issue-1995-11-14•Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-14
Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-14
issue-1995-11-14Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-14Proposed Regulation
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. 95-28065 Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of Operating Permits Program: the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 14, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57204-57207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28065]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70
[PROO1; FRL-5331-1]
Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of Operating Permits
Program: the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed full approval.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes full approval of the operating permits
program submitted by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for the purpose of
complying with Federal requirements for an approvable state program to
issue operating permits to all major stationary sources and to certain
other sources.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
December 14, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Steven C. Riva,
Chief, Permitting and Toxics Support Section, at the New York Region II
Office listed below. Copies of the State's submittal and other
supporting information used in developing the proposed full approval as
well as the Technical Support Document are available for inspection
during normal business hours at the following locations:
EPA Region II, 290 Broadway, 21st Floor, New York, New York 10007-
1866, Attention: Steven C. Riva.
EPA Region II, Caribbean Field Office, Centro Europa Building,
Suite 417, 1492 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Stop 22, San Juan, Puerto Rico
00907-4127, Attention: Jose Ivan Guzman.
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board, Air Programs Area,
Eurobank Building, 431 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Hato Rey, PR 00910,
Attention: Francisco Claudio.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Fazio, Permitting and Toxics
Support Section, at the above EPA office in New York or at telephone
number (212) 637-4015. Jose Ivan Guzman of the Caribbean Field Office
can be reached at (809) 729-6951, extention 223.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Purpose
As required under title V of the Clean Air Act (``the Act'') as
amended (1990), EPA has promulgated rules which define the minimum
elements of an approvable State operating permits program and the
corresponding standards and procedures by which the EPA will approve,
oversee, and withdraw approval of State operating permits programs (see
57 FR 32250 (July 21, 1992)). These rules are codified at 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 70. Title V requires States to develop,
and submit to EPA, programs for issuing these operating permits to all
major stationary sources and to certain other sources.
The Act requires that States develop and submit these programs to
EPA by November 15, 1993, and that EPA act to approve or disapprove
each program within 1 year after receiving the submittal. The EPA's
program review occurs pursuant to section 502 of the Act and the part
70 regulations, which together outline criteria for approval or
disapproval. Where a program substantially, but not fully, meets the
requirements of part 70, EPA may grant the program interim approval for
a period of up to 2 years. If EPA has not fully approved a program by 2
years after the November 15, 1993 date, or by the end of an interim
program, it must establish and implement a Federal program.
II. Proposed Action and Implications
A. Analysis of State Submission
1. Support Materials
The Chairman of the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) submitted a
part 70 permitting program for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico with a
letter requesting EPA's approval on November 15, 1993 and a
supplemental package on March 22, 1994. The program contains a
description of how the EQB intends to implement the program consistent
with the requirements of the Act and 40 CFR part 70. The program
includes supporting documentation such as evidence of the procedurally
correct adoption of the permitting rule, permit application forms, and
a sample permit form. On April 11, 1994 the Attorney General of Puerto
Rico submitted a legal opinion stating that EQB has adequate legal
authority to carry out the program. On September 29, 1995, EQB
submitted a revised regulation which included minor changes to the
regulation submitted on March 22, 1994. The EPA intends to develop an
implementation agreement with Puerto Rico which will define EPA's and
EQB's responsibilities and commitments for administering the program,
although this proposed action does not depend on the implementation
agreement.
2. Regulations and Program Implementation
Puerto Rico's part 70 permitting regulation is contained in Part I,
Rule 102; Part II, Rule 206; Part VI, Rules 601 through 610; and
Appendices A through E of the Regulation For The Control Of Atmospheric
Pollution (RCAP) dated September 1995. Puerto Rico's regulation meets
the main requirements of Part 70 as described below:
a. applicability (40 CFR 70.2 and 70.3): Sources required to obtain
a permit under Puerto Rico's regulation are defined as ``Title V
sources'' and
[[Page 57205]]
include all major part 70 sources. The rule defers non-major sources
until the Administrator completes a rulemaking to determine how the
title V program should be structured for non-major sources and the
appropriateness of any permanent exemptions. The regulation permanently
exempts any source that would be required to obtain a permit solely
because it is subject to Standards of Performance for New Residential
Wood Heaters or the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Asbestos, Standards for Demolition and Renovation.
(Rules 102 and 601 of the RCAP)
b. permit content (40 CFR 70.6): Rule 603 requires that each permit
contain emission limitations and standards to ensure compliance with
all applicable requirements. Permits may also contain certain
operational flexibility requirements such as terms and conditions for
reasonably anticipated operating scenarios (including worst-case
operational scenarios) and for the trading of emissions increases and
decreases (to the extent the applicable requirements provide for such
trading) in the permitted facility. Such operational flexibility
provisions are explained more fully in Rules 603 and 607 of the RCAP.
c. public participation (40 CFR 70.7): The public will be provided
with notice of, and an opportunity to comment on, draft permits
relating to initial permit issuance, permit renewals, and significant
modifications (Rule 609 of the RCAP).
d. permit modifications (40 CFR 70.7): Sources may apply for
expedited permit changes for minor permit modifications. Significant
modifications must undergo all part 70 permit issuance procedures (Rule
606 of the RCAP).
e. EPA oversight (40 CFR 70.8): Each permit, renewal, and minor or
significant modification is subject to EPA oversight and veto (Rule 609
of the RCAP).
f. insignificant activities (40 CFR 70.5): The lists of
insignificant activities can be found at Rule 206 and Appendix B of the
RCAP (the two lists are different). Insignificant activities which need
not be described in the permit application include sources on the two
lists provided no applicable requirements apply to the source and the
source emits 2 tons per year or less of a criteria pollutant or 5 tons
per year or less of any combination of criteria pollutants; and 2 tons
per year or the de minimis rates for hazardous air pollutants listed in
Appendix E (whichever is lower). For insignificant activities exempted
because of size or production rate, a list of such insignificant
activities must be included in the permit application. In addition, any
unit with allowable emission rates less than certain quantities
identified in Item P of Appendix B (e.g., from 1 to 2 tpy depending on
pollutant) can be listed on the permit application as an insignificant
activity if no applicable requirements apply to the unit.
g. enforcement authority (40 CFR 70.11): Article 17 of Law No. 9 of
June 18, 1970 as amended on November 12, 1993 (``Law No. 9'') directly
provides for enforcement and penalties for civil and criminal
violations of permits and rules. Penalties will be assessed up to
$25,000 per day per violation.
h. complete application forms (40 CFR 70.5): Rule 602 defines what
elements must be in an application in order for it to be complete. All
information is included in EQB's permit application.
i. variance provisions: Part III, Rule 301 of the RCAP contains
provisions for EQB to approve variances from the strict application of
substantive requirements of the Puerto Rico regulation, except for NSPS
and NESHAP requirements. Rule 301 also states that no variance will be
approved by EQB unless it has been approved by EPA. Under Rule 302, EQB
may provide for an emergency variance of up to 90 days under very
special circumstances such as to avoid an imminent health threat. EPA
regards Rules 301 and 302 as wholly external to the program submitted
for approval under part 70. The EPA does not recognize the ability of a
permitting authority to grant relief from the duty to comply with a
federally enforceable part 70 permit, except where such relief is
granted through the procedures allowed by part 70. A part 70 permit may
be issued or revised (consistent with part 70 permitting procedures) to
incorporate those terms of a variance that are consistent with
applicable requirements. A part 70 permit may also incorporate, via
part 70 permit issuance or modification procedures, the schedule of
compliance set forth in a variance. However, EPA reserves the right to
pursue enforcement of applicable requirements notwithstanding the
existence of a compliance schedule in a permit to operate. This is
consistent with 40 CFR 70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C), which states that a schedule
of compliance ``shall be supplemental to, and shall not sanction
noncompliance with, the applicable requirements on which it is based.''
3. Permit Fee Demonstration
Puerto Rico's workload analysis and fee demonstration shows that
the state will collect sufficient revenue to implement the Title V
program. Puerto Rico will collect permit fees beginning at $25 adjusted
by the Consumer Price Index (base year 1989) per ton of allowable
emissions of regulated pollutants. However, the state-owned utility
will be capped at a fee of $1 million per year for its existing
facilities and the state hospital is exempt from fees. Puerto Rico's
fee demonstration and regulation (Rule 610 of the RCAP) state that
Puerto Rico may raise fees if necessary in the future. Furthermore,
Article 11 of Law No. 9 requires that sufficient fees be collected to
cover the direct and indirect expenses necessary to develop, administer
and enforce Puerto Rico's Title V program, including the Small Business
Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Program as required
by section 507 of the Act. Article 11 of Law No. 9 establishes a
special account which is independent and separate from any other
account in Puerto Rico and must be used only for the Air Quality
Program.
4. Provisions Implementing Section 112 of the Act
a. authority for Section 112 Implementation: Puerto Rico has
demonstrated in its title V program submittal adequate legal authority
to implement and enforce all section 112 requirements through the title
V permit. This legal authority is contained in Puerto Rico's enabling
legislation (Article 12 of Law No. 9) and in regulatory provisions
defining ``applicable requirements'' and stating that the permit must
incorporate all applicable requirements. EPA has determined that this
is sufficient to allow Puerto Rico to issue permits that assure
compliance with all section 112 requirements. The Attorney General's
legal opinion also certifies that EQB has authority to implement the
air toxics program and to accept automatic delegation of future
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. Rule
110(A)(2) of the Regulation for the Control of Atmospheric Pollution
(RCAP) provides that NESHAPs when promulgated by the EPA Administrator
will become effective as part of Puerto Rico's rules and regulations.
Rule 604 of the RCAP provides for the following section 112
requirements:
i. case-by-case MACT determinations: In the event that no
applicable emissions limitations have been established by the
Administrator, EQB will make case-by-case Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) determinations as required under sections 112 (j) and
(g) of the Act.
[[Page 57206]]
ii. early reductions: Rule 604 authorizes EQB to issue permits with
an alternate emission limit under the Act's section 112(i)(5) early
reductions program.
iii. implementation of section 112(r): Rule 604 requires sources
subject to section 112(r) of the Act to prepare and submit risk
management plans. A source must submit an annual certification ensuring
the proper implementation of the risk management plan.
b. implementation of section 112(g): The EPA issued an interpretive
notice on February 14, 1995 (60 FR 8333), which outlines EPA's revised
interpretation of 112(g) applicability. The notice postpones the
effective date of 112(g) until after EPA has promulgated a rule
addressing that provision. The notice sets forth in detail the
rationale for the revised interpretation.
The section 112(g) interpretive notice explains that EPA is still
considering whether the effective date of section 112(g) should be
delayed beyond the date of promulgation of the Federal rule so as to
allow states time to adopt rules implementing the Federal rule, and
that EPA will provide for any such additional delay in the final
section 112(g) rulemaking. Unless and until EPA provides for such an
additional postponing of section 112(g), Puerto Rico must be able to
implement section 112(g) during the period between promulgation of the
Federal section 112(g) rule and the adoption of Puerto Rico rules
implementing EPA's section 112(g) regulations.
The EPA is proposing to approve Puerto Rico's preconstruction
permitting program found in Rule 203 of the RCAP under the authority of
title V and part 70 solely for the purpose of implementing section
112(g) to the extent necessary during the transition period between
title V approval and adoption of a State rule implementing EPA's
section 112(g) regulations. Furthermore, EQB has provided broad
language in its regulation that will allow the implementation of 112(g)
immediately after EPA establishes and adopts final guidelines (Rule 604
of the RCAP). EQB defines the de minimis levels under Appendix E based
on the 112(g) draft rule but stipulates if the final 112(g) rule
differs in any way, the federal de minimis levels prevail (Rule 102 of
the RCAP--definition of de minimis).
c. Section 112(l): Requirements for approval specified in 40 CFR
70.4(b), encompass section 112(l)(5) approval requirements for
delegation of section 112 standards as they apply to part 70 sources.
Section 112(l)(5) requires that the state's program contain adequate
authorities, adequate resources for implementation, an expeditious
compliance schedule, and adequate enforcement ability, which are also
requirements under part 70. In a letter dated December 29, 1994, EQB
requested delegation through 112(l) of all existing 112 standards and
all future 112 standards for both part 70 and non-part 70 sources and
infrastructure programs. In the letter, EQB demonstrated that they have
sufficient legal authorities, adequate resources, the capability for
automatic delegation of future standards, and adequate enforcement
ability for implementation of section 112 of the Act for both part 70
sources and non-part 70 sources. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to
grant approval under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 to Puerto Rico
for its program mechanism for receiving delegation of all existing and
future section 112(d) standards for both part 70 and non-part 70
sources, and section 112 infrastructure programs that are unchanged
from Federal rules as promulgated.
Puerto Rico commits to appropriately implementing the existing and
future requirements of sections 111, 112 and 129 of the Act, and all
MACT standards promulgated in the future, in a timely manner.
B. Options for Approval/Disapproval and Implications
The EPA is proposing full approval of the operating permits program
submitted to EPA by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on November 15,
1993 and supplemented on March 18, 1994, April 8, 1994, and September
29, 1995. Among other things, Puerto Rico has demonstrated that the
program will be adequate to meet the minimum elements of a State
operating permits program as specified in 40 CFR part 70.
Requirements for approval, specified in 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass
section 112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a program for delegation
of section 112 and standards as promulgated by EPA as they apply to
part 70 sources. Section 112(l)(5) requires that the State's program
contain adequate authorities, adequate resources for implementation,
and an expeditious compliance schedule, which are also requirements
under part 70. Therefore, the EPA is also proposing to grant approval
under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 to Puerto Rico for its program
mechanism for receiving delegation of all existing and future section
112(d) standards for both part 70 and non-part 70 sources, and
infrastructure programs under section 112 that are unchanged from
Federal rules as promulgated.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Request for Public Comments
The EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposed full
approval. Copies of the State's submittal and other information relied
upon for the proposed full approval are contained in a docket
maintained at the EPA Regional Offices located in New York and San Juan
and at the EQB. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the
information submitted to, or otherwise considered by, EPA in the
development of this proposed rulemaking. The principal purposes of the
docket are:
(1) to allow interested parties a means to identify and locate
documents so that they can effectively participate in the approval
process; and
(2) to serve as the record in case of judicial review. The EPA will
consider any comments received by December 14, 1995.
B. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from
Executive Order 12866 review.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The EPA's actions under section 502 of the Act do not create any
new requirements, but simply address operating permits programs
submitted to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR part 70. Because this
action does not impose any new requirements, it does not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule 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 proposed approval action promulgated
today does not include a federal mandate that may result in estimated
[[Page 57207]]
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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: October 30, 1995.
William J. Muszynski,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-28065 Filed 11-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28037 Bidding Systems for Leases in the Outer Continental Shelf
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 14, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28037]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
30 CFR Parts 206 and 260
Bidding Systems for Leases in the Outer Continental Shelf
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of extension of public comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Due to requests for additional time the Minerals Management
Service (MMS) extends by 30 days the comment period for a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) that was published in the Federal Register on
August 23, 1995. The NPR is concerned with an amendment to change the
bidding systems for newly issued leases under the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act.
DATES: MMS will consider all comments we receive by November 22, 1995.
We will begin reviewing comments at that time and may not fully
consider comments we receive after November 22, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed or hand delivered to the
Department of the Interior; Minerals Management Service, Mail Stop
4700; 381 Elden Street; Herndon, Virginia 22070-4817; Attention: Chief,
Engineering and Standards Branch.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Marshall Rose, Chief Economic Evaluation Branch, telephone (703)
787-1636.
Dated: November 6, 1995.
Richard J. Glynn,
Acting Associate Director for Offshore Minerals Management.
[FR Doc. 95-28037 Filed 11-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28011 Executive Office for Immigration Review; Representation and Appearance
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 14, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57200-57201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28011]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
8 CFR Parts 292 and 292a
[EOIR: 109N; AG Order No. 1196-95]
RIN 1125-ZA00
Executive Office for Immigration Review; Representation and
Appearance
AGENCY: Department of Justice.
ACTION: Request for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This request for comment seeks input regarding possible
changes in the qualifications required of an organization before it may
be recognized by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) to
represent persons before the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(Service), the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board), and the
Immigration Court. Specifically, comments are requested regarding
whether the requirement that recognized organizations may charge only
``nominal fees'' should be changed.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 14, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted to General Counsel, Executive
Office for Immigration Review, Suite 2400, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls
Church, VA 22041.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Margaret M. Philbin, General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration
Review, Suite 2400, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22041,
telephone: (703) 305-0470.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under the present version of 8 CFR 292.2, non-profit religious,
charitable, social service, or similar organization may designate
representatives to practice before the Service, the Immigration Court,
and the Board if the organization has applied for and received
recognition from the Board. To gain such recognition, an organization
must establish to the satisfaction of the Board that--
(1) It charges only nominal fees for its services and assesses no
excessive membership dues, and
(2) It has adequate knowledge, information, and experience to
represent its clients in immigration matters.
The requirement that a recognized organization may charge only
nominal fees has been a requirement for recognition by the Board since
1975. The requirement has existed to ensure that recognized
organizations are in fact charitable, are serving low-income or
indigent clients, and are not representing their clients for profit.
The term ``nominal fees'' has not been specifically defined, but
rather interpretation has been left to a case-by-case analysis.
However, the Board has stated that the ``imposition of nominal fees was
not intended as a means through which an organization could fund
itself.'' Matter of American Paralegal Academy, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 386
(BIA 1986). The Board has also stated that the fact that an
organization's fees are ``substantially less than those charged by law
firms is not a proper standard for consideration since such
organizations are not law firms.'' Id. Beyond this, little concrete
guidance regarding the meaning of nominal fees has been provided in the
20 years since the term first appeared in the regulation.
Traditionally, however, the term has been narrowly construed to permit
recognized organizations to charge only minimal amounts for their
services.
The nominal fees restriction has been criticized by some as
constituting a barrier to affordable, quality legal services to poor
aliens. It has been asserted that some organizations, well-qualified to
represent aliens, do not even attempt to gain recognition from the
Board because of the nominal fee restriction, and that many other
recognized organizations are unable to meet the demand for their
services due to the financial constraints imposed by the nominal fees
restriction.
On the other hand, other groups have suggested that an increase in
nominal fees charged by recognized organizations may place them in
competition with members of the bar for clients who can afford legal
services. This arguably exceeds the scope of the ``recognized
organization'' program, which was intended to address the needs for pro
bono representation. It also creates certain issues with respect to
oversight by the Board of the performance and fee charging policies of
recognized organizations.
The issues raised by the nominal fees regulation have recently
become the focus of additional attention. Many recognized organizations
have stated that they are losing funding as charitable contributions
dwindle and sentiment against providing legal aid to aliens grows. A
number of organizations have informed EOIR that they have closed
completely or have scaled back their immigration programs. At the same
time, some organizations assert, the need for services to low-income
aliens has been steadily growing. The perceived hardship imposed by the
nominal fee restriction on both
[[Page 57201]]
recognized organizations and their clients has been the impetus for a
renewed effort to change or eliminate the restriction.
Request for Comments
The concerns outlined above have led EOIR to formally request
comments on possible changes to the nominal fee and accreditation
provisions of 8 CFR 292.2. The outlined concerns are not considered to
be comprehensive, and those responding are invited to address these and
any additional areas of concern they may have regarding the nominal fee
issue. For example, EOIR also seeks comments on the following:
1. Should the nominal fee restriction be retained, but more broadly
interpreted, so as to permit higher fees to be charged?
2. If the nominal fee restriction is changed, or is eliminated from
the regulation, what should replace it?
3. Should recognized organizations be able to fund themselves, in
whole or in part, through imposition of fees? If so, what would be an
appropriate level of such funding?
4. What safeguards should exist to ensure that recognized
organizations are in fact operating in the best interests of their
clientele and not for profit?
A concern that is frequently raised in discussing change or
elimination of the nominal fee requirement is that the requirement
guards against the proliferation of unregulated immigration consultants
or ``notarios,'' who are operating for profit, and who frequently
provide poor advice or otherwise take advantage of their clients. The
concern is that if larger fees may be charged by recognized
organizations, more unscrupulous organizations may apply for and gain
recognition by the Board. Those arguing in favor of changing the
regulation, on the other hand, contend that such questionable
organizations are more likely to exist where there are inadequate
quality legal services available. They argue that these organizations
take advantage of the fact that many aliens cannot afford lawyers, that
legal services are not available, and that aliens therefore turn to
unqualified and sometimes dishonest organizations for advice and help.
Parties on each side of this argument, however, agree that if the
nominal fee regulation is changed or eliminated, some safeguards should
be put in place to carefully regulate the recognition of organizations
before the Board. Comments are requested regarding how best to do this.
The following are ideas on which comments are invited:
(a) Should an organization be required to show that it has both
non-profit and tax-exempt status, within the meaning of the Internal
Revenue Code?
(b) Should an organization be required to show that it serves only
low-income clients? Should the term low-income be defined, and if so,
how?
(c) Should an organization be required to provide, as part of the
application for recognition, proof of where they receive their funding?
Once recognized, should they also be required to provide annual reports
which include the sources of their revenue, their fee schedules, their
income guidelines, and proof that they serve only, or primarily, low-
income clients?
(d) Should an organization be required to vary its fees depending
on ability to pay?
(e) Should there be formal procedures requiring recognized
organizations to show continuing compliance with any applicable
regulation? Should recognized organizations be required to be re-
recognized periodically, as is the case with accredited
representatives?
(f) In requests for reaccreditation of accredited representatives
of recognized organizations, should there be a requirement that
Immigration Judges before whom the representative practices be
consulted? Should the local bar be notified of reaccreditation
applications, with opportunity to comment?
(g) Should there be formal procedures for filing complaints against
recognized organizations or accredited representatives? Should the
regulation provide that any attorney or advocate may report suspected
abuse?
5. Should the regulation regarding lists of free legal services, at
8 CFR part 292a, be amended to allow including organizations and/or
individuals who provide low cost legal services? Should private
attorneys be permitted to have their names on this list, provided their
fees are within the range accepted:
As mentioned above, EOIR welcomes all comments regarding any of the
concerns identified in this notice as well as any other comments
regarding possible changes in the qualifications required of an
organization for recognition by EOIR to represent persons before the
Service, the Board, and the Immigration Court.
Dated: November 6, 1995.
Janet Reno,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 95-28011 Filed 11-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27984 Airworthiness Directives; de Havilland Model DHC-3 Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 14, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57201-57203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27984]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-CE-47-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; de Havilland Model DHC-3 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive
(AD) 90-12-08, which currently requires the following on de Havilland
Model DHC-3 airplanes: repetitively inspecting (using dye penetrant
methods) the tailplane main rib forward flanges and the main rib
forward lower flanges at the tailplane front attachment fitting for
cracks and repairing any cracked flange. The proposed action would
retain the repetitive inspections currently required by AD 90-12-08,
and would allow the provision of incorporating a certain modification
as terminating action for these repetitive inspections. The proposed
action is prompted by the Federal Aviation Administration's
determination that installing new angles and plates on the tailplane
root ribs on de Havilland Model DHC-3 airplanes provides an equivalent
level of safety to the repetitive inspections required by AD 90-12-08.
The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent
failure of the tailplane structure caused by cracked tailplane main rib
forward flanges or main rib forward lower flanges at the tailplane
front attachment fitting, which, if not detected and corrected, could
result in loss of control of the airplane.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-CE-47-AD, Room 1558, 601 E.
12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments may be inspected at
this location between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
holidays excepted.
Service information that applies to the proposed AD may be obtained
from Bombardier Inc., (the parent company of de Havilland) Bombardier
Regional Aircraft Division, Garrett Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario,
Canada M3K 1Y5; telephone (416) 633-7310. This information also may be
examined at the Rules Docket at the address above.
[[Page 57202]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeff Casale, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 10 5th St., 3rd Floor,
Valley Stream, New York 11581; telephone (516) 256-7521; facsimile
(516) 568-2716.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed 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 proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. 95-CE-47-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-CE-47-AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
Discussion
AD 90-12-08, Amendment 39-6622 (55 FR 1450, January 16, 1990),
currently requires the following on de Havilland Model DHC-3 airplanes:
repetitively inspecting (using dye penetrant methods) the tailplane
main rib forward flanges and the main rib forward lower flanges at the
tailplane front attachment fitting for cracks and repairing any cracked
flange. Accomplishment of the actions required by AD 90-12-08 is in
accordance with de Havilland Service Bulletin (SB) No. 3/46, Revision
B, dated December 1, 1989.
Since issuance of AD 90-12-08, de Havilland has developed tailplane
root rib angles and plates of improved design (Modification 3/935).
When incorporated, Modification 3/935 eliminates the need for the
repetitive inspections required by AD 90-12-08.
Bombardier, Inc. (the parent company of de Havilland) has issued de
Havilland SB No. 3/50, Revision A, dated February 17, 1995, which
specifies procedures for incorporating Modification 3/935 on de
Havilland Model DHC-3 airplanes.
Transport Canada, which is the airworthiness authority for Canada,
classified this service bulletin as mandatory and revised Transport
Canada AD CF-89-20 to the R1 level, dated February 22, 1995, in order
to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada.
This airplane model is manufactured in Canada and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement between Canada and the
United States. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement,
Transport Canada has kept the FAA informed of the situation described
above.
After examining the findings of Transport Canada and reviewing all
available information related to the incidents described above
including the referenced service information, the FAA has determined
that (1) incorporating Modification 3/935 provides an equivalent level
of safety to the repetitive inspections required by AD 90-12-08; and
(2) AD action should be taken to prevent failure of the tailplane
structure caused by cracked tailplane main rib forward flanges or main
rib forward lower flanges at the tailplane front attachment fitting,
which, if not detected and corrected, could result in loss of control
of the airplane.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop in other de Havilland Model DHC-3 airplanes of the
same type design that do not have Modification 3/935 incorporated, the
proposed AD would supersede AD 90-12-08 with a new AD that would (1)
retain the requirement of repetitively inspecting the tailplane main
rib forward flanges and the main rib forward lower flanges at the
tailplane front attachment fitting for cracks and repairing any cracked
flange; and (2) allowing for the provision of incorporating
Modification 3/935 as terminating action for the repetitive
inspections. Accomplishment of the proposed inspections would be in
accordance with de Havilland SB No. 3/46, Revision B, dated December 1,
1989. Accomplishment of the proposed modification would be in
accordance with de Havilland SB No. 3/50, Revision A, dated February
17, 1995.
The FAA estimates that 49 airplanes in the U.S. registry would be
affected by the proposed AD, that it would take approximately 35
workhours per airplane to accomplish the proposed inspection and that
the average labor rate is approximately $60 an hour. Based on these
figures, the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is
estimated to be $102,900 or $2,100 per airplane. This figure represents
the cost of the initial inspection, and does not reflect the costs for
repetitive inspections or possible repairs. The FAA has no way of
determining how many tailplane main rib forward or main rib forward
lower flanges may need repaired or how many repetitive inspections each
owner/operator of the affected airplanes would incur over the life of
the airplane.
The FAA has issued alternative methods of compliance (AMOC) to the
repetitive inspection requirement of AD 90-12-08 for owners/operators
of three de Havilland Model DHC-3 airplanes. These AMOC's consist of
the incorporation of a certain design modification in the tailplane
root rib area of the affected airplanes. These AMOC's would remain in
effect for the proposed AD, which would eliminate the inspection costs
for these three airplanes. With this in mind, the cost of the proposed
AD would be reduced by $6,300 from $102,900 to $96,600.
The compliance time of the proposed AD is in calendar time instead
of hours time-in-service (TIS). In developing the compliance time of AD
90-12-08, the FAA utilized calendar time because it was unknown whether
the rib flange cracking was a result of in-flight loads (flight hours)
or loads associated with ground gusts. With this in mind, airplanes
with lower usage may experience a cracked rib flange before an airplane
with higher usage. For this reason, calendar time rather than flight
hours was judged to be an appropriate inspection basis. This situation
still exists and in order to maintain the repetitive inspection
continuity between AD 90-12-08 and the proposed AD, a compliance based
on calendar time is proposed.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of
[[Page 57203]]
power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined
that this proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation
prepared for this action has been placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of
it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location
provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14
CFR part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations 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); 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing Airworthiness Directive
(AD) 90-12-08, Amendment 39-6622 (55 FR 1450, January 16, 1990), and by
adding the following new AD:
De Havilland: Docket No. 95-CE-47-AD; Supersedes AD 90-12-08,
Amendment 39-6622.
Applicability: Model DHC-3 Airplanes (all serial numbers),
certificated in any category, that do not have Modification 3/935
incorporated in accordance with de Havilland Service Bulletin (SB)
number (No.) 3/50, Revision A, dated February 17, 1995.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (e) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it. Compliance: Within the next 3 calendar months after the
effective date of this AD, unless already accomplished (compliance
with AD 90-12-08), and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24
calendar months.
To prevent failure of the tailplane structure caused by cracked
tailplane main rib forward flanges or main rib forward lower flanges
at the tailplane front attachment fitting, which, if not detected
and corrected, could result in loss of control of the airplane,
accomplish the following:
(a) Inspect, using dye penetrant methods, the tailplane main rib
forward flanges and the main rib forward lower flanges at the
tailplane front attachment fitting in accordance with the
ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS section of de Havilland SB No. 3/46,
Revision B, dated December 1, 1989.
(b) Prior to further flight, repair any tailplane main rib
forward flange or main rib forward lower flange found cracked during
any inspection required by this AD. Accomplish this repair in
accordance with the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS section of de
Havilland SB No. 3/46, Revision B, dated December 1, 1989.
(c) Installing tailplane root rib angles and plates of improved
design (Modification 3/935) in accordance with de Havilland SB 3/50,
Revision A, dated February 17, 1995, terminates the repetitive
inspection requirement of this AD. Modification 3/935 may be
incorporated at any time provided that any tailplane main rib
forward flange or main rib forward lower flange found cracked during
any inspection required by this AD is repaired.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(e) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
initial or repetitive compliance times that provides an equivalent
level of safety may be approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 10 5th St., 3rd Floor, Valley Stream,
New York 11581. The request shall be forwarded through an
appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then
send it to the Manager, New York ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the New York ACO.
(f) Alternative methods of compliance approved in accordance
with AD 90-12-08 (superseded by this action) are considered approved
as alternative methods of compliance with this AD.
(g) All persons affected by this directive may obtain copies of
the document referred to herein upon request to Bombardier Inc.,
Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, Garrett Boulevard, Downsview,
Ontario, Canada M3K 1Y5; telephone (416) 633-7310; or may examine
this document at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri
64106.
(h) This amendment supersedes AD 90-12-08, Amendment 39-6622.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on November 6, 1996.
Henry A. Armstrong,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-27984 Filed 11-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27975 High-Voltage Longwall Equipment Standards for Underground Coal Mines
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 14, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57203-57204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27975]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Parts 18 and 75
RIN 1219-AA75
High-Voltage Longwall Equipment Standards for Underground Coal
Mines
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests from the mining community for
additional time in which to prepare comments, the Mine Safety and
Health Administration (MSHA) is extending the period for public comment
on its proposed rule addressing the use of high-voltage longwall
equipment in production areas of underground coal mines.
DATES: All comments must be submitted on or before December 18, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations and
Variances, 4015 Wilson Boulevard, Room 631, Arlington, VA 22203.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments on a computer disk along
with a hard copy.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia W. Silvey, Director, Office
of Standards, Regulations and Variances, 703-235-1910.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 18, 1995, MSHA published a
document in the Federal Register (60 FR 53891) announcing the reopening
of the rulemaking record on its proposed standard allowing the use of
high-voltage longwall equipment in underground coal mines. The comment
period was scheduled to close on November 17, 1995. By this document,
the Agency is extending the comment period to December 18, 1995. All
interested parties are encouraged to submit comments prior to that
date.
[[Page 57204]]
Dated: November 7, 1995.
J. Davitt McAteer,
Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 95-27975 Filed 11-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27817 End-Use Certificate Program
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 14, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57198-57200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27817]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 14, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 57198]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Consolidated Farm Service Agency
7 CFR Part 782
RIN 0560-AE37
End-Use Certificate Program
AGENCY: Consolidated Farm Service Agency, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Consolidated Farm Service Agency (CFSA) is proposing to
amend the regulations found at 7 CFR part 782 which govern the End-Use
Certificate Program. The End-Use Certificate Program is administered in
accordance with section 321(f) of the North American Free Trade
Agreement Implementation Act. This rule proposes to amend reporting
requirements, reporting deadlines, and the required notification
process in a manner that will increase program effectiveness and
efficiency for government and affected industries. If adopted, the
provisions of this regulation would simplify the reporting burden
placed on importers, subsequent buyers, end users and exporters by
extending reporting deadlines and incorporating alternative reporting
methods.
Other minor revisions to the regulations are proposed as well.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 14, 1995
in order to be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Comments concerning this proposed rule must be mailed to
Deputy Administrator, Commodity Operations, CFSA, P.O. Box 2415,
Washington, DC 20013-2415. All written comments will be available for
public inspection in Room 5962, South Building, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 14th and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between
8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Gill, Acting Deputy Director,
Warehouse and Inventory Division, CFSA, Box 2415, Washington, DC 20013-
2415; telephone (202) 720-5647 or FAX (202) 690-0014.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule has been determined to be significant and was
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866.
Executive Order 12778
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive
Order 12778. The provisions of this proposed rule do not preempt State
laws, are not retroactive, and do not involve administrative appeals.
Environmental Evaluation
It has been determined by an environmental evaluation that this
action will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human
environment. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an
Environmental Impact Analysis is needed.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is not subject to the provisions of Executive
Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State
and local officials. See notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V,
published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule proposes to amend the reporting requirements by extending
reporting deadlines and incorporating alternative reporting methods.
Since February 27, 1995, the effective date of the end-use certificate
program, CFSA has determined that entities required to file form CFSA-
750, End-Use Certificate for Wheat, and form CFSA-751, Wheat
Consumption and Resale Report, have encountered some difficulty in
meeting the requirement that these forms be filed with the Kansas City
Commodity Office (KCCO) within 10 workdays following the date of entry,
or the date of resale, as applicable. This proposal to increase the
reporting requirement from 10 workdays following the date of entry or
resale, as applicable, to 15 workdays following the date of entry or
resale will provide increased flexibility to the entity that is
required to file the report without decreasing the efficiency of the
program on the part of the government. Additionally, numerous requests
have been received by CFSA to permit facsimile transmission and
computer generation of forms CFSA-750, End-Use Certificate for Wheat,
and CFSA-751, Wheat Consumption and Resale Report. In an attempt to
utilize technology that is currently available, CFSA is proposing that
such report submissions will be acceptable under the End-Use
Certificate Program. While all of the entities that are required to
file forms CFSA-750 and CFSA-751 have the potential of being affected
by these proposed changes in reporting requirements, no entities will
be adversely affected.
The changes proposed in this rule do not impact recordkeeping
requirements.
The reporting requirements for CFSA-750 and CFSA-751 were
previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and
assigned OMB control number 0560-0151.
These revised reporting requirements will be submitted to OMB for
approval under the provisions of 44 U.S.C. 35. Send comments regarding
this collection of information to: Department of Agriculture, Clearance
Officer, Office of Information Resources Management, Room 404-W,
Washington, DC 20250, and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk
Officer for USDA, Room 3201, New Executive Office Building, Washington,
DC 20503.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
On January 26, 1995, CFSA published a final rule that established
program requirements for the End-Use Certificate Program. At that time,
a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was prepared to discuss the impact of
the implementation of the End-Use Certificate Program. A copy of this
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is available upon request from Helen
Linden, Warehouse and Inventory Division, CFSA, P.O. Box 2415,
Washington, DC 20013-2415; telephone: (202) 690-4321.
The changes that are proposed in this rule are intended to reduce
the reporting burden for all businesses, including small businesses.
Because these proposed changes will not have an adverse impact on a
substantial number of small businesses, a Regulatory Flexibility
Assessment is not required for this proposed rule.
[[Page 57199]]
Background
This rule proposes to amend the regulations at 7 CFR part 782 with
respect to the U.S. End-Use Certificate Program. Since February 27,
1995, the effective date for the implementation of the End-Use
Certificate Program, several items have been identified that could
improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of the End-Use Certificate
Program.
The final rule published on January 26, 1995, at 60 FR 5087, did
not include a specific time requirement for importers and subsequent
buyers to inform subsequent buyers or end users that wheat being
purchased is of Canadian origin, and as such, is subject to these
regulations. In some instances, importers are delivering Canadian wheat
to subsequent buyers and end users through grain handlers. CFSA has
found that this method of transporting Canadian wheat results in some
grain handlers acquiring title to a portion of the wheat, thus becoming
either a subsequent buyer or end user. The general interpretation of
existing regulations by affected parties is that the importer or
subsequent buyer has 10 days to provide a copy of the form End-Use
Certificate for Wheat, ASCS-750, to the subsequent buyer or exporter,
which mirrors the requirement for submitting forms to the Kansas City
Commodity Office (KCCO). This delay in notification has resulted in
situations where subsequent buyers and end users have either commingled
Canadian wheat with U.S. origin wheat or resold Canadian wheat before
they were informed that the wheat is of Canadian origin. Therefore,
CFSA proposes to amend the regulations at 7 CFR part 782 to require
importers and subsequent buyers to provide immediate notification to
purchasers and grain handlers when wheat being sold is of Canadian
origin.
Secondly, in an effort to simplify and expedite the receipt of
reports, this proposed rule would extend the time requirements for
filing form ASCS-750 with KCCO from 10 to 15 workdays following the
date of entry and incorporate provisions which will permit the
electronic transmission and computer generation of required forms.
Finally, this proposed rule includes nomenclature changes to revise
form numbers ASCS-750 and ASCS-751 to CFSA-750 and CFSA-751,
respectively.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 7 CFR part 782 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 782--END-USE CERTIFICATE PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for part 782 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 19 U.S.C. 3391(f).
2. In part 782 all references to ``ASCS-750'' are revised to read
``CFSA-750.''
3. In part 782 all references to ``ASCS-751'' are revised to read
``CFSA-751.''
4. Section 782.2 is amended to add the following definition
immediately following the definition for ``Entry'':
Sec. 782.2 Definition.
* * * * *
Grain handler means an entity other than the importer, exporter,
subsequent buyer, or end user that handles wheat on behalf of an
importer, exporter, subsequent buyer, or end user.
* * * * *
5. Section 782.4 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 782.4 OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
The information collection requirements in this part have been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned OMB
control number 0560-0151.
6. Section 782.12 is amended by:
A. Removing the number ``10'' in the first sentence of paragraph
(a) and adding the number ``15'' in its place,
B. Removing paragraph (a)(8),
C. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(9) and (a)(10) as paragraphs (a)(8)
and (a)(9), respectively,
D. Redesignating paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) as paragraphs (d),
(e), and (f), respectively, and revising newly redesignated paragraph
(e) to read as set forth below,
E. Adding new paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 782.12 Filing CFSA-750, End-Use Certificate for Wheat.
* * * * *
(b) Importers may provide computer generated form CFSA-750,
provided such computer generated forms:
(1) Are approved in advance by KCCO,
(2) Contain a KCCO assigned serial number, and
(3) Contain all of the information required in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(9) of this section.
(c) KCCO will accept form CFSA-750 submitted through the following
methods:
(1) Mail service, including express mail,
(2) Facsimile machine, and
(3) Other electronic transmissions, provided such transmissions are
approved in advance by KCCO. The importer remains responsible for
ensuring that electronically transmitted forms are received in
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.
* * * * *
(e) Distribution of form CFSA-750 will be as follows:
(1) If form CFSA-750 is submitted to KCCO in accordance with
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the original shall be forwarded to
Kansas City Commodity Office, Warehouse License and Contract Division,
P.O. Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141-6205, by the importer,
(2) If form CFSA-750 is submitted to KCCO in accordance with
paragraphs (c)(2) or (c)(3) of this section, the original form CFSA-750
that is signed and dated by the importer in accordance with paragraph
(d) of this section shall be maintained by the importer,
(3) One copy shall be retained by the importer,
(4) The importer shall provide a photocopy to the end user or, if
the wheat is purchased for purposes of resale, the subsequent buyer(s).
* * * * *
7. Section 782.13 is amended by:
A. Redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (c) and (d),
respectively, and by removing the number ``10'' in the new paragraph
(d) and adding the number ``15'' in its place,
B. Adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 782.13 Importer Responsibilities.
* * * * *
(b) Immediately notify each subsequent buyer, grain handler, or end
user that the wheat being purchased or handled originated in Canada and
may only be commingled with U.S.-produced wheat by the end user or when
loaded onto a conveyance for direct delivery to the end user or a
foreign country.
* * * * *
8. Section 782.15 is amended by:
A. Removing the number ``10'' in paragraph (a)(1) and adding the
number ``15'' in its place, and
B. Adding paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 782.15 Filing CFSA-751, Wheat Consumption and Resale Report.
* * * * *
(e) Filers may provide computer generated form CFSA-751, provided
such computer generated forms:
(1) Are approved in advance by KCCO, and
[[Page 57200]]
(2) Contain the information required in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(b)(9).
(f) KCCO will accept form CFSA-751 submitted through the following
methods:
(1) Mail service, including express mail,
(2) Facsimile machine, and
(3) Other electronic transmissions, provided such transmissions are
approved in advance by KCCO. The importer remains responsible for
ensuring that electronically transmitted forms are received in
accordance with this section.
(g) Distribution of form CFSA-751 will be as follows:
(1) If form CFSA-751 is submitted to KCCO in accordance with
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the original shall be forwarded to
Kansas City Commodity Office, Warehouse License and Contract Division,
P.O. Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141-6205, by the importer, end user,
exporter, or subsequent buyer,
(2) If form CFSA-751 is submitted to KCCO in accordance with
paragraphs (f)(2) or (f)(3) of this section, the original form CFSA-751
that is signed and dated by the importer, end user, exporter, or
subsequent buyer in accordance with paragraph (b)(8)(v) or (b)(9)(iv)
of this section shall be maintained by the importer, end user,
exporter, or subsequent buyer,
(3) One copy shall be retained by the importer, end user, exporter,
or subsequent buyer.
* * * * *
9. Section 782.17 is amended by:
A. Redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c), and
B. Adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 782.17 Wheat purchased for resale.
* * * * *
(b) The importer or subsequent buyer shall immediately notify each
subsequent buyer, grain handler, exporter, or end user that the wheat
being purchased or handled originated in Canada and may only be
commingled with U.S.--produced wheat by the end user or when loaded
onto a conveyance for direct delivery to the end use or a foreign
country.
* * * * *
Signed at Washington, DC, on November 3, 1995.
Grant Buntrock,
Administrator, Consolidated Farm Service Agency.
[FR Doc. 95-27817 Filed 11-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.