relocate their operations to other fixed microwave bands or
other media, or alternatively,
(2) Accept a sharing arrangement with the ET licensee that may
result in an otherwise impermissible level of interference to the PARS
operations.
(b) PARS operations on these channels will continue to be co-
primary with other users of this spectrum until two years after the FCC
commences acceptance of applications for ET services, and until one
year after an ET licensee initiates negotiations for relocation of the
fixed microwave licensee's operations.
(c) Voluntary Negotiations. During the two year voluntary
negotiation period, negotiations are strictly voluntary and are not
defined by any parameters. However, if the parties have not reached an
agreement within one year after the commencement of the voluntary
period, the PARS licensee must allow the ET licensee (if it so chooses)
to gain access to the existing facilities to be relocated so that an
independent third party can examine the PARS licensee's 2 GHz system
and prepare an estimate of the cost and the time needed to relocate the
PARS licensee to comparable facilities. The ET licensee must pay for
any such estimate.
(d) Mandatory Negotiations. If a relocation agreement is not
reached during the two year voluntary period, the ET licensee may
initiate a mandatory negotiation period. This mandatory period is
triggered at the option of the ET licensee, but ET licensees may not
invoke their right to mandatory negotiation until the voluntary
negotiation period has expired. Once mandatory negotiations have begun,
a PARS licensee may not refuse to negotiate and all parties are
required to negotiate in good faith. Good faith requires each party to
provide information to the other that is reasonably necessary to
facilitate the relocation process. In evaluating claims that a party
has not negotiated in good faith, the FCC will consider, inter alia,
the following factors:
(1) Whether the ET licensee has made a bona fide offer to relocate
the PARS licensee to comparable facilities in accordance with Section
101.75(b) of this chapter;
(2) If the PARS licensee has demanded a premium, the type of
premium requested (e.g., whether the premium is directly related to
relocation, such as system-wide relocations and analog-to-digital
conversions, versus other types of premiums), and whether the value of
the premium as compared to the cost of providing comparable facilities
is disproportionate (i.e., whether there is a lack of proportion or
relation between the two);
(3) What steps the parties have taken to determine the actual cost
of relocation to comparable facilities;
(4) Whether either party has withheld information requested by the
other party that is necessary to estimate relocation costs or to
facilitate the relocation process. Any party alleging a violation of
our good faith requirement must attach an independent estimate of the
relocation costs in question to any documentation filed with the
Commission in support of its claim. An independent cost estimate must
include a specification for the comparable facility and a statement of
the costs associated with providing that facility to the incumbent
licensee.
(e) Involuntary period. After the periods specified in paragraph
(b) of this section have expired, ET licensees may initiate involuntary
relocation procedures under the Commission's rules. ET licensees are
obligated to pay to relocate only the specific microwave links to which
their systems pose an interference problem. Under involuntary
relocation, a PARS licensee is required to relocate, provided that:
(1) The ET applicant, provider, licensee or representative
guarantees payment of relocation costs, including all engineering,
equipment, site and FCC fees, as well as any legitimate and prudent
transaction expenses incurred by the PARS licensee that are directly
attributable to an involuntary relocation, subject to a cap of two
percent of the hard costs involved. Hard costs are defined as the
actual costs associated with providing a replacement system, such as
equipment and engineering expenses. ET licensees are not required to
pay PARS licensees for internal resources devoted to the relocation
process. ET licensees are not required to pay for transaction costs
incurred by PARS licensees during the voluntary or mandatory periods
once the involuntary period is initiated or for fees that cannot be
legitimately tied to the provision of comparable facilities;
(2) The ET applicant, provider, licensee or representative
completes all activities necessary for implementing the replacement
facilities, including engineering and cost analysis of the relocation
procedure and, if radio facilities are involved, identifying and
obtaining, on the incumbents behalf, new channels and frequency
coordination; and,
(3) The ET applicant, provider, licensee or representative builds
the replacement system and tests it for comparability with the existing
2 GHz system.
(f) Comparable Facilities. The replacement system provided to an
incumbent during an involuntary relocation must be at least equivalent
to the existing PARS system with respect to the following three
factors:
(1) Throughput. Communications throughput is the amount of
information transferred within a system in a given amount of time. If
analog facilities are being replaced with analog, the ET licensee is
required to provide the PARS licensee with an equivalent number of 4
kHz voice channels. If digital facilities are being replaced with
digital, the ET licensee must provide the PARS licensee with equivalent
data loading bits per second (bps). ET licensees must provide PARS
licensees with enough throughput to satisfy the PARS licensee's system
use at the time of relocation, not match the total capacity of the PARS
system.
(2) Reliability. System reliability is the degree to which
information is transferred accurately within a system. ET licensees
must provide PARS licensees with reliability equal to the overall
reliability of their system. For digital data systems, reliability is
measured by the percent of time the bit error rate (BER) exceeds a
desired value, and for analog or digital voice transmissions, it is
measured by the percent of time that audio signal quality meets an
established threshold. If an analog voice system is replaced with a
digital voice system, only the resulting frequency response, harmonic
distortion, signal-to-noise ratio and its reliability will be
considered in determining comparable reliability.
(3) Operating Costs. Operating costs are the cost to operate and
maintain the PARS system. ET licensees must compensate PARS licensees
for any increased recurring costs associated with the replacement
facilities (e.g. additional rental payments, increased utility fees)
for five years after relocation. ET licensees may satisfy this
obligation by making a lump-sum payment based on present value using
current interest rates. Additionally, the maintenance costs to the PARS
licensee must be equivalent to the 2 GHz system in order for the
replacement system to be considered comparable.
(g) The PARS licensee is not required to relocate until the
alternative facilities are available to it for a reasonable time to
make adjustments, determine
[[Page 29691]]
comparability, and ensure a seamless handoff.
(h) The Commission's Twelve-Month Trial Period. If, within one year
after the relocation to new facilities, the PARS licensee demonstrates
that the new facilities are not comparable to the former facilities,
the ET applicant, provider, licensee or representative must remedy the
defects or pay to relocate the PARS licensee to one of the following:
its former or equivalent 2 GHz channels, another comparable frequency
band, a land-line system, or any other facility that satisfies the
requirements specified in paragraph (f) of this section. This trial
period commences on the date that the PARS licensee begins full
operation of the replacement link. If the PARS licensee has retained
its 2 GHz authorization during the trial period, it must return the
license to the Commission at the end of the twelve months.
(i) After April 25, 1996, all major modifications and extensions to
existing PARS systems operating on channels in the 2110-2130 and 2160-
2180 MHz bands will be authorized on a secondary basis to future ET
operations. All other modifications will render the modified PARS
license secondary to future ET operations unless the incumbent
affirmatively justifies primary status and the incumbent PARS licensee
establishes that the modification would not add to the relocation costs
of ET licensees. Incumbent PARS licensees will maintain primary status
for the following technical changes:
(1) Decreases in power;
(2) Minor changes (increases or decreases) in antenna height;
(3) Minor location changes (up to two seconds);
(4) Any data correction which does not involve a change in the
location of an existing facility;
(5) Reductions in authorized bandwidth;
(6) Minor changes (increases or decreases) in structure height;
(7) Changes (increases or decreases) in ground elevation that do
not affect centerline height;
(8) Minor equipment changes.
(j) Sunset. PARS licensees will maintain primary status in the
2110-2130 and 2160-2180 MHz bands unless and until an ET licensee
requires use of the spectrum. ET licensees are not required to pay
relocation costs after the relocation rules sunset (i.e. ten years
after the voluntary period begins for the first ET licensees in the
service). Once the relocation rules sunset, an ET licensee may require
the incumbent to cease operations, provided that the ET licensee
intends to turn on a system within interference range of the incumbent,
as determined by TIA Bulletin 10-F or any standard successor. ET
licensee notification to the affected PARS licensee must be in writing
and must provide the incumbent with no less than six months to vacate
the spectrum. After the six-month notice period has expired, the PARS
licensee must turn its license back into the Commission, unless the
parties have entered into an agreement which allows the PARS licensee
to continue to operate on a mutually agreed upon basis. If the parties
cannot agree on a schedule or an alternative arrangement, requests for
extension will be accepted and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The
Commission will grant such extensions only if the incumbent can
demonstrate that:
(1) It cannot relocate within the six-month period (e.g., because
no alternative spectrum or other reasonable option is available), and;
(2) The public interest would be harmed if the incumbent is forced
to terminate operations (e.g., if public safety communications services
would be disrupted).
PART 24--PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
5. The authority citation for Part 24 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 309 and 332.
6. Section 24.5 is amended by adding the definitions for ``PCS
Relocator'' and ``UTAM'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 24.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
PCS Relocator. A PCS entity that pays to relocate a fixed microwave
link from its existing 2 GHz facility to other media or other fixed
channels.
UTAM. The Unlicensed PCS Ad Hoc Committee for 2 GHz Microwave
Transition and Management, which coordinates relocation in the 1910-
1930 MHz band.
* * * * *
7. Section 24.237 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 24.237 Interference protection.
* * * * *
(c) In all other respects, coordination procedures are to follow
the requirements of Sec. 101.103(d) of this chapter to the extent that
these requirements are not inconsistent with those specified in this
part.
* * * * *
8. Subpart E is amended by adding a new heading following Section
24.238 to read as follows:
Policies Governing Microwave Relocation From the 1850-1990 MHz Band
9. A new Section 24.239 is added to Subpart E to read as follows:
Sec. 24.239 Cost-sharing requirements for Broadband PCS.
Frequencies in the 1850-1990 MHz band listed in Sec. 101.147(c) of
this chapter have been allocated for use by PCS. In accordance with
procedures specified in Secs. 101.69 through 101.81 of this chapter,
PCS entities (both licensed and unlicensed) are required to relocate
the existing Fixed Microwave Services (FMS) licensees in these bands if
interference to the existing FMS operations would occur. All PCS
entities who benefit from spectrum clearance by other PCS entities must
contribute to such relocation costs. PCS entities may satisfy this
requirement by entering into private cost-sharing agreements or
agreeing to terms other than those specified in Sec. 24.243. However,
PCS entities are required to reimburse other PCS entities that incur
relocation costs and are not parties to the alternative agreement. In
addition, parties to a private cost-sharing agreement may seek
reimbursement through the clearinghouse (as discussed in Sec. 24.241)
from PCS entities that are not parties to the agreement. The cost-
sharing plan is in effect during all phases of microwave relocation
specified in Sec. 101.69 of this chapter.
10. A new Section 24.241 is added to Subpart E to read as follows:
Sec. 24.241 Administration of the Cost-Sharing Plan.
The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, under delegated authority,
will select an entity to operate as a neutral, not-for-profit
clearinghouse. This clearinghouse will administer the cost-sharing plan
by, inter alia, maintaining all of the cost and payment records related
to the relocation of each link and determining the cost-sharing
obligation of subsequent PCS entities. The cost-sharing rules will not
take effect until an administrator is selected.
11. A new Section 24.243 is added to Subpart E to read as follows:
[[Page 29692]]
Sec. 24.243 The Cost-Sharing Formula.
A PCS relocator who relocates an interfering microwave link, i.e.,
one that is in all or part of its market area and in all or part of its
frequency band, is entitled to pro rata reimbursement based on the
following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN96.001
(a) RN equals the amount of reimbursement.
(b) C equals the actual cost of relocating the link. Actual
relocation costs include, but are not limited to, such items as: radio
terminal equipment (TX and/or RX--antenna, necessary feed lines, MUX/
Modems); towers and/or modifications; back-up power equipment;
monitoring or control equipment; engineering costs (design/path
survey); installation; systems testing; FCC filing costs; site
acquisition and civil works; zoning costs; training; disposal of old
equipment; test equipment (vendor required); spare equipment; project
management; prior coordination notification under Sec. 101.103(d) of
this chapter; required antenna upgrades for interference control; power
plant upgrade (if required); electrical grounding systems; Heating
Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) (if required); alternate
transport equipment; and leased facilities. C also includes incumbent
transaction expenses that are directly attributable to the relocation,
subject to a cap of two percent of the ``hard'' costs involved. C may
not exceed $250,000 per link, with an additional $150,000 permitted if
a new or modified tower is required.
(c) N equals the number of PCS entities that would have interfered
with the link. For the PCS relocator, N = 1. For the next PCS entity
that would have interfered with the link, N=2, and so on.
(d) TM equals the number of months that have elapsed between
the month the PCS relocator obtains reimbursement rights and the month
that the clearinghouse notifies a later-entrant of its reimbursement
obligation. A PCS relocator obtains reimbursement rights on the date
that it signs a relocation agreement with a microwave incumbent.
12. A new Section 24.245 is added to Subpart E to read as follows:
Sec. 24.245 Reimbursement under the Cost-Sharing Plan.
(a) Registration of Reimbursement Rights. To obtain reimbursement,
a PCS relocator must submit documentation of the relocation agreement
to the clearinghouse within ten business days of the date a relocation
agreement is signed with an incumbent. If the clearinghouse has not yet
been selected, the PCS relocator will be responsible for submitting
documentation of the relocation agreement within ten business days of
the date that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issues a public
notice announcing that the clearinghouse has been established and has
begun operation.
(b) Documentation of Expenses. Once relocation occurs, the PCS
relocator must submit documentation itemizing the amount spent for
items listed in Sec. 24.243(b). The PCS relocator must identify the
particular link associated with appropriate expenses (i.e., costs may
not be averaged over numerous links). If a PCS relocator pays a
microwave incumbent a monetary sum to relocate its own facilities, the
PCS relocator must estimate the costs associated with relocating the
incumbent by itemizing the anticipated cost for items listed in
Sec. 24.243(b). If the sum paid to the incumbent cannot be accounted
for, the remaining amount is not eligible for reimbursement. A PCS
relocator may submit receipts or other documentation to the
clearinghouse for all relocation expenses incurred since April 5, 1995.
(c) Full Reimbursement. A PCS relocator who relocates a microwave
link that is either fully outside its market area or its licensed
frequency band may seek full reimbursement through the clearinghouse of
compensable costs, up to the reimbursement cap as defined in
Sec. 24.243(b). Such reimbursement will not be subject to depreciation
under the cost-sharing formula.
13. A new Section 24.247 is added to Subpart E to read as follows:
Sec. 24.247 Triggering a Reimbursement Obligation.
(a) Licensed PCS. The clearinghouse will apply the following test
to determine if a PCS entity preparing to initiate operations must pay
a PCS relocator in accordance with the formula detailed in Sec. 24.243:
(1) All or part of the relocated microwave link was initially co-
channel with the licensed PCS band(s) of the subsequent PCS entity;
(2) A PCS relocator has paid the relocation costs of the microwave
incumbent; and
(3) The subsequent PCS entity is preparing to turn on a fixed base
station at commercial power and the fixed base station is located
within a rectangle (Proximity Threshold) described as follows:
(i) The length of the rectangle shall be x where x is a line
extending through both nodes of the microwave link to a distance of 48
kilometers (30 miles) beyond each node. The width of the rectangle
shall be y where y is a line perpendicular to x and extending for a
distance of 24 kilometers (15 miles) on both sides of x. Thus, the
rectangle is represented as follows:
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN96.002
BILLING CODE 6712-01-C
[[Page 29693]]
(ii) If the application of the Proximity Threshold test indicates
that a reimbursement obligation exists, the clearinghouse will
calculate the reimbursement amount in accordance with the cost-sharing
formula and notify the subsequent PCS entity of the total amount of its
reimbursement obligation.
(b) Unlicensed PCS. UTAM's reimbursement obligation is triggered
either:
(1) When a county is cleared of microwave links in the unlicensed
allocation, and UTAM invokes a Zone 1 power cap as a result of third
party relocation activities; or
(2) A county is cleared of microwave links in the unlicensed
allocation and UTAM reclassifies a Zone 2 county to Zone 1 status.
14. A new Section 24.249 is added to Subpart E to read as follows:
Sec. 24.249 Payment Issues.
(a) Timing. On the day that a PCS entity files its prior
coordination notice (PCN) in accordance with Sec. 101.103(d) of this
chapter, it must file a copy of the PCN with the clearinghouse. The
clearinghouse will determine if any reimbursement obligation exists and
notify the PCS entity in writing of its repayment obligation, if any.
When the PCS entity receives a written copy of such obligation, it must
pay directly to the PCS relocator the amount owed within thirty days,
with the exception of those businesses that qualify for installment
payments. A business that qualifies for an installment payment plan
must make its first installment payment within thirty days of notice
from the clearinghouse. UTAM's first payment will be due thirty days
after its reimbursement obligation is triggered as described in
Sec. 24.247(b).
(b) Eligibility for Installment Payments. PCS licensees that are
allowed to pay for their licenses in installments under our designated
entity rules will have identical payment options available to them with
respect to payments under the cost-sharing plan. The specific terms of
the installment payment mechanism, including the treatment of principal
and interest, are the same as those applicable to the licensee's
installment auction payments. If, for any reason, the entity eligible
for installment payments is no longer eligible for such installment
payments on its license, that entity is no longer eligible for
installment payments under the cost-sharing plan. UTAM may make
quarterly payments over a five-year period with an interest rate of
prime plus 2.5 percent. UTAM may also negotiate separate repayment
arrangements with other parties.
15. A new Section 24.251 is added to Subpart E to read as follows:
Sec. 24.251 Dispute Resolution Under the Cost-Sharing Plan.
Disputes arising out of the cost-sharing plan, such as disputes
over the amount of reimbursement required, must be brought, in the
first instance, to the clearinghouse for resolution. To the extent that
disputes cannot be resolved by the clearinghouse, parties are
encouraged to use expedited ADR procedures, such as binding
arbitration, mediation, or other ADR techniques.
16. A new Section 24.253 is added to Subpart E to read as follows:
Sec. 24.253 Termination of Cost-Sharing Obligations.
The cost-sharing plan will sunset for all PCS entities on April 4,
2005, which is ten years after the date that voluntary negotiations
commenced for A and B block PCS entities. Those PCS entities that are
paying their portion of relocation costs on an installment basis must
continue the payments until the obligation is satisfied.
PART 101--FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES
17. The authority citation for Part 101 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.
18. Section 101.3 is amended by adding the definition for
``Secondary Operations'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 101.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Secondary Operations. Radio communications which may not cause
interference to operations authorized on a primary basis and which are
not protected from interference from these primary operations.
* * * * *
19. Subpart B is amended by adding a new heading following Section
101.67 to read as follows:
Policies Governing Microwave Relocation From the 1850-1990 and
2110-2200 MHZ Bands
20. Section 101.69 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 101.69 Transition of the 1850-1990 and 2110-2200 MHz bands from
the Fixed Microwave Services to Personal Communications Services and
emerging technologies.
Fixed Microwave Services (FMS) frequencies in the 1850-1990 and
2110-2200 MHz bands listed in Secs. 101.147 (c), (d) and (e) have been
allocated for use by emerging technology (ET) services, including
Personal Communications Services (PCS). The rules in this section
provide for a transition period during which ET licensees may relocate
existing FMS licensees using these frequencies to other media or other
fixed channels, including those in other microwave bands.
(a) ET licensees may negotiate with FMS licensees authorized to use
frequencies in the 1850-1990 and 2110-2200 MHz bands, for the purpose
of agreeing to terms under which the FMS licensees would--
(1) Relocate their operations to other fixed microwave bands or
other media; or alternatively
(2) Accept a sharing arrangement with the ET licensee that may
result in an otherwise impermissible level of interference to the FMS
operations.
(b) FMS operations in the 1850-1990 and 2110-2200 MHz bands, with
the exception of public safety facilities defined in Sec. 101.77, will
continue to be co-primary with other users of this spectrum until two
years after the FCC commences acceptance of applications for ET
services (voluntary negotiation period), and until one year after an ET
licensee initiates negotiations for relocation of the fixed microwave
licensee's operations (mandatory negotiation period). In the 1910-1930
MHz band allocated for unlicensed PCS, FMS operations will continue to
be co-primary until one year after UTAM, Inc. initiates negotiations
for relocation of the fixed microwave licensee's operations. Public
safety facilities defined in Sec. 101.77 will continue to be co-primary
in these bands until three years after the Commission commences
acceptance of applications for an emerging technology service
(voluntary negotiation period), and until two years after an emerging
technology service licensee or an emerging technology unlicensed
equipment supplier or representative initiates negotiations for
relocation of the fixed microwave licensee's operations (mandatory
negotiation period). If no agreement is reached during either the
voluntary or mandatory negotiation periods, an ET licensee may initiate
involuntary relocation procedures. Under involuntary relocation, the
incumbent is required to relocate, provided that the ET licensee meets
the conditions of Sec. 101.75.
21. A new Section 101.71 is added to Subpart B to read as follows:
[[Page 29694]]
Sec. 101.71 Voluntary Negotiations.
During the two or three year voluntary negotiation period,
negotiations are strictly voluntary and are not defined by any
parameters. However, if the parties have not reached an agreement
within one year after the commencement of the voluntary period, the FMS
licensee must allow the ET licensee (if it so chooses) to gain access
to the existing facilities to be relocated so that an independent third
party can examine the FMS licensee's 2 GHz system and prepare an
estimate of the cost and the time needed to relocate the FMS licensee
to comparable facilities. The ET licensee must pay for any such
estimate.
22. A new Section 101.73 is added to Subpart B to read as follows:
Sec. 101.73 Mandatory Negotiations.
(a) If a relocation agreement is not reached during the two or
three year voluntary period, the ET licensee may initiate a mandatory
negotiation period. This mandatory period is triggered at the option of
the ET licensee, but ET licensees may not invoke their right to
mandatory negotiation until the voluntary negotiation period has
expired.
(b) Once mandatory negotiations have begun, an FMS licensee may not
refuse to negotiate and all parties are required to negotiate in good
faith. Good faith requires each party to provide information to the
other that is reasonably necessary to facilitate the relocation
process. In evaluating claims that a party has not negotiated in good
faith, the FCC will consider, inter alia, the following factors:
(1) Whether the ET licensee has made a bona fide offer to relocate
the FMS licensee to comparable facilities in accordance with Section
101.75(b);
(2) If the FMS licensee has demanded a premium, the type of premium
requested (e.g., whether the premium is directly related to relocation,
such as system-wide relocations and analog-to-digital conversions,
versus other types of premiums), and whether the value of the premium
as compared to the cost of providing comparable facilities is
disproportionate (i.e., whether there is a lack of proportion or
relation between the two);
(3) What steps the parties have taken to determine the actual cost
of relocation to comparable facilities;
(4) Whether either party has withheld information requested by the
other party that is necessary to estimate relocation costs or to
facilitate the relocation process.
(c) Any party alleging a violation of our good faith requirement
must attach an independent estimate of the relocation costs in question
to any documentation filed with the Commission in support of its claim.
An independent cost estimate must include a specification for the
comparable facility and a statement of the costs associated with
providing that facility to the incumbent licensee.
23. A new Section 101.75 is added to Subpart B to read as follows:
Sec. 101.75 Involuntary Relocation Procedures.
(a) If no agreement is reached during either the voluntary or
mandatory negotiation period, an ET licensee may initiate involuntary
relocation procedures under the Commission's rules. ET licensees are
obligated to pay to relocate only the specific microwave links to which
their systems pose an interference problem. Under involuntary
relocation, the FMS licensee is required to relocate, provided that the
ET licensee:
(1) Guarantees payment of relocation costs, including all
engineering, equipment, site and FCC fees, as well as any legitimate
and prudent transaction expenses incurred by the FMS licensee that are
directly attributable to an involuntary relocation, subject to a cap of
two percent of the hard costs involved. Hard costs are defined as the
actual costs associated with providing a replacement system, such as
equipment and engineering expenses. ET licensees are not required to
pay FMS licensees for internal resources devoted to the relocation
process. ET licensees are not required to pay for transaction costs
incurred by FMS licensees during the voluntary or mandatory periods
once the involuntary period is initiated, or for fees that cannot be
legitimately tied to the provision of comparable facilities;
(2) Completes all activities necessary for implementing the
replacement facilities, including engineering and cost analysis of the
relocation procedure and, if radio facilities are used, identifying and
obtaining, on the incumbents' behalf, new microwave frequencies and
frequency coordination; and
(3) Builds the replacement system and tests it for comparability
with the existing 2 GHz system.
(b) Comparable Facilities. The replacement system provided to an
incumbent during an involuntary relocation must be at least equivalent
to the existing FMS system with respect to the following three factors:
(1) Throughput. Communications throughput is the amount of
information transferred within a system in a given amount of time. If
analog facilities are being replaced with analog, the ET licensee is
required to provide the FMS licensee with an equivalent number of 4 kHz
voice channels. If digital facilities are being replaced with digital,
the ET licensee must provide the FMS licensee with equivalent data
loading bits per second (bps). ET licensees must provide FMS licensees
with enough throughput to satisfy the FMS licensee's system use at the
time of relocation, not match the total capacity of the FMS system.
(2) Reliability. System reliability is the degree to which
information is transferred accurately within a system. ET licensees
must provide FMS licensees with reliability equal to the overall
reliability of their system. For digital data systems, reliability is
measured by the percent of time the bit error rate (BER) exceeds a
desired value, and for analog or digital voice transmissions, it is
measured by the percent of time that audio signal quality meets an
established threshold. If an analog voice system is replaced with a
digital voice system, only the resulting frequency response, harmonic
distortion, signal-to-noise ratio and its reliability will be
considered in determining comparable reliability.
(3) Operating Costs. Operating costs are the cost to operate and
maintain the FMS system. ET licensees must compensate FMS licensees for
any increased recurring costs associated with the replacement
facilities (e.g., additional rental payments, increased utility fees)
for five years after relocation. ET licensees may satisfy this
obligation by making a lump-sum payment based on present value using
current interest rates. Additionally, the maintenance costs to the FMS
licensee must be equivalent to the 2 GHz system in order for the
replacement system to be considered comparable.
(c) The FMS licensee is not required to relocate until the
alternative facilities are available to it for a reasonable time to
make adjustments, determine comparability, and ensure a seamless
handoff.
(d) Twelve-Month Trial Period. If, within one year after the
relocation to new facilities, the FMS licensee demonstrates that the
new facilities are not comparable to the former facilities, the ET
licensee must remedy the defects or pay to relocate the microwave
licensee to one of the following: its former or equivalent 2 GHz
channels, another comparable frequency band, a land-line system, or any
other facility that satisfies the requirements specified in paragraph
(b) of this section. This trial period commences on the date that the
FMS licensee begins full operation of the replacement link. If the FMS
licensee has retained its 2 GHz
[[Page 29695]]
authorization during the trial period, it must return the license to
the Commission at the end of the twelve months.
24. A new Section 101.77 is added to Subpart B to read as follows:
Sec. 101.77 Public Safety Licensees in the 1850-1990 and 2110-2200 MHz
bands.
(a) Public safety facilities are subject to the three-year
voluntary and two-year mandatory negotiation period. In order for
public safety licensees to qualify for extended negotiation periods,
the department head responsible for system oversight must certify to
the ET licensee requesting relocation that:
(1) The agency is a licensee in the Police Radio, Fire Radio,
Emergency Medical, Special Emergency Radio Services, or that it is a
licensee of other Part 101 facilities licensed on a primary basis under
the eligibility requirements of Part 90, Subparts B and C of this
chapter; and
(2) The majority of communications carried on the facilities at
issue involve safety of life and property.
(b) A public safety licensee must provide certification within
thirty (30) days of a request from a ET licensee, or the ET licensee
may presume that special treatment is inapplicable. If a public safety
licensee falsely certifies to an ET licensee that it qualifies for the
extended time periods, this licensee will be in violation of the
Commission's rules and will subject to appropriate penalties, as well
as immediately subject to the non-public safety time periods.
25. A new Section 101.79 is added to Subpart B to read as follows:
Sec. 101.79 Sunset provisions for licensees in the 1850-1990 and 2110-
2200 MHz bands.
(a) FMS licensees will maintain primary status in the 1850-1990 and
2110-2200 MHz bands unless and until an ET licensee requires use of the
spectrum. ET licensees are not required to pay relocation costs after
the relocation rules sunset (i.e. ten years after the voluntary period
begins for the first ET licensees in the service). Once the relocation
rules sunset, an ET licensee may require the incumbent to cease
operations, provided that the ET licensee intends to turn on a system
within interference range of the incumbent, as determined by TIA
Bulletin 10-F or any standard successor. ET licensee notification to
the affected FMS licensee must be in writing and must provide the
incumbent with no less than six months to vacate the spectrum. After
the six-month notice period has expired, the FMS licensee must turn its
license back into the Commission, unless the parties have entered into
an agreement which allows the FMS licensee to continue to operate on a
mutually agreed upon basis.
(b) If the parties cannot agree on a schedule or an alternative
arrangement, requests for extension will be accepted and reviewed on a
case-by-case basis. The Commission will grant such extensions only if
the incumbent can demonstrate that:
(1) It cannot relocate within the six-month period (e.g., because
no alternative spectrum or other reasonable option is available), and;
(2) The public interest would be harmed if the incumbent is forced
to terminate operations (e.g., if public safety communications services
would be disrupted).
26. A new Section 101.81 is added to Subpart B to read as follows:
Sec. 101.81 Future licensing in the 1850-1990 and 2110-2200 MHz bands.
After April 25, 1996, all major modifications and extensions to
existing FMS systems in the 1850-1990 and 2110-2200 MHz bands will be
authorized on a secondary basis to ET systems. All other modifications
will render the modified FMS license secondary to ET operations, unless
the incumbent affirmatively justifies primary status and the incumbent
FMS licensee establishes that the modification would not add to the
relocation costs of ET licensees. Incumbent FMS licensees will maintain
primary status for the following technical changes:
(a) Decreases in power;
(b) Minor changes (increases or decreases) in antenna height;
(c) Minor location changes (up to two seconds);
(d) Any data correction which does not involve a change in the
location of an existing facility;
(e) Reductions in authorized bandwidth;
(f) Minor changes (increases or decreases) in structure height;
(g) Changes (increases or decreases) in ground elevation that do
not affect centerline height;
(h) Minor equipment changes.
27. Section 101.147 is amended by adding references to note 20 in
the entries for frequency ranges 1,850-1,990, 2,130-2,150, 2,150-2,160
and 2,180-2,200 MHz and revising note 20 to read as follows:
Sec. 101.147 Frequency assignments.
(a) * * *
1,850-1,990 MHz (20)
* * * * *
2,130-2,150 MHz (20) (22)
2,150-2,160 MHz (20), (22)
* * * * *
2,180-2,200 MHz (20), (22)
* * * * *
Notes
* * * * *
(20) New facilities in these bands will be licensed only on a
secondary basis. Facilities licensed or applied for before January
16, 1992, are permitted to make modifications and minor extensions
in accordance with Sec. 101.77 and still retain primary status.
* * * * *
(22) Frequencies in these bands are for the exclusive use of
Private Operational Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Service (Part
101).
[FR Doc. 96-14138 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13402 Nationality Procedures
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29651-29653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13402]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of Consular Affairs
22 CFR Part 50
[Public Notice 2383]
Nationality Procedures
AGENCY: Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consular Affairs is amending its regulations
concerning Nationality Procedures. Obsolete sections containing
references to statutes which have been repealed, or contain inaccurate
information, will be deleted. Several sections are being added which
address recently enacted laws. Current State Department policies
regarding loss of citizenship/nationality are added. These amendments,
as general statements of longstanding State Department policy, are
published as final rules.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit any questions to
the Director of Policy Review and Interagency Liaison, Overseas
Citizens Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Room 4811, U.S.
Department of State, Washington, DC 20520; Fax: (202) 647-6201.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carmen A. DiPlacido, or Michael
Meszaros, Overseas Citizens Services, Department of State, 202-647-3666
or 202-647-4994.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule implements changes which
have occurred in State Department policy regarding nationality
procedures and as a result of recent amendments to the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA). (Pub. L. 103-416, 108 Stat. 4308, 10/25/94). It
also removes obsolete provisions from subpart B and subpart C of part
50 Nationality Procedures.
Loss of Nationality/Citizenship
Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481)
states that U.S. nationals are subject to loss of nationality if they
perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention of
relinquishing U.S. nationality. (Note that for purposes of determining
loss of nationality the words citizenship and nationality are
synonymous.) These potentially expatriating acts include: (1) Obtaining
naturalization in a foreign state; (2) taking an oath, affirmation or
other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political
subdivisions; (3) entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign
state engaged in hostilities against the United States or serving as a
commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a
foreign state; (4) accepting employment with a foreign government if
(a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration
of allegiance is required in accepting the position; (5) formally
renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the
United States; (6) formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the
United States (but only ``in time of war''); and (7) conviction for an
act of treason.
In 1990, the Bureau of Consular Affairs adopted an administrative
presumption in determining whether or not a U.S. citizen has performed
a potentially expatriating act with the intention of relinquishing U.S.
nationality in three classes of loss of citizenship cases.
Specifically, when a U.S. citizen obtains naturalization in a foreign
state, subscribes to routine declarations of allegiance to a foreign
state, or accepts non-policy level employment with a foreign state, the
intent to retain U.S. nationality will be presumed. U.S. citizens who
naturalize in a foreign country; take a routine oath of allegiance; or
accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government need not,
therefore, submit evidence of their intent to retain U.S. nationality.
A person who affirmatively asserts to a consular officer after he or
she has committed a potentially expatriating act that it was his or her
intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship will, however, lose his or her
U.S. citizenship. In all other loss of nationality cases, the consular
officer will ascertain whether or not there is evidence of intent to
relinquish U.S. nationality.
Retroactive Application of the Administrative Presumption in Certain
Loss of Nationality/Citizenship Cases
Persons who previously were held to have lost citizenship are
provided the
[[Page 29652]]
opportunity to regain their U.S. citizenship. Citizenship will be
reinstated if, at the time the loss of nationality was determined, the
person did not attest in writing that it was his/her intention to
relinquish U.S. citizenship. The Department of State's Office of
Overseas Citizens Services will administratively review all cases
submitted to it, even cases which previously were before the Department
of State's Board of Appellate Review (L/BAR). Claimants need not be
represented by an attorney. Individual claims may be submitted to the
following address: Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs,
Office of Policy Review and Interagency Liaison, Overseas Citizens
Services, 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20520-4817.
Statutory Changes
Section 324(d) INA: Section 324 of the INA has been amended to
allow former U.S. citizens who lost their nationality due to
noncompliance with U.S. residency requirements under the 1940
Nationality Act or the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, to regain
citizenship by taking a specific oath of allegiance. Section 324(d)
applies to persons born between May 24, 1934 and December 24, 1952.
Former U.S. citizens may take the oath of allegiance as provided in
section 324(d) if they are not otherwise ineligible under section 313
INA for advocating totalitarian forms of government. Persons qualifying
regain U.S. citizenship as of the date the oath is taken but not
retroactively to the date upon which it was lost. Because this
amendment does not restore citizenship, persons subject to section
324(d) will be unable to transmit citizenship to their children born
during the period between loss and resumption of U.S. citizenship.
Persons eligible to take advantage of this provision may do so before
the officers of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) or
U.S. consular officers abroad. The amendments to section 324 became
effective on March 1, 1995.
The Department supported this legislation because it eliminates the
need to adjudicate the three complicated affirmative defenses of
unawareness, impossibility of performance, and misinformation as
defenses to failure to fulfill retention requirements. The Department
notes that these affirmative defenses may still be relied upon for
citizenship retention purposes.
Section 340(d) INA: Section 340(d) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act has been repealed by section 104(b) of the Immigration
and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-416, 108
Stat. 4308, 10/25/94). Section 340(d) provided that any naturalized
citizen who, within one year of naturalization, returned to his or her
native country, or to any other foreign country, and took up permanent
residence there, could have his or her certificate of naturalization
revoked by a court.
Section 350 INA: Section 350 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
was repealed by Section One of the Immigration and Nationality
Technical Corrections Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-432, 92 Stat. 1046, 10/
10/78). Section 350 had provided that any person born as a dual
national who sought any benefit from any foreign country, lost U.S.
citizenship if he or she was over the age of 21 and had resided in the
country of his or her other nationality for 3 years. ``Benefits'' was
defined broadly to include the use of a foreign passport, the holding
of an identification card issued by a foreign state or the obtaining of
a special license or scholarship available only to nationals of the
foreign state. Persons who previously were held to have lost
citizenship under Section 350 INA may have their citizenship reinstated
if they can show that they did not intend to relinquish U.S.
citizenship.
These regulations are not expected to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b). In addition, they will
not impose information collection requirements under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. Nor do these
final rules have federalism implications warranting the preparation of
a Federalism Assessment in accordance with E.O. 12612. These final
rules have been reviewed as required by E.O. 12778 and certified to be
in compliance therewith. These rules are not exempt from review under
E.O. 12866 but have been reviewed and found to be consistent with the
objectives thereof. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 553(b)(A), these rules
are general statements of previously implemented policy not subject to
the general notice requirement of 5 U.S.C. Section 553(b).
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 50
Nationality Procedures.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 22 CFR Part 50 is amended
as follows:
PART 50--[AMENDED]
Subpart B--Retention and Resumption of Nationality
1. The authority citation for 22 CFR Part 50 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 4, 63 Stat. 111, as amended, secs. 104, 360, 66
Stat. 174, 273; 22 U.S.C. 2658, 8 U.S.C. 1104, 1503.
Sec. 50.20 [Amended]
1A. Section 50.20(a) is removed; Sec. 50.20(b) is redesignated as
Sec. 50.20(a).
* * * * *
Sec. 50.30 [Amended]
2. Section 50.30(d) is added to read as follows:
* * * * *
(d) Section 324(d)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. (1) A
former citizen of the United States who did not retain U.S. citizenship
by failure to fulfill residency requirements as set out in Section
201(g) of the 1940 Nationality Act or former 301(b) of the 1952
Immigration and Nationality Act, may regain his/her U.S. citizenship
pursuant to Section 324(d) INA, by applying abroad at a diplomatic or
consular post, or in the U.S. at any Immigration and Naturalization
Service office in the form and manner prescribed by the Department of
State and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
(2) The applicant shall submit documentary evidence to establish
eligibility to take the oath of allegiance, which includes proof of
birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent between May 24, 1934 and December
24, 1952. If the diplomatic, consular, INS, or passport officer
determines that the applicant is ineligible to regain citizenship under
section 313 INA, the oath shall not be administered.
Subpart C--Loss of Nationality
Sec. 50.40 [Removed]
3. Section 50.40 is removed.
Sec. 50.41 [Redesignated as Sec. 50.40 and amended]
4. Section 50.41 is redesignated as Sec. 50.40 and in redesignated
Sec. 50.40, paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) are redesignated as
paragraphs (c), (d), (b) and (e); paragraph (a) is added; and newly
redesignated paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
(a) Administrative presumption. In adjudicating potentially
expatriating acts pursuant to INA 349(a), the Department has adopted an
administrative presumption regarding certain acts and the intent to
commit them. U.S. evidence of intent to retain
[[Page 29653]]
U.S. nationality. In these three classes of cases, intent to retain
U.S. citizenship will be presumed. A person who affirmatively asserts
to a consular officer, after he or she has committed a potentially
expatriating act, that it was his or her intent to relinquish U.S.
citizenship will lose his or her U.S. citizenship. In other loss of
nationality cases, the consular officer will ascertain whether or not
there is evidence of intent to relinquish U.S. nationality.
(b) Whenever a person admits that he or she had the intent to
relinquish citizenship by the voluntary and intentional performance of
one of the acts specified in Section 349(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, and the person consents to the execution of an
affidavit to that effect, the diplomatic or consular officer shall
attach such affidavit to the certificate of loss of nationality.
* * * * *
Sec. 50.42 [Removed]
5. Section 50.42 is removed.
6. Section 50.50 is amended by revising the first sentence to read
as follows:
Sec. 50.50 Renunciation of nationality.
(a) A person desiring to renounce U.S. nationality under section
349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall appear before a
diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in the manner and
form prescribed by the Department. * * *
Sec. 50.51 [Removed]
7. Section 50.51 is removed.
Sec. 50.52 [Redesignated as Sec. 50.51]
8. Section 50.52 is redesignated as Sec. 50.51.
Secs. 50.20 and 50.40 [Amended]
9. Sections 50.20(a), 50.20(a)(2), 50.40(b) and 50.40(d) are
amended by removing the words ``his'' and ``he'' as applicable, and
adding the words listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Add
------------------------------------------------------------------------
50.20(a)(1)............................... ``a''.
50.20(a)(2)............................... ``the person's''.
50.40(d).................................. ``the person''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: April 30, 1996.
Mary A. Ryan,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-13402 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10382 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Petroleum Refineries
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29876-29882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10382]
[[Page 29875]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Petroleum
Refineries; Final Rule; Correcting Amendments
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 29876]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
[AD-FRL-5463-1]
RIN 2060-AD9Y
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Petroleum Refineries
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action corrects errors and clarifies regulatory text of
the ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Petroleum Refineries,'' which was issued as a final rule on August 18,
1995.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 12, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Durham, Waste and Chemical
Processes Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5672.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 18, 1995 (60 FR 43244), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated in the Federal
Register national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP) for petroleum refineries. These regulations were promulgated
as subpart CC of 40 CFR part 63. The same notice amended standards of
performance in 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. This document contains
corrections to typographical and cross referencing errors in these
subparts. A few editorial clarifications are also being made to clarify
the intent of certain provisions and correct inconsistencies between
different sections of the rule.
I. Description of Clarifying Changes
A. Compliance Dates
The compliance dates in Sec. 63.640(h) are being clarified to
remove an inconsistency regarding the compliance date for marine tank
vessels. Section 63.640(h) stated that refineries have 3 years to
comply with the NESHAP unless a case-by-case 1-year extension is
granted. However, Sec. 63.651 cross references the marine tank vessel
loading rule [40 CFR 63, subpart Y (September 19, 1995; FR 43388)]
which allows 4 years to comply without requiring a case-by-case
extension. Therefore, it was unclear in the rule published on August
18, whether a compliance extension is required to allow marine tank
vessel loading operations at refineries 4 years to comply. The intent
was to be consistent with subpart Y, unless marine tank vessels are
used to generate credit in an emissions average. Paragraph (h)(3) is
being added to Sec. 63.640 to make it clear that marine tank vessel
loading operations have 4 years to comply. However, if marine tank
vessels loading is used to generate credits for an emissions average,
compliance must be achieved in 3 years unless a case-by-case extension
is granted by the regulatory authority as provided in Sec. 63.6(i) of
subpart A (the NESHAP general provisions). Because the other emission
points at a refinery included in such an emissions average are required
to comply within 3 years of promulgation, the emissions average would
not balance if the marine tank vessel loading was not controlled by the
third year. However, regulatory authorities have the discretion to
allow an extension of up to 1 year for full implementation of the
emissions average. This decision is best made on a site-specific basis.
A clarification is also being made to the wording of
Sec. 63.640(h)(4) which allows Group 1 storage vessels with floating
roofs to comply at the next degassing and cleaning activity or within
10 years after promulgation of the rule, whichever is first. The
clarification will insert the phrase ``after August 18, 1998'' after
the words ``cleaning activity''. As explained in the promulgation
preamble, the intent of this provision was to allow an extension of up
to 10 years for floating roof storage vessels to achieve full
compliance, not to require compliance prior to the 3-year compliance
time allowed for all other emission points at refineries. As originally
worded, this paragraph could have been misinterpreted as requiring
storage vessels that were degassed prior to the August 18, 1998
compliance date to come into compliance earlier than the rest of the
refinery.
A clarification is also being made to Sec. 63.640(l) regarding
compliance times and reports for addition of emission points to
existing sources. This paragraph of the promulgated rule is clear
regarding addition of miscellaneous process vents, storage vessels,
gasoline loading racks, and marine tank vessel loading operations, but
did not specifically address equipment leaks. Responses to comments in
section 9 (general monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting comments)
of the background information document for the promulgated rule (EPA
453/R-95-015b) clarify that it was not intended that the addition of
pumps, valves, and other components to an existing source subject to
the equipment leaks standard trigger new source reporting requirements.
The amended paragraph clarifies that equipment leak component additions
remain subject to existing source and not new source requirements.
Paragraph (m)(2) of Sec. 63.640 has also been reworded to clarify
the timing for of a compliance schedule submittal existing sources when
a Group 2 emission point becomes a Group 1 emission point. The intended
180-day time period for submitting the compliance schedule has not been
changed, but the intent of the previous wording ``within 180 days after
the change is made or the information regarding the change is known to
the source'' has been clarified by the rewording.
B. Clarification of Exemptions
Paragraph (d)(3) of Sec. 63.640 is being reworded. This paragraph
exempts equipment that is in organic hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
service less than 300 hours per year. This exemption applies to the
types of equipment listed in the definition of ``equipment leaks'' in
Sec. 63.641. In order to improve clarity, the specific types of
equipment to which this exemption applies have been listed in
Sec. 63.640(d)(3). The list of equipment being added to this paragraph
exactly matches the list already included in the definition of
equipment leaks in Sec. 63.641.
An exemption for emission points routed to refinery fuel gas
systems is being added to Sec. 63.640(d). This exemption is specified
in the definition of ``miscellaneous process vent'' in Sec. 63.641.
Putting this exemption in the applicability section (Sec. 63.640) makes
it clearer that all emissions routed to fuel gas systems are exempt
from the rule.
C. Definitions
The definitions of ``Group 1 gasoline loading rack'' and ``Group 1
marine tank vessel'' are being revised for consistency with 40 CFR part
63 subparts R (the gasoline distribution NESHAP) and Y (the marine tank
vessel loading NESHAP). The intent of the refineries NESHAP was to be
consistent with subparts R and Y in terms of which loading operations
require control. Sections 63.650 and 63.651 of the Refineries NESHAP
(subpart CC) cross-reference subparts R and Y for control requirements
for loading operations. However, throughput and emissions applicability
criteria in subparts R and Y were not correctly incorporated in the
Group 1 definitions in Sec. 63.641. The definition of ``Group 1
gasoline loading
[[Page 29877]]
rack'' is being revised to mean a gasoline loading rack classified
under SIC 2911 that is part of a bulk gasoline terminal with the
capacity to load greater than 75,700 liters per year of gasoline. This
is consistent with subpart R. The definition of ``Group 1 marine tank
vessel'' is being revised by changing the emission rate criteria for
existing sources from 9.1 megagrams per year of any individual HAP and
13.6 megagrams of any combination of HAPs to 9.1 megagrams per year of
any individual HAP and 22.7 megagrams of any combination of HAPs. The
revised definition also clarifies that these emission rate cutoffs
apply only to existing sources, not to new sources. These
clarifications remove inconsistencies between the definitions in
Sec. 63.641 of subpart CC and the rules cross-referenced in
Secs. 63.650 and 63.651.
The definition of storage vessel is being clarified by removing the
clause ``in organic HAP service''. This was a drafting error. The
definition was intended to cover vessels storing organic liquids.
However, the phrase ``in organic liquid service'' was used without
recognizing that it is a defined term used in the equipment leaks
section of the rule to indicate equipment leak components containing or
contacting fluid that is at least 5 weight percent organic HAP. The
preamble to the final rule (60 FR 43252) and the ``Group 1 storage
vessel'' definitions make it clear that storage vessels with lower
percent organic HAP were intended to be regulated. The ``Group 1
storage vessel'' definition contains the correct organic HAP weight
percent cutoffs of 4 percent for existing sources and 2 percent for new
sources, which are discussed in the preamble for the final rule.
The definition of ``Group 1 miscellaneous process vent'' is being
revised to clarify that the 20 parts per million by volume cutoff
applies to organic HAP rather than volatile organic compounds (VOC).
This is consistent with the definition of ``miscellaneous process
vent'', which includes vents containing greater than 20 parts per
million by volume organic HAP and with the 20 parts per million organic
HAP language in Sec. 63.643. The definitions of ``miscellaneous process
vent'' and ``equipment leaks'' are also being clarified by specifying
that they do not include emissions from wastewater collection and
conveyance systems. Air emissions from wastewater systems are regulated
under the wastewater provisions in Sec. 63.647 of subpart CC.
Definitions of ``startup'' and ``shutdown'' are being added for
clarification. These definitions are consistent with definitions in the
subpart A General Provisions and the hazardous organics NESHAP (40 CFR
60, subpart F). Under the General Provisions, Sec. 63.6(f)(1) states
that emission limits do not apply during startup, shutdown, and
malfunction. These definitions make it clear that, for purposes of
Sec. 63.6(f)(1) and for the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan,
startup and shutdown refer to startup and shutdown of refinery process
units or unit operations such as distillation units rather than to
individual components such as pumps. To further clarify this point, the
second sentence in the definition of ``affected source'' has been
deleted. This sentence had been interpreted to mean that startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plans apply to individual components.
Other minor definition changes are being made to correct
typographical errors and improve clarity. For example, in the
definition of ``emission point'', the word ``gas'' is changed to
``gasoline'', and a definition of leakless valves is being added to
clarify which types of valves are excluded from the monitoring
requirements of the rule.
D. Equations
The term ``R'' in the equation in Sec. 63.642(g) represents the
fraction of emissions from a Group 1 marine tank vessel loading
operation after the required level of control has been applied. The
phrase ``and 0.05 for new offshore loading terminals'' is being deleted
because offshore loading terminals are not subject to subpart CC.
Therefore, this phrase was not relevant to the refineries NESHAP, and
would cause confusion.
The EPA is clarifying that the emissions averaging equations for
gasoline loading racks assume that all facilities with Group 1 gasoline
loading racks must comply with the requirements of subpart R regarding
vapor-tightness of gasoline cargo tanks loaded at the facility,
regardless of whether emissions averaging is used. Therefore, the
emissions credit and debit calculation equations do not include terms
for estimating emissions from leakage from gasoline cargo tanks.
(Compliance with subpart R vapor-tightness provisions is not a new
requirement. There is no change to the regulation language regarding
this point.)
E. Recordkeeping and Reporting
Section 63.642(e) is being revised to state that records shall be
maintained in such a manner that they can be readily accessed within 24
hours, rather than be maintained on-site for 2 years. This change is
consistent with the discussion on this issue in section 9 (general
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting comments) of the background
information document for this rule. This change was not incorporated in
the promulgated rule because of a drafting oversight.
In Sec. 63.654(d), recordkeeping requirement for equipment leaks
are being added that require owners or operators to keep a list of
valves that are designated as ``leakless.'' These valves are exempt
from the valve monitoring requirements. This recordkeeping requirement
is consistent with requirements in equipment leak rules cross-
referenced in this subpart, such as 40 CFR part 60, subpart VV. The
requirement was overlooked when drafting the cross-references to
subpart VV. Owners or operators are also required to identify equipment
in process units that are subject to the rule that are not considered
in organic HAP service, and reciprocating compressors and pumps that
are exempt from equipment leak control requirements. These requirements
are consistent with the hazardous organic NESHAP recordkeeping and
reporting requirements which is cross referenced in the rule.
Section 63.654(h)(1) is being clarified to explicitly state that
reports of startup, shutdown, and malfunction required by
Sec. 63.10(d)(5) do not apply to Group 2 emission points at refineries,
unless they are included in an emission average. This is already stated
in table 6, which shows which portions of the NESHAP general provisions
apply to subpart CC. Table 6 specifies, in footnote b, that
Sec. 63.10(d)(5) does not apply to Group 2 emission points that are not
included in an emission average, but it would be clearer to the reader
to also state this in Sec. 63.654(h)(1).
In table 4 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, the cross-references to
Sec. 63.428 (i) and (j) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart R are being deleted.
These records and reports pertain to recordkeeping provisions of
subpart R that are applicable to facilities that have calculated
emissions from bulk terminals and pipeline breakout stations that fall
below a deminimis level and are not subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart
CC. In table 6 of subpart CC, the applicability of Sec. 63.6(h) has
been clarified. This requirement is referenced in portions of the HON
rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart G) and the general provisions (40 CFR
part 63, subpart A) relating to flares that are cross-referenced from
subpart CC, and it was incorrectly over-ridden in the table. However,
paragraphs relating strictly to
[[Page 29878]]
opacity remain over-ridden. Paragraphs specifying the timing of the
visible emissions testing also remain over-ridden because
Sec. 63.645(i) has been added to 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC to specify
the timing of the visible emissions tests for flares used to comply
with subpart CC. The timing in Sec. 63.645(i) is consistent with the
date the petroleum refinery notification of compliance status is due,
and will avoid requiring a visible emissions report at a separate time
specified in Sec. 63.6(h).
In table 3 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC, the comments on the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in Sec. 63.182 (b) and (c) are
being corrected to be consistent with exemptions allowed in the text.
II. Cross Referencing and Typographical Errors
Errors in cross-referencing 40 CFR part 63 subparts G and R, 40 CFR
part 60 subpart Kb, and other sections within subpart CC are being
corrected. Typographical errors are also being corrected.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60 and 63
Air pollution control, Hazardous air pollutants, Petroleum
refineries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 17, 1996.
Mary D. Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, parts 60, and 63 of title
40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as
follows:
PART 60--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7601.
Subpart VV--[Amended]
2. Section 60.482-10 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read
as follows:
Sec. 60.482-10 Standards: Closed vent systems and control devices.
* * * * *
(j) Any parts of the closed vent system that are designated, as
described in paragraph (l)(1) of this section, as unsafe to inspect are
exempt from the inspection requirements of paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and
(f)(2) of this section if they comply with the requirements specified
in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this section:
* * * * *
PART 63--[AMENDED]
3. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart CC--[Amended]
4. Section 63.640 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (d),
the last sentence of paragraph (f)(5), paragraphs (h)(4), the first
sentence of paragraph (h)(5) introductory text, paragraphs (l)(3)(iv),
by adding paragraphs (h)(3) and (l)(4), revising paragraphs (m)(2) and
(n)(4), as follows:
Sec. 63.640 Applicability and designation of affected source.
* * * * *
(b) For process units that are designed and operated as flexible
operation units, the applicability of this subpart shall be determined
for existing sources based on the expected utilization for the 5 years
following promulgation of this subpart and for new sources based on the
expected utilization for the first 5 years after startup.
* * * * *
(d) The affected source subject to this subpart does not include
the emission points listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(5) of this
section.
(1) Stormwater from segregated stormwater sewers;
(2) Spills;
(3) Any pump, compressor, pressure relief device, sampling
connection system, open-ended valve or line, valve, or instrumentation
system that is intended to operate in organic hazardous air pollutant
service, as defined in Sec. 63.641 of this subpart, for less than 300
hours during the calendar year;
(4) Catalytic cracking unit and catalytic reformer catalyst
regeneration vents, and sulfur plant vents; and
(5) Emission points routed to a fuel gas system, as defined in
Sec. 63.641 of this subpart. No testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, or
reporting is required for refinery fuel gas systems or emission points
routed to refinery fuel gas systems.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(5) * * *. This determination shall be reported as specified in
Sec. 63.654(h)(6)(iii).
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(3) Marine tank vessels at existing sources shall be in compliance
with this subpart no later than August 18, 1999 unless the vessels are
included in an emissions average to generate emission credits. Marine
tank vessels used to generate credits in an emissions average shall be
in compliance with this subpart no later than August 18, 1998 unless an
extension has been granted by the Administrator as provided in
Sec. 63.6(i).
(4) Existing Group 1 floating roof storage vessels shall be in
compliance with Sec. 63.646 at the first degassing and cleaning
activity after August 18, 1998, or within 10 years after promulgation
of the rule, whichever is first.
(5) An owner or operator may elect to comply with the provisions of
Sec. 63.648 (c) through (i) as an alternative to the provisions of
Sec. 63.648 (a) and (b). * * *
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) Reports and notifications required by Sec. 63.182, or 40 CFR
60.487. The requirements of subpart H of this part are summarized in
table 3 of this subpart;
* * * * *
(4) If pumps, compressors, pressure relief devices, sampling
connection systems, open-ended valves or lines, valves, or
instrumentation systems are added to an existing source, they are
subject to the equipment leak standards for existing sources in
Sec. 63.648. A notification of compliance status report shall not be
required for such added equipment.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(2) The compliance schedule shall be submitted within 180 days
after the change is made, unless the compliance schedule has been
previously submitted to the permitting authority. If it is not possible
to determine until after the change is implemented whether the emission
point has become Group 1, the compliance schedule shall be submitted
within 180 days of the date when the affect of the change is known to
the source. The compliance schedule may be submitted in the next
Periodic Report if the change is made after the date the Notification
of Compliance Status report is due.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(4) After the compliance dates specified in paragraph (h) of this
section, a Group 2 storage vessel that is part of a new source and is
subject to 40 CFR 60.110b, but is not required to apply controls by 40
CFR 60.110b or 60.112b is required to comply only with this subpart.
* * * * *
5. Section 63.641 is amended by revising the definitions of
``Affected source'', ``Emission point'', the last sentence in
``Equipment leak'', ``Group 1 gasoline loading rack'', ``Group 1
[[Page 29879]]
marine tank vessel'', ``Group 1 miscellaneous process vent'', the first
sentence in the introductory text of ``Storage vessel'', and
``Temperature monitoring device'', and by adding a definition for
``Leakless valve'', ``Startup'', and ``Shutdown'' and by adding a
paragraph (13) to the definition for ``Miscellaneous process vent'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.641 Definitions.
* * * * *
Affected source means the collection of emission points to which
this subpart applies as determined by the criteria in Sec. 63.640.
* * * * *
Emission point means an individual miscellaneous process vent,
storage vessel, wastewater stream, or equipment leak associated with a
petroleum refining process unit; an individual storage vessel or
equipment leak associated with a bulk gasoline terminal or pipeline
breakout station classified under Standard Industrial Classification
code 2911; a gasoline loading rack classified under Standard Industrial
Classification code 2911; or a marine tank vessel loading operation
located at a petroleum refinery.
Equipment leak * * *. Vents from wastewater collection and
conveyance systems (including, but not limited to wastewater drains,
sewer vents, and sump drains), tank mixers, and sample valves on
storage tanks are not equipment leaks.
* * * * *
Group 1 gasoline loading rack means any gasoline loading rack
classified under Standard Industrial Classification code 2911 that is
located within a bulk gasoline terminal that has a gasoline throughput
greater than 75,700 liters per day. Gasoline throughput shall be the
maximum calculated design throughput for the terminal as may be limited
by compliance with enforceable conditions under Federal, State, or
local law and discovered by the Administrator and any other person.
Group 1 marine tank vessel means a vessel at an existing source
loaded at any land- or sea-based terminal or structure that loads
liquid commodities with vapor pressures greater than or equal to 10.3
kilopascals in bulk onto marine tank vessels, that emits greater than
9.1 megagrams of any individual HAP or 22.7 megagrams of any
combination of HAP annually after August 18, 1999, or a vessel at a new
source loaded at any land- or sea-based terminal or structure that
loads liquid commodities with vapor pressures greater than or equal to
10.3 kilopascals onto marine tank vessels.
Group 1 miscellaneous process vent means a miscellaneous process
vent for which the total organic HAP concentration is greater than or
equal to 20 parts per million by volume, and the total volatile organic
compound emissions are greater than or equal to 33 kilograms per day
for existing sources and 6.8 kilograms per day for new sources at the
outlet of the final recovery device (if any) and prior to any control
device and prior to discharge to the atmosphere.
* * * * *
Leakless valve means a valve that has no external actuating
mechanism.
* * * * *
Miscellaneous process vent * * *
(13) Emissions from wastewater collection and conveyance systems
including, but not limited to, wastewater drains, sewer vents, and sump
drains.
* * * * *
Shutdown means the cessation of a petroleum refining process unit
or a unit operation (including, but not limited to, a distillation unit
or reactor) within a petroleum refining process unit for purposes
including, but not limited to, periodic maintenance, replacement of
equipment, or repair.
Startup means the setting into operation of a petroleum refining
process unit for purposes of production. Startup does not include
operation solely for purposes of testing equipment. Startup does not
include changes in product for flexible operation units.
Storage vessel means a tank or other vessel that is used to store
organic liquids. * * *
Temperature monitoring device means a unit of equipment used to
monitor temperature and having an accuracy of 1 percent of
the temperature being monitored expressed in degrees Celsius or
0.5 deg.C, whichever is greater.
* * * * *
6. Section 63.642 is amended by revising paragraphs (e) and (g) as
follows:
Sec. 63.642 General standards.
* * * * *
(e) Each owner or operator of a source subject to this subpart
shall keep copies of all applicable reports and records required by
this subpart for at least 5 years except as otherwise specified in this
subpart. All applicable records shall be maintained in such a manner
that they can be readily accessed within 24 hours. Records may be
maintained in hard copy or computer-readable form including, but not
limited to, on paper, microfilm, computer, floppy disk, magnetic tape,
or microfiche.
* * * * *
(g) The owner or operator of an existing source subject to the
requirements of this subpart shall control emissions of organic HAP's
to the level represented by the following equation:
EA = 0.02EPV1 + EPV2 +
0.05ES1 + ES2 + EGLR1C +
EGLR2 + (R) EMV1 + EMV2 +
EWW1C + EWW2
where:
EA = Emission rate, megagrams per year, allowed for the source.
0.02EPV1 = Sum of the residual emissions, megagrams per
year, from all Group 1 miscellaneous process vents, as defined in
Sec. 63.641.
EPV2 = Sum of the emissions, megagrams per year, from all
Group 2 process vents, as defined in Sec. 63.641.
0.05ES1 = Sum of the residual emissions, megagrams per
year, from all Group 1 storage vessels, as defined in Sec. 63.641.
ES2 = Sum of the emissions, megagrams per year, from all
Group 2 storage vessels, as defined in Sec. 63.641.
EGLR1C = Sum of the residual emissions, megagrams per
year, from all Group 1 gasoline loading racks, as defined in
Sec. 63.641.
EGLR2 = Sum of the emissions, megagrams per year, from
all Group 2 gasoline loading racks, as defined in Sec. 63.641.
(R)EMV1 = Sum of the residual emissions megagrams per
year, from all Group 1 marine tank vessels, as defined in Sec. 63.641.
R = 0.03 for existing sources, 0.02 for new sources.
EMV2 = Sum of the emissions, megagrams per year from all
Group 2 marine tank vessels, as defined in Sec. 63.641.
EWW1C = Sum of the residual emissions from all Group 1
wastewater streams, as defined in Sec. 63.641. This term is calculated
for each Group 1 stream according to the equation for EWWic in
Sec. 63.652(h)(6).
EWW2 = Sum of emissions from all Group 2 wastewater
streams, as defined in Sec. 63.641.
The emissions level represented by this equation is dependent on the
collection of emission points in the source. The level is not fixed and
can change as the emissions from each emission point
[[Page 29880]]
change or as the number of emission points in the source changes.
* * * * *
7. Section 63.644 is amended by revising the last sentence of
paragraph (d) as follows:
Sec. 63.644 Monitoring provisions for miscellaneous process vents.
* * * * *
(d) * * *. In order to establish the range, the information
required in Sec. 63.654(f)(3) shall be submitted in the Notification of
Compliance Status report.
* * * * *
8. Section 63.645 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (h)(2),
and by adding paragraph (i), as follows:
Sec. 63.645 Test methods and procedures for miscellaneous process
vents.
(a) To demonstrate compliance with Sec. 63.643, an owner or
operator shall follow Sec. 63.116 except for Sec. 63.116 (a)(1), (d)
and (e) of subpart G of this part except as provided in paragraphs (b)
through (d) and paragraph (i) of this section.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) Where the recalculated TOC emission rate is greater than 33
kilograms per day for an existing source or greater than 6.8 kilograms
per day for a new source, the owner or operator shall submit a report
as specified in Sec. 63.654 (f), (g), or (h) and shall comply with the
appropriate provisions in Sec. 63.643 by the dates specified in
Sec. 63.640.
(i) A compliance determination for visible emissions shall be
conducted within 150 days of the compliance date using Method 22 of 40
CFR part 60, Appendix A, to determine visible emissions.
9. Section 63.646 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (d)
introductory text, and (d)(9), and adding (d)(10), as follows:
Sec. 63.646 Storage vessel provisions.
(a) Each owner or operator of a Group 1 storage vessel subject to
this subpart shall comply with the requirements of Secs. 63.119 through
63.121 except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (l) of this
section.
* * * * *
(d) References shall apply as specified in paragraphs (d)(1)
through (d)(10) of this section.
* * * * *
(9) All references to Sec. 63.139(d)(1) in Sec. 63.120(d)(1)(ii) of
subpart G are not applicable. For sources subject to this subpart, such
references shall mean that 40 CFR 61.355 is applicable.
(10) All references to Sec. 63.139(c) in Sec. 63.120(d)(1)(ii) of
subpart G are not applicable. For sources subject to this subpart, such
references shall mean that Sec. 63.647 of this subpart is applicable.
* * * * *
10. Section 63.648 is amended by revising the first sentences of
paragraphs (c)(9) and (c)(10) as follows:
Sec. 63.648 Equipment leak standards.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(9) When complying with the requirements of Sec. 63.168(e)(3)(i),
non-repairable valves shall be included in the calculation of percent
leaking valves the first time the valve is identified as leaking and
non-repairable. * * *
(10) If in phase III of the valve standard any valve is designated
as being leakless, the owner or operator has the option of following
the provisions of 40 CFR 60.482-7(f). * * *
* * * * *
11. Section 63.650 is amended by revising paragraph (a) as follows:
Sec. 63.650 Gasoline loading rack provisions.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (c) of this
section, each owner or operator of a gasoline loading rack classified
under Standard Industrial Classification code 2911 located within a
contiguous area and under common control with a petroleum refinery
shall comply with subpart R, Secs. 63.421, 63.422 (a) through (c),
63.425 (a) through (c), 63.425 (e) through (h), 63.427 (a) and (b), and
63.428 (b), (c), (g)(1), and (h)(1) through (h)(3).
* * * * *
12. Section 63.651 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (d), as follows:
Sec. 63.651 Marine tank vessel loading operation provisions.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section, each owner or operator of a marine tank vessel loading
operation located at a petroleum refinery shall comply with the
requirements of Secs. 63.560 through 63.567.
* * * * *
(d) The compliance time of 4 years after promulgation of 40 CFR
part 63, subpart Y does not apply. The compliance time is specified in
Sec. 63.640(h)(3).
13. Section 63.652 is amended by revising the equation in paragraph
(h)(1) introductory text (the definitions to the equation remain
unchanged) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.652 Emissions averaging provisions.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) * * *
[[Page 29881]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN96.000
* * *
* * * * *
14. Section 63.653 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) as
follows:
Sec. 63.653 Monitoring, recordkeeping, and implementation plan for
emission averaging.
(a) * * *
(4) For each gasoline loading rack that is controlled, perform the
testing and monitoring procedures specified in Secs. 63.425 and 63.427
of subpart R of this part except Sec. 63.425(d) or Sec. 63.427(c).
* * * * *
15. Section 63.654 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)
introductory text, (d)(3), adding paragraphs (d)(4), (d)(5), and
(d)(6), revising the first sentence of paragraph (g)(6)(iii), and
revising paragraphs (g)(8)(ii)(B) and (h)(1), as follows:
Sec. 63.654 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
* * * * *
(d) Each owner or operator subject to the equipment leaks standards
in Sec. 63.648 shall comply with the recordkeeping and reporting
provisions in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(6) of this section.
* * * * *
(3) An owner or operator who determines that a compressor qualifies
for the hydrogen service exemption in Sec. 63.648 shall also keep a
record of the demonstration required by Sec. 63.648.
(4) An owner or operator must keep a list of identification numbers
for valves that are designated as leakless per Sec. 63.648(c)(10).
(5) An owner or operator must identify, either by list or location
(area or refining process unit), equipment in organic HAP service less
than 300 hours per year within refining process units subject to this
subpart.
(6) An owner or operator must keep a list of reciprocating pumps
and compressors determined to be exempt from seal requirements as per
Secs. 63.648 (f) and (i).
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(6) * * *
(iii) Periods of startup and shutdown that meet the definition of
Sec. 63.641, and malfunction that meet the definition in Sec. 63.2 and
periods of performance testing and monitoring system calibration shall
not be considered periods of excess emissions. * * *
(8) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) The information required to be reported by Sec. 63.428 (h)(1),
(h)(2), and (h)(3) for each gasoline loading rack included in an
emissions average, unless this information has already been submitted
in a separate report;
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) Reports of startup, shutdown, and malfunction required by
Sec. 63.10(d)(5). Records and reports of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction are not required if they pertain solely to Group 2 emission
points, as defined in Sec. 63.641, that are not included in an
emissions average. For purposes of this paragraph, startup and shutdown
shall have the meaning defined in Sec. 63.641, and malfunction shall
have the meaning defined in Sec. 63.2; and
* * * * *
16. Table 3 in the appendices to subpart CC is amended by revising
entries 63.182(b) and 63.182 (c) to read as follows:
Table 3.--Equipment Leak Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for
Sources Complying With Sec. 63.648 of Subpart CC by Compliance With
Subpart H of This Part a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference (section of
subpart H of this part) Description Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
63.182(b)................... Initial notification Not required.
report requirements.
63.182(c)................... Notification of Except in Sec.
compliance status 63.182(c); change
report. ``within 90 days of
the compliance
dates'' to ``within
150 days of the
compliance dates'';
except in Secs.
63.182 (c)(2) and
(c)(4).
* * * *
* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a This table does not include all the requirements delineated under the
referenced sections. See referenced sections for specific
requirements.
[[Page 29882]]
* * * * *
17. Table 4 in the appendices to subpart CC is revised to read as
follows:
Table 4.--Gasoline Distribution Emission Point Recordkeeping and
Reporting Requirements a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference (section of
subpart R of this part) Description Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.428(b)................... Records of test
results for each
gasoline cargo tank
loaded at the
facility.
63.428(c)................... Continuous
monitoring data
recordkeeping
requirements.
63.428(g)(1)................ Semiannual report Required to be
loading rack submitted with the
information. periodic report
required under 40
CFR part 63 subpart
CC.
63.428 (h)(1) through (h)(3) Excess emissions Required to be
report loading rack submitted with the
information. periodic report
required under 40
CFR part 63 subpart
CC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a This table does not include all the requirements delineated under the
referenced sections. See referenced sections for specific
requirements.
* * * * *
18. Table 6 in the appendices to subpart CC is amended by revising
entries 63.6(h) (1) and (2), 63.6(h) (4) and (5), 63.6(h)(6) and
63.6(h) (7) through (9) to read as follows:
Table 6.--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart CC a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to
Reference subpart CC b Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
63.6(h) (1) and (2).......... Yes
63.6(h) (4) and (5)........... No Visible emission
requirements and
timing in subpart
CC.
63.6(h)(6).................... Yes
63.6(h) (7) through (9)....... No Subpart CC does not
require opacity
standards.
* * * *
* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
19. Table 8 in the appendices to subpart CC is amended by revising
the heading of the table, as follows:
Table 8.--Valve Monitoring Frequency for Phase III
* * *
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-10382 Filed 6-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.