issue-1995-10-25•Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-10-25
Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-10-25
issue-1995-10-25Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-10-25Proposed 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. 95-26499 Vehicle Identification Number Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54657-54663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26499]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54658]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 541, 565, 567, 571
[Docket No. 95-85; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AF69
Vehicle Identification Number Requirements
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: At present, NHTSA's vehicle identification number (VIN)
requirements are established in two regulations, Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 115 and Part 565. In this NPRM, NHTSA proposes to
incorporate Standard No. 115 in Part 565. This proposed action is part
of the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative and seeks to make
NHTSA's VIN requirements easier to understand and to apply. In
accordance with Federal metrication policy, NHTSA also proposes to
convert English measurements specified in part 565 to metric
measurements. No substantive changes in existing regulatory text are
proposed.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 26, 1995.
ADDRESSES: All comments must refer to the docket number and notice
number of this notice and be submitted, preferably in ten copies, to:
Docket Section, Room 5109, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Docket
hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Leon Delarm, Office of Vehicle
Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone number 202-366-
4920.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Regulatory Reinvention Initiative
Pursuant to the March 4, 1994 directive from the President to the
heads of departments and agencies, ``Regulatory Reinvention
Initiative,'' NHTSA has undertaken a review of all its regulations and
directives. During the course of this review, the agency has taken the
opportunity not only to identify those rules or portions of rules that
might be deleted or rescinded but also to identify rules that could be
consolidated to avoid duplication or be redrafted to make them easier
to read.
To further the President's goals, the agency proposes in this
rulemaking to incorporate the text of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 115 (49 CFR 571.115) Vehicle identification number--basic
requirements in Part 565 Vehicle identification number--content
requirements.
A vehicle identification number (VIN) is a seventeen character
series of Arabic numbers and Roman letters which is assigned to a
vehicle for identification purposes. At present, Standard No. 115
specifies general physical requirements for a VIN and its installation
and Part 565 specifies VIN content and format.
NHTSA believes that consolidation into one regulation will make it
easier for motor vehicle manufacturers to understand and to apply VIN
requirements. In particular, many small businesses that manufacture
motor vehicles (including trailers), appear to find two separate VIN
requirements (i.e., in Standard No. 115 and Part 565) confusing. NHTSA
believes that consolidating all VIN requirements into one regulation
will lessen any confusion. NHTSA does not intend any substantive
changes to its VIN requirements as a result of the proposed
consolidation.
Since the VIN requirements are referenced in other NHTSA
regulations, such as Part 541 Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard and Part 567 Certification, NHTSA proposes to make
nonsubstantive changes so the parts would meet the proposed
consolidated VIN requirements. NHTSA may, at a future date, also
propose to make changes to Part 591 Importation of Vehicles and
Equipment Subject to Federal Safety, Bumper, and Theft Prevention
Standards and Part 592 Registered Importers of Vehicles Not Originally
Manufactured to Conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards,
to conform these parts to the new VIN requirements.
Metrication of VIN Regulation
NHTSA also proposes to continue to implement the Federal policy
that the metric system of measurement is the preferred system of
weights and measures for United States trade and commerce. In this
NPRM, NHTSA proposes to convert part 565 measurements stated in the
English system of measurement to the metric system. NHTSA began its
metrication efforts with an NPRM published March 15, 1994 (59 FR 11962)
that proposed to convert selected Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards to the metric system. In the March 1994 NPRM, NHTSA stated
its intent not to use equivalent conversions when there is a specific
safety need or other reason to make an exact conversion. (To illustrate
equivalent and exact conversions, an equivalent conversion of two
inches would be 50 millimeters, while an exact conversion would be 50.8
millimeters). In the March 1994 NPRM, NHTSA identified conversions of
vehicles' gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs) as an example of when it
would convert measurements to exact conversions.
NHTSA proposes that in Table II of part 565, English unit
measurements of vehicles' GVWRs be converted to the metric system, to
exact conversions. Thus, a vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds is
proposed to be converted to the exact conversion of 4536 kilograms
(kg.), not the equivalent conversion of 4500 kg.
As it believes that those unfamiliar with the metric system may be
burdened by the agency's stating GVWRs in metric units only, NHTSA
proposes that for an indefinite time, part 565 continue to present the
English measurement as well. NHTSA seeks public comment on this
proposal to set forth both the English and metric measurements for
GVWRs.
Proposed Effective Date
Because the proposed incorporation of Standard No. 115 into Part
565 would make vehicle identification number requirements easier to
understand and to apply, without compromising safety, and would not
make any substantive change in the requirements. NHTSA has tentatively
determined that there is good cause shown that an effective date
earlier than 180 days after issuance is in the public interest.
Accordingly, the agency proposes that, if adopted, the effective date
for the final rule be 30 days after its publication in the Federal
Register.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
1. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This proposed rule was not reviewed under E. O. 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review). NHTSA has analyzed the impact of this rulemaking
action and determined that it is not ``significant'' within the meaning
of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures. The proposed rule would not impose any costs or yield any
savings. It would instead, consolidate the agency's requirements for
manufacturers to assign vehicle identification numbers (VINs) to motor
vehicles. The changes would make it easier for manufacturers to
understand
[[Page 54659]]
and apply the VIN requirements. The impacts would be so minimal that
they would not warrant preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The agency has considered the effects of this regulatory action
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that the
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As explained above, the proposed
rule would not impose any new requirements, but may have a slight
beneficial impact since the changes would make it easier for motor
vehicle manufacturers, many of which are small businesses, to
understand and apply the agency's requirements for vehicle
identification numbers. For these reasons, small businesses, small
governmental organizations, and small organizations which purchase
motor vehicles or rely on VINs for other recordkeeping or
administrative matters, would not be significantly affected by the
proposed rule. Accordingly, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
has not been prepared.
3. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted to and approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This collection of information has been assigned
OMB Control Number 2127-0510 (``Consolidated VIN Requirements and Motor
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard'') and has been approved for use
through June 30, 1996.
4. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612. The agency
has determined that the proposed rule does not have sufficient
Federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism
Assessment. No State laws would be affected.
5. National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has considered the environmental implications of this
proposed rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 and determined that the proposed rule would not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
6. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that State requirement imposes a higher
level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for the
State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial review
of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle
safety standards. This section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative procedures before
parties may file suit in court.
Procedures for Filing Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
Comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15 page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation, 49 CFR Part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after the closing date. To the extent possible,
comments filed after the closing date also will be considered. Comments
received too late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be
considered as suggestions for further rulemaking action. The agency
will continue to file relevant information as it becomes available in
the docket after the closing date, and it is recommended that
interested persons continue to examine the docket for new material.
Persons who want to be notified upon receipt of their comments in
the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in
the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the comments, the
docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 541
Administrative practice and procedure, Labeling, Motor vehicle
safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 565
Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 567
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle safety, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
Parts 541, 565, 567, and 571 as set forth below.
PART 541--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 541 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33101, 33102, 33103, 33105; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. In section 541.4, paragraph (b)(7) would be revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 541.4 Definitions.
* * * * *
(b) Other definitions.
* * * * *
(7) VIN means the vehicle identification number required by Part
565 of this chapter.
* * * * *
PART 565--[AMENDED]
3. Part 565 would be revised to read as follows:
PART 565--VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER REQUIREMENTS
Sec.
565.1 Purpose and scope.
565.2 Applicability.
565.3 Definitions.
565.4 General requirements.
565.5 Motor vehicles imported into the United States.
565.6 Content requirements.
565.7 Reporting requirements.
[[Page 54660]]
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30141, 30146,
30166, and 30168; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec. 565.1 Purpose and scope.
This part specifies the format, content and physical requirements
for a vehicle identification number (VIN) system and its installation
to simplify vehicle identification information retrieval and to
increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns.
Sec. 565.2 Applicability.
This part applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers (including trailer kits), incomplete
vehicles, and motorcycles. Vehicles imported into the United States
under 49 CFR 591.5(f), other than by the corporation responsible for
the assembly of that vehicle or a subsidiary of such a corporation, are
exempt from requirements of Sec. 565.4(b), Sec. 565.4(c),
Sec. 565.4(g), Sec. 565.4(h), Sec. 565.5 and Sec. 565.6.
Sec. 565.3 Definitions.
(a) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Definitions. Unless
otherwise indicated, all terms used in this part that are defined in 49
CFR 571.3 are used as defined in 49 CFR 571.3.
(b) Body type means the general configuration or shape of a vehicle
distinguished by such characteristics as the number of doors or
windows, cargo-carrying features and the roofline (e.g., sedan,
fastback, hatchback).
(c) Check digit means a single number or the letter X used to
verify the accuracy of the transcription of the vehicle identification
number.
(d) Engine type means a power source with defined characteristics
such as fuel utilized, number of cylinders, displacement, and net brake
horsepower. The specific manufacturer and make shall be represented if
the engine powers a passenger car or a multipurpose passenger vehicle,
or truck with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4536 kg. or less.
(e) Incomplete vehicle means an assemblage consisting, as a
minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system,
suspension system and braking system, to the extent that those systems
are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further
manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable
components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor
finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.
(f) Line means a name that a manufacturer applies to a family of
vehicles within a make which have a degree of commonality in
construction, such as body, chassis or cab type.
(g) Make means a name that a manufacturer applies to a group of
vehicles or engines.
(h) Manufacturer means a person--
(1) Manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle
equipment; or
(2) Importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.
(i) Model means a name that a manufacturer applies to a family of
vehicles of the same type, make, line, series and body type.
(j) Model Year means the year used to designate a discrete vehicle
model, irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was
actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two
calendar years.
(k) Plant of manufacture means the plant where the manufacturer
affixes the VIN.
(l) Series means a name that a manufacturer applies to a
subdivision of a ``line'' denoting price, size or weight identification
and that is used by the manufacturer for marketing purposes.
(m) Trailer kit means a trailer that is fabricated and delivered in
complete but unassembled form and that is designed to be assembled
without special machinery or tools.
(n) Type means a class of vehicle distinguished by common traits,
including design and purpose. Passenger cars, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles and motorcycles
are separate types.
(o) VIN means a series of Arabic numbers and Roman letters that is
assigned to a motor vehicle for identification purposes.
Sec. 565.4 General requirements.
(a) Each vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is
assigned by the manufacturer. Each vehicle manufactured in more than
one stage shall have a VIN assigned by the incomplete vehicle
manufacturer. Vehicle alterers, as specified in 49 CFR 567.7, shall
utilize the VIN assigned by the original manufacturer of the vehicle.
(b) Each VIN shall consist of seventeen (17) characters.
(c) A check digit shall be part of each VIN. The check digit shall
appear in position nine (9) of the VIN, on the vehicle and on any
transfer documents containing the VIN prepared by the manufacturer to
be given to the first owner for purposes other than resale.
(d) The VINs of any two vehicles manufactured within a 30-year
period shall not be identical.
(e) The VIN of each vehicle shall appear clearly and indelibly upon
either a part of the vehicle, other than the glazing, that is not
designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate or
label that is permanently affixed to such a part.
(f) The VIN for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and
trucks of 4536 kg or less GVWR shall be located inside the passenger
compartment. It shall be readable, without moving any part of the
vehicle, through the vehicle glazing under daylight lighting conditions
by an observer having 20/20 vision (Snellen) whose eye-point is located
outside the vehicle adjacent to the left windshield pillar. Each
character in the VIN subject to this paragraph shall have a minimum
height of 4 mm.
(g) Each character in each VIN shall be one of the letters in the
set: (ABCDEFGHJKLMNPRSTUVWXYZ) or a numeral in the set: (0123456789)
assigned according to the method given in Sec. 565.5.
(h) All spaces provided for in the VIN must be occupied by a
character specified in paragraph (g) of this section.
(i) The type face utilized for each VIN shall consist of capital,
sanserif characters.
Sec. 565.5 Motor vehicles imported into the United States.
(a) Importers shall utilize the VIN assigned by the original
manufacturer of the motor vehicle.
(b) A passenger car certified by a Registered Importer under 49 CFR
part 592 shall have a plate or label that contains the following
statement, in characters with a minimum height of 4 mm, with the
identification number assigned by the original manufacturer provided in
the blank: SUBSTITUTE FOR U.S. VIN: __________ SEE PART 565. The plate
or label shall conform to Sec. 565.4 (h) and (i). The plate or label
shall be permanently affixed inside the passenger compartment. The
plate or label shall be readable, without moving any part of the
vehicle, through the vehicle glazing under daylight lighting conditions
by an observer having 20/20 vision (Snellen) whose eye-point is located
outside the vehicle adjacent to the left windshield pillar. It shall be
located in such a manner as not to cover, obscure, or overlay any part
of any identification number affixed by the original manufacturer.
Passenger cars conforming to Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115
are exempt from this paragraph.
[[Page 54661]]
Sec. 565.6 Content requirements.
The VIN shall consist of four sections of characters which shall be
grouped accordingly:
(a) The first section shall consist of three characters that occupy
positions one through three (1-3) in the VIN. This section shall
uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle
if its manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type
annually. If the manufacturer produces less than 500 motor vehicles of
its type annually, these characters along with the third, fourth and
fifth characters of the fourth section shall uniquely identify the
manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle. These characters are
assigned in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) The second section shall consist of five characters, which
occupy positions four through eight (4-8) in the VIN. This section
shall uniquely identify the attributes of the vehicle as specified in
Table I. For passenger cars, and for multipurpose passenger vehicles
and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4536 kg. or less, the
first and second characters shall be alphabetic and the third and
fourth characters shall be numeric. The fifth character may be either
alphabetic or numeric. The characters utilized and their placement
within the section may be determined by the manufacturer, but the
specified attributes must be decipherable with information supplied by
the manufacturer in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section. In
submitting the required information to NHTSA relating to gross vehicle
weight rating, the designations in Table II shall be used. The use of
these designations within the VIN itself is not required. Tables I and
II follow:
Table I.--Type of Vehicle and Information Decipherable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger car: Line, series, body type, engine type and restraint system
type.
Multipurpose passenger vehicle: Line, series, body type, engine type,
gross vehicle weight rating.
Truck: Model or line, series, chassis, cab type, engine type, brake
system and gross vehicle weight rating.
Bus: Model or line, series, body type, engine type, and brake system
Trailer, including trailer kits and incomplete trailer: Type of trailer,
body type, length and axle configuration.
Motorcycle: Type of motorcycle, line, engine type, and net brake
horsepower.
Incomplete Vehicle other than a trailer: Model or line, series, cab
type, engine type and brake system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note to Table I: Engine net brake horsepower when encoded in the VIN
shall differ by no more than 10 percent from the actual net brake
horsepower; shall in the case of motorcycle with an actual net brake
horsepower of 2 or less, be not more than 2; and shall be greater than
2 in the case of a motorcycle with an actual brake horsepower greater
than 2.
Table II.--Gross Vehicle Weight Rating Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class A................................................ Not greater than 1360 kg. (3,000 lbs.).
Class B................................................ Greater than 1360 kg. to 1814 kg. (3,001-4,000 lbs.).
Class C................................................ Greater than 1814 kg. to 2268 kg. (4,001-5,000 lbs.).
Class D................................................ Greater than 2268 kg. to 2722 kg. (5,001-6,000 lbs.).
Class E................................................ Greater than 2722 kg. to 3175 kg. (6,001-7 000 lbs.).
Class F................................................ Greater than 3175 kg. to 3629 kg. (7,001-8 000 lbs.).
Class G................................................ Greater than 3629 kg. to 4082 kg. (8,001-9,000 lbs.).
Class H................................................ Greater than 4082 kg. to 4536 kg (9,001-10,000 lbs.).
Class 3................................................ Greater than 4536 kg. to 6350 kg (10 001-14,000 lbs.).
Class 4................................................ Greater than 6350 kg. to 7257 kg. (14 001-16,000 lbs.).
Class 5................................................ Greater than 7257 kg. to 8845 kg. (16,001-19,500 lbs.).
Class 6................................................ Greater than 8845 kg. to 11793 kg.(19,501-26,000 lbs.).
Class 7................................................ Greater than 11793 kg. to 14968 kg.(26,001-33,000
lbs.).
Class 8................................................ Greater than 14968 kg. (33,001 lbs. and over ).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) The third section shall consist of one character, which
occupies position nine (9) in the VIN. This section shall be the check
digit whose purpose is to provide a means for verifying the accuracy of
any VIN transcription. After all other characters in VIN have been
determined by the manufacturer, the check digit shall be calculated by
carrying out the mathematical computation specified in paragraphs (c)
(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Assign to each number in the VIN its actual mathematical value
and assign to each letter the value specified for it in Table III, as
follows:
Table III.--Assigned Values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A = 1 J = 1 T = 3
B = 2 K = 2 U = 4
C = 3 L = 3 V = 5
D = 4 M = 4 W = 6
E = 5 N = 5 X = 7
F = 6 P = 7 Y = 8
G = 7 R = 9 Z = 9
H = 8 S = 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Multiply the assigned value for each character in the VIN by
the position weight factor specified in Table IV, as follows:
Table IV.--VIN Position and Weight Factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st.............................................................. 8
2d............................................................... 7
3d............................................................... 6
4th.............................................................. 5
5th.............................................................. 4
6th.............................................................. 3
7th.............................................................. 2
8th.............................................................. 10
9th.............................................................. (\1\)
10th............................................................. 9
11th............................................................. 8
12th............................................................. 7
13th............................................................. 6
14th............................................................. 5
15th............................................................. 4
16th............................................................. 3
17th............................................................. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\(Check digit.)
(3) Add the resulting products and divide the total by 11.
(4) The numerical remainder is the check digit. If the remainder is
10 the letter ``X'' shall be used to designate the check digit. The
correct numeric remainder, zero through nine (0-9) or
[[Page 54662]]
the letter ``X,'' shall appear in VIN position nine (9).
(5) A sample check digit calculation is shown in Table V as
follows:
Table V.--Calculation of a Check Digit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIN Position..................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Sample VIN....................... 1 G 4 A H 5 9 H ..... 5 G 1 1 8 3 4 1
Assigned Value................... 1 7 4 1 8 5 9 8 ..... 5 7 1 1 8 3 4 1
Weight Factor.................... 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 10 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
Multiply Assigned value times
weight factor................... 8 49 24 5 32 15 18 80 0 45 56 7 6 40 12 12 2
Add products: 8+49+24+5+32+15+18+80+0+45+56+7+6+40+12+12+2 = 411
Divide by 11: 411/11 = 37 4/11
The remainder is 4; this is the check digit to be inserted in position nine (9) of the VIN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) The fourth section shall consist of eight characters, which
occupy positions ten through seventeen (10-17) of the VIN. The last
five (5) characters of this section shall be numeric for passenger cars
and for multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a gross vehicle
weight rating of 4536 kg. or less, and the last four (4) characters
shall be numeric for all other vehicles.
(1) The first character of the fourth section shall represent the
vehicle model year. The year shall be designated as indicated in Table
VI as follows:
Table VI.--Year Codes for VIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1980........................................... A
1981........................................... B
1982........................................... C
1983........................................... D
1984........................................... E
1985........................................... F
1986........................................... G
1987........................................... H
1988........................................... J
1989........................................... K
1990........................................... L
1991........................................... M
1992........................................... N
1993........................................... P
1994........................................... R
1995........................................... S
1996........................................... T
1997........................................... V
1998........................................... W
1999........................................... X
2000........................................... Y
2001........................................... 1
2002........................................... 2
2003........................................... 3
2004........................................... 4
2005........................................... 5
2006........................................... 6
2007........................................... 7
2008........................................... 8
2009........................................... 9
2010........................................... A
2011........................................... B
2012........................................... C
2013........................................... D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The second character of the fourth section shall represent the
plant of manufacture.
(3) The third through the eighth characters of the fourth section
shall represent the number sequentially assigned by the manufacturer in
the production process if the manufacturer produces 500 or more
vehicles of its type annually. If the manufacturer produces less than
500 motor vehicles of its type annually, the third, fourth and fifth
characters of the fourth section, combined with the three characters of
the first section, shall uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and
type of the motor vehicle and the sixth, seventh, and eighth characters
of the fourth section shall represent the number sequentially assigned
by the manufacturer in the production process.
Sec. 565.7 Reporting requirements.
The information collection requirements contained in this part have
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and
have been assigned OMB Control Number 2127-0510.
(a) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has
contracted with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) to coordinate
the assignment of manufacturer identifiers. Manufacturer identifiers
will be supplied by SAE at no charge. All requests for assignments of
manufacturer identifiers should be forwarded directly to: Society of
Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Avenue, Warrendale, Pennsylvania
15096, Attention: WMI Coordinator. Any requests for identifiers
submitted to NHTSA will be forwarded to SAE. Manufacturers may request
a specific identifier or may request only assignment of an
identifier(s). SAE will review requests for specific identifiers to
determine that they do not conflict with an identifier already assigned
or block of identifiers already reserved. SAE will confirm the
assignments in writing to the requester. Once confirmed by SAE, the
identifier need not be resubmitted to NHTSA.
(b) Manufacturers of vehicles subject to this part shall submit,
either directly or through an agent, the unique identifier for each
make and type of vehicle it manufactures at least 60 days before
affixing the first VIN using the identifier. Manufacturers whose unique
identifier appears in the fourth section of the VIN shall also submit
the three characters of the first section that constitutes a part of
their identifier.
(c) Manufacturers of vehicles subject to the requirements of this
part shall submit to NHTSA the information necessary to decipher the
characters contained in its VINs. Amendments to this information shall
be submitted to the agency for VINs containing an amended coding. The
agency will not routinely provide written approvals of these
submissions, but will contact the manufacturer should any corrections
to these submissions be necessary.
(d) The information required under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section shall be submitted at least 60 days prior to offering for sale
the first vehicle identified by a VIN containing that information, or
if information concerning vehicle characteristics sufficient to specify
the VIN code is unavailable to the manufacturer by that date, then
within one week after that information first becomes available. The
information shall be addressed to: Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590, Attention: VIN Coordinator.
PART 567--[AMENDED]
4. The authority citation for part 567 would be revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166, 32502,
32504, 33101-33014,
[[Page 54663]]
and 33109; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
5. In part 567.4, paragraphs (k) introductory text and (l) would be
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 567.4 Requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles.
* * * * *
(k) In the case of passenger cars admitted to the United States
under 49 CFR part 592 to which the label required by this section has
not been affixed by the original producer or assembler of the passenger
car, a label meeting the requirements of this paragraph shall be
affixed by the importer before the vehicle is imported into the United
States, if the car is from a line listed in Appendix A of 49 CFR Part
541. This label shall be in addition to, and not in place of, the label
required by paragraphs (a) through (j), inclusive, of this section.
* * * * *
(l)(1) In the case of a passenger car imported into the United
States under 49 CFR 591.5(f) which does not have an identification
number that complies with 49 CFR 565.4 (b), (c), and (g) at the time of
importation, the Registered Importer shall permanently affix a label to
the vehicle in such a manner that, unless the label is riveted, it
cannot be removed without being destroyed or defaced. The label shall
be in addition to the label required by paragraph (a) of this section,
and shall be affixed to the vehicle in a location specified in
paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) The label shall contain the following statement, in the English
language, lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than 4 mm
high, with the location on the vehicle of the original manufacturer's
identification number provided in the blank: ORIGINAL MANUFACTURER'S
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER SUBSTITUTING FOR U.S. VIN IS LOCATED __________.
PART 571--[AMENDED]
6. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec. 571.115 [Removed]
7. Section 571.115 would be removed.
Issued on: October 17, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-26499 Filed 10-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26470 Review of the Environmental Marketing Guides; Date Change for the Public Workshop-Conference
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 54619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26470]
========================================================================
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. 206 / Wednesday, October 25, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 54619]]
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 260
Review of the Environmental Marketing Guides; Date Change for the
Public Workshop-Conference
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Date change for the Public Workshop-Conference held as a part
of the Environmental Marketing Guides review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission previously had announced plans to
conduct a Public Workshop-Conference on November 13 and 14, 1995 as
part of its review of the Environmental Marketing Guides, 16 CFR part
260. (60 FR 38978, July 31, 1995). Please note that the dates of the
Public Workshop-Conference have been changed.
DATES: December 7 and 8, 1995, from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The Public Workshop-Conference will be held in Room 432 of
the Federal Trade Commission, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kevin Bank, (202) 326-2675, Division of Advertising Practices, Bureau
of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Sixth Street and
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 260
Environmental marketing claims; Advertising.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41-58.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-26470 Filed 10-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26468 Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 8
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54663-54665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26468]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 658
[Docket No. 951013251-5251-01; I.D. 091295B]
RIN 0648-AH72
Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 8
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
[[Page 54664]]
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed rule to implement Amendment 8 to the
Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico
(FMP). Amendment 8 and this proposed rule would establish a revised FMP
framework rulemaking procedure for establishing or modifying certain
management measures applicable to the fishery for royal red shrimp in
the Gulf of Mexico exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The intended effect
of this measure is to allow more timely implementation of management
measures.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 4, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed rule must be sent to Michael E.
Justen, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702.
Requests for copies of Amendment 8, which includes a regulatory impact
review (RIR) and an environmental assessment (EA), should be sent to
the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 5401 West Kennedy
Boulevard, Suite 331, Tampa, FL 33609.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael E. Justen, 813-570-5305.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The shrimp fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is
managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council (Council) and is implemented through
regulations at 50 CFR part 658 under the authority of the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act).
Amendment 8 would replace the framework rulemaking procedure
adopted under Amendment 7 with a new procedure for establishing or
modifying the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), optimum yield (OY), and
total allowable catch (TAC) for royal red shrimp harvested from the EEZ
of the Gulf of Mexico. Under the proposed procedure, the Council's
shrimp stock assessment panel (SAP) would, at least biennially, assess
the condition of the royal red shrimp resource. The SAP would prepare a
report to the Council with recommendations for TAC and MSY for royal
red shrimp. The Council would hold at least one public hearing to
receive comments on the SAP's report. Prior to taking final action, the
Council would convene the Socioeconomic Panel, Scientific and
Statistical Committee, and may convene the Shrimp Advisory Panel to
provide advice. After considering the recommendations of these advisors
and information received at the public hearing, the Council would
determine any necessary changes to MSY, OY and TAC for royal red
shrimp.
If the Council concluded that changes to MSY, OY, or TAC are
needed, the Council would make recommendations, in writing, to the
Director, Southeast Region, NMFS (Regional Director). The Council's
recommendations, in the form of a regulatory amendment, would be
accompanied by the SAP's report, relevant background material, draft
regulations, an RIR, an EA, and a summary of information received at
the public hearing. The Council's recommendations would be submitted to
the Regional Director at least 60 days prior to the desired
implementation date. The Regional Director would review the Council's
recommendations, supporting material, and other relevant information.
If the Regional Director concluded preliminarily that the Council's
recommendations were consistent with the goals and objectives of the
FMP, the national standards of the Magnuson Act, other applicable law,
and the framework procedure, the Regional Director would recommend that
NMFS publish the changes as a proposed rule in the Federal Register. If
the Regional Director rejected the proposed measures, he or she would
provide written reasons to the Council for the rejection, and existing
regulations would remain in effect pending subsequent action. The
public comment period on any proposed rule would be not less than 15
days. After consideration of public comments, NMFS action on the
proposed changes would be published in the Federal Register.
Appropriate management measures that could be implemented or adjusted
by NMFS under this framework procedure would include MSY, OY, and TAC
for royal red shrimp.
This framework rulemaking procedure, which replaces that approved
for Amendment 7, would authorize the Council to recommend, and NMFS to
approve and implement, a TAC for royal red shrimp no higher than MSY
plus 30 percent for a test period of up to 2 consecutive years. During
this test period, NMFS would monitor the fishery, acquire catch,
effort, and other relevant data, and prepare a report on the status of
the fishery for the Council.
A test period of fishing in excess of the current MSY is needed to
determine the resiliency of the royal red shrimp stock to higher levels
of fishing and, thus, the appropriate MSY. While the MSY of royal red
shrimp is currently 392,000 lb (77,808 kg) of tails, the potential
productivity of the resource is not known because of a lack of fishing
effort. A moderate, temporary increase in TAC over MSY should provide
the data necessary for significantly improving the MSY estimate without
endangering the resource. At the end of the test period, the increased
TAC (equal to MSY plus 30 percent) would expire and the TAC would
revert to its current level while the Council completed its analysis of
information obtained during the test period. If the Council has
sufficient information from the test period, it may revise its estimate
of MSY; in that case, it would establish a new TAC based on the new MSY
and request that the Regional Director implement these revised measures
through the framework rulemaking procedure (involving publication of
proposed and final rules). If the Council determines that a two year
test period has not provided sufficient information for revising MSY
and TAC, it may recommend to the Regional Director that he set TAC no
higher than MSY plus 30 percent for another two year test period. Under
the Amendment 8 framework procedure, MSY and TAC may be revised upwards
or downwards based on information from the fishing test periods until
the Council and its advisory panels determine that the MSY and TAC are
set at the appropriate long-term levels.
Additional background and rationale for the proposed framework
rulemaking procedure discussed above are contained in Amendment 8, the
availability of which was announced in the Federal Register on
September 19, 1995, (60 FR 48497).
Classification
Section 304(a)(1)(D) of the Magnuson Act requires NMFS to publish
regulations proposed by a council within 15 days of receipt of an
amendment and regulations. At this time, NMFS has not determined that
Amendment 8 is consistent with the national standards, other provisions
of the Magnuson Act, and other applicable law. NMFS, in making that
determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments
received during the comment period.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of E.O. 12866.
The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the
Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted,
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities
[[Page 54665]]
because it merely establishes a framework procedure for implementing
future management measures. Determinations of economic impact on small
entities would be made for such management measures as are proposed
under the framework procedure. As a result, a regulatory flexibility
analysis was not prepared.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 658
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 20, 1995.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 658 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 658--SHRIMP FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO
1. The authority citation for part 658 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. A new Sec. 658.29 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 658.29 Adjustment of management measures.
In accordance with the procedures and limitations of the Fishery
Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, the
Regional Director may establish or modify the maximum sustainable
yield, optimum yield, and total allowable catch for royal red shrimp.
[FR Doc. 95-26468 Filed 10-20-95; 2:24 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26467 Land Disposal RestrictionsPhase IV: Issues Associated With Clean Water Act Treatment Equivalency, and Treatment Standards for Wood Preserving Wastes and Toxicity Characteristic Metal Wastes
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54645-54648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26467]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 268
[EPA530-Z-95-011; FRL-5314-5]
RIN 2050 AE05
Land Disposal Restrictions--Phase IV: Issues Associated With
Clean Water Act Treatment Equivalency, and Treatment Standards for Wood
Preserving Wastes and Toxicity Characteristic Metal Wastes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, the Agency).
ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 22, 1995, EPA published a proposed rule that
presented three approaches for addressing whether wastewater treatment
surface impoundments receiving decharacterized wastes provide treatment
that is equivalent to that provided under the land disposal
restrictions (LDR) program. The approaches focused on whether hazardous
constituents are treated to the same extent as would occur under the
LDR program. One of the options presented, option 2, included
flowcharts that should facilitate the public's understanding of the
approach. An error was found in the flowchart, and this error is
corrected in today's notice. The Agency is also pointing out
inconsistencies between the UTS Tables at 60 FR 43682 and 43696, which
are not in agreement with regard to the list of constituents proposed
for regulation in F032, F034, and F035 and the universal treatment
standards proposed for several of the constituents. Two errors were
also identified in the proposed treatment standards in the table at
43682. These will be corrected in today's notice.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed rule can be obtained from the RCRA
Docket (5305), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room 2616, 401 M
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The RCRA Docket is open from 9:00 am
to 4:00 pm Monday through Friday, except for federal holidays. The
public must make an appointment to review docket materials by calling
(202) 260-9327. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any
regulatory document at no cost. Additional copies cost $0.15 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact the
RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346 (toll free) or (703) 412-9810 in the
Washington, DC metropolitan area. For technical information about the
correction to the flowchart, contact Elaine Eby (5302W), Office of
Solid Waste, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, (703) 308-8449,
or Mary Cunningham at (703) 308-8453. For technical information on the
F032, F034, F035 treatment standards, contact Jose Labiosa at (703)
308-8464.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Reasons and Basis for Today's Notice
The Agency has noticed certain portions of the August 22, 1995
Proposed Rule are in error. Today's notice corrects those errors. The
Agency has not done a comprehensive proofreading of the proposed rule,
so it is possible there are other errors that are not addressed by this
correction notice. The Agency believes they would be inconsequential,
however, and would not affect commenters' ability to understand the
proposal. If questions arise that are not addressed by this correction
notice, call the RCRA Hotline or the appropriate contact listed in the
Phase IV proposed rule.
[[Page 54646]]
II. Corrections to the Phase IV Proposed Rule
A. Figure 2: Option 2 Flowchart
The Agency is today revising the flowchart titled ``Figure 2:
Option 2--Applicability Criteria and Management Standards for Air
Emissions.'' The previous flowchart for the Option 2 air emission
standards showed an oversimplification of the RCRA Subpart CC
provisions. In order to eliminate confusion, EPA has subsequently
revised the flowchart to show more clearly that this option would
extend, but would not change, the RCRA Subpart CC standards, and to
refer the reader directly to those standards. In addition, EPA is
clarifying that Subpart CC does not require implementation of air
emission controls for biological treatment surface impoundments which
are operated at the requisite efficiency.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 54647]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP25OC95.003
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 54648]]
B. Table, ``Proposed BDAT Standards for F032, F034, F035''
Where inconsistencies exist in UTS tables at 60 FR 43682 and 43696,
EPA is directing the reader to the proposed list of regulated
constituents and the proposed UTS limits in the table at 60 FR 43682 as
being correct. Comments on the UTS limits in the proposed rule should
refer to this particular table. The UTS table at 43696 is in error for
these wastes.
The following changes are also made to the table on page 43682:
For 2, 4-Dimethylphenol, the BDAT Standard for Wastewaters
is corrected to read, ``0.036 mg/l;''
For 2, 3, 4, 6-Tetrachlorophenol, the BDAT Standard for
Wastewater is corrected to read, ``0.030 mg/l.''
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268
Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 5, 1995.
Elizabeth A. Cotsworth,
Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.
[FR Doc. 95-26467 Filed 10-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26465 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Washington
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 54637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26465]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[WA5-1-5539b; FRL-5309-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Washington
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Washington for the purpose of
bringing about the attainment of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10). The
implementation plan was submitted by the State to satisfy certain
Federal requirements for an approvable moderate nonattainment area PM-
10 SIP for Tacoma, Washington. In the Final Rules Section of this
Federal Register, the EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a
direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this
as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to
this proposed rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation to
this rule. If the EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA does not
plan to institute a second comment period on this action.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by
November 24, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Montel Livingston,
SIP Manager, Environmental Protection Specialist (AT-082), Air and
Radiation Branch, at the EPA Regional Office listed below. Copies of
the documents relevant to this proposed rule are available for public
inspection during normal business hours at the following locations. The
interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an
appointment with the appropriate office at least 24 hours before the
visiting day.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Air and Radiation
Branch, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.
The State of Washington, 4450 Third Avenue S.E., Lacey, Washington
98504.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claire Hong, Air Programs Branch (AT-
082), EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-1813.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the Direct
Final action which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal
Register.
Dated: September 22, 1995.
Charles Findley,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-26465 Filed 10-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26460 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 54637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26460]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IA-18-1-6984b; FRL-5303-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the state of Iowa for the purpose of
establishing the requirements set forth in the EPA's General Conformity
rule. In the final rules section of the Federal Register, the EPA is
approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior
proposal, because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision
amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for
the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse
comments are received in response to this proposed rule, no further
activity is contemplated in relation to this rule. If the EPA receives
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn, and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting
on this document should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by
November 24, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Lisa V. Haugen, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa V. Haugen at (913) 551-7877.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct
final rule which is located in the rules section of the Federal
Register.
Dated: September 6, 1995.
William Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-26460 Filed 10-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26455 Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54636-54637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26455]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 14-12-7054b; FRL-5286-7]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
California State Implementation Plan Revision, Monterey Bay Unified Air
Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revision to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) which concerns the control of volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions from leather processing operations.
The intended effect of proposing approval of this rule is to
regulate emissions of VOCs in accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). In the Final Rules
Section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving the state's SIP
revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and
anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for this approval
is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this proposed rule, no further activity is
contemplated in relation to this rule. If EPA receives adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period
on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by
November 24, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to:
Daniel A. Meer, Rulemaking Section (A-5-3), Air and Toxics Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Copies of the rule revisions and EPA's evaluation report of each
rule are available for public inspection at EPA's Region 9 office
during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rule revisions
are also available for inspection at the following locations:
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, 24580 Silver
Cloud Court, Monterey, CA 93940.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel A. Meer, Rulemaking Section (A-
5-3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, Telephone:
(415) 744-1185.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document concerns Monterey Bay Unified
Air Pollution Control District's (MBUAPCD) Rule 430, Leather Processing
Operations submitted to EPA on July 13, 1994 by the California Air
Resources Board. For further information, please see the information
provided in the Direct Final action which is located in the Rules
Section of this Federal Register.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
[[Page 54637]]
Dated: August 18, 1995.
David P. Howekamp,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-26455 Filed 10-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26454 Grand Teton National Park and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway; Snowmobile and Snowplane Routes and Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54633-54636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26454]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 7
RIN 1024-AC34
Grand Teton National Park and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial
Parkway; Snowmobile and Snowplane Routes and Regulations
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) proposes to change the special
regulations relating to the use, and designated routes for snowmobiles
and snowplanes within Grand Teton National Park and John D.
Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway. The proposed rule change will more
clearly define the use of snowmobiles, snowplanes, and designated
routes. This rule change would allow for the closure of the Potholes--
Baseline Flats area to snowmobiles at the discretion of the
Superintendent and establish the special regulation allowing snowmobile
use on the Continental Divide Snowmobile Trail (CDST). The proposed
rule change will also establish a requirement for operators of
snowmobiles within Grand Teton National Park to have a valid State
driver's license or learner's permit.
DATES: Written comments will be accepted through December 26, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to: Jack Neckels,
Superintendent, Grand Teton National Park, P.O. Box 170, Moose, Wyoming
83012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colin W. Campbell, Chief Ranger, Grand
Teton National Park, Moose, Wyoming 83012, Telephone: 307-739-3472.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Winter Use Plan of 1990 authorized the Continental Divide
Snowmobile Trail (CDST) within the road prism from the east entrance of
Grand Teton National Park through John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Parkway to
the south entrance of Yellowstone National Park. In 1993, a joint task
force of the two national parks developed and approved a Visitor Use
Management Work Plan for implementing the Winter Use Plan. One major
action item, the CDST, required promulgation of a special regulation
prior to full implementation.
The proposed trail through Grand Teton National Park and the
Parkway would link the existing completed CDST in the State of Wyoming
with the snowmobile trail network in Yellowstone National Park.
Currently, the only incomplete portion of the CDST between State lands
and Yellowstone occurs within Grand Teton National Park. Snowmobile
users must transport their machines from the east boundary of Grand
Teton National Park to the south gate of Yellowstone National Park
through the John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway. By designating the
proposed trail, CDST users will have a continuous trail system for
travel through State land as well as a trail linking Grand Teton with
Yellowstone.
Furthermore the proposed CDST rule will likely affect snowmobile
use within the area known as the Potholes--Baseline Flats area. This
area is proposed wilderness and currently designated as an area open
for snowmobiling. With the successful completion and opening of the
CDST within Grand Teton National Park, the proposed rule will give the
Superintendent the discretion to close the Potholes--Baseline Flats
area to snowmobiling.
The proposed rule provides for a licensing requirement, in
accordance with State law, for operators to provide for safer operation
of snowmobiles within the Park.
This rule change will more clearly define the use of snowmobiles
within Grand Teton National Park, and make snowmobiling on the CDST
consistent with the practices of both State and Federal agencies,
Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service, whose lands are
contiguous with Grand Teton National Park.
Section-by-Section Analysis
36 CFR 7.22 Grand Teton National Park
In November of 1990, a Winter Use Plan was completed for
Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, and the John D.
Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway. The proposed changes to the
regulations implement components of the Plan that affect Grand Teton
National Park.
(g) Snowmobiles. (1) The wording was changed in this section to
differentiate snowmobiles from snowplanes, because the Winter Use Plan
eliminates snowplane use on designated routes open to snowmobiles, and
limits snowplane use to the frozen surface of Jackson Lake. Reference
to paragraph (g)(6) was deleted because no exception applies to that
paragraph.
(2)(i) The Spread Creek Road was deleted from the list of
designated routes open to snowmobiling. The Spread Creek Road is less
than 2 miles long, is adjacent to an area closed to all use in winter
to protect wintering wildlife, and does not connect to areas open to
snowmobiling on adjacent Forest Service lands. Other language in this
section was changed to open only the unplowed portion of the Teton Park
Road, and to give the Superintendent the discretion to close the
Potholes-Baseline Flats areas to snowmobiles. The Lizard Creek
Campground Road was deleted as a designated route, because it has been
largely unused, and it lacks adequate trailhead parking space.
Sufficient alternative access to Jackson Lake is provided at Signal
Mountain and Colter Bay.
(2)(ii) This paragraph was added to allow the use of snowmobiles
within Grand Teton National Park along the State proposed CDST. This
trail follows existing roads in Grand Teton National Park and is
consistent with NPS policy that states that snowmobiles are allowed
only on designated routes. Traffic lanes along this route will continue
to be plowed for cars and trucks, and snowmobiles will be permitted on
a groomed trail adjacent to the traffic lanes. Connections from the
trail to other snow roads (i.e., the unplowed portion of the Teton Park
Road) are also permitted in the Winter Use Plan. The trail and
connections to the trail will use the width of the existing roadway
(ditches, cut slopes, fill slopes and other areas disturbed by road
construction) immediately adjacent to the plowed vehicular traffic
lanes.
(2)(iii) This language was added to permit snowmobiles to cross the
highway only at designated points, in order to make connections to rest
stops, fuel, meals, lodging and other related visitor services; to
permit snowmobiles to use portions of highway bridges where it is
difficult or environmentally improper to use alternate routes; to
permit snowmobile travel within parking and staging areas; and to
connect to and/or travel within developed areas in a regulated manner.
(2)(iv) This language was added to permit private property owners
to access their properties. Use of oversnow vehicles will be restricted
to travel over unplowed roads, during winter months.
[[Page 54634]]
Access to private property had not been addressed in previous
regulations. Some roads that accessed private property were open to the
general public as well, and were designated on maps, but not included
in the existing regulation.
(2)(v) This language was added and retains the designated open area
known as the Potholes area. This is included to give the Superintendent
the discretion to open or close the Potholes area.
(2)(vi) This language was moved from (g)(4) of the current
regulation.
(3) 36 CFR 2.19 prohibits other winter activities such as skiing,
snowshoeing, ice skating, sledding, etc., on Park roads and parking
areas open to motor vehicle traffic. That prohibition does not extend
specifically to routes open to snowmobiling. In the interests of public
safety, those activities should be prohibited on the CDST, but do not
need to be prohibited on all routes open to snowmobile use. Therefore,
those activities are restricted only on the designated route described
in paragraph (g)(2)(ii), which is the CDST.
(4) This language was added to address parking areas and procedures
for snowplanes.
(5) More stringent noise level standards were established for newly
registered snowplanes. Permits issued for snowplanes registered for the
first time after the Winter Use Plan was approved (November 1990) will
require that snowplanes meet snowmobile noise standards, currently 78
decibels on the ``A'' weighted scale. Snowplanes registered prior to
the plan's approval must meet the noise standards established by
previous regulations. Noise standards for snowmobiles are defined in 36
CFR 2.18(d)(1).
(6) The Winter Use Plan calls for lowering the speed limits during
winter months along the highway adjacent to the CDST. The regulation of
both the speed limits of wheeled vehicles and snowmobiles will be
critical for the safe operation of the trail. This paragraph
establishes speed limits that are the same for snowmobiles as for
wheeled vehicles. Snowmobile speed limits greater than those for
wheeled vehicles during other seasons will not be permitted. No special
speed limits will be set for snowplanes or snowmobiles on Jackson Lake.
Changing surface features of the lake in the winter tend to establish
self-regulating limits on speed for safe travel.
(7) This regulation was added to increase the margin of safety for
snowmobile users. The CDST will have a groomed width of 10-12 feet,
with some short stretches only eight feet wide where roadside
constraints dictate a reduced width. Travel will be in both directions.
For safe travel, it is imperative that snowmobiles remain on the right
side of the roadway.
(8) This paragraph was added to give the Superintendent the
authority to closely regulate and manage snowmobile use so as to ensure
full protection of natural resources and to provide for the utmost in
visitor safety. For example, it may be necessary to close the CDST
during hours of darkness to provide the opportunity for safe snow
removal on adjacent traffic lanes and groom the trail. For the safety
of snowmobilers, it may be necessary to close the trail during periods
of low visibility created by blowing snow. For protection of the
resources, the trail must remain closed until sufficient snow cover is
in place to permit non-destructive use.
(9) This paragraph was added to give the superintendent greater
ability to assure competent operation of snowmobiles within the
Parkway. With the ever increasing complexity and performance levels of
modern snow machines, and with considerations for the safety of all
Park visitors, operators of snowmobiles will be required to have a
valid State driver's license or learner's permit as prescribed by the
conditions of the issuing State.
36 CFR 7.21 John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway
In November of 1990, a Winter Use Plan was completed for the John
D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway. The proposed changes to
regulations for the Parkway are to accommodate components of the Winter
Use Plan that affect the Parkway.
(a)(1) The definition of a snowplane was deleted. Under the Winter
Use Plan, snowplanes that were previously permitted, are now excluded
on designated routes in the Parkway. Snowmobiles are defined in
Sec. 1.4. The wording ``except as otherwise distinguished in paragraph
(a)(5)'' was deleted, as there was not a paragraph (a)(5) in the
existing regulation, and the wording does not apply to the new
paragraph (a)(5) now added.
(a)(1) Designated routes to be open to snowmobile use: (i) The road
that connects Flagg Ranch to Ashton, Idaho, has several names in common
usage, including the Flagg-Ashton Road, the Grassy Lake Road, and the
Reclamation Road. The name change in the regulations will coincide with
names currently in use on USGS maps, NPS signs, and with what is most
common usage. (ii) This language was added to permit snowmobiles to
cross the highway only at designated points, in order to make
connections to rest stops, fuel, meals, lodging and related visitor
services; to permit snowmobiles to use portions of highway bridges
where it is difficult or environmentally damaging to use alternate
routes; to permit snowmobile travel within developed areas in a
regulated manner.
(iii) This language was added to permit snowmobile use along the
CDST, a major component of the Winter Use Plan. That trail will follow
the route of US Highway 89-287 between the south boundary of the
Parkway and Flagg Ranch. The trail will use the width of the existing
roadway (ditches, cut slopes, fill slopes, and other areas disturbed by
road construction) and will be immediately adjacent to the northbound
plowed vehicle lane.
(2) 36 CFR 2.19 prohibits other winter activities such as skiing,
snowshoeing, ice skating, sledding, etc., on Park roads and parking
areas open to motor vehicle traffic. That prohibition does not extend
specifically to routes open to snowmobiles. In the interests of public
safety, those activities should be prohibited on the CDST, but they do
not need to be prohibited on all routes open to snowmobile use. Those
activities are only restricted in paragraph (a)(1)(iii), which is the
designated route for the CDST.
(3) The Winter Use Plan calls for the lowering of speed limits
during the winter months along the highway adjacent to the CDST. The
regulation of the speed limits for both wheeled vehicles and
snowmobiles will be critical to the safe use of the trail. Likewise,
lowered speed limits will be needed in areas shared by snowmobiles and
wheeled vehicles such as parking lots and staging areas. In general,
speed limits for snowmobiles will not be greater than is presently
posted for wheeled vehicles during other seasons. The original wording
of this paragraph, that prohibited the operation of a snowmobile that
makes excessive noise, was deleted, because that provision is redundant
to Sec. 2.18(d)(1).
(4) This regulation was added to increase the margin of safety for
snowmobile users. The CDST will have a groomed width of 10-12 feet,
with some short stretches only eight feet wide where roadside
constraints dictate a reduced width. Travel will be in both directions.
For safe travel, it is imperative that snowmobiles remain on the right
side of the route.
(5) This paragraph was added to give the Superintendent the
authority to manage snowmobile use so as to ensure full protection of
natural resources and to provide the utmost in visitor safety. For
example, it may be necessary to close the CDST during hours of
[[Page 54635]]
darkness to provide the opportunity for safe snow removal on adjacent
traffic lanes and to groom the trail. For the safety of snowmobilers,
it may be necessary to close the trail during periods of low visibility
created by blowing snow. For protection of the resources, the trail
must remain closed until sufficient snow cover is in place to permit
non-destructive use.
(6) This paragraph was added to give the Superintendent greater
ability to assure competent operation of snowmobiles within the
Parkway. With the ever increasing complexity and performance levels of
modern machines, and with considerations for the safety of all Park
visitors, operators of snowmobiles will be required to have a valid
State driver's license or learner's permit as prescribed by the
conditions of the issuing State.
Public Participation
The policy of the National Park Service is, whenever practicable,
to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rule making
process. Accordingly, interested persons may submit written comments
regarding this proposed rule to the address listed above. The Grand
Teton National Park staff will also be placing public notices in local
newspapers.
Drafting Information
The primary authors of this proposed rule are Colin W. Campbell,
Chief Ranger and Donald G. Coelho, former North District Ranger of
Grand Teton National Park.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rulemaking does not contain information collection
requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and
Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Compliance With Other Laws
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review
under Executive Order 12866. The Department of the Interior has
determined that this document will not have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The National Park Service has determined that this proposed
rulemaking will not have a significant effect on the quality of the
human environment, health and safety because it is not expected to:
(a) Increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature
and character of the area causing physical damage to it;
(b) Introduce non-compliance uses which might compromise the nature
and characteristics of the area, or cause physical damage to it;
(c) Conflict with adjacent ownerships or land uses; or
(d) Cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants.
Based upon this determination, the proposed rule is categorically
excluded from the procedural requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) by Departmental regulations in 516 DM 6, (49 FR
21438). As such, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an
Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7
National parks; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed to amend 36 CFR
Chapter I as follows:
PART 7--SPECIAL REGULATIONS, AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM
1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q), 462(k); Sec. 7.96 also
issued under D.C. Code 8-137 (1981) and D.C. Code 40-721 (1981).
2. Section 7.22(g) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 7.22 Grand Teton National Park.
* * * * *
(g) Snowmobiles. (1) Snowmobiles, as defined in Sec. 1.4, are
distinguished from ``snowplanes'', that are self-propelled vehicles
intended for over-the-snow travel, having a curb weight of not more
than 1000 pounds (450 kilograms), mounted on skis in contact with the
snow, and driven by a pusher-propeller.
(2) Designated routes to be open to snowmobile use:
(i) The unplowed portion of the Pacific Creek Road; the unplowed
portion of the Ditch Creek Road; the Lost Creek Ranch Road (for
administrative purposes only), those portions of the unplowed roads
connecting with the Shadow (Antelope) Mountain Forest Service Road at
Cunningham Cabin, Lost Creek Road and the Forest Service access road at
Schwering Studio; the unplowed portions of the Moose-Wilson Road; the
unplowed portions of the Teton Park Road north of Taggart trailhead
parking to Signal Mountain Lodge, the Jenny Lake Loop Road, the String
Lake Picnic Area Road, the Signal Mountain Summit Road, the Signal
Mountain Launch Ramp Road and the Spaulding Bay Road.
(ii) Within the right-of-way, immediately adjacent to the westbound
or northbound traffic lane, but not upon the plowed portion of Highway
26-89-287, between the east Park boundary and the north Park boundary,
except that at the junction of 89-287, commonly known as Jackson Lake
Junction, the route will cross to the west side of the southbound lane
of highway; continue along the west side for north or southbound
traffic; connecting with an old roadway surface at Willow Flats,
deviate from established right-of-way and be routed under Christian
Creek bridge; back to the right-of-way, immediately adjacent to the
westbound or northbound traffic lane; and within the right-of-way,
immediately adjacent to the southbound traffic lane, but not upon the
plowed portion of the Teton Park Road, between the junction with
Highway 89-287, and the unplowed portion of the Teton Park Road of
Signal Mountain.
(iii) Marked or posted highway crossings; on highway bridges where
no separate snowmobile bridge is in place; within designated vehicle
parking and snowmobile staging areas; and within or connecting to
developed areas where routes will be designated by appropriate snow
poles or signs.
(iv) Those unplowed roads that provide access to private property
within the exterior boundaries of the Park area, pursuant to the terms
and conditions of a permit issued only to owners of such private
property.
(v) Designated area open to snowmobile use: The Potholes--Baseline
Flats area east of the Teton Park Road north of Cottonwood Creek, north
of the Bar BC access road, east of Timbered Island as marked to the
Teton Park Road and bounded on the north by the RKO Road. Opening and
closing of the Potholes area is at the discretion of the
Superintendent, based in part on snow depth, snow conditions, weather,
and other routes open within the Park. At the discretion of the
Superintendent the Potholes area may be closed during any given year.
(vi) Designated water surface open to oversnow use: The frozen
surface of Jackson Lake is open to both snowmobile and snowplane use.
(3) Notwithstanding the definition of a vehicle as set forth in
Sec. 1.4 of this chapter, the provisions of Sec. 2.19 apply to
paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section.
(4) Parking for snowplanes will be designated by permit and
confined to certain areas. Parking snowplanes in non-designated areas
or without a permit is prohibited.
(5) The operation of a snowplane that makes excessive noise is
prohibited.
[[Page 54636]]
Excessive noise is defined as noise that exceeds 78 decibels.
Measurements are made on the ``A'' weighted scale by a sound level
meter, measured at a distance of not less than 50 feet when the
snowplane is being operated at full throttle. Except, that snowplanes
registered and operated in the Park for the 1970-1971 season need not
meet any noise level standards, and snowplanes registered and operated
in the Park prior to the 1991-1992 season may produce up to 86
decibels.
(6) The maximum speed limit for snowmobiles will be the same as is
posted for vehicles on the adjacent roadway, or as is posted for areas
shared by vehicles and snowmobiles, or as is posted for wheeled
vehicles during other seasons. Operating a snowmobile at a speed in
excess of the posted speed limit is prohibited.
(7) On designated routes open to snowmobile use, snowmobiles shall
travel on the right side of the route, except to overtake and pass.
Failure to drive on the right side of the route is prohibited.
(8) The Superintendent shall determine the opening and closing
hours and dates for use of designated snowmobile or snowplane routes
and areas, taking into consideration the location of wintering
wildlife, available snow cover, road and trail maintenance
requirements, and other factors that may relate to public safety and
resource protection.
(9) A valid State driver's license or learner's permit is required
to operate a snowmobile within Grand Teton National Park. Operating a
snowmobile without a valid State driver's license or learner's permit
is prohibited.
3. Section 7.21 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 7.21 John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway.
(a) Snowmobiles. (1) Designated routes to be open to snowmobile
use:
(i) The Grassy Lake Road between the west boundary of the Parkway
and the junction with Highway 89-287.
(ii) Marked and posted highway crossings; on highway bridges where
no separate snowmobile bridge is in place; within designated vehicle
parking and snowmobile staging areas; and within or connecting to
developed areas, where routes will be designated by appropriate snow
poles or signs.
(iii) Within the right-of-way, immediately adjacent to the
northbound traffic lane, but not upon the plowed portion of Highway 89-
287, between the south boundary of the Parkway and Flagg Ranch.
(2) Notwithstanding the definition of a vehicle as set forth in
Sec. 1.4 of this chapter, the provisions of Sec. 2.19 apply to
paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section.
(3) The maximum speed limit for snowmobiles will be the same as is
posted for vehicles on the adjacent roadway, or as is posted for areas
shared by vehicles and snowmobiles, or as is posted for wheeled
vehicles during other seasons. Operating a snowmobile at a speed in
excess of the posted speed limit is prohibited.
(4) On designated routes open to snowmobile use, snowmobiles shall
travel on the right side of the route, except to overtake and pass.
Failure to drive on the right side of the route is prohibited.
(5) The Superintendent shall determine the opening and closing
hours and dates for use of designated snowmobile routes, taking into
consideration the location of wintering wildlife, available snow cover,
road and trail maintenance requirements, and other factors that may
relate to public safety and resource protection.
(6) A valid State driver's license or learner's permit is required
to operate a snowmobile within the John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial
Parkway. Operating a snowmobile without a valid State driver's license
or learner's permit is prohibited.
(b) [Reserved].
Dated: September 19, 1995.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 95-26454 Filed 10-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26427 Revision to NASA FAR Supplement Coverage on Government Property
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54651-54657]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26427]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 1845 and 1852
Revision to NASA FAR Supplement Coverage on Government Property
agency: Office of Procurement, Contract Management Division, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
action: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
summary: This rule proposes to amend the regulations pertaining to
government property reporting by contractors, due to revisions of the
reporting form, to clarify and simplify the reporting requirements and
instructions, and make necessary changes to affected provisions and
clauses. NASA has made extensive changes to its process of financial
reporting of Government-Owned/Contractor-Held property. These changes
were made necessary by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990,
streamlining required by the National Performance Review, the need for
more uniformity in reporting requirements between NASA and the
Department of Defense (DOD), and changing internal management needs for
information within NASA.
[[Page 54652]]
dates: Comments must be received on or before December 26, 1995.
addresses: Submit comments to Larry G. Pendleton, Contract Management
Division (Code HK), Office of Procurement, NASA Headquarters,
Washington, DC 20546. Comments on the paperwork burden should also be
addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB,
Attention: Desk Officer for NASA, Washington, DC 20503.
for further information contact: Mr. Larry G. Pendleton, (202) 358-
0487.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act requires, among other
things, that Federal agencies produce audited annual financial
statements. At NASA, CFO Act audits have been performed by the Office
of the Inspector General. Experience over the last three years with
this process has led to changes in the reporting period and due date
for receipt of contractor and grantee property reports, and
identification of other necessary or desirable changes to property
reporting. Other broad policy changes are being considered elsewhere,
such as the work being done by the Federal Accounting Standards
Advisory Board on accounting for Property, Plant and Equipment, and the
rewrite of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 45 by a team led
by the DOD. To the extent possible, these efforts have been considered
in formulating changes to NASA regulations. Of primary concern has been
the need to obtain timely, accurate financial information on NASA
property in the custody of contractors in a way that minimizes impact
on reporting entities.
Changes Highlights
Revisions to NASA Form (NF) 1018 and related regulations
incorporate the following:
A. The Annual List of Selected Items of Space Hardware has been
eliminated. The term ``space hardware'' is replaced by ``agency-
peculiar property'' (APP) to be consistent with the Federal Acquisition
Regulation, and contractors will report all property in their
possession meeting the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) definition of APP.
B. Schedule II, Space Hardware Reportable Items, of the current NF
1018 has been eliminated as unnecessary. The NF 1018 will be a single
page, with instructions on the back, rather than the present three-page
form, and instructions.
C. The NF 1018 title and format have been changed to make them more
consistent with the DD Form 1662. Use of the DD Form 1662 only was
considered, but NASA information requirements precluded this option.
D. The requirement for a breakout of contractor-acquired property
by funding classification has been eliminated.
E. A requirement to report quantities by property category has been
added to provide necessary management information.
F. A requirement to breakout plant equipment by items over and
under $5,000 has been added. Accounting information is required for
items over $5,000 as this is the NASA capitalization threshold,
consistent with General Accounting Office standards. Property
management information is needed, however, for all plant equipment.
G. A category for ``Construction in Progress'' has been added to be
consistent with the Government-wide Standard General Ledger and NASA
financial statements.
H. The term ``disposals'' has been changed to ``deletions'' to be
consistent with the DD Form 1662. Specific categories have been
provided on the NF 1018 to make it simpler for contractors to classify
the type of deletion, and for property management purposes.
I. The lower section of the form has been revised to provide better
information on contact persons and on contractor property system
reviews.
J. Reporting instructions on the NF 1018 have been revised to
eliminate duplication with regulatory language in the NFS.
K. Regulations have been changed to eliminate the optional use of
monthly or quarterly reporting in accordance with the Presidents
Memorandum of April 21, 1995, on regulatory reform and reduction of
reports.
L. Contract clauses have been changed to:
(1) Make clear that NF 1018 submissions must be received by the
cognizant NASA offices not later than October 31 of each reporting
year; and
(2) Provide for withholding of payment on invoices when required NF
1018 reports are not received.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
NASA certifies that these regulation changes will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule proposes to change the following report that was approved
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB Control
Number 2700-0017. A copy of the proposed rule has been submitted to OMB
for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Title: Report of Government-Owned/Contractor-Held Property.
Summary: This report collects information on Government-owned/
contractor-held property accountable under NASA contracts.
Description of the need for the information and proposed use of the
information: NASA is required to account for Government-owned/
contractor-held property. The NASA Form 1018 submitted by contractors
provides data necessary to ensure that the Agency's assets are
accurately reflected on its audited financial statements, as well as
essential property management information.
Description of the likely respondents, including the estimated
number of likely respondents, and proposed frequency of response to the
collection of information: NASA contractors whose contracts contain the
clause entitled ``Financial Report of NASA Property in the Custody of
Contractors'' will be required to submit NASA Form 1018 annually. The
number of respondents is estimated to be 1,900.
Estimate of the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden
that will result from the collection of information: FAR part 45
requires that contractors maintain the official Government property
records for Government property in their possession. The NASA Form 1018
provides a means for an annual collection of summary data derived from
these records. The annual recordkeeping and reporting burden related to
preparation and submission of NASA Form 1018 is estimated to be 5,700
hours.
Notice: Comments may be submitted to the OMB address shown under
ADDRESSES.
Time period within which the agency is requesting OMB to approve or
disapprove the collection of information: NASA is requesting that OMB
approve the proposed revisions to the collection of information within
the next 60 days.
In addition, comments may be submitted to NASA and OMB in order to
help NASA--
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
[[Page 54653]]
(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniquest
or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1845 and 1852
Government procurement.
Tom Luedtke,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Procurement.
Accordingly, 48 CFR Parts 1845 and 1852 are proposed to be amended
as follows.
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 1845 and 1852 continues
to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).
PART 1845--GOVERNMENT PROPERTY
Subpart 1845.1--General
1. In section 1845.102-70, paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as
follows:
1845.102-70 Procedures.
(a) * * *
(3) Requirement that additional facilities that the offeror
requests to be provided by the Government be described and identified
by classification such as ``Land,'' ``Buildings,'' and ``Equipment''
(see subpart 1845.71); and
* * * * *
2. In section 1845.106-70, paragraph (d) is revised, paragraph (i)
is removed and paragraphs (j) and (k) are redesignated as (i) and (j)
to read as follows:
1845.106-70 NASA contract clauses and solicitation provision.
* * * * *
(d) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.245-73,
Financial Reporting of NASA Property in the Custody of Contractors, in
all cost reimbursement contracts or in all other types of contracts
when it is known at the time of award that property will be provided to
the contractor or that the contractor will acquire property, title to
which vests in the Government prior to delivery of the contract
products. Where all property to be provided is subject to the clause at
1852.245-71, Installation-Provided Government Property (see paragraph
(b) of this section), the clause at 1852.245-73 is not required. Where
the clause is not included in contracts at the time of award, if
Government property is subsequently provided to a contractor, or the
contractor is authorized to acquire property to which the Government
takes title, the clause shall be included in the contract at that time.
* * * * *
1845.301 [Amended]
3. In section 1845.301, the definition heading ``Space property''
is revised to read ``Agency-peculiar property''.
Subpart 1845.5--Management of Government Property in the Possession
of Contractors
4. Section 1845.501 is amended as follows:
(a) The definition heading ``Space property'' is revised to read
``Agency-peculiar property'', the word ``peculiar'' is revised to read
``unique'', and the last sentence is removed.
(b) In the definition ``Centrally reportable equipment (CRE)'', the
phrase ``space property'' is revised to read ``agency-peculiar
property.''
5. In section 1845.502-1, the title of the NASA Form 1018 ``Report
of Government-Owned/Contractor-Held Property'' is revised to read
``NASA Property in the Custody of Contractors''.
6. Section 1845.505-14 is revised to read as follows:
1845.505-14 Reports of Government property.
When required by the contract, the contractor shall submit a report
of NASA Property in the Custody of Contractors, NASA Form 1018, in
accordance with the instructions on the form, subpart 1845.71, and the
contract clause at 1852.245-73. The contractors property control system
shall distinguish Government furnished and contractor acquired property
for purposes of reporting the acquisition cost in the property
classifications shown in FAR 45.505-14(a) (1) through (5).
Subpart 1845.71--Forms Preparation
7. In Sec. 1845.7101 the last sentence is revised to read as
follows:
1845.7101 Instructions for preparing NASA Form 1018.
* * * This report provides information for NASA financial
statements and property management; accuracy and timeliness of the
report are, therefore, very important. Contractors shall retain
documents which support the data reported on NASA Form 1018 in
accordance with FAR subpart 4.7, Contractor Records Retention.
Classifications of property, related costs to be reported, and
reporting requirements are set forth in this subpart.
8. Section 1845.7101-1 is revised to read as follows:
1845.7101-1 Property classification.
(a) Contractors shall report costs in the classifications required
on NASA Form (NF) 1018, as described in this section. For Land,
Buildings, Other Structures and Facilities, and Leasehold Improvements,
contractors shall report the amount for all items with a unit cost of
$5,000 or more and a useful life of 2 years or more. For Plant
Equipment, Special Tooling, Special Test Equipment and Agency-Peculiar
Property, contractors shall separately report--
(1) The amount for all items with a unit cost of $5,000 of more and
useful life of 2 years or more and
(2) All items under $5,000, regardless of useful life.
(b) Contractors shall report the amount for all Materials,
regardless of unit cost.
(c) Land. Includes costs of land and associated costs incidental to
acquiring and preparing land for use, for example; appraisal fees,
clearing costs, drainage, grading, landscaping, plats and surveys,
removal and relocation of the property of others as part of a land
purchase, removal or destruction of structures or facilities purchased
but not used, and legal expenses.
(d) Buildings. Includes costs of buildings, improvements to
buildings, and fixed equipment required for the operation of a building
which is permanently attached to and a part of the building and cannot
be removed without cutting into the walls, ceilings, or floors.
Examples of fixed equipment required for the functioning of a building
include plumbing, heating and lighting equipment, elevators, central
air conditioning systems, and built-in safes and vaults.
(e) Other structures and facilities. Includes costs of acquisitions
and improvements of structures and facilities other than buildings; for
example, airfield pavements, harbor and port facilities, power
production facilities and distribution systems, reclamation and
irrigation facilities, flood control and navigation aids, utility
systems (heating, sewage, water and
[[Page 54654]]
electrical) when they serve several buildings or structures,
communication systems, traffic aids, roads and bridges, railroads,
monuments and memorials, and nonstructural improvements, such as
sidewalks, parking areas, and fences.
(f) Leasehold improvements. Includes costs of improvements to
leased buildings, structures, and facilities, as well as easements and
right-of-way, where NASA is the lessee or the cost is charged to a NASA
contract.
(g) Equipment. Includes costs of commercially available personal
property for use in manufacturing supplies, performing services, or any
general or administrative purpose; for example, machine tools,
furniture, vehicles, computers, accessory or auxiliary items, and test
equipment.
(h) Construction in progress. Includes costs for work in process
for the construction of Buildings, Other Structures and Facilities,
Leasehold Improvements, and Equipment to which NASA has title.
(i) Special tooling. Includes costs of equipment and manufacturing
aids (and components and replacements of these items) that are of such
a specialized nature that, without substantial modification or
alteration, their use is limited to the development or production of
particular supplies or parts, or to the performance of particular
services. Examples include jigs, dies, fixtures, molds, patterns, taps
and gauges.
(j) Special test equipment. Includes costs of equipment used to
accomplish special purpose testing in performing a contract, and items
or assemblies of equipment.
(k) Material. Includes costs of NASA owned property held in
inventory that may become a part of an end item or be expended in
performing a contract. Examples include raw and processed material,
parts, assemblies, small tools and supplies. Do not include material
that is part of work in process.
(l) Agency-peculiar property. Includes actual or estimated costs of
completed items, systems and subsystems, spare parts and components and
work in process unique to NASA aeronautical and space programs.
Examples include aircraft, engines, satellites, instruments, rockets,
prototypes and mock-ups. The amount of property, title to which vests
in the Government as a result of progress payments to fixed price
subcontractors, shall be included to reflect the pro rata cost of
undelivered agency-peculiar property.
9. Section 1845.7101-2 is revised to read as follows:
1845.7101-2 Transfers of property.
The procedures in this section apply to all types of transfers.
Only Government installations may furnish Government property to a
contractor. Therefore, procurement, property, and financial
organizations at NASA installations must effect all transfers of
accountability, although physical shipment and receipt of property may
be made directly by contractors. Such transfers include shipments
between contractors of the same installation, contractors of different
installations, a contractor of one installation to another
installation, an installation to a contractor of another installation,
and a contractor to another Government agency to its contractor. So
that NASA may properly control and account for transfers, they shall be
adequately documented. The procedures described in this section shall
be followed in all cases, to provide an administrative and audit trail,
even if property is physically shipped directly from one contractor to
another. Contractors shipping property to NASA, another contractor, or
another Government agency shall continue to be accountable for NASA
Form (NF) 1018 reporting of that property, regardless of the method of
shipment, until evidence of receipt is in the possession of the
shipping entity. Property provided under fixed price repair contracts
remains accountable to the cognizant NASA installation and is not
reportable on NF 1018; property provided for repair under a cost-
reimbursable contract, however, is accountable to the contractor and
reportable on NF 1018.
(a) Approval and notification. The contractor must obtain the
approval of the contracting officer or designee for transfers of
property before shipment. Each shipping document must contain contract
numbers, shipping references, property classifications in which the
items are recorded, unit prices, and any other appropriate identifying
or descriptive data. Unit prices shall be obtained from records
maintained pursuant to FAR part 45 and part 1845 of this chapter.
Shipping contracting shall furnish a copy of the shipping document to
the cognizant property administrator. Shipping and receiving
contractors shall promptly notify the financial management office of
the NASA installation responsible for their respective contracts when
accountability for Government property is transferred to, or received
from, other contracts, contractors, NASA installations or Government
agencies. Copies of shipping or receiving documents will suffice as
notification in most instances.
(b) Reclassification. If the property is transferred to another
contract or contractor, the receiving contractor shall record the
property in the same property classification and amount appearing on
the shipping document. For example, when a contractor receives an item
from another contractor that is identified on the shipping document as
equipment, but that the recipient intends to incorporate into special
test equipment, the recipient shall first record the item in the
equipment account and subsequently reclassify it as special test
equipment. Reclassification of equipment, special tooling, special test
equipment, or agency-peculiar property requires prior notification to
the property administrator and approval of the contracting officer.
(c) Incomplete documentation. If contractors receive transfer
documents having sufficient detail to properly record the transfer
(e.g., omission of property classification, unit prices, etc.) they
shall request the omitted data directly from the shipping contractor or
through the property administrator as provided as in FAR 45.505-2.
Contractors may append a Government furnished property list to the NF
1018 report when unable to obtain the required data, provided that the
list includes--
(1) A description of the property;
(2) Quantity;
(3) Shipping document reference;
(4) Shippers identity;
(5) Dates shipped or received
(6) The dates data were requested and from whom (shipper or
property administrator); and
(7) The NF 1018 line item (classification) to be adjusted.
10. Sections 1845.7101-3, 1845.7101-4, and 1845.7101-5 are removed,
and section 1845.7101-6 is redesignated as section 1845.7101-3 and is
revised to read as follows:
1845.7101-3 Computing costs of fabricated special tooling, special
test equipment, and Agency-peculiar property.
(a) Costs shall be computed in accordance with accepted accounting
principles, be reasonably accurate, and be the product of any one or a
combination of, the following:
(1) Abstracts of cost data from contractor property or financial
records.
(2) Computations based on engineering and financial data.
(3) Estimates based on NASA Form 533 reports.
(4) Formula procedures (e.g., using a 50 percent factor for work in
process items, on the basis of updated Standard Form 1411 estimates or
the contractors approved estimating and pricing system).
[[Page 54655]]
(5) Other approved methods.
(b) Contractors shall report costs using records that are part of
the prescribed property or financial control system as provided in this
section, excluding fee. Fabrication costs shall be based on the
contractors approved estimating and pricing system and should include--
(1) Direct labor;
(2) Direct materials and purchased parts (costs of purchased items
shall be consistent with the contractors approved pricing methods);
(3) Other direct costs (e.g., computer costs, travel, and
transportation);
(4) Burden (a percentage factor or rate applied to the direct costs
or other applicable base); and
(5) Costs of Government furnished property applied (data available
from the Government shipping document or estimated, if necessary).
(c) The contractor shall redetermine the costs of items returned
for modification or rehabilitation to include the remaining portion of
original cost plus the cost of any improvements.
(d) The computation of work in process shall include the costs of
associated systems, subsystems, and spare parts and components
furnished or acquired and charged to work in process pending
incorporation into a finished item. These types of items make up what
is sometimes called production inventory and include programmed extra
units to cover replacement during the fabrication process (production
spares). Also included are deliverable items on which the contractor or
a subcontractor has begun work, and materials that have been issued
from inventory.
11. Sections 1845.7101-7, 1845.7101-8, and 1845.7101-9 are removed,
and section 1845.7101-10 is redesignated as section 1845.7101-4.
PART 1852--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
1852.245-73 [Amended]
12. In section 1852.245-73, the title, date, and paragraphs (a),
(c) and (d) to the clause are revised and the introductory text,
paragraph (e) and Alternates I and II to the clause are removed to read
as follows:
1852.245-73 Financial reporting of NASA property in the custody of
contractors.
As prescribed in 1845.106-70(d), insert the following clause:
FINANCIAL REPORTING OF NASA PROPERTY IN THE CUSTODY OF CONTRACTORS (XXX
199X)
(a) The Contractor shall submit annually a NASA Form (NF) 1018,
NASA Property in the Custody of Contractors, in accordance with
1845.505-14, the instructions on the form, and subpart 1845.71.
Subcontractor use of NF 1018 is not required by this clause;
however, the contractor shall include data on property in the
possession of subcontractors in the annual NF 1018.
* * * * *
(c) The annual reporting period shall be from October 1 of each
year to September 30 of the following year. The report shall be
submitted in time to be received by October 31. Failure to submit
the report when due may result in withholding of payment on invoices
for the month in which reports are to be submitted, based on
noncompliance with contract requirements.
(d) A final report is required within 30 days after disposition
of all property subject to reporting when the contract performance
period is complete.
(End of clause)
1852.245-78 [Removed]
13. Section 1852.245-78 is removed.
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
[[Page 54656]]
Appendix To The Proposed Rule NASA Form 1018--NASA Property In The
Custody Of Contractors
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP25OC95.004
[[Page 54657]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP25OC95.005
[FR Doc. 95-26427 Filed 10-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-C
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26416 Reportable Events
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 54619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26416]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION
29 CFR Part 2615
RIN 1212-AA77
Reportable Events
AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
ACTION: Notice of meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces the place and times of the meetings of
the Reportable Events Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
DATES: The Committee will meet at 10:00 a.m. on the following dates:
November 9, 1995 (Thursday)
December 13, 1995 (Wednesday)
January 10, 1996 (Wednesday)
February 14, 1996 (Wednesday)
March 13, 1996 (Wednesday)
ADDRESSES: Meetings will be held at the PBGC's offices at 1200 K
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005-4026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold J. Ashner, Assistant General
Counsel, or James L. Beller, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel,
PBGC, 1200 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005-4026, 202-326-4024
(202-326-4179 for TTY and TDD).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 5, 1995, the PBGC announced the
establishment of the Reportable Events Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory
Committee (60 FR 52135). The Committee will develop proposed amendments
to the PBGC's regulations governing reportable events, i.e., events
that may be indicative of a need to terminate a pension plan. The first
meeting of the Committee was held on October 11, 1995. At that meeting,
the Committee established the schedule for future meetings as described
above. The agenda for the first meeting includes reports from working
groups and identification of issues to be considered by the Committee.
At the end of each meeting, the Committee will set the agenda for the
next meeting. The meetings will be open to the public.
Issued in Washington, D.C., this 19th day of October, 1995.
Martin Slate,
Executive Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
[FR Doc. 95-26416 Filed 10-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7708-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26412 Mortgage Broker Fee Disclosure Rule: Intent to Establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee and Notice of First Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54794-54797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26412]
[[Page 54793]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Housing and Urban Development
_______________________________________________________________________
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing
Commissioner
_______________________________________________________________________
24 CFR Part 3500
Mortgage Broker Fee Disclosure Rule: Intent to Establish a Negotiated
Rulemaking Advisory Committee and Notice of First Meeting; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 25, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 54794]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing
Commissioner
24 CFR Part 3500
[Docket No. FR-3780-N-02]
RIN 2502-AG40
Mortgage Broker Fee Disclosure Rule: Intent to Establish a
Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee and Notice of First Meeting
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing
Commissioner, HUD.
ACTION: Intent to establish committee and notice of first meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department is considering the establishment of a
Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA). The first objective of the Committee would be to
determine whether or not the amount and nature of indirect payments to
mortgage brokers and certain other mortgage originators (retail
lenders) should be disclosed to consumers. Second, the Committee will
seek to resolve whether the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(RESPA) permits volume-based compensation from wholesale lenders,
entities that purchase mortgage loans, to mortgage brokers and, if such
compensation is found permissible, whether and how the compensation
should be disclosed. The Committee would consist of representatives
with a definable interest in the outcome of a proposed rule. HUD has
prepared a charter and has initiated the requisite consultation process
pursuant to the FACA, Executive Order 12838, and the implementing
regulations. If the charter is approved and a final determination is
made to form the Committee, the first meeting will take place in late
1995 or early 1996, after the close of the comment period, in
Washington, D.C.; the exact date of the meeting will be announced when
it has been finalized.
The Department also recently published a proposed rule on this same
subject (60 FR 47650, September 13, 1995). Public comments received on
that proposed rule will be given to the members of the committee for
their consideration as they are negotiating a new proposed rule.
DATES: Comments must be received by November 24, 1995. The exact date
of the first meeting in late 1995 or early 1996, in Washington, D.C.,
will be announced in a subsequent Federal Register document. Interested
persons may also contact David Williamson, at the telephone number
listed under For Further Information Contact, for this information.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding
the proposed Committee and membership to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office
of General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410-0500.
Comments or any other communications submitted should consist of an
original and four copies and refer to the above docket number and
title. Facsimile (FAX) comments are not acceptable. The docket will be
available for public inspection and copying between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30
p.m. weekdays at the above address.
The location for the first meeting in late 1995 or early 1996 will
be: the Office of Administrative Law Judges, Washington Office Center,
409 3rd Street SW., Suite 320, Washington, D.C. 20024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David R. Williamson, Director, RESPA
Enforcement Unit, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room
5241, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-0500; telephone
(202) 708-4560, or on e-mail through Internet at [email protected].
The TDD number for persons who are hearing- or speech-impaired is (202)
708-4594 (TDD). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Issue 1: Mortgage Broker Fee Disclosure
Since the enactment of the RESPA (12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) in 1974,
the mortgage lending industry has experienced a rapid evolution due, in
part, to major technological advances, innovative business entities,
and new types of business relationships that serve consumers in single
lending transactions. Much of the change that has occurred is
attributable to the impressive growth of the secondary mortgage market.
By the early 1980s, secondary market entities, such as the Federal
National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), not only bought major amounts of
mortgage loans, but repackaged many of these loans and sold them as
mortgage-backed securities, allowing them to purchase even greater
numbers of lenders' mortgage loans.
A further industry development since the passage of RESPA is that
many loans are purchased by, or servicing is transferred to, a
wholesale lender at, or shortly after, closing, with the retail lender
serving as the intermediary between the consumer and the purchasing
entity. When a retail lender serves as an intermediary, it may perform
services in processing the loan for which it is compensated. Such
compensation may be ``direct'', where the fees are paid directly by the
consumer, or ``indirect'', where fees are paid by the wholesale lender
to the retail lender. The issue arises over whether under RESPA, the
amount and the nature of indirect compensation must be disclosed to the
consumer, and if so, in what form.
The Congress enacted RESPA in order to avoid unnecessarily high
prices and to ensure that consumers were afforded timely and effective
information as to the nature and costs of real estate settlement
service transactions. To this end, Section 4 of RESPA (12 U.S.C. 2603)
requires the Secretary to create a uniform settlement statement that
``shall conspicuously and clearly itemize all charges imposed on the
borrower * * * and the seller in connection with the settlement''
(Section 4(a)). Section 5(c) of RESPA further requires the provision of
a ``good faith estimate of the amount or range of charges for specific
settlement services the borrower is likely to incur in connection with
the settlement * * *.'' 12 U.S.C. 2604(c).
Under HUD's current rules, the disclosure of all fees paid to
retail lenders, including all compensation from wholesale lenders, is
required where the retail lender is being compensated as part of the
settlement transaction. 24 CFR 3500.5(b)(7); Appendix B, Fact
Situations 5 and 11. This same disclosure requirement has not been
applied to subsequent purchases of loans by wholesale lenders on the
theory that Congress only intended to cover costs related to the
initial settlement transactions.
The Department's current regulations, therefore, treat compensation
to the retail lender under three settlement situations somewhat
differently, depending upon how the loans are funded at settlement.
First, there must be a disclosure of any fees paid by consumers where
the retail lender processes the loan from start to finish, funds the
loan, and closes the loan in its own name. Subsequent sales of the loan
to a wholesale lender, however, would require no further disclosures.
Second, where loan funds are provided by the
[[Page 54795]]
wholesale lender and the loan is closed in the wholesale lender's name,
current RESPA regulations require that indirect, as well as direct,
payments to the retail lender and the wholesale lender be disclosed.
Under the third method of origination, a loan is processed by, and
closed in the name of, the retail lender with a simultaneous advance of
loan funds to the retail lender by the wholesale lender, and an
assignment of the loan and servicing rights to that wholesale lender
(``table-funding''). The Department has determined that all
compensation received by a mortgage broker in such a table-funded
transaction is subject to disclosure.
The Department's current rules treat mortgage brokers in table-
funded transactions as settlement service providers ancillary to the
loan, akin to title agents, attorneys, appraisers, etc., whose fees are
subject to disclosure. This interpretation does not view a mortgage
broker as the functional equivalent of a mortgage lender. The salient
criterion for this conclusion is the source of funds--unlike a mortgage
lender, the mortgage broker in a table-funded transaction does not
close the loan with its own funds. Conversely, a mortgage broker using
its own funds, or with a ``warehouse'' line of credit for which it is
liable, is not viewed as a mortgage broker but rather as a mortgage
lender under the extant HUD interpretation.
HUD's interpretation has given rise to some controversy. Opponents
contend that the Department's reading of RESPA's disclosure
requirements to include indirect charges and payments that the borrower
funds is too expansive. First, they argue that indirect compensation
need not be separately enumerated since it is already reflected in
direct charges. They further assert that all the consumer needs to know
is enough to compare the ultimate cost to the consumer of competing
products. Second, critics argue that such loans are akin to, and should
thus be treated as, secondary market transactions. Mortgage brokers
further complain that an unlevel playing field is created since
mortgage bankers do not bear the burden of disclosing the terms of a
subsequent sale of the loan. They argue that the competitive
disadvantage is amplified by the fact that the Department makes
mortgage brokers subject to the requirements of Section 8 of RESPA,
adding a level of scrutiny that does not apply to transactions of other
originators who sell their loans to wholesale lenders following
settlement. They also assert that HUD's interpretation, insofar as it
places retail lenders at a competitive disadvantage, deters the
expansion of access to mortgage credit for ``non-traditional''
borrowers.
Issue 2: Volume-Based Compensation
Volume-based compensation is a payment of money or any other thing
of value, as defined by the RESPA regulation, Sec. 3500.14(d), that a
wholesale lender provides to a retail lender, based on a number or
dollar value of loans that the retail lender sells to the wholesale
lender in a fixed period of time. Volume compensation also encompasses
volume discounts, wherein a retail lender, who is to provide a stated
volume of loans, is given a lower ``start-rate'' than the wholesale
lender's advertised rate, and the retail lender keeps a differential
between the start rate and the advertised rate as part of its
compensation at settlement.
HUD has never enunciated a formal policy on whether volume-based
compensations are permissible under RESPA. Critics of volume-based
compensation argue that permitting such payments may lead to loan-
steering. Arguably, the consumer's interest (in seeing a range of loan
options) may be subordinated to the interest of the retail lender in
receiving greater compensation from a particular wholesale lender.
Moreover, additional compensation for loans closed above a threshold
number, where no added services are provided, could, standing alone,
violate Section 8 of RESPA.
Other critics argue that, if the retail lender originates in its
own name, the consumer is generally unaware that the retail lender has
wholesale options available and may not even be consciously aware of
the retail lender's intention to sell the mortgage. It is also
conceivable that the retail lender may influence the consumer not to
select a favorable loan package so that the retail lender can increase
its volume of business with a lender which offers volume compensation.
Consumers may, however, benefit from volume-based compensation. A
retail lender will strive to obtain the higher price available from
volume compensation. To obtain the needed volume of business, the
retail lender may pass along part of the higher price to the consumer
in terms of lower points or other cost savings. Retail lenders required
to make disclosure could also argue that HUD has created an ``uneven
playing field'' between mortgage bankers and other retail lenders,
inasmuch as the issue of volume-based compensation is not relevant for
mortgage banker transactions.
In addition to volume-based compensation, retail lenders also
receive compensation from wholesale lenders under a variety of names,
the most common of which are ``servicing release premiums'', ``yield
spread premiums'', ``yield spread differentials'' or ``overage''. These
terms generally refer to any compensation paid to or retained by a
retail lender based upon the difference in the interest rate provided
in the sold loan and some other benchmark interest rate. It compensates
the retail lender for a loan priced at a rate higher than that at which
the wholesale lender would otherwise have been willing to accept the
loan. A ``servicing release premium'' is any compensation paid to a
retail lender for the release of rights to service the loan. The
concerns regarding such forms of compensation are similar to those
expressed regarding volume based compensation, that is, do they
constitute kickbacks or fee-splitting for delivery of the loans.
Regulatory Negotiation
Negotiated rulemaking has emerged in recent years as an alternative
to conventional procedures for drafting proposed regulations. The
essence of the concept is that, in appropriate circumstances, it is
possible and preferable to bring together agency representatives and
all parties substantially affected by the subject matter of the
regulation in order to negotiate the terms of the proposed rule. The
literature identifies two principal purposes of negotiated rulemaking:
to gather information so that agency regulation results in better-
informed and well-fashioned rules, and to attempt to reach consensus as
to the text of the rule by a process through which negotiators evaluate
their own priorities and make tradeoffs to achieve an acceptable
outcome on the issues of greatest importance to them. Each element is
an extremely valuable outcome of the regulatory negotiation process.
If a consensus is achieved, the resulting rule will likely be
easier to implement and less subject to subsequent litigation. Even if
consensus is not reached, the process may prove valuable as a means of
better informing the regulatory agency of the issues and the concerns
of the affected interests.
The final convening report was provided to HUD in September 1995,
and concludes that ``negotiated rulemaking would be appropriate and
feasible and that this process may offer the best means of
accommodating the difficult issues involved here.'' A copy of the
report, titled Convening Report for Regulatory Negotiations on Mortgage
[[Page 54796]]
Broker Fee Disclosures, is available in the office of the Rules Docket
Clerk at the above address.
Chartering of Reg-Neg Committee
As a general rule, an agency of the Federal Government is required
to comply with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) when it establishes or uses a group of non-Federal members as a
source of advice. Under FACA, HUD must receive a charter for this reg-
neg committee. HUD has prepared a charter and sent it to the Office of
Management and Budget for approval. If the charter is approved and
schedule changes are not necessary as a result of public comments, the
Committee will be convened in accordance with this notice.
Substantive Issues for Negotiation
The convening report noted that regulatory negotiation could lead
to uniform disclosure requirements for all retail lenders either: (1)
to require the disclosure of all direct fees paid to retail lenders by
borrowers and to require disclosure of all indirect fees paid to retail
lenders by wholesale lenders; or (2) to require the disclosure of all
direct fees paid to retail lenders by borrowers only. In addition to or
instead of modifying the rules on disclosure of fees in loan
transactions, HUD may choose to redefine what constitutes a ``secondary
market transaction''. As set forth above, such transactions are exempt
from RESPA including, inter alia, its disclosure requirements, its
prohibitions against kickbacks and referral fees, and its requirement
that all compensation be reasonably related to the goods or services
provided. A ``secondary market transaction'' could be defined as a loan
transaction involving: (1) The sale of a loan by a retail lender to a
wholesale lender occurring after settlement (the position in the
current regulations); (2) the sale of a loan by a retail lender at any
time--before, contemporaneous with, or after settlement; or (3) the
sale of a loan on some other date, such as after the first accrual date
for the loan following settlement, i.e., the date the first payment is
due from the borrower under the loan.
Combining various options for requiring disclosure of direct and
indirect fees, or disclosure of direct fees only, with the three
possibilities for defining the secondary market transaction, results in
at least six alternative approaches to regulating settlement
transactions under RESPA. Each of these six alternatives would have a
different effect on each of the major types of loan transactions
described above, including: (1) loan closing and subsequent assignment
of the loan; (2) loan closing in the wholesale lender's name using the
wholesale lender's funds; and (3) table-funding. None of these
alternatives will affect a fourth type of transaction--a portfolio
transaction where a retail lender processes, funds and closes a loan in
its own name for its own portfolio and the lender then holds the loan
(if the loan is sold at all, it occurs long after settlement). The
alternatives, or possible combination of requirements, available to the
Committee include requiring the:
(1) Disclosure of direct and indirect fees at settlement and
classification of a loan sale as a ``secondary market transaction''
only if it occurs after settlement;
(2) Disclosure of direct and indirect fees at settlement and the
classification of any loan sale--before, contemporaneous with, or after
settlement--as a ``secondary market transaction'';
(3) Disclosure of direct and indirect fees at settlement and the
classification of loan sales following the first accrual--the date the
first payment is due from the borrower under the loan--as ``secondary
market transactions'';
(4) Disclosure of only direct (not indirect) fees at settlement and
the classification of a loan sale as a ``secondary market transaction''
only if it occurs after settlement;
(5) Disclosure of only direct (not indirect) fees at settlement and
the classification of a loan sale, at any time, as a ``secondary market
transaction''; and
(6) Disclosure of only direct (not indirect) fees at settlement and
the classification of a loan sale as a ``secondary market transaction''
only if it occurs after the first accrual date.
As to volume-based compensation, those arguments identified in the
``Issue 2'' section above define the issues likely to arise in
negotiations. Additionally, if negotiated rulemaking leads to a
conclusion that such compensation is allowable under RESPA, the
question also arises as to whether and how the payment should be
disclosed on the Good Faith Estimate and the HUD-1 and HUD-1A forms.
Committee Membership
The convener consulted and interviewed over 30 officials of various
organizations interested and affected by the mortgage fee disclosure
rule. These include the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, the
Mortgage Bankers Association of America, the Mortgage Capitol Group,
the American Bankers Association, and America's Community Bankers. The
convener also concluded that it was essential that the Committee
include an appropriate number of consumer advocates. Moreover, the
convener felt that it was important to include participation from the
national group representing state financial regulators, the American
Association of Residential Mortgage Regulators, due to its active and
important role in consumer protection issues and its expertise,
especially in the real estate arena.
The convener recommended the inclusion of additional entities,
either because of their technical expertise in real estate settlement
issues or by virtue of their interests in issues ancillary to this
regulation. Those recommended by the convener included the National
Association of Realtors, because many of its member realtors are also
mortgage brokers and mortgage lenders, and RESPRO, whose members are
diversified affiliated real estate settlement service providers and
include large real estate companies, controlled businesses, and
mortgage providers.
Finally, the convener recommended two Government-Sponsored
Enterprises--the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and
the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)--for
inclusion, because of their importance in determining what constitute
secondary mortgage market transactions for purposes of RESPA.
After reviewing the recommendations by the convener, HUD has
tentatively identified the following list of possible interests and
parties:
Tentative List of Regulatory Negotiations Committee Membership
National Industry Groups
1. Paul Reid, President, American Home Funding, Richmond, VA,
President-Elect, Mortgage Bankers Association of America, 1125 15th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-2766
2. David Shirk, Member of Board of Directors, National Association of
Mortgage Brokers, 1735 N. Lynn Street, Suite 950, Arlington, VA 22209
3. John Rasmus, Esq., Senior Federal Administrative Counsel/Manager,
Agency Relations, American Bankers Association, 1120 Connecticut Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20036
4. Glen Gimble, Esq., Program Manager and Counsel, Real Estate Lending
Compliance, America's Community Bankers, 900 19th Street, NW.,
Washington, D.C. 20006
[[Page 54797]]
5. Roy DeLoach, Policy Representative, Business Issues, National
Association of Realtors, 700 Eleventh Street NW., Washington, D.C.
20001-4507
6. Sue Johnson, President and Executive Director, RESPRO, 1800 M Street
NW., Suite 900 South, Washington, D.C. 20036
7. David Goldberg, The Mortgage Capitol Group, Senior Vice President,
Administration, PHH Mortgage Services Corporation, 6000 Atrium Way, Mt.
Laurel, NJ 08054
Consumer Groups
1. Robert Creamer, Citizen Action, 1730 Rhode Island Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20036
2. William J. Brennan, Jr., Esq. (Member, Board of Directors, National
Association of Consumer Advocates), Home Defense Program of the Atlanta
Legal Aid Society, 340 West Ponce De Leon Avenue, Decatur, Georgia
30030
3. Nina Simone, Esq., Jean Davis, Esq., Legal Counsel for the Elderly,
American Association of Retired Persons, 601 E Street NW., Washington,
DC 20049.
State Organizations
1. Craig Jordan, Esq., Assistant Attorney General for the State of
Texas, Consumer Affairs Division, 714 Jackson Street, Suite 800,
Dallas, Texas 75202
2. Daniel Muccia, President, American Association of Residential
Mortgage Regulators and Deputy Superintendent of Banks, State of New
York Banking Department, Two Rector Street, New York, New York 10006
Government-Sponsored Enterprises
1. Jim Newell, Esq., Associate General Counsel, Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation, 8200 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, VA 22102-3107
2. JoAnn Carpenter, Esq., Vice President and Deputy General Counsel,
Federal National Mortgage Association, 3900 Wisconsin Avenue N.W.,
Washington, DC 20016-2899
Federal Government
Designated Federal Officer: Sarah X. Rosen, Esq., Special Assistant to
the Assistant Secretary for Housing, Room 9100, U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street S.W., Washington, D.C.
20410, (202) 708-3600
Comments and suggestions on this tentative list of Committee
members are invited. HUD does not believe that each potentially
affected organization or individual must necessarily have its own
representative. However, HUD must be satisfied that the group as a
whole reflects a proper balance and mix of interests. Negotiation
sessions will be open to members of the public, so individuals and
organizations that are not members of the Committee may attend all
sessions and communicate informally with members of the Committee.
Requests for Representation
If in response to this Notice, an additional individual or
representative of an interest requests membership or representation on
the Committee, HUD, in consultation with the convener, will determine
whether that individual or representative will be added to the
Committee. Each additional nomination for membership on the Committee
must include the name of the nominee and a description of the interests
the nominee would represent, evidence that the nominee is authorized to
represent relevant parties, a written commitment that the nominee shall
participate in good faith, and the reasons that the members proposed in
this notice do not adequately represent the interests of the person
submitting the nomination. HUD will make the decision on membership
based on whether the individual or interest would be substantially
affected by the proposed rule and whether the individual or interest is
already adequately represented on the Committee.
Final Notice Regarding Committee Establishment
After reviewing any comments on this Notice and any requests for
representation, HUD will issue a final notice. That notice will
announce the establishment of a Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory
Committee, unless HUD's charter request is disapproved, or HUD decides,
based on comments and other relevant considerations, that such action
is inappropriate.
Tentative Schedule
If HUD determines that the Committee should be formed and
negotiations started, HUD plans to hold the first meeting of the
Committee in late 1995 or early 1996, after the close of the 30-day
comment period on this notice and the approval of the Committee's
charter. The meeting will be for two and a half days, with the first
day starting at 10:00 a.m. and running until completion; the second day
starting at 9:00 a.m. and running until completion; and the last day
starting at 9:00 a.m. and running until approximately 1:00 p.m. The
exact dates of the meeting in Washington, D.C., will be announced in a
subsequent Federal Register notice. The location of the meeting will
be: the Office of Administrative Law Judges, Washington Office Center,
409 3rd Street, SW, Suite 320, Washington, D.C. 20024, (202) 708-5004.
The facilitator for the Committee will be the Honorable Alan W.
Heifetz, Chief Administrative Law Judge. The purpose of the first
meeting will be to orient members to the reg-neg process, establish a
basic set of understandings and ground rules (protocols) regarding the
process that will be followed in seeking a consensus, and begin to
address the issues. This meeting is open to the public.
Decisions with respect to future meetings will be made at the first
meeting and from time to time thereafter. Notices of future meetings
will be published in the Federal Register, if time permits.
To prevent delays that might postpone timely issuance of a proposed
rule, HUD intends to terminate the Committee's activities if the
Committee does not reach consensus within 5 months of the first
meeting. The process may end earlier if the facilitator believes that
sufficient progress cannot be made or that an impasse has developed
that cannot be resolved.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1437g, 3535(d).
Dated: September 29, 1995.
Nicolas P. Retsinas,
Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 95-26412 Filed 10-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-27-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26402 Texas Regulatory Program
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54620-54633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26402]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
30 CFR Part 943
[SPATS No. TX-017-FOR]
Texas Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed Rule; Reopening and Extension of Public Comment Period
on Proposed Amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSM is announcing receipt of revisions pertaining to a
previously proposed amendment to the Texas regulatory program
(hereinafter, the ``Texas program'') under the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The revisions of Texas' proposed
rules pertain to authority, responsibility and applicability,
definitions, restrictions of financial interests of state employees,
exemption for coal extraction incidental the
[[Page 54621]]
extraction of other minerals; areas designated by act of congress;
general requirements for permit and exploration procedure systems under
regulatory programs; general requirements for coal exploration;
hydrology and geology requirements; operation plans; reclamation plans;
alluvial valley floors; public availability of information; approval or
denial of permits; bonding requirements; performance standards for coal
exploration, use of explosives; coal processing mine waste; protection
of fish and wildlife and related environmental values; backfilling and
grading; revegetation success; road design, construction, maintenance,
and restoration; individual civil penalties; blaster training and
certification; and revegetation guidelines. Texas also proposed minor
changes in wording, numbering, and punctuation of its rules. The
amendment is intended to revise the State program to be consistent with
the corresponding Federal regulations.
This notice sets forth the times and locations that the Texas
program and revisions to the proposed amendment to that program are
available for public inspection, and the reopened comment period during
which interested persons may submit written comments on the proposed
amendment.
DATES: Written comments must be received by 4:00 p.m., c.s.t. November
9, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed or hand delivered to Mr.
Jack R. Carson, Acting Director, Tulsa Field Office, at the address
listed below.
Copies of the Texas program, the proposed amendment, and all
written comments received in response to this notice will be available
for public review at the addresses listed below during normal business
hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Each requester may
receive one free copy of the proposed amendment by contacting OSM's
Tulsa Field Office.
Jack R. Carson, Acting Director, Tulsa Field Office, Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 5100 East Skelly Drive,
Suite 470, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74135-6547, Telephone: (918) 581-6430.
Railroad Commission of Texas, Surface Mining and Reclamation
Division, 1701 North Congress Avenue, P.O. Box 12967, Austin, Texas,
78711-2967, Telephone: (512) 463-6900.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jack R. Carson, Acting Director, Tulsa Field Office, Telephone:
(918) 581-6430.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Texas Program
On February 16, 1980, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally
approved the Texas program. General background information on the Texas
program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of
comments, and the conditions of approval, can be found in the February
27, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 12998). Subsequent actions concerning
the Texas program and program amendments can be found at 30 CFR 943.10,
943.15, and 943.16.
II. Proposed Amendment
By letter dated May 13, 1993 (Administrative Record No. TX-551),
Texas submitted a proposed amendment to its program pursuant to SMCRA.
Texas submitted the proposed amendment in response to letters dated May
20, 1985; June 9, 1987; October 20, 1988; February 7, 1990; and
February 21, 1990 (Administrative Record Nos. TX-358, TX-388, TX-417,
TX-472, and TX-476) that OSM sent to Texas in accordance with 30 CFR
732.17(c) and in response to the required program amendments at 30 CFR
943.16(k) through (q). The provisions of the Texas Administrative Code
(TAC) at 16 TAC 11.221, Texas Coal Mining Regulations (TCMR), that
Texas proposed to amend were: (1) TCMR 700.002(b)(4), TCMR Part 702,
and TCMR 787.222(a) pertaining to mining of coal incidental to the
extraction of other minerals; (2) TCMR 700.002(f) pertaining to
termination of jurisdiction; (3) TCMR 701.008(4), 701.008(16),
701.008(19), and 701.008(71), TCMR 705.011(2) and 705.011(3) pertaining
to definitions for ``affected area,'' ``coal mine waste,'' ``coal
processing waste,'', ``road,'' ``coal mining operation,'' and
``employee''; (4) TCMR 705.010(a)(3) and 705.010(c), TCMR 705.013(a),
TCMR 705.014(a), TCMR 705.015(a), TCMR 705,016(a), and TCMR 705.014(b)
pertaining to employee financial interests; (5) TCMR 761.072(b)(2)
pertaining to lands unsuitable for mining procedures; (6) TCMR 770.101
pertaining to permitting procedures; (7) TCMR 776.111(a)(3)(E), TCMR
815.327(a), and TCMR 815.328 pertaining to coal exploration; (8) TCMR
779.127(b) and (c), TCMR 779.128(a)(4), and 783.174(a)(4), TCMR
779.129(b)(2) and 783.175(b)(2), TCMR 780.146(b) and (c) and 784.118(b)
and (c), TCMR 780.148(c) and 748.190(c), TCMR 783.173, TCMR
816.342(a)(4), TCMR 816.344(g), (h), (i), and (k) and 817.514(g), (h),
(i), and (k), TCMR 816.344(r) and 817.514(r), TCMR 816.347(a)(1) and
817.517(a)(1), TCMR 816.347(a)(4) and 817.517(a)(3), TCMR 816.347(a)(5)
and 817.517(a)(5), TCMR 816.347(a)(6) and 817.517(a)(6), TCMR
816.347(a)(7) and 817.517(a)(7), TCMR 816.347(b)(8) and 817.517(b)(8),
TCMR 816.347(c) and 817.517(c), TCMR 816.347(d) and 817.517(d), TCMR
816.347(e) and 817.517(e), TCMR 816.347(i) and 817.517(i), TCMR
816.347(k) and 817.517(k), TCMR 816.350(b) and 817.519(b), TCMR
816.355(a), TCMR 817.509(a), and TCMR 817.522(f) pertaining to geologic
and hydrologic information, reclamation plans, and hydrologic balance
standards; (9) TCMR 780.142(c) and 784.197(c) and TCMR 780.142(d) and
784.197(d) pertaining to maps and plans; (10) TCMR 780.154 and 784.198,
TCMR 816.401(b) and 817.570(b), TCMR 816.402(d)(9) and 817.571(d)(9),
TCMR 816.405 and 817.574, TCMR 816.406(a)(4) and 817.575(a)(4), TCMR
816.408(b) and 817.577(b), TCMR 816.409(d)(9) and 817.578(d)(9), TCMR
816.412 and 817.581, TCMR 816.413(a)(4) and 817.582(a)(4), TCMR
816.415(b) and 817.584(b), TCMR 816.419 and 817.588, and TCMR
816.420(d) and 817.589(d) pertaining to transportation facilities and
roads; (11) TCMR 785.202(b)(1)(i) and (b)(3) pertaining to alluvial
valley floors; (12) TCMR 786.210(a)(3) pertaining to archaeological
resources; (13) TCMR 786.216(e), TCMR 786.216(p), and TCMR 786.220(d)
pertaining to approval of permits; (14) TCMR 800.301(b)(2) pertaining
to bonding requirements; (15) TCMR 816.330(f) and 817.500(f), TCMR
816.357(c) and 817.526(c), TCMR 816.357(d) and 817.526(d), TCMR
816.358(a) and 817.527(a), TCMR 816.360(a) and 817.528(a), TCMR
816.362(d) and 817.530(d), TCMR 817.526(b), TCMR 850.703(b)(1)(A), TCMR
850.704(b), and TCMR 850.706(a) pertaining to use of explosives and
blaster training and certification; (16) TCMR 816.385(b)(3) and
817.552(b)(3) pertaining to backfilling and grading; (17) TCMR
816.376(d), TCMR 816.378(a) and (c) and 817.545(a) and (c), TCMR
817.538(c)(3), and TCMR 817.543 pertaining to coal processing waste
disposal; (18) TCMR 816.380(e)(10) and 817.547(e)(10) pertaining to
protection of fish and wildlife and related environmental values; (19)
TCMR 816.395(a) and 817.560(a), TCMR 816.395(b) and 817.560(b), TCMR
816.395(c) and 817.560(c), and TCMR 816.396 and 817.561 pertaining to
revegetation success; and (20) TCMR 846.001(2) and TCMR 846.004(c)
pertaining to individual civil penalties.
OSM announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the June 21,
[[Page 54622]]
1993, Federal Register (58 FR 33785), provided an opportunity for a
public hearing or meeting on its substantive adequacy, and invited
public comment on the adequacy of the amendment (Administrative Record
No. TX-556). The public comment period would have closed July 21, 1993.
However, by letter dated July 16, 1993, the Texas Mining and
Reclamation Association requested a 30-day extension of time in which
to review and provide comments on the proposed amendment
(Administrative Record No. TX-563). OSM announced receipt of the
extension request and reopened the comment period in the August 16,
1993, Federal Register (58 FR 43308). The extended public comment
period ended August 20, 1993.
During its review of the amendment, OSM identified concerns
relating to (1) TCMR 700.002(b)(4), concerning authority,
responsibility and applicability for the extraction of coal incidental
to the extraction of other minerals and TCMR 700.002(f) concerning
authority, responsibility and applicability for termination of
jurisdiction; (2) TCMR 702.5(a) relating to the definition of
``cumulative measurement period''; (3) TCMR 702.11 relating to permit
application requirements and procedures for an exemption for coal
extraction incidental to the extraction of other minerals; (4) TCMR
702.13(a) relating to public availability of information; (5) TCMR
702.15(a), (d), and (e) concerning conditions of exemption and right of
inspection and entry; (6) TCMR 702.17(d)(3) relating to direct
enforcement; (7) TCMR 705.010(c) concerning responsibility relating to
restrictions of financial interest of State employees; (8) TCMR
705.016(a) relating to State employee reporting of financial
information; (9) TCMR 770.101 relating to definitions applicable to
subchapter G; (10) TCMR 779.127 and 783.173 concerning geology
descriptions; (11) TCMR 780.142(c) and 784.197(c) relating to maps and
plans; (12) TCMR 780.146 and 784.188 relating to protection of the
hydrologic balance; (13) TCMR 780.148 and 784.190 concerning pond,
impoundment, bank, dam, and embankment plans; (14) TCMR 780.154(a) and
784.198(a) concerning transportation facilities; (15) TCMR 785.202(b)
relating to alluvial valley floors; (16) TCMR 786.210(a) relating to
public availability of information in permit applications on file with
the Commission; (17) TCMR 786.216(e) relating to criteria for permit
approval or denial; (18) TCMR 816.341 and 816.342 and TCMR 817.511 and
817.512 relating to diversions; (19) TCMR 816.344 and 817.514 relating
to sedimentation ponds; (20) TCMR 816.347 and 817.517 concerning
permanent and temporary impoundments; (21) TCMR 816.350(b) and
817.519(b) relating to surface-water monitoring; (22) TCMR
816.355(a)(1) and (2) concerning stream buffer zones; (23) TCMR
816.357(a) and 817.526(b) pertaining to use of explosives; (24) TCMR
816.358(b) and 817.527(b) concerning preblast surveys; (25) TCMR
816.360 and 817.528 relating to control of adverse effects of
explosives; (26) TCMR 816.376(a) and (b) and 817.543(a) and (b)
pertaining to general requirements for coal processing waste dams and
embankments; (27) TCMR 816.378 and 817.545 relating to design and
construction of coal processing waste and dams and embankments; (28)
TCMR 816.390 and 817.555 concerning general requirements for
revegetation; (29) TCMR 816.395 and 817.560 pertaining to standards for
revegetation success; (30) TCMR 816.401(b), (d) and 817.570(b), (d),
TCMR 816.408(b), (d) and 817.577(b), (d), TCMR 816.415(b), (d) and
817.584(b), (d) relating to location of roads; (31) TCMR 816.405 and
817.574, TCMR 816.412 and 817.581, TCMR 816.419 and 817.588 pertaining
to maintenance of roads; (32) TCMR 816.406 and 817.575, TCMR 816.413
and 817.582, TCMR 816.420 and 817.589 concerning restoration of roads;
(33) TCMR 846 relating to individual civil penalties; (34) TCMR
850.702(e) concerning general requirements for blaster certification;
and (35) relating to typographical errors and omissions. OSM notified
Texas of its concerns by letter dated July 25, 1994 (Administrative
Record No. TX-578). Further clarification of OSM's concerns were
provided to Texas by letters dated November 4, 1994, November 21, 1994,
and January 18, 1995 (Administrative Record Nos. TX-581, TX-589, and
TX-585).
Texas responded in a letter dated September 18, 1995, by submitting
a revised amendment package (Administrative Record No. TX-598).
Specifically, Texas proposes the following revisions to its proposed
amendment.
1. TCMR 700.002, Authority, Responsibility, and Applicability
a. At TCMR 700.002(b)(4), Texas proposes to remove the phrase ``or
coal explorations subject to the Act'' and to require that the
incidental extraction of coal be conducted in accordance with the rules
proposed under Part 709.
b. Texas proposes to add a new provision at TCMR 700.002(b)(5) that
requires coal exploration on lands be subject to the requirement of 43
CFR Parts 3480-3487.
c. At proposed TCMR 700.002(f), which sets forth the conditions
under which Texas may terminate its jurisdiction over the reclaimed
site of a completed surface coal mining and reclamation operation,
Texas proposes to remove the phrase ``in accordance with the
Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act.''
2. TCMR 701.008 Definitions
At TCMR 701.008, Texas proposes additional revisions to its
definition section by adding new definitions and revising one
additional existing definition. Texas also proposes to renumber the
definitions in TCMR 701.008 because of these revisions.
a. At TCMR 701.008(4), Texas proposes to define ``administratively
complete application'' to mean an application for permit approval or
approval for coal exploration where required, which the Commission
determines to contain information addressing each application
requirement of the regulatory program and to contain all information
necessary to initiate processing and public review.
b. Texas proposes to remove the definition for ``applicant'' at
existing TCMR 701.008(8) and redefine ``applicant'' at TCMR 701.008(9)
to mean any person seeking a permit, permit revision, renewal, and
transfer, assignment, or sale of permit rights from the Commission to
conduct surface coal mining and reclamation operations or, where
required, seeking approval for coal exploration.
c. Texas proposes to define ``application'' at TCMR 701.008(10) to
mean the documents and other information filed with the Commission
under this Chapter for the issuance of permits; revisions; renewals;
and transfer, assignment, or sale of permit rights for surface coal
mining and reclamation operations or, where required, for coal
exploration.
d. At TCMR 701.008(18), Texas proposes to define ``coal mine
waste'' to mean coal processing waste and underground development
waste.
e. At TCMR 701.008(19), Texas proposes to define ``coal
preparation'' to mean chemical or physical processing and cleaning,
concentrating, or other processing or preparation of coal.
f. At TCMR 701.008(24), Texas proposes to define a ``complete and
accurate application'' to mean an application for permit approval or
approval for coal exploration where required, which the Commission
determines to contain all information required under the Act, this
Chapter,
[[Page 54623]]
and the regulatory program that is necessary to make a decision on
permit issuance.
g. At TCMR 701.008(26), Texas proposes the following new definition
for ``cumulative impact area.''
(26) ``Cumulative impact area'' means the area, including the
permit area, within which impacts resulting from the proposed
operation may interact with impacts of all anticipated mining on
surface and ground-water systems. Anticipated mining shall include,
at a minimum, the entire projected lives through bond release of:
(a) the proposed operation, (b) all existing operations, (c) any
operation for which a permit application has been submitted to the
Commission, and (d) all operations required to meet diligent
development requirements for leased Federal coal for which there is
actual mine development information available.
h. Texas proposes to define ``experimental practice'' at TCMR
701.008(34) to mean the use of alternative surface coal mining and
reclamation operation practices for experimental or research purposes.
i. At TCMR 701.008(55), Texas proposes to define ``other treatment
facility'' to mean any chemical treatments, such as flocculation or
neutralization, or mechanical structures, such as clarifiers or
precipitators, that have a point source discharge and are utilized: (a)
To prevent additional contributions of dissolved or suspended solids to
streamflow or runoff outside the permit area, or (b) To comply with all
applicable State and Federal water-quality laws and regulations.
j. Texas proposes to define ``principal shareholder'' at TCMR
701.008(68) to mean any person who is the record or beneficial owner of
10 percent or more of any class of voting stock.
k. At TCMR 701.008(69), Texas proposes to define ``professional
specialist'' to mean a person whose training, experience, and
professional certification or licensing are acceptable to the
Commission for the limited purpose of performing certain specified
duties under this Chapter.
l. Texas proposes to define ``property to be mined'' at TCMR
701.008(70) to mean both the surface estates and mineral estates within
the permit area and the area covered by underground workings.
m. At TCMR 701.008(82), Texas proposes to define ``siltation
structure'' to mean a sedimentation pond, a series of sedimentation
ponds, or other treatment facility.
n. At TCMR 701.008(104), Texas proposes to define ``violation
notice'' to mean any written notification from a governmental entity of
a violation of law, whether by letter, memorandum, legal or
administrative pleading, or other written communication.
3. TCMR 705.016 Restrictions of Financial Interests of State Employees,
What To Report
At TCMR 705.016(a), Texas proposes to change the Section .013
citation to 705.013 and to change the OSM Form number from 705-1 to 23
for reporting information required on the statement of employment and
financial interests.
4. TCMR 709 Exemption for Coal Extraction Incidental to the Extraction
of Other Minerals
a. Texas proposes tochange its proposed regulations for exemption
for coal extraction incidental to the extraction of other minerals from
TCMR Part 702 to Part 709.
b. At TCMR 709.026(a)(2) (i) and (ii) [originally TCMR 702.5(a)(2)
(i) and (ii)], Texas is proposing to revise its proposed definition of
``cumulative measurement period'' by removing the April 1, 1990, date
specified for the end of the cumulative measurement period.
c. At TCMR 709.027(a) [originally proposed as TCMR 702.11(a)],
Texas proposes to remove the language ``under a Federal program or on
Indian lands or after the effective date of Commission adoption of Part
702'' from the first sentence. The revised sentence now reads.
Any person who plans to commence or continue coal extraction
after xxxxx x, 1995, in reliance on the incidental mining exemption
shall file a complete application for exemption with the Commission
for each mining area.
d. At TCMR 709.027(b) [originally proposed as TCMR 702.11(b)],
Texas proposes to revise the provisions pertaining to persons who have
commenced coal extraction at a mining area in reliance upon obtaining
an incidental mining exemption by removing the language ``prior to the
effective date of Commission adoption of Part 702'' and replacing it
with the language ``prior to xxxxx x, 1995''; by providing that coal
extraction may not continue after 60 days unless a person files an
administratively complete application for exemption with the
Commission; and by clarifying that an application will be determined to
be administratively complete when it contains the information
responsive to the requirements of Section 709.018.
e. At TCMR 709.029(a) [originally proposed as TCMR 702.13(a)],
Texas is clarifying that information submitted to the Commission shall
be made immediately available for public inspection and copying at the
Division's central and local offices closest to the mining operations
claiming exemption.
f. At TCMR 709.031 (a), (d), and (e) [originally proposed as 702.15
(a), (d), and (e)], Texas proposes to clarify that only authorized
representatives of the Secretary have access to the information
necessary to verify an exemption and have the authority to enter and
inspect operations claiming an exemption.
5. TCMR 709.033 Revocation and Enforcement
At TCMR 709.033(d)(3) [originally proposed as TCMR 702.17(d)(3)],
Texas proposes to move the word ``applicable'' to modify the reference
to ``reclamation standards'' rather than the reference to TSCMRA.
6. TCMR 770.101 Definitions Concerning General Requirements for Permit
and Exploration Procedure Systems Under Regulatory Programs
The proposed definitions at TCMR 770.101 (1) through (7) were
removed. The proposed definitions for ``applicant,'' ``application,''
``complete application,'' and ``cumulative impact area'' were redefined
at TCMR 701.008 (9), (10), (4), and (26), respectively. The definitions
for ``principal shareholder,'' ``property to be mined,'' and
``violation notice'' were moved to TCMR 701.008 (68), (70), and (104),
respectively, without revision.
7. TCMR 779.126 (Surface) and TCMR 783.172 (Underground) Description of
Hydrology and Geology: General Requirements
At TCMR 779.126 and 783.172, Texas proposes to add new subsection
(d) which provides that all water quality analyses performed to meet
the requirements of Chapter IV of the Texas Surface Coal Mining
Regulations be conducted according to the methodology in the 15th
edition of ``Standard Method for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater'' or the methodology in 40 CFR Parts 136 and 434.
8. TCMR 779.127 Geology Description for Surface Mining Applications
Texas proposes to revise TCMR 779.127(b) by adding the phrase ``The
geologic description shall include'' at the beginning of the first
sentence and deleting the word ``geologic'' in the proposed phrase
``[t]he geologic analyses shall result in the following.''
9. TCMR 779.127 (Surface) and TCMR 783.174 (Underground) Ground Water
Information
a. At TCMR 779.127(a) and 783.174(a), Texas proposes to remove
[[Page 54624]]
the term ``mine plan'' and replace with the term ``permit.''
b. At TCMR 779.127(a)(3) and 783.174(a)(3), Texas proposes to
remove the existing requirement and add the requirement for a
description of the location and ownership of existing wells, springs,
and other ground-water resources.
c. At TCMR 779.127(a)(4) and 783.174(a)(4), Texas proposes to
remove the existing provision and add the following new provision.
Seasonal quality and quantity of ground water and usage. Water
quality descriptions shall include, at a minimum, total dissolved
solids or specific conductance corrected to 25 deg. C, Ph, total
iron, and total manganese. Ground water quantity descriptions shall
include, at a minimum, approximate rates of discharge or usage and
depth to the water in the coal seam, and each water-bearing stratum
above and potentially impacted stratum below the coal seam.
(d) At TCMR 779.128(b) and 783.174(b), Texas proposes to revise the
existing provision by removing the requirements that the application
contain additional information which describes the discharge
characteristic of aquifers and the quality and quantity of ground
water, according to the parameters and in the detail required by the
Commission.
10. TCMR 779.129 (Surface) and TCMR 783.174 (Underground) Surface Water
Information
At TCMR 779.129(a) and 783.174(a), Texas proposes to replace the
term ``mine plan'' with the term ``permit'' in the requirement for
``descriptions of surface drainage systems sufficient to identify, in
detail, the seasonal variations in water quantity and quality within
the proposed mine plan and adjacent areas.''
11. TCMR 780.142 Operation Plan: Maps and Plans for Surface Mining
Applications
At TCMR 780.142(b)(11), Texas proposes to replace the reference to
Section .145 with a reference to Section .148.
12. TCMR 780.146 (Surface) and TCMR 784.188 (Underground) Reclamation
Plan: Protection of Hydrologic Balance
a. At TCMR 780.146(a), Texas proposes to revise the first sentence
to read as follows.
The application shall include a hydrologic reclamation plan,
with appropriate maps and descriptions, indicating how the relevant
requirements of Part 816, including Sections 816.339, 816.346,
816.348-.349, and 816.350-.354 will be met.
b. At TCMR 780.188(a), Texas proposes to revise the first sentence
by removing the language ``[e]ach plan shall contain a detailed
description'' and replacing it with the language ``[t]he application
shall include a hydrologic reclamation plan.''
c. Texas proposes to remove existing TCMR 780.146 (a)(9) and (b)
and 784.188 (a)(9) and (b), and to add new TCMR 780.146(b) (1) and (2)
784.188 (b) (1) and (2) to read as follows.
(b) Ground water monitoring plan. (1) The application shall include
a ground-water monitoring plan based upon the PHC determination
required under Paragraph (d) of this Section and the analysis of all
baseline hydrologic, geologic, and other information in the permit
application. The plan shall provide for the monitoring of parameters
that relate to the suitability of the ground water for current and
approved postmine land uses and to the objectives for protection of the
hydrologic balance as set forth in Paragraph (a) of this Section. It
shall identify the quantity and quality parameters to be monitored,
sampling frequency, and site locations. It shall describe how the data
may be used to determine the impacts of the operation upon the
hydrologic balance. At a minimum, total dissolved solids or specific
conductance corrected to 25 deg.C, Ph, total iron, total manganese,
and water levels shall be monitored and data submitted to the
Commission at least every 3 months for each monitoring location.
The Commission may require additional monitoring. (2) If the
applicant can demonstrate by the use of the PHC determination and other
available information that a particular water-bearing stratum in the
proposed permit and adjacent areas is not one which serves as an
aquifer which significantly ensures the hydrologic balance within the
cumulative impact area, then monitoring of that stratum may be waived
by the Commission.
d. Texas proposes to remove the existing and proposed language in
TCMR 780.146(c) and 784.188(c) and to replace it with the following
language.
(c) Surface water monitoring plan. (1) The application shall
include a surface-water monitoring plan based upon the PHC
determination required under Paragraph (d) of Section and the
analysis of all baseline hydrologic, geologic, and other information
in the permit application. The plan shall provide for the monitoring
of parameters that relate to the suitability of the surface water
for current and approved postmine land uses and to the objectives
for protection of the hydrologic balance as set forth in Paragraph
(a) of Section, as well as the effluent limitations found at 40 CFR
Part 434. (2) The plan shall identify the surface-water quantity and
quality parameters to be monitored, sampling frequency, and site
locations. It shall describe how the data may be used to determine
the impacts of the operation upon the hydrologic balance. (i) At all
monitoring locations in the surface-water bodies such as streams,
lakes, and impoundments that are potentially impacts or into which
water will be discharged and at upstream monitoring locations, the
total dissolved solids or specific conductance corrected to 25
deg.C, total suspended solids, pH, total iron, total manganese, and
flow shall be monitored. (ii) For point-source discharges,
monitoring shall be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR Parts 122,
123 and 434 and as required by the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permitting authority. (3) The monitoring reports
shall be submitted to the Commission every 3 months. The Commission
may require additional monitoring.
e. At TCMR 780.146(d)(1) and 784.188(d)(1), Texas proposes to
replace the word ``description'' with the word ``application'' in the
first sentence.
f. Texas proposes to add a new provision at TCMR 780.146(d)(5) and
784.188(d)(5) that reads as follows.
(5) If the determination of the probable hydrologic consequences
(PHC) required by Paragraph (d) of this Section indicates adverse
impacts on or off the proposed permit area may occur to the
hydrologic balance, or that acid-forming or toxic-forming material
is present that may result in the contamination of ground-water or
surface-water supplies, then information supplemental to that
required under Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Section shall be
provided to evaluate such probable hydrologic consequences and to
plan remedial and reclamation activities. Such supplemental
information may be based upon drilling, aquifer tests, hydrogeologic
analysis of the water-bearing strata, flood flows, or analysis of
other water quality and quantity characteristics.
13. TCMR 780.148 (Surface) and TCMR 784.190 (Underground) Reclamation
Plan: Ponds, Impoundments, Banks, Dams, and Embankments
a. At TCMR 780.148(a)(3)(i) and 784.190(a)(3)(i), Texas proposes to
remove the language ``or registered land surveyor except that all coal
processing waste dams and embankments covered by Section .376-.378
shall be certified by a qualified registered professional engineer.''
b. At TCMR 780.148(c)(2) and 784.190(c)(2), Texas proposes to add
the following new language in a second sentence.
The plan required to be submitted to the District Manager of
MSHA under 30 CFR 77.216 shall be submitted to the Commission as
part of the permit application in accordance with Paragraph (a) of
this section.
[[Page 54625]]
14. TCMR 780.154 (Surface) and TCMR 784.198 (Underground)
Transportation Facilities
a. Texas proposes to remove the existing language in TCMR
780.154(a) (1) through (6) and 784.198(a) (1) through (6) and replace
it with the following language. Any differences between the surface and
underground mining regulations are shown with the underground language
bracketed.
(a) Each applicant for a surface [underground] coal mining and
reclamation permit shall submit plans and drawings for each road, as
defined in Section 701.008 of this Chapter, to be constructed, used, or
maintained within the proposed permit area. The plans and drawings
shall--(1) Include a map, appropriate cross sections, design drawings
and specifications for road widths, gradients, surfacing materials,
cuts, fill embankments, culverts, bridges, drainage ditches, low-water
crossings, and drainage structures; (2) Contain the drawings and
specifications of each proposed road that is located in the channel of
an intermittent or perennial stream, as necessary for approval of the
road by the Commission in accordance with Sections 816.401(b),
816.408(b), or 816.415(b) [817.570(b), 817.577(b), or 817.584(b)]; (3)
Contain the drawings and specifications for each proposed ford of
perennial or intermittent streams that is used as a temporary route, as
necessary for approval of the ford by the Commission in accordance with
Sections 816.401(b), 816.408(b), or 816.415(b) [817.570(c), 817.577(c),
or 817.584(c)]; (4) Contain a description of measures to be taken to
obtain approval of the Commission for alteration or relocation of a
natural stream channel under Sections 816.403(d), 816.410(d), or
816.417(c) [817.572(d), 817.579(d), or 817.586(c)]; (5) Contain the
drawings and specifications for each low-water crossing of perennial or
intermittent stream channels so that the Commission can maximize the
protection of the stream in accordance with Sections 816.401(c),
816.408(c), or 816.415(c) [817.570(c), 817.577(c), or 817.584(c); and
b. Texas proposes to revise the proposed language at TCMR
780.154(b) and 784.198(b) to read as follows.
The plans and drawings for each Class I and Class II road shall
be prepared by, or under the direction of, and certified by a
qualified registered professional engineer with experience in the
design and construction of roads, as meeting the requirements of
this Chapter; current, prudent engineering practices; and any design
criteria established by the Commission.
15. TCMR 783.173 Geology Description for Underground Mining
Applications
At TCMR 783.173, Texas proposes to remove the existing and proposed
language and add the following language.
(a) A description of the geology of the proposed permit and
adjacent areas down to and including the deeper of either the stratum
immediately below the lowest coal seam to be mined or any aquifer below
the lowest coal seam to be mined which may be adversely impacted by
mining. This description shall include the areal and structural geology
of the permit and adjacent areas, and other parameters which influence
the required reclamation and it shall also show how the areal and
structural geology may affect the occurrence, availability, movement,
quantity and quality of potentially impacted surface and ground water.
It shall be based on--(1) The cross sections, maps, and plans required
by Section 783.183 of this Chapter; (2) The information obtained under
Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this Section; and (3) Geologic
literature and practices.
(b) For any portion of a permit area in which the strata down to
the coal seam to be mined will be removed or are already exposed,
samples shall be collected and analyzed from test borings; drill cores;
or fresh, unweathered, uncontaminated samples from rock outcrops down
to and including the deeper of either the stratum immediately below the
lowest coal seam to be mined or any aquifer below the coal seam to be
mined which may be adversely impacted by mining. The analyses shall
result in the following: (1) Logs showing the lithologic
characteristics including physical properties and thickness of each
stratum and location of ground water where occurring; (2) Chemical
analyses identifying those strata that may contain acid- or toxic-
forming, or alkalinity-producing materials and to determine their
content except that the Commission may find that the analysis for
alkalinity-producing material is unnecessary; and (3) Chemical analysis
of the coal seam for acid- or toxic-forming materials, including the
total sulfur and pyritic sulfur, except that the Commission may find
that the analysis of pyritic sulfur content is unnecessary.
(c) For lands within the permit and adjacent areas where the strata
above the coal seam to be mined will not be removed, samples shall be
collected and analyzed from test borings or drill cores to provide the
following data: (1) Logs of drill holes showing the lithologic
characteristics, including physical properties and thickness of each
stratum that may be impacted, and location of ground water where
occurring; (2) Chemical analyses for acid- or toxic-forming materials
and their content in the strata immediately above and below the coal
seam to be mined; (3) Chemical analyses of the coal seam for acid- or
toxic-forming materials, including the total sulfur and pyritic sulfur,
except that the Commission may find the analysis of pyritic sulfur
content is unnecessary; and (4) For standard room and pillar mining
operations, the thickness and engineering properties of clays or soft
rock such as clay shale, if any, in the stratum immediately above and
below each coal seam to be mined.
(d) If determined to be necessary to protect the hydrologic
balance, to minimize or prevent subsidence, or to meet the performance
standards of this Chapter, Commission may require the collection,
analysis and description of geologic information in addition to that
required by Paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this Section.
(e) An applicant may request the Commission to waive in whole or in
part the requirements of Paragraph (b) and (c) of this Section. The
waiver may be granted only if the Commission finds in writing that the
collection and analysis of such data is unnecessary because other
information having equal value or effect is available to the Commission
in a satisfactory form.
16. TCMR 784.197 Operation Plan: Maps and Plans for Underground
Mining Applications
At TCMR 784.197(c), proposes to add a reference to paragraph (b)(4)
and to require that the maps, plans, and cross-sections be certified by
a qualified registered professional engineer.
17. TCMR 786.210 Public Availability of Information in Permit
Applications on File With the Commission
a. At TCMR 786.210(a), Texas proposes to remove the existing
language and to add the following language.
Except as provided by Paragraph (c) of this section, all
applications for permits; revisions; renewals; and transfers;
assignments or sales of permit rights on file with the Commission
shall be available, at reasonable times, for public inspection and
copying.
b. Texas proposes to renumber existing TCMR 786.210 (a)(1) to (b)
and add the phrase ``[e]xcept as provided by Paragraph (c)(1) of this
section'' to the beginning of the sentence. The semicolon and the word
``and'' were, also, removed at the end of the sentence.
[[Page 54626]]
c. Texas proposes to remove existing TCMR 786.210(a)(2) and
proposed TCMR 786.210(a)(3).
d. Texas proposes to add confidential information limitations at
new TCMR 786.210(c) as follows.
(c) Confidential information is limited to--(1) Information that
pertains only to the analysis of the chemical and physical
properties of the coal to be mined, except information on components
of such coal which are potentially toxic in the environment; (2)
Information required under Section 15 of the Act that is not on
public file and that applicant has requested in writing to be held
confidential; (3) Information on the nature and location of
archeological resources on public land and Indian and shall be kept
confidential as required under the Archeological Resources
Protection Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-95, 93 Stat. 721, 16 U.S.C. 470).
e. Texas proposes to reletter existing Paragraph (b) to (d) and
change the paragraph reference to (c). Texas, also, proposes to
reletter existing Paragraph (c) to (e).
18. TCMR 786.216 Criteria for Permit Approval or Denial
a. At TCMR 786.216(c). Texas proposes to replace the word
``general'' with the words ``cumulative impact'' in the phrase ``in the
general area.''
b. At TCMR 786.216(e), Texas proposes to replace the phrase
``publicly-owned parks or spaces included or'' with the phrase
``properties listed on and.''
19. TCMR 816.340 (Surface) and TCMR 817.510 (Underground) Hydrologic
Balance: Water Quality Standards and Effluent Limitations
Texas proposes to remove the existing provisions in TCMR 816.340(a)
(1) through (7) and 817.510(a) (1) through (7) and replace them with
the following language. Any differences between the surface and
underground mining regulations are shown with the underground language
bracketed.
Discharge of water from areas disturbed by surface [underground]
mining activities shall be made in compliance with all applicable
State and Federal water quality laws and regulations and with the
effluent limitations for coal mining promulgated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency set forth in 40 CFR 434.
20. TCMR 816.341 (Surface) and TCMR 817.511 (Underground) Hydrologic
Balance: Diversions
Texas proposes to change the Section title from ``Hydrologic
Balance: Diversions and Conveyance of Overland Flow and Shallow Ground
Water Flow, and Ephemeral Streams'' to ``Hydrologic Balance:
Diversions.'' Texas, also, proposes to remove the existing provisions
in TCMR 816.341 (a) through (g) and 817.511 (a) through (g) and replace
them with the following new provisions in Paragraphs (a) through (c).
Any differences between the surface and underground mining regulations
are shown with the underground language bracketed.
(a) General Requirements. (1) With the approval of the Commission,
any flow from mined areas abandoned before May 3, 1978, and any flow
from undisturbed areas or reclaimed areas, after meeting the criteria
of Section 816.344 [817.344] for siltation structures removal, may be
diverted from disturbed areas by means of temporary or permanent
diversions. All diversions shall be designed to minimize adverse
impacts to the hydrologic balance within the permit and adjacent areas,
to prevent material damage outside the permit area and to assure the
safety of the public. Diversions shall not be used to divert water into
underground mines without approval of the Commission under Section
816.353 [817.522]. (2) The diversion and its appurtenant structures
shall be designed, located, constructed, maintained and used to-- (i)
Be stable; (ii) Provide protection against flooding and resultant
damage to life and property; (iii) Prevent, to the extent possible
using the best technology currently available, additional contributions
of suspended solids to streamflow outside the permit area; and (iv)
Comply with all applicable local, State, and Federal laws and
regulations. (3) Temporary diversions shall be removed when no longer
needed to achieve the purpose for which they were authorized. The land
disturbed by the removal process shall be restored in accordance with
this Part. Before diversions are removed, downstream water-treatment
facilities previously protected by the diversion shall be modified or
removed, as necessary, to prevent overtopping or failure of the
facilities. This requirement shall not relieve the operator from
maintaining water-treatment facilities as otherwise required. A
permanent diversion or a stream channel reclaimed after the removal of
a temporary diversion shall be designed and constructed so as to
restore or approximate the remaining characteristics of the original
stream channel including the natural riparian vegetation to promote the
recovery and the enhancement of aquatic habitat. (4) Diversion designs
shall incorporate the following: (i) Be constructed with gentle sloping
banks that are stabilized by vegetation. Asphalt, concrete or other
similar linings shall be used only when approved by the Commission to
prevent seepage or to provide stability. Channel linings shall be
designed using standard engineering practices to pass safely the design
velocities and shall be approved for permanent diversions only where
they are stable and will require infrequent maintenance. (ii) Erosion
protection shall be provided for transition of flows and for critical
areas such as swales and curves. (iii) Energy dissipators shall be
installed when necessary at discharge points, where diversions
intersect with natural streams and exit velocities of the diversion
ditch flow is greater than that of the receiving stream. (iv) Excess
excavated material not necessary for diversion channel geometry or
regrading of the channel shall be disposed of in accordance with
Sections 816.363-816.366 [817.531-817.534]. (v) Topsoil shall be
handled in compliance with Sections 816.334-816.338 [817.504-817.508].
(b) Diversions of Perennial and Intermittent Streams. (1)
Diversions of perennial and intermittent streams within the permit area
may be approved by the Commission after making the finding relating to
stream buffer zones [called for in Section 817.524] that the diversion
will not adversely affect the water quantity and quality and related
environmental resources of the stream. (2) The design capacity of
channels for temporary and permanent stream channel diversions shall be
at least equal to the capacity of the unmodified stream channel
immediately upstream and downstream from the diversion. (3) The
requirements of Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this Section shall be met when
the temporary and permanent diversions for perennial and intermittent
streams are designed so that the combination of channel, bank and
floodplain configuration is adequate to pass safely the peak runoff of
a 10-year, 6-hour precipitation event for a temporary diversion and a
100-year, 6-hour precipitation event for a permanent diversion. (4) The
design and construction of all stream channel diversions of perennial
and intermittent streams shall be certified by a qualified registered
professional engineer as meeting the performance standards of this part
and any design criteria set by the Commission.
(c) Diversion of Miscellaneous Flows. (1) Miscellaneous flows,
which consists of all flows except for perennial and intermittent
streams, may be diverted away from disturbed areas if required or
approved by the Commission. Miscellaneous flows shall include ground-
water discharges and ephemeral
[[Page 54627]]
streams. (2) The design, location, construction, maintenance, and
removal of diversions of miscellaneous flows shall meet all of the
performance standards set forth in Paragraph (a) of this Section. (3)
The requirements of Paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this Section shall be met
when the temporary and permanent diversions for miscellaneous flows are
designed so that the combination of channel, bank and flood-plain
configuration is adequate to pass safely the peak runoff of a 2-year,
6-hour precipitation event for a temporary diversion and a 10-year, 6-
hour precipitation event for a permanent diversion.
21. TCMR 816.342 (Surface) and TCMR 817.512 (Underground) Hydrologic
Balance: Stream Channel Diversion
Texas proposes to remove TCMR 816.342 (a) through (e) and 817.512
(a) through (e) pertaining to hydrologic balance with relation to
stream channel diversions.
22. TCMR 816.344 (Surface) and TCMR 817.514 (Underground) Hydrologic
Balance: Sedimentation Ponds
Texas proposes to remove TCMR 816.344 (a) through (u) and 817.514
(a) through (u) pertaining to the hydrologic balance with relation of
sedimentation ponds.
23. TCMR 816.344 (Surface) and TCMR 817.514 (Underground) Hydrologic
Balance: Siltation Structures
Texas proposes to add TCMR 816.344 (a) through (e) and 817.514 (a)
through (e) pertaining to the hydrologic balance with relation to
siltation structures as shown below. Any differences between the
surface and underground mining regulations are shown with the
underground language bracketed.
(a) For the purposes of this Section only, disturbed areas shall
not include those areas--(1) In which the only surface mining
activities include diversion ditches, siltation structures, or roads
that are designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with this
part; and (2) For which the upstream area is not otherwise disturbed by
the operator.
(b) General requirements. (1) Additional contributions of suspended
solids sediment to streamflow or runoff outside the permit area shall
be prevented to the extent possible using the best technology currently
available. (2) All surface drainage from the disturbed area shall be
passed through a siltation structure before leaving the permit area,
except as provided in Paragraph (b)(5) or (e) of this Section. (3)
Siltation structures for an area shall be constructed before beginning
any surface mining activities in that area, and upon construction shall
be certified by a qualified registered professional engineer to be
constructed as designed and as approved in the reclamation plan. (4)
Any siltation structure which impounds water shall be designed,
constructed and maintained in accordance with Section 816.347
[817.517]. (5) Siltation structures shall be maintained until the
disturbed area has been stabilized and revegetated and removal is
authorized by the Commission. In no case shall the structure be removed
sooner than 2 years after the last augmented seeding. (6) When a
siltation structure is removed, the land on which the siltation
structure was located shall be regraded and revegetated in accordance
with the reclamation plan and Sections 816.390-816.395 [817.555-
817.560]. Sedimentation ponds approved by the Commission for retention
as permanent impoundments may be exempted from this requirement.
(c) Sedimentation ponds. (1) When used, sedimentation ponds shall--
(i) Be used individually or in series; (ii) Be located as near as
possible to the disturbed area and out of perennial streams unless
approved by the Commission, and (iii) Be designed, constructed, and
maintained to--(A) Provide adequate sediment storage volume. The
minimum sediment storage volume shall be equal to the three year
accumulated sediment volume from the drainage area to the pond. The
sediment volume shall be determined using the Universal Soil Loss
Equation, gully erosion rates, and the sediment delivery ratio
converted to sediment volume, using either the sediment density or
other empirical methods approved by the Commission; (B) Provide
adequate detention time to allow the effluent from the ponds to meet
State and Federal effluent limitations. The minimum detention time
without a chemical treatment process shall be 10 hours; (C) Contain or
treat the 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event (``design event'')
unless a lesser design event is approved by the Commission based on
terrain, climate, other site-specific conditions and on a demonstration
by the operator that the effluent limitations of Section 816.340
[817.510] will be met; (D) Provide a nonclogging dewatering device
adequate to maintain the detention time required under Paragraph
(c)(1)(iii)(B) of this Section; (E) Minimize, to the extent possible,
short circuiting; (F) Provide periodic sediment removal sufficient to
maintain adequate volume for the design event; (G) Ensure against
excessive settlement; (H) Be free of sod, large roots, frozen soil, and
acid- or toxic-forming coal-processing waste; and (I) Be compacted
properly. (2) A sedimentation pond shall include either a combination
of principal and emergency spillways or single spillway configured as
specified in Section 816.347(a)(9) [precipitation event specified in
Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, except as set forth in Section
817.517(a)(9)].
(d) Other treatment facilities. (1) Other treatment facilities
shall be designed to treat the 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event
unless a lesser design event is approved by the Commission based on
terrain, climate, other site-specific conditions and a demonstration by
the operator that the effluent limitations of Section 816.340 [817.510]
will be met. (2) Other treatment facilities shall be designed in
accordance with the applicable requirements of Paragraph (c) of this
Section.
(e) Exemptions. Exemptions to the requirements of this Section may
be granted if--(1) The disturbed drainage area within the total
disturbed area is small; and (2) The operator demonstrates that
siltation structures and alternate sediment control measures are not
necessary for drainage from the disturbed area to meet the effluent
limitations under Section 816.340 [817.510] and the applicable State
and Federal water quality standards for the receiving waters.
24. TCMR 816.347 (Surface) and TCMR 817.517 (Underground) Hydrologic
Balance: Permanent and Temporary Impoundments
Texas proposes to remove the existing provisions in TCMR 816.347
(a) through (k) and 817.517 (a) through (k) and add the following new
provisions in Paragraphs (a) through (c). Any differences between the
surface and underground mining regulations are shown with the
underground language bracketed.
(a) General Requirements. The requirements of this Paragraph apply
to both temporary and permanent impoundments. (1) Impoundments meeting
the Class B or C criteria of dams in the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service Technical Release No. 60 (210-
VI-TR60, Oct. 1985), ``Earth Dams and Reservoirs,'' 1985 shall comply
with ``Minimum Emergency Spillway Hydrologic Criteria'' table in TR-60
and the requirements of this section. Technical Release No. 60 is
hereby incorporated by reference. Copies may be obtained from the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,
[[Page 54628]]
Springfield, Virginia 22161, order No. PB 87-157509/AS. Copies can be
inspected at the Commission's Surface Mining and Reclamation Division
Office at 1701 N. Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas. (2) An impoundment
meeting the size or other criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a) shall comply
with the requirements of 30 CFR 77.216 and of this section. (3) The
design of impoundments shall be certified in accordance with Section
780.148(a) [784.190(a)] as designed to meet the requirements of this
part using current, prudent engineering practices and any design
criteria established by the Commission. The qualified, registered
professional engineer shall be experienced in the design and
construction of impoundments. (4) Stability. (i) An impoundment meeting
the Class B or C criteria for dams in TR-60, or the size or other
criteria of 30 CFR 77.216(a) shall have a minimum static factor of 1.5
for a normal pool with steady state seepage saturation conditions, and
a seismic safety factor of at least 1.2. (ii) An impoundment not
included in Paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this Section, except for a coal mine
waste impounding structure, shall have a minimum static safety factor
of 1.3 for a normal pool with steady state seepage saturation
conditions or meet the requirements of Section 780.148(c) [784.190(c)].
(5) Impoundments meeting the Class B or C criteria for dams in TR-60
shall comply with the freeboard hydrograph criteria in the ``Minimum
Emergency Spillway Hydrologic Criteria'' table in TR-60. (6)
Foundations. (i) Foundations and abutments for an impounding structure
shall be stable during all phases of construction and operation and
shall be designed based on adequate and accurate information on the
foundation conditions. For an impoundment meeting the Class B or C
criteria for dams in TR-60, or the size or other criteria of 30 CFR
77.216(a), foundation investigation, as well as any necessary
laboratory testing of foundation material, shall be performed to
determine the design requirements for foundation stability. (ii) All
vegetative and organic materials shall be removed and foundations
excavated and prepared to resist failure. Cutoff trenches shall be
installed if necessary to ensure stability. (7) Slope protection shall
be provided to protect against surface erosion at the site and protect
against sudden drawdown. (8) Faces of embankments and surrounding areas
shall be vegetated, except that faces where water is impounded may be
riprapped or otherwise stabilized in accordance with accepted design
practices. (9) An impoundment shall include either a combination of
principal and emergency spillways or a single spillway configured as
specified in Paragraph (a)(9)(i) of this Section, designed and
constructed to safely pass the applicable design precipitation event
specified in Paragraph (a)(9)(ii) of this Section. (i) The Commission
may approve a single open-channel spillway that is of nonerodible
construction and designed to carry sustained flows or earth- or grass-
lined and designed to carry short-term, infrequent flows at non-erosive
velocities where sustained flows are not expected. (ii) Except as
specified in Paragraph (c)(2) of this Section, the required design
precipitation event for an impoundment meeting the spillway
requirements of Paragraph (a)(9) of this Section is: (A) For an
impoundment meeting the Class B or C criteria for dams in TR-60, the
emergency spillway hydrograph criteria in the ``Minimum Emergency
Spillway Hydrologic Criteria'' table in TR-60, or greater event as
specified by the Commission. (B) For an impoundment meeting or
exceeding the size or other criteria of 30 CFR 216(a), a 100-year 6-
hour event, or greater event as specified by the Commission. (C) For an
impoundment not included in Paragraph (a)(9)(ii)(A) and (B) of this
Section, a 25-year 6-hour or greater event as specified by the
Commission. (10) The vertical portion of any remaining highwall shall
be located far enough below the low-water line along the full extent of
the highwall to provide adequate safety and access for the proposed
water users. (11) A qualified registered professional engineer or other
qualified professional specialist under the direction of a professional
engineer, shall inspect each impoundment as provided in Paragraph
(a)(11)(i) of this Section. The professional engineer or specialist
shall be experienced in the construction of impoundments. (i)
Inspections shall be made regularly during construction, upon
completion of the construction, and at least yearly until removal of
the structure or release of the performance bond. (ii) The qualified
registered professional engineer shall promptly after each inspection
required in Paragraph (a)(11)(i) of this section provide the Commission
a certified report that the impoundment has been constructed and/or
maintained as designed and in accordance with the approved plan of this
chapter. The report shall include discussion of any appearance of
instability, structural weakness or other hazard condition, depth and
elevation of any impoundment waters, existing storage capacity, any
existing or required monitoring procedures and instrumentation, and any
other aspects of the structure affecting stability. (iii) A copy of the
report shall be retained at or near the minesite. (12) Impoundments
meeting the SCS Class B or C criteria for dams in TR-60, or the size or
other criteria of 30 CFR 77.217 must be examined in accordance with 30
CFR 77.216-3. Impoundments not meeting the SCS Class B or C criteria
for dams in TR-60, or subject to 30 CFR 216, shall be examined at least
quarterly. A qualified person designated by the operator shall examine
impoundments for the appearance of structural weakness and other
hazardous conditions. (13) If any examination or inspection discloses
that a potential hazard exists, the person who examined the impoundment
shall promptly inform the Commission of the finding and of the
emergency procedures formulated for public protection and remedial
action. If adequate procedures cannot be formulated or implemented, the
Commission shall be notified immediately. The Commission shall then
notify the appropriate agencies that other emergency procedures are
required to protect the public.
(b) Permanent Impoundments. A permanent impoundment of water may be
created, if authorized by the Commission in the approved permit based
upon the following demonstration: (1) The size and configuration of
such impoundment will be adequate for its intended purposes. (2) The
quality of impounded water will be suitable on a permanent basis for
its intended use and, after reclamation, will meet applicable State and
Federal water quality standards, and discharges from the impoundment
will meet applicable effluent limitations and will not degrade the
quality of receiving water below applicable State and Federal water
quality standards. (3) The water level will be sufficiently stable and
be capable of supporting the intended use. (4) Final grading will
provide for adequate safety and access for proposed users. (5) The
impoundment will not result in the diminution of the quality and
quantity of water utilized by adjacent or surrounding landowners or
agricultural, industrial, recreational, or domestic users. (6) The
impoundment will be suitable for the approved postmining land use.
(c) Temporary Impoundments. (1) The Commission may authorize the
construction of temporary impoundments as part of a surface coal mining
operation. (2) In lieu of meeting
[[Page 54629]]
the requirements of paragraph (a)(9)(i) of this Section, the Commission
may approve an impoundment that relies primarily on storage to control
the runoff from the design precipitation event when it is demonstrated
by the operator and certified by a qualified registered professional
engineer that the impoundment will safely control the design
precipitation event, the water shall be safely removed in accordance
with current, prudent engineering practices. Such an impoundment shall
be located where failure would not be expected to cause loss of life or
serious property damage, except where: (i) Impoundments meeting the SCS
Class B or C criteria for dams in TR-60, or the size or other criteria
of 30 CFR 77.216(a), shall be designed to control the precipitation of
the probable maximum precipitation of a 6-hour event, or greater event
as specified by the Commission. (ii) Impoundments not included in
Paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section shall be designed to control the
precipitation of the 100-year 6-hour event, or greater event as
specified by the Commission.
25. TCMR 816.348 Hydrologic Balance: Groundwater Protection
Texas proposes to remove the exiting provisions at TCMR 816.348 (a)
and (b) and to add the following provisions.
In order to protect the hydrologic balance, surface mining
activities shall be conducted according to the plan approved under
Section 780.146 of this Chapter and the following:
(a) Ground-water quality shall be protected by handling earth
materials and runoff in a manner that minimizes acidic, toxic, or other
harmful infiltration to ground-water systems and by managing
excavations and other disturbances to prevent or control the discharge
of pollutants into the ground water.
(b) Ground-water quantity shall be protected by handling earth
materials and runoff in a manner that will restore the approximate
premining recharge capacity of the reclaimed area as a whole, excluding
coal mine waste disposal areas and fills, so as to allow the movement
of water to the ground-water system.
26. TCMR 816.349 Hydrologic Balance: Surface Water Protection
Texas proposes to change the title of TCMR 816.349 from
``Hydrologic Balance: Protection of Ground Water Recharge Capacity'' to
``Hydrologic Balance: Surface Water Protection.'' Texas, also, proposes
to remove the existing provisions at TCMR 816.349 and to add the
following provisions.
In order to protect the hydrologic balance, surface mining
activities shall be conducted according to the plan approved under
Section 781.146 of this Chapter, and the following:
(a) Surface-water quality shall be protected by handling earth
materials, ground-water discharges, and runoff in a manner that
minimizes the formation of acidic or toxic drainage; prevents, to the
extent possible using the best technology currently available,
additional contribution of suspended solids to streamflow outside the
permit area; and otherwise prevents water pollution. If drainage
control, restabilization and revegetation of disturbed areas, diversion
of runoff, mulching, or other reclamation and remedial practices are
not adequate to meet the requirements of this section and Section
816.340, the operator shall use and maintain the necessary water-
treatment facilities or water controls.
(b) Surface-water quality and flow rates shall be protected by
handling earth materials and runoff in accordance with the steps
outlined in the plan approved under Section 780.146 of this Chapter.
27. TCMR 816.350 (Surface) and TCMR 817.519 (Underground) Hydrologic
Balance: Surface and Ground Water Monitoring
Texas proposes to remove the existing provisions at TCMR 816.350
(a) and (b) and 817.519 (a) and (b) and to add the following new
provisions. Any differences between the surface and underground mining
regulations are shown with the underground language bracketed.
(a) Ground water. (1) Ground-water monitoring shall be conducted
according to the ground water monitoring plan approved under Section
780.146(b) [784.188(b)] of this Chapter. The Commission may require
additional monitoring when necessary. (2) Ground-water monitoring data
shall be submitted every 3 months to the Commission or more frequently
as prescribed by the Commission. Monitoring reports shall include
analytical results from each sample taken during the reporting period.
When the analysis of any ground-water sample indicates noncompliance
with the permit conditions, then the operator shall promptly notify the
Commission and immediately take the action provided for in Section
786.221(a) and 780.146(a) [786.221(a) and 784.188(a)] of this Chapter.
(3) Ground-water monitoring shall proceed through mining and continue
during reclamation until bond release. Consistent with the procedures
of Part 786 of this Chapter, the Commission may modify the monitoring
requirements, including the parameters covered and the sampling
frequency, if the operator demonstrates, using the monitoring data
obtained under this Paragraph, that--(i) The operation has minimized
disturbance to the hydrologic balance in the permit and adjacent areas
and prevented material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the
permit area; water quantity and quality are suitable to support
approved postmining land uses; and the water rights of other users have
been protected or replaced; or (ii) Monitoring is no longer necessary
to achieve the purposes set forth in the monitoring plan approved under
Section 780.146(b) [784.188(b)] of this Chapter. (4) Equipment,
structures, and other devices used in conjunction with monitoring the
quality and quantity of ground water onsite and offsite shall be
properly installed, maintained, and operated and shall be removed when
no longer needed.
(b) Surface water. (1) Surface water monitoring shall be conducted
according to the surface water monitoring plan approved under Section
780.146(c) [784.188(c)] of this Chapter. The Commission may require
additional monitoring when necessary. (2) Surface water monitoring data
shall be submitted every 3 months to the Commission or more frequently
as prescribed by the Commission. Monitoring reports shall include
analytical results from each sample taken during the reporting period.
When the analysis of any surface water sample indicates noncompliance
with the permit conditions, then the operator shall promptly notify the
Commission and immediately take the action provided for in Section
786.221(a) and 780.146(a) [784.188(a)] of this Chapter. The reporting
requirements of this paragraph do not exempt the operator from meeting
any National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements. (3) Surface water monitoring shall proceed through mining
and continue during reclamation until bond release. Consistent with the
procedures of Part 786 of this Chapter, the Commission may modify the
monitoring requirements, except those required by the NPDES permitting
authority, including the parameters covered and the sampling frequency,
if the operator demonstrates, using the monitoring data obtained under
this paragraph, that--(i) The operation has minimized disturbance to
the hydrologic balance in the permit and adjacent areas and prevented
material damage to the hydrologic balance
[[Page 54630]]
outside the permit area; water quantity and quality are suitable to
support approved postmining land uses; and the water rights of other
users have been protected or replaced; or (ii) monitoring is no longer
necessary to achieve the purposes set forth in the monitoring plan
approved under Section 780.146(c) [784.188(c)] of this Chapter. (4)
Equipment, structures, and other devices used in conjunction with
monitoring the quality and quantity of surface water onsite and offsite
shall be properly installed, maintained, and operated and shall be
removed when no longer needed.
28. TCMR 816.355 (Surface) and TCMR 817.524 (Underground) Hydrologic
Balance: Stream Buffer Zones
Texas proposes to remove the existing provisions at TCMR 816.355
(a) through (c) and 817.524 (a) through (c) and to replace them with
the following provisions. Any differences between the surface and
underground mining regulations are shown with the underground language
bracketed.
(a) No land within 100 feet of a perennial stream or an
intermittent stream shall be disturbed by surface mining activities,
unless the Commission specifically authorizes surface mining activities
closer to, or through, such a stream. The Commission may authorize such
activities only upon finding that--(1) Surface mining activities will
not cause or contribute to the violation of applicable State or Federal
water quality standards, and will not adversely affect the water
quantity and quality or other environmental resources of the stream;
and (2) If there will be a temporary or permanent stream-channel
diversion, it will comply with Section 816.341 [817.511].
(b) The area not to be disturbed shall be designated as a buffer
zone, and the operator shall mark it as specified in Section 816.330
[817.500].
29. TCMR 816.358 Use of Explosives: Pre-Blasting Survey
Texas proposes to add the italicized language shown in the
following existing provision: Assessments of structures such as
pipelines, pipes, cables, transmission lines, cisterns, wells and other
water systems warrant special attention; however, assessment of these
structures may be limited to surface conditions and other readily
available data.
30. TCMR 816.376 Coal Mine Waste: Dams and Embankments: General
Requirements
a. Texas proposes to change the title of TCMR 816.376 from ``Coal
Processing Waste: Dams and Embankments: General Requirements'' to Coal
Mine Waste: Dams and Embankments: General Requirements.''
b. At TCMR 816.376(a), Texas proposes to replace the word
``processing'' with the word ``mine'' in two places.
c. At TCMR 816.376(b), Texas proposes to add the term ``coal mine''
before the term ``waste'' in two places, and to replace the reference
to ``Section .378(a)'' with a reference to ``this Part.''
31. TCMR 816.377 Coal Mine Waste: Dams and Embankments: Site
Preparation
a. Texas proposes to change the title of TCMR 816.377 from ``Coal
Processing Waste: Dams and Embankments: Site Preparation'' to ``Coal
Mine Waste: Dams and Embankments: Site Preparation.''
b. Texas proposes to replace the word ``processing'' with the word
``mine'' in the introductory sentence of TCMR 816.377.
32. TCMR 816.378 Coal Mine Waste: Dams and Embankments: Design and
Construction
a. Texas proposes to change the title of TCMR 816.378 from ``Coal
Processing Waste: Dams and Embankments: Design and Construction'' to
``Coal Mine Waste: Dams and Embankments: Design and Construction.''
b. At TCMR 816.378(a), Texas proposes to replace the word
``processing'' with the word ``mine'' and to change the Section
reference to ``.347(a) and (c).''
33. TCMR 816.390 Revegetation: General Requirements
At TCMR 816.390, Texas added new Paragraph (b)(5) which requires
that the reestablished plant species (i) [b]e capable of self-
generation and plant succession; (ii) [b]e compatible with the plant
and animal species of the area; and (iii) [m]eet the requirements of
applicable State and Federal seed, poisonous and noxious plant, and
introduced species laws or regulations.
34. TCMR 816.395 (Surface) and TCMR 817.560 (Underground) Revegetation:
Standards for Success
a. Texas proposes to revise the previously proposed provision at
TCMR 816.395(a)(1) and 817.560(a)(1) by requiring that standards for
success and statistically valid sampling techniques for measuring
success be selected by the Commission.
b. Texas proposes to remove the previously proposed language at
TCMR 816.395(c)(4) and 817.560(c)(4) and to add the following new
language.
(4) The Commission may approve selective husbandry practices,
excluding augmented seeding, fertilization, or irrigation, provided it
obtains prior approval from the Director, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement in accordance with CFR 732.17 that the
practices are normal husbandry practices, without extending the period
of responsibility for revegetation success and bond liability if such
practices can be expected to continue as part of the postmining land
use or if the discontinuance of the practices will not reduce the
probability of permanent revegetation success. Approved practices shall
be normal husbandry practices within the region for unmined land uses
similar to the approved postmining land use of the disturbed area,
including such practices as disease, pest, and vermin control; and any
pruning, reseeding, and transplanting, specifically necessary by such
actions.
35. TCMR 816.405 (Surface) and TCMR 817.574 (Underground) Roads: Class
I: Maintenance
a. At TCMR 816.405(a) and 817.574(a), Texas proposes to remove the
previously proposed revisions to the existing provision and to add the
phrase ``and any additional criteria specified by the Commission'' at
the end of the existing provision.
b. At TCMR 816.405(b) and 817.574(b), Texas proposes to replace the
existing second sentence with the following language.
This includes maintenance to control or prevent erosion,
siltation, and the air pollution attendant to erosion, including
road dust as well as dust occurring on other exposed surfaces, by
measures such as vegetating, watering, using chemical or other dust
suppressants, or otherwise stabilizing all exposed surfaces in
accordance with prudent engineering practices.
36. TCMR 816.406 (Surface) and TCMR 817.575 (Underground) Roads: Class
I: Restoration
a. Texas proposes to revise the previously proposed language of
TCMR 816.406(a)(4) and 817.575(a)(4) as follows.
(4) Removing or otherwise disposing of road-surfacing materials
that are incompatible with the postmining land use and revegetation
requirements;
b. At TCMR 816.406(a)(10) [existing (a)(9)], Texas proposes to
change the
[[Page 54631]]
Section reference from .337(b) to .334-.338.
37. TCMR 816.412 (Surface) and TCMR 817.581 (Underground) Roads: Class
II: Maintenance
At TCMR 816.412(a) and 817.581(a), Texas proposes to remove the
previously proposed revisions and to add the language ``entire
transportation'' before the word ``facility'' and to add the language
``and any additional criteria specified by the Commission'' at the end
of the provision.
38. TCMR 816.413 Roads: Class II: Restoration
a. Texas proposes to revise the previously proposed language of
TCMR 816.413(a)(4) as follows:
(4) Removing or otherwise disposing of road-surfacing materials
that are incompatible with the postmining land use and revegetation
requirements;
b. At TCMR 816.413(a)(10) [existing (a)(9)], Texas proposes to
change the Section reference from .337(b) to .334-.338.
39. TCMR 816.420 Roads: Class III: Restoration
a. Texas proposes to revise the previously proposed language of
TCMR 816.420(d) as follows.
(d) Removing or otherwise disposing of road-surfacing materials
that are incompatible with the postmining land use and revegetation
requirements;
b. At TCMR 816.420(i) [exiting (h)], Texas proposes to change the
Section reference from .337(b) to .334-.338.
40. TCMR 817.535 Coal Mine Waste Banks: General Requirements
a. Texas proposes to change the title of TCMR 817.535 from ``Coal
Processing Waste Banks: General Requirements'' to Coal Mine Waste
Banks: General Requirements.''
b. Texas proposes to add the following new provision at TCMR
817.535(c).
The disposal facility shall be designed using current, prudent
engineering practices and shall meet any design criteria established
by the Commission. A qualified registered professional engineer,
experienced in the design of similar earth and waste structures,
shall certify the design of the disposal facility.
41. TCMR 817.538 Coal Mine Waste Banks: Construction Requirements
Texas proposes to change the title of TCMR 817.538 from ``Coal
Processing Waste Banks: Construction Requirements'' to Coal Mine Waste
Banks: Construction Requirements.''
42. TCMR 817.543 Coal Mine Waste: Dams and Embankments: General
Requirements
a. Texas proposes to change the title of TCMR 817.543 from ``Coal
Processing Waste: Dams and Embankments: General Requirements'' to Coal
Mine Waste: Dams and Embankments: General Requirements.''
b. At TCMR 817.543(a), Texas proposes to replace the word
``processing'' with the word ``mine'' in two places.
c. At TCMR 817.543(b), Texas proposes to add the term ``coal mine''
before the term ``waste'' in two places, and to replace the reference
to ``Section .545(a)'' with a reference to ``this Part.''
43. TCMR 817.544 Coal Mine Waste: Dams and Embankments: Site
Preparation
a. Texas proposes to change the title of TCMR 817.544 from ``Coal
Processing Waste: Dams and Embankments: Site Preparation'' to ``Coal
Mine Waste: Dams and Embankments: Site Preparation.''
b. Texas proposes to replace the word ``processing'' with the word
``mine'' in the introductory language.
44. TCMR 817.545 Coal Mine Waste: Dams and Embankments: Design and
Construction
a. Texas proposes to change the title of TCMR 817.545 from ``Coal
Processing Waste: Dams and Embankments: Design and Construction'' to
``Coal Mine Waste: Dams and Embankments: Design and Construction.''
b. At TCMR 817.545(a), Texas proposes to replace the word
``processing'' with the word ``mine'' and to change the Section
reference to ``.517(a) and (c).''
45. TCMR 817.555 Revegetation: General Requirements
At TCMR 817.555, Texas added new Paragraph (b)(5) which requires
that the reestablished plant species (i) [b]e capable of stabilizing
the soil surface erosion; (ii) [b]e compatible with the plant and
animal species of the area; and (iii) [m]eet the requirements of
applicable State and Federal seed, poisonous and noxious plant, and
introduced species laws or regulations.
46. TCMR 817.575 Roads: Class I: Restoration
a. Texas proposes to revise the previously proposed language of
TCMR 817.575(a)(4) as follows.
(4) Removing or otherwise disposing of road-surfacing materials
that are incompatible with the postmining land use and revegetation
requirements;
b. At TCMR 817.575(a)(10) [existing (a)(9)], Texas proposes to
change the Section references from .507(b) to 817.504-817.508 and from
.561 to .555-.560.
47. TCMR 817.582 Roads: Class II: Restoration
a. Texas proposes to revise the previously proposed language of
TCMR 817.582(a)(4) as follows.
Removing or otherwise disposing of road-surfacing materials that
are incompatible with the postmining land use and revegetation
requirements;
b. At TCMR 817.582(a)(10) [existing (a)(9)], Texas proposes to
change the Section references from .507(b) to 817.504-817.508 and from
.561 to .555-.560.
48. TCMR 817.584 Roads: Class III: Location
At TCMR 817.584(d), Texas proposes to replace the word
``constructed'' with the word ``located.''
49. TCMR 817.589 Roads: Class III: Restoration
a. Texas proposes to revise the previously proposed language of
TCMR 817.589(d) as follows.
Removing or otherwise disposing of road-surfacing materials that
are incompatible with the postmining land use and revegetation
requirements;
b. At TCMR 817.589(i) [existing (h)], Texas proposes to change the
Section references from .507(b) to .504-.508 and from .561 to .555-
.560.
50. TCMR 846.001 Definitions--Individual Civil Penalties
At TCMR 846.001(2), Texas proposes to add the language ``except an
order incorporated in a decision issued under Section 30(b) of the
Act'' at the end of the sentence.
51. TCMR 850.702 General Requirements
Texas proposes to remove existing TCMR 850.702(e).
52. TCMR 850.704 Training Courses
At TCMR 850.704(b), Texas proposes to replace the word ``courses''
with the word ``subjects.''
53. Revegetation Guidelines
Texas submitted a proposed technical guidance document entitled
``Field Sampling Procedures for Determining Groundcover, Productivity,
and Woody-Plant Stocking Success of Reclaimed Surface Mined Land Uses;
Revegetation Success Standards for Reclaimed Surface Mined Land Uses;
and Normal Husbandry Practices on Unmined Land''
[[Page 54632]]
dated August 31, 1995. The document contains the following sections.
Procedures for Determining Ground Cover and Woody-Plant Stocking
This section contains a description of the process for establishing
transects; a description for determining the placement and measurement
of sample points for herbaceous vegetation; and a description for
determining the placement and measurement of sample plots for woody
plants (trees, shrubs, half shrubs, and vines). It also requires that
all permanent ground cover and woody-plant count evaluations be
conducted during the growing season.
Methods To Measure Herbaceous and Crop Productivity
This section contains four methods for measuring herbaceous and
crop productivity. These include whole-field harvest; clipping method;
double sampling method; and grazing method.
Success Standards for Ground Cover, Productivity, and Stocking
This section contains standards for ground cover; forage and
herbaceous productivity for pastureland, grazingland, and undeveloped
land use; crop productivity; prime farmland productivity; and woody-
plant stocking.
Normal Husbandry Practices
This section contains the following language.
Approved husbandry practices for postmine lands bonded under the
extended liability period are the normal husbandry practices within
the region for unmined lands having the same land uses as the
approved postmining land uses. Normal husbandry practices are the
normal conservation practices that can be expected to continue as
part of the approved postmine land use after final bond release.
Normal husbandry practices for unmined lands within the region
having the same land uses as the approved postmine land use may
include management practices at levels recommended by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS), the Texas Forest Service, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department.
III. Public Comment Procedures
In accordance with the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM is
seeking comments on whether the proposed amendment satisfies the
applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If the amendment
is deemed adequate, it will become part of the Texas program.
Written Comments
Written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues
proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of the
commenter's recommendations. Comments received after the time indicated
under DATES or at locations other than the Tulsa Field Office will not
necessarily be considered in the final rulemaking or included in the
Administrative Record.
Public Hearing
Persons wishing to speak at the public hearing should contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4:00 p.m.,
c.s.t., on November 9, 1995. The location and time of the hearing will
be arranged with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one
requests an opportunity to speak at the public hearing, the hearing
will not be held.
Filing of a written statement at the time of the hearing is
requested as it will greatly assist the transcriber. Submission of
written statements in advance of the hearing will allow OSM officials
to prepare adequate responses and appropriate questions.
The public hearing will continue on the specified date until all
persons scheduled to speak have been heard. Persons in the audience who
have not been scheduled to speak, and who wish to do so, will be heard
following those who have been scheduled. The hearing will end after all
persons scheduled to speak and persons present in the audience who wish
to speak have been heard.
Any disabled individual who has need for a special accommodation to
attend a public hearing should contact the individual listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Public Meeting
If only one person requests an opportunity to speak at a hearing, a
public meeting, rather than a public hearing, may be held. Persons
wishing to meet with OSM representatives to discuss the proposed
amendment may request a meeting by contacting the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings will be open to the
public and, if possible, notices of meetings will be posted at the
locations listed under ADDRESSES. A written summary of each meeting
will be made a part of the Administrative Record.
IV. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12866
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review).
Executive Order 12778
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 2 of Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform) and has
determined that, to the extent allowed by law, this rule meets the
applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section.
However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of
State regulatory programs and program amendments since each such
program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM.
Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30
CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State
regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must
be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is
consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and
whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have
been met.
National Environmental Policy Act
No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since
section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency
decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collections requirements
that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior has determined that this 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 State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In
making the determination as to whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and
assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.
[[Page 54633]]
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 943
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: October 17, 1995.
Charles E. Sandberg,
Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 95-26402 Filed 10-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26400 Ohio Regulatory Program
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54619-54620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26400]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 935
[OH-229; Amendment Number 66R]
Ohio Regulatory Program
agency: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
action: Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
summary: OSM is reopening the public comment period for a revised
amendment to the Ohio regulatory program (hereinafter referred to as
the Ohio program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977. The amendment was initiated by Ohio and is intended to make
the Ohio program as effective as the corresponding Federal regulations
concerning the number and frequency of premining water quality samples
required for previously mined permit areas.
This document sets forth the times and locations that the Ohio
program and the proposed amendment to that program will be available
for public inspection, the comment period during which interested
persons may submit written comments on the proposed amendments, and the
procedures that will be followed regarding the public hearing, if one
is requested.
dates: Written comments must be received by 4:00 p.m., E.D.T. on
November 9, 1995. If requested, a public hearing on the proposed
amendments will be held at 1:00 p.m., E.D.T. on November 6, 1995.
Requests to speak at the hearing must be received by 4:00 p.m., E.D.T.
on November 1, 1995.
addresses: Written comments and requests to testify at the hearing
should be mailed or hand-delivered to Mr. Daniel L. Schrum, Acting
Director, Columbus Field Office, at the address listed below.
Copies of the Ohio program, the proposed amendment, and all written
comments received in response to this document will be available for
public review at the addresses listed below during normal business
hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Each requester may
receive one free
[[Page 54620]]
copy of the proposed amendment by contacting OSM's Columbus Field
Office.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Columbus Field
Office, 4480 Refugee Road, Suite 201, Columbus, Ohio 43232, Telephone:
(614) 866-0578.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation, 1855
Fountain Square Court, Building H-3, Columbus, Ohio 43224, Telephone:
(614) 265-6675.
for further information contact: Mr. Daniel L. Schrum, Acting Director,
Columbus Field Office, (614) 866-0578.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Ohio Program
On August 16, 1982, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally
approved the Ohio program. Information on the general background of the
Ohio program submission, including the Secretary's findings, the
disposition of comments, and a detailed explanation of the conditions
of approval of the Ohio program, can be found in the August 10, 1982,
Federal Register (47 FR 34688). Subsequent actions concerning the
conditions of approval and program amendment are identified at 30 CFR
935.11, 935.12, 935.15, and 935.16.
II. Discussion of the Proposed Amendment
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Reclamation
(Ohio) submitted proposed Program Amendment Number 66 (PA 66) by letter
dated July 3, 1995 (Administrative Record No. OH-2143). In this
amendment, Ohio proposed to revise one rule at Ohio Administrative Code
(OAC) section 1501:13-4-15 to make the Ohio program as effective as the
corresponding Federal regulations concerning the number and frequency
of premining water quality samples required for previously mined permit
areas. Also as part of PA 66, Ohio proposed to revise two of its
Policy/Procedure Directives (PPD's) to reflect the rule changes
described above. Ohio proposed to revise PPD Regulatory 93-4 to clarify
that pollution abatement areas can include contiguous undisturbed areas
which must be affected to improve the baseline pollutional load, to
clarify the definition of ``no longer exceeding,'' and to change the
name of Ohio's Remining Program contact person.
OSM announced receipt of PA 66 in the July 25, 1995, Federal
Register (60 FR 37972), and, in the same document, opened the public
comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing on the
adequacy of the proposed amendment. The public comment period closed on
August 24, 1995.
On September 8, 1995, OSM notified Ohio of its comments about PA 66
(Administrative Record No. OH-2156). OSM and Ohio staff met on
September 19, 1995, to discuss those comments. In response to OSM's
comments, Ohio submitted Revised Program Amendment Number 66 (PA 66R)
by letter dated September 27, 1995 (Administrative Record No. OH-2157).
In PA 66R, Ohio is proposing two changes to PPD Regulatory 93-4. Ohio
is deleting the earlier proposed provision in the PPD which would have
allowed the inclusion of ``contiguous undisturbed areas'' within
pollution abatement areas. Ohio is also revising the PPD to provide
that, as part of the demonstration that the untreated pre-existing
discharges from the pollution abatement area have not exceeded the
modified effluent limitations for the required 12 months, the operator
must notify the Division's district office in writing at the beginning
of the 12-month period prior to the Phase II bond release.
III. Public Comment Procedures
In accordance with the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM is now
seeking comment on whether the amendment proposed by Ohio satisfies the
applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If the amendment
is deemed adequate, it will become part of the Ohio program.
Written Comments
Written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues
proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of the
commenter's recommendations. Comments received after the time indicated
under ``DATES'' or at locations other than the Columbus Field Office
will not necessarily be considered in the final rulemaking or included
in the Administrative Record.
Public Hearing
Persons wishing to comment at the public hearing should contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4:00 p.m.,
E.D.T. on November 1, 1995. If no one requests an opportunity to
comment at a public hearing, the hearing will not be held.
Filing of a written statement at the time of the hearing is
requested as it will greatly assist the transcriber. Submission of
written statements in advance of the hearing will allow OSM officials
to prepare adequate responses and appropriate questions. The public
hearing will continue on the specified date until all persons scheduled
to comment have been heard. Persons in the audience who have not been
scheduled to comment and who wish to do so will be heard following
those scheduled. The hearing will end after all persons scheduled to
comment and persons present in the audience who wish to comment have
been heard.
Any disabled individual who has need for a special accommodation to
attend a public hearing should contact the individual listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Public Meeting
If only one person requests an opportunity to comment at a hearing,
a public meeting, rather than a public hearing, may be held. Persons
wishing to meet with OSM representatives to discuss the proposed
amendment may request a meeting at the Columbus Field Office by
contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMAITON CONTACT. All
such meetings shall be open to the public and, if possible, notices of
the meetings will be posted at the locations listed under ADDRESSES. A
written summary of each public meeting will be made a part of the
Administrative Record.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 935
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: October 12, 1995.
Joseph F. Rogozinski,
Acting Regional Director, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 95-26400 Filed 10-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26379 Atlantic Striped Bass Fisheries; Public Hearings
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 54663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26379]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 656
[I.D. 092595C]
Atlantic Striped Bass Fisheries; Public Hearings
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Additional public hearings; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 29, 1995, October 16, 1995, and October 18, 1995,
NMFS announced continuing public hearings to receive comments from
fishery participants and other members of the public regarding proposed
regulations on the harvest and possession of striped bass in the
exclusive economic zone of the Atlantic Ocean from Maine through North
Carolina.
Due to insufficient space to safely accommodate an unanticipated
large attendance at the October 16, 1995, hearing in Toms River, NJ,
and the public request for hearings in New York, and Connecticut, NMFS
is announcing that it intends to hold additional public hearings on
November 6, 1995, in Ronkonkoma, NY, November 7, 1995, at Long Branch,
NJ, November 8, 1995, in East Lyme, CT, and November 13, 1995, in Toms
River, NJ, to allow those who were unable to comment, the opportunity
to do so.
To accommodate others unable to attend any of the public hearings,
but who wish to provide comments, NMFS also is soliciting written
comments on the proposed rule.
DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule must be received on or
before November 15, 1995. The remaining hearings are scheduled as
follows:
1. October 25, 1995, 7 to 9 p.m., Plymouth, MA
2. November 6, 1995, 7 to 9 p.m., Ronkonkoma, NY
3. November 7, 1995, 7 to 9 p.m., Long Branch, NJ
4. November 8, 1995, 7 to 9 p.m., East Lyme, CT
5. November 9, 1995, 7 to 9 p.m., Norfolk, VA
6. November 13, 1995, 7 to 9 p.m., Toms River, NJ
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to William Hogarth, Office
of Fisheries Conservation and Management (F/CM), NMFS, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Clearly mark the outside of the
envelope ``Atlantic Striped Bass Comments.''
The remaining hearings will be held at the following locations:
1. Plymouth--Plymouth N. High School, Obery Street, Plymouth, MA
02360
2. Ronkonkoma--Holiday Inn, 3845 Veterans Memorial Highway,
Ronkonkoma, NY 11779
3. Long Branch--Ocean Place Hilton, One Ocean Blvd., Long Branch,
NJ 07740
4. East Lyme--East Lyme High School, 30 Chesterfield Road, East
Lyme, CT 06333
5. Norfolk--Quality Inn Lake Wright Convention Center, 6280
Northampton Blvd., Norfolk, VA 23502
6. Toms River--Holiday Inn, 290 Highway 37E, Toms River, NJ 08753
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Hogarth at 301-713-2339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The hearing announcements were published on
September 29, 1995 (60 FR 50540), October 16, 1995 (60 FR 53577) and
October 18, 1995.
A complete description of the measures, and the purpose and need
for the proposed action, is contained in the proposed rule published
September 27, 1995 (60 FR 49821), and is not repeated here. A copy of
the proposed rule may be obtained by writing (see ADDRESSES) or calling
the contact person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
The hearings are physically accessible to people with disabilities.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids for
the Ronkonkoma, NY, East Lyme, CT, Long Branch, NJ and Toms River,
NJ,public hearings should be directed to William Hogarth by November 2,
1995 (see ADDRESSES).
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1851 note.
Dated: October 19, 1995.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-26379 Filed 10-19-95; 4:08 p]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26365 Head Start Program
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54648-54651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26365]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
45 CFR Part 1305
RIN 0970-AB53
Head Start Program
AGENCY: Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF),
Administration for Children and Families (ACF), HHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Administration on Children, Youth and Families is issuing
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to amend the requirements on
eligibility, recruitment, selection, enrollment and attendance in Head
Start, in six areas affecting Head Start programs which are serving
specific populations. The first and second proposed changes add a new
definition for Indian Tribe and amend the definition of a migrant
family to conform to a new statutory definition. The third change
requires migrant programs to give priority to children from families
that relocate most frequently. The fourth and fifth proposed changes
affect Head Start programs operated by Indian Tribes by expanding the
definition of a Head Start service area to include near-reservation
designations and by expanding the family income eligibility criteria
for Indian grantees meeting specific conditions. The sixth change
establishes the number of years children remain eligible for Head Start
when they are enrolled in an Early Head Start program.
DATES: In order to be considered, comments on this proposed rule must
be received on or before December 26, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Please address comments to the Associate Commissioner, Head
Start Bureau, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, P.O. Box
1182, Washington, D.C. 20013. Beginning 14 days after close of the
comment period, comments will be available for public inspection in
Room 2215, 330 C Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20201, Monday through
Friday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rita Schwarz, (202) 205-8539.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Program Purpose
Head Start is authorized under the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9801
et seq.). It is a national program providing comprehensive
developmental services primarily to low-income preschool children, who
are primarily age three to the age of compulsory school attendance, and
their families. In addition, Section 645A of the Head Start Act
provides authority to fund programs for families with infants and
toddlers. Programs receiving funds under the authority of this Section
are referred to as Early Head Start programs. To help enrolled children
achieve their full potential, Head Start programs provide comprehensive
health, nutritional, educational, social and other services.
Additionally, Head Start programs are required to provide for the
direct participation of the parents of enrolled children in the
development, conduct, and direction of local programs. Parents also
receive training and education to foster their understanding of and
involvement in the development of their children. In fiscal year 1994,
Head Start served 740,500 children through a network of over 2,000
grantees and delegate agencies.
While Head Start is intended to serve primarily children whose
families have incomes at or below the poverty line, or who receive
public assistance, Head Start policy permits up to 10 percent of the
children in local programs to be from families who do not meet these
low-income criteria. The Act also requires that a minimum of 10 percent
of the enrollment opportunities in each program be made available to
children with disabilities. Such children are expected to participate
in the full range of Head Start services and activities with their non-
disabled peers and to receive needed special education and related
services.
II. Summary of the Proposed Regulation
The authority for this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is
sections 637, 640, 641, 645 and 645A of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C.
9801 et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103-252, Title I of the Human
Service Amendments of 1994.
Section 637 contains a new definition for Indian Tribe which will
be incorporated into this regulation. It also contains a new definition
for ``migrant Head Start program'' which impacts the current definition
of ``migrant family'', found in 45 CFR 1305.2(l), by amending the
definition to include families that have changed their residence from
one geographical location to another in the preceding two-year period.
Section 640(l) states that the Secretary must give priority to
migrant Head Start programs which serve eligible children of migrant
families whose work requires them to relocate most frequently.
Section 641(b) expands the definition of community to include
Indians in any area designated as near-reservation. This requires a
change in 45 CFR 1305.3(a) regarding the designation of a grantee's
service area and the addition of a new paragraph (b) to that section.
Section 645(d) expands the eligibility for participation in Head
Start programs operated by Indian Tribes to include children from
families whose income exceeds the income-eligibility guidelines when
specific conditions exist in the community served by the Tribe,
provided the program predominantly serves children from families who
meet the low-income guidelines. This requires a change in 45 CFR
1305.4(b) regarding family income eligibility.
Section 645(d) also requires the Secretary to specify by regulation
the requirements contained in that section after consultation with
Indian Tribes. In preparation for developing these amendments to 45 CFR
1305, ACYF solicited input from Indian Tribes through three meetings
with members of the Indian community. Their comments and
recommendations were considered in developing the amendments to this
regulation that are applicable to Head Start programs operated by
Tribes.
Section 645A authorizes the funding of programs for families with
infants and toddlers. Specifically, it states in section 645A(b) that
programs receiving
[[Page 54649]]
assistance for this purpose shall provide ``* * * early, continuous,
intensive and comprehensive child development and family support
services * * *.'' In order to provide continuous services for children
funded under this authority in Early Head Start programs, 45 CFR
1305.7(c) is being amended to extend the length of time the child's
family remains income-eligible.
The proposed rule:
Adds a new definition for Indian Tribe.
Amends the definition of a migrant family to include
families who are engaged in agricultural work who have changed their
residence from one geographical location to another within the
preceding two-year period.
Adds a requirement that migrant programs give priority to
children from families whose work requires them to relocate most
frequently.
Expands the meaning of a grantee's service area when the
grantee is an Indian Tribe to include a near-reservation designation.
Permits an Indian Tribe, under certain conditions, to have
more than ten percent of its Head Start program's enrollment be
children from families with incomes that exceed the low-income
guidelines. These conditions are: (1) That all income-eligible children
who wish to be enrolled are served by the program, including Indian
children from a near-reservation area, if the near reservation area is
part of the Tribe's approved service area; (2) that the program
predominantly serves children from families whose income meets the low-
income guidelines; and (3) that a Tribe may not use funds from HHS
intended for expansion to serve children from over-income families
beyond the ten percent permitted in current regulation.
Extends income eligibility of families with children
enrolled in an Early Head Start program funded under the authority of
Section 645A of the Head Start Act to cover the time their child is
enrolled in the Early Head Start program.
III. Section by Section Discussion of the NPRM
Section 1305.2 Definitions
Under definitions, we are adding ``Indian Tribe'' as a new
paragraph (k) to conform to the definition that is in section 637(10)
of the Head Start Act and redesignating the remaining paragraphs,
accordingly.
Section 1305.2(l), which will be new paragraph (m) under the
redesignation, currently defines a migrant family, for purposes of Head
Start eligibility, to include a family with children under the age of
compulsory school attendance who have changed their residence by moving
from one geographic location to another, either intrastate or
interstate, within the past twelve months, for the purpose of engaging
in agricultural work that involves the production and harvesting of
tree and field crops and whose family income comes primarily from this
activity. This NPRM proposes to amend the definition to change the
length of time between moves by the family from one geographic location
to another from the past twelve months to the preceding two years. This
will conform with new language in Section 637(12) of the Head Start Act
that defines a ``migrant Head Start program''.
Section 1305.3 Determining Community Needs
The current regulation requires each grantee to identify its
proposed service area in its Head Start grant application and define it
by county or sub-county area, such as a municipality, town or census
tract or a federally recognized Indian reservation. A service area is
currently defined in section 1305.2(q) as the geographic area
identified in an approved grant application within which a grantee may
provide Head Start services. This NPRM proposes to expand the meaning
of service area contained in this section for Head Start grantees that
are Indian Tribes to permit the Tribe to include all or part of any
areas designated as near-reservation by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) as stated in Section 641(b) of the Head Start Act. In order to
provide increased flexibility to Tribes which do not have a BIA
designation but face the same needs for serving Indians who live near
the reservation, we are proposing to allow such Tribes an opportunity
to redefine their service area. If a Tribe does not have a BIA near-
reservation designation, it may, subject to the approval of the Tribe's
governing council and the Associate Commissioner of the Head Start
Bureau, propose to designate near-reservation areas in which Indian
people native to the reservation reside, as part of its service area.
Expanding the Tribe's service area to include a near-reservation area
would permit them to serve Indian children who live near, but not on,
the Tribe's reservation.
Section 1305.4 Age of Children and Family Income Eligibility
The current regulation requires at least 90 percent of the children
enrolled in Head Start to be from low-income families. Up to ten
percent of the children enrolled may be from families that exceed the
low-income guidelines. To conform with language in section 645(d) of
the Head Start Act, the NPRM proposes to amend the family income
eligibility requirements for Head Start programs operated by Indian
Tribes to permit them to enroll additional children, beyond the ten
percent, from families that exceed the low-income guidelines when the
following conditions are met: (1) All children in the Tribe's approved
service area from families that meet the low-income guidelines who wish
to be enrolled in Head Start are served by the program, including those
Indian children native to the reservation living in near reservation
communities when such communities have been included in the Tribe's
approved service area; (2) the Tribe has the resources to enroll these
children, without using additional funds from HHS intended to expand
Head Start services, and; (3) at least 51 percent of the children to be
served by the program are from families whose incomes are below the
low-income guidelines.
The first condition requires the Tribe to serve all children who
are from families whose incomes are below the low-income guidelines,
who are between the ages of three and the age when kindergarten or
first grade is available in the child's community, and whose families
wish them to be served by Head Start before it may enroll children from
families that exceed the low-income guidelines. This would include all
children living on the Tribe's reservation, including those children
from low-income families who are not members of the Tribe. It may also
include Indian children who meet the low-income guidelines who live in
a near-reservation area, if the Tribe's approved service area includes
such near-reservation communities. The purpose of this condition is to
ensure that all children eligible for Head Start are permitted the
opportunity to attend Head Start, if they live on the Tribe's
reservation. It also ensures that low-income Indian families living in
near-reservation areas have an opportunity to enroll their children in
the Tribe's Head Start program, if the Tribe has included that area in
its approved service area.
The second condition requires that at the time the Tribe proposes
to serve more than ten percent of its Head Start enrollment from
families exceeding the low-income guidelines, the Tribe must have the
resources to enroll these children and that no funds provided by HHS
that are intended to expand Head Start services may be used for this
purpose. This means that such children must be served within the
Tribe's
[[Page 54650]]
existing Head Start funding or through the use of non-Federal
resources. Funds to expand Head Start services that are provided by HHS
to the Tribe would be intended to serve additional children from
families that meet the low-income guidelines.
The third condition is that at least 51 percent of the children to
be enrolled in a Head Start program operated by a Tribe are to be
children from families that meet the low-income guidelines. Section 645
of the Head Start Act states that, when serving children from families
whose income exceeds the low-income guidelines, the program must
predominantly serve children from families that meet the low-income
guidelines. We are defining the term ``predominantly'' to mean at least
51 percent of the children enrolled in the program. This allows the
Tribes as much flexibility as possible. This position was strongly
supported during consultation sessions that were held with Tribes on
this issue, as is required in the Head Start Act. Many individuals
supported this interpretation of ``predominantly'' and expressed strong
concern that Tribes be given this flexibility to serve children from
families whose income exceeds the low-income guidelines when special
circumstances on a Tribe's reservation exist. Several Tribal members
gave examples of changing economic conditions on their reservation
that, while varying from year to year, may limit the number of families
who are eligible to enroll their child in Head Start at certain times
using the low-income guidelines to determine eligibility.
If programs meet these conditions, we are proposing that the
program annually set criteria that are approved by the Policy Council
and the Tribal Council for selecting over-income children who would
benefit from enrollment in a Head Start program.
Section 1305.6 Selection Process
Paragraph (b) of this section will be amended to add a new
requirement that migrant programs must give priority to children from
families whose work required them to relocate most frequently within
the preceding two-year period. This change conforms with similar
language in section 640(l) of the Head Start Act. This should not be
interpreted to mean that frequency of relocation is the only factor to
be considered when selecting children to be served by the program.
Other factors should also be considered depending on the needs of the
community being served and the recruitment priorities established by
each program.
Section 1305.7 Enrollment and Re-enrollment
Paragraph (c) of this section will be amended to include an
exception to the current requirement which states that once a child has
been found to be income-eligible, they remain eligible for the current
and immediately succeeding enrollment year. The exception will apply to
children who are enrolled in an Early Head Start program funded under
the authority of section 645A of the Head Start Act for services to
families with infants and toddlers. In order to assure continuity of
services, once income-eligibility has been determined, such children
remain income eligible while they are enrolled in Early Head Start.
Income would have to be redetermined for the family if they wish to
enroll their child in a Head Start program serving children between the
ages of three and compulsory school attendance. This exception is
proposed to meet the intent of section 645A of the Head Start Act.
ACF appreciates the need to balance the assurance of continuity of
services for children and families enrolled in the Early Head Start
program with the assurance that Head Start programs are serving those
children and families most in need of the program. We encourage
comments on whether the correct balance has been achieved in this
proposed regulation by our approach of allowing children to stay in the
Early Start program for up to two additional years beyond when their
families' income eligibility was determined while requiring that
families whose children are scheduled to move from Early Head Start to
Head Start should first have their income reverified to assure they are
still income-eligible for the program.
IV. Impact Analysis
Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 requires that regulations be drafted to
ensure that they are consistent with the priorities and principles set
forth in the Executive Order. The Department has determined that this
rule is consistent with these priorities and principles. This Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking implements the statutory authority for Head Start
grantees that are Indian Tribes to include a near-reservation area when
recruiting children for Head Start services and, under certain
circumstances, to enroll children from families with incomes that
exceed the low-income guidelines. It also changes the definition of a
migrant family, requires migrant Head Start grantees to give priority
to families that relocate most frequently, and establishes the number
of years children remain eligible for Head Start when they are enrolled
in a program receiving funds under the authority of section 645A of the
Head Start Act for services to families with infants and toddlers.
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. CH. 6) requires the
Federal government to anticipate and reduce the impact of rules and
paperwork requirements on small businesses. For each rule with a
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities'' an analysis must be prepared describing the rule's impact on
small entities. Small entities are defined by the Act to include small
businesses, small non-profit organizations and small governmental
entities. While these regulations would affect small entities, they
would not affect a substantial number. For this reason, the Secretary
certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on
substantial numbers of small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, all
Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval any reporting or record-keeping
requirement inherent in a proposed or final rule. This NPRM does not
contain information collection and record-keeping requirements.
List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1305
Disabilities, Education of Disadvantaged, Grant Programs/Social
Programs, Head Start Enrollment, Preschool Education.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 93.600,
Project Head Start)
Dated: October 4, 1995.
Mary Jo Bane,
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
For the reasons set forth in the Preamble, 45 CFR Part 1305 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 1305--ELIGIBILITY, RECRUITMENT, SELECTION, ENROLLMENT AND
ATTENDANCE IN HEAD START
1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9801 et seq.
2. Section 1305.2 is amended by redesignating current paragraphs
(k) through (r) as paragraphs (l) through (s); adding a new paragraph
(k); and revising newly redesignated paragraph (m) to read as follows:
[[Page 54651]]
Sec. 1305.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(k) Indian Tribe means any tribe, band, nation, pueblo, or other
organized group or community of Indians, including any Native village
described in section 3 (c) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(43 U.S.C. 1602 (c)) or established pursuant to such Act (43 U.S.C.
1601 et seq.), that is recognized as eligible for special programs and
services provided by the United States to Indians because of their
status as Indians.
* * * * *
(m) Migrant family means, for purposes of Head Start eligibility, a
family with children under the age of compulsory school attendance who
changed their residence by moving from one geographic location to
another, either intrastate or interstate, within the preceding two
years, for the purpose of engaging in agricultural work that involves
the production and harvesting of tree and field crops and whose family
income comes primarily from this activity.
* * * * *
3. Section 1305.3 is amended by revising paragraph (a),
redesignating current paragraphs (b) through (f) as paragraphs (c)
through (g), and adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1305.3 Determining community needs.
(a) Each grantee must identify its proposed service area in its
Head Start grant application and define it by county or sub-county
area, such as a municipality, town or census tract or a federally
recognized Indian reservation. With regard to Indian Tribes, the
service area may include Indian families living in areas designated as
near-reservation by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), or in the
absence of such a designation, areas within the Tribe's approved
service area. A Tribe lacking a BIA near-reservation designation may
propose to define its service area to include Indian children and
families native to the reservation living in near-reservation areas,
provided the service area is approved by the Tribe's governing council.
(b) The grantee's service area must be approved, in writing, by the
responsible HHS official in order to assure that the service area is of
reasonable size and, except in situations where a near-reservation
designation has been approved for a Tribe, does not overlap with that
of other Head Start grantees.
* * * * *
4. Section 1305.4 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1305.4 Age of children and family income eligibility.
* * * * *
(b)(1) At least 90 percent of the children who are enrolled in each
Head Start program must be from low-income families.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, up to
ten percent of the children who are enrolled may be children from
families that exceed the low-income guidelines but who meet criteria
the program has established for selecting such children and who would
benefit from Head Start services.
(3) A Head Start program operated by an Indian Tribe may enroll
more than ten percent of its children from families whose income
exceeds the low-income guidelines when the following conditions are
met:
(i) All children from Indian and non-Indian families living on the
reservation that meet the low-income guidelines who wish to be enrolled
in Head Start are served by the program.
(ii) All children from income-eligible Indian families native to
the reservation living in near-reservation communities, if those
communities are approved as part of the Tribe's service area, who
wished to be enrolled in Head Start are served by the program;
(iii) The Tribe has the resources within its Head Start grant or
from non-Federal sources to enroll these children, without using
additional funds from HHS intended to expand Head Start services; and
(iv) At least 51 percent of the children to be served by the
program are from families that meet the income-eligibility guidelines.
(4) Programs who meet the conditions of paragraph (b)(3) of this
section must annually set criteria that are approved by the Policy
Council and the Tribal Council for selecting over-income children who
would benefit from such a program.
* * * * *
5. Section 1305.6 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1305.6 Selection process.
* * * * *
(b) In selecting the children and families to be served, the Head
Start program must consider the income of eligible families, the age of
the child, the availability of kindergarten or first grade to the
child, and the extent to which a child or family meets the criteria
that each program is required to establish in Sec. 1305.3(c)(6).
Migrant programs must give priority to children from families whose
work required them to relocate most frequently within the previous two-
year period.
* * * * *
6. Section 1305.7 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1305.7 Enrollment and re-enrollment.
* * * * *
(c) If a child has been found income eligible and is participating
in a Head Start program, he or she remains income eligible through that
enrollment year and the immediately succeeding enrollment year. An
exception to this are children who are enrolled in a program receiving
funds under the authority of section 645A of the Head Start Act,
programs for families with infants and toddlers. Such children remain
eligible for Head Start services until such time as their family
applies for enrollment in a Head Start program serving children between
the ages of three to compulsory school attendance. When a child moves
from a program serving infants and toddlers to a Head Start program
serving children age three and older, the family's income eligibility
must be reverified if it is two or more years since this has been done.
[FR Doc. 95-26365 Filed 10-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26325 Jojoba Oil; Exemption from Tolerance Requirement
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54637-54641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26325]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 3E4230/P634; FRL-4981-7]
RIN 2070-AC18
Jojoba Oil; Exemption from Tolerance Requirement
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish an exemption from the requirement
for a tolerance for residues of jojoba oil in or on all raw
agricultural commodities when applied at not more than 1.0% of the
final spray as an insecticide or as a pesticide spray tank adjuvant in
accordance with good agricultural practices. Amvac Chemical Corp.
submitted a petition pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA) requesting the proposed regulation to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
DATES: Comments, identified by the document control number [PP 3E4230/
P634], must be received on or before November 24, 1995.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments 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 comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202. Information submitted
as a comment concerning this document may be claimed confidential by
marking any part or all of that information as ``Confidential Business
Information'' (CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
comment that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in
the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed
publicly by EPA without prior notice. All written comments will be
available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the address
[[Page 54638]]
given above, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file
format. All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by
the docket number [PP 3E4230/P634]. No Confidential Business
Information (CBI) should be submitted through e-mail. Electronic
comments on this proposed 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: Michael L. Mendelsohn,
Regulatory Action Leader, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention
Division (7501W), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office
location and telephone number: 5th Floor, CS #1, 2800 Crystal Drive,
Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-308-8715; e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Amvac Chemical Corp., 2110 Davie Ave., City
of Commerce, CA 90040, has submitted pesticide petition (PP) 3E4230 to
EPA proposing to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a regulation
pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to exempt from the requirement of a
tolerance simmondsia liquid wax (jojoba oil) and the product Detur for
use as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing
crops or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest. Subsequent to
its petition, Amvac informed EPA that it had transferred all Detur
assets to Imperial Jojoba Oils of El Centro, CA. EPA has, of its own
initiative, expanded the original petition to include pesticidal uses
of jojoba oil in this proposed exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance.
The data submitted in the petition and all other relevant material
have been evaluated and a discussion of the submitted data and
literature referenced follows.
The source of jojoba oil is the Simmondsia chinensis shrub,
commonly called the jojoba plant. The plant is a woody evergreen shrub,
2 to 3 feet high with thick, leathery, bluish-green leaves and dark
brown, nutlike fruit. Two techniques are used to release the oil from
the plant fruit (also called a nut, bean, or seed). The oil may be
extracted by pressing or by solvent extraction methods used
commercially to isolate vegetable oils. The expressed oil is clear and
golden in color.
The exact composition of the oil varies dependent upon geographic
location of the plant and can vary from bean to bean within a single
plant. Jojoba oil is composed almost completely of wax esters of
monounsaturated, straight-chain acids and alcohols with high molecular
weights (C16-C26). Jojoba oil has been defined as a liquid
wax ester with the generic formula RCOOR''. RCO represents oleic acid,
eicosanoic acid (C20:1), and/or erucic acid (C22:1) moieties. -OR''
represents eicosenyl alcohol (C20:1), docosenyl alcohol (C22:1) and/or
tetrasenyl alcohol (C24:1) moieties. Crude jojoba oil contains 0.8 ppm
elemental lead (Pb) and less than 0.1 ppm arsenic (AS2S3).
The jojoba bean contains 2 glycosides with toxic effects:
simmondsin [2-(cyanomethylene)-3-hydroxy-4,5-dimethoxycyclohexyl-D-
glucoside] at 2.3% and simmondsin-2'-ferulate at 1% (Verbiscar and
Banigan, 1978. J. Ag. Fd. Chem. 26:1456-60). In addition, related
conjugated organonitriles including demethyl simmondsin and
didemethylsimmondsin are present (Abbott, T.P., Nakamura, L.K.,
``Microbial Detoxification of Jojoba Toxins,'' Agricultural Research
Service, 1990). As set forth below, this proposed exemption does not
cover these ingredients, and they are therefore not permitted to be
present in the jojoba oil subject to this exemption. A third toxic
component which makes up to 14% of jojoba oil is erucic acid. Erucic
acid is also found in rapeseed oil in amounts up to 50% (``The
Chemistry and Technology of Jojoba Oil'' by James Wisniak). The amount
of erucic acid likely to be present in residues of jojoba oil under
this exemption is less than 1/10 of the amount (2%) permitted in
rapeseed oil defined by FDA as low erucic acid rapeseed oil.
Toxicology
EPA's evaluation of the toxicological properties of jojoba oil is
based in part upon numerous toxicology studies conducted both for the
purposes of evaluating the use of jojoba oil in cosmetic products and
as a pesticide. In addition, the Agency took into consideration the
fact that jojoba oil has been widely distributed in commerce and
available to the general public throughout the United States for
cosmetic uses without any evidence of significant adverse effects to
humans or the environment.
Chronic data was not deemed necessary to support the proposed
exemption because of the low application levels allowed and the fact
that most of the jojoba oil injested orally is excreted in the feces
(Yaron, A. ``Metabolism and Physiological Effects of Jojoba Oil'' in
The Chemistry and Technology of Jojoba Oil, 1987, Wisniak, J.). The
expected dietary exposure to humans as a result of the use of this
substance as an inert or active pesticide ingredient applied at 1% of
the final spray is far below levels that produced no adverse effects in
laboratory animals.
As noted above, formulations of jojoba oil may contain erucic acid
and the glycosides simmondsin and simmondsin-2-ferulate (as well as
related conjugated organonitriles including demethyl simmondsin and
didemethylsimmondsin), ingredients which are of toxicological concern.
Erucic acid, which has been identified as a potential contributing
factor in heart disease, makes up approximately 14% of jojoba oil.
However, this proposed exemption only exempts residues resulting from
the application of a final spray diluted to no more than 1% jojoba oil,
the level of erucic acid in the spray applied to raw agricultural
commodities will fall from 14% to 0.14% This is less than one-tenth the
2% erucic acid level permitted for low erucic acid rapeseed oil (see
FDA regulations at 21 CFR 184.1555(c)), and therefore does not pose a
hazard to human health.
The Agency lacks sufficient information to conclude that simmondsin
and simmondsin-2-ferulate as well as related conjugated organonitriles
including demethyl simmondsin and didemethylsimmondsin would not cause
adverse health effects when applied under the terms of this proposed
exemption. For this reason, the proposed exemption only applies to
formulations of jojoba oil not containing simmondsin and simmondsin-2-
ferulate.
A summary of the the available toxicological data for simmondsin,
simmondsin-2-ferulate, erucic acid, and jojoba oil is set forth below.
A. Simmondsin and Simmondsin-2'-Ferulate
Simmondsin and/or its breakdown products have been linked to diet
rejection or restriction in rats (Booth, A.N., C.A. Elliger, A.J.
Waiss, 1974. ``Isolation of a Toxic Factor from Jojoba Meal,'' Life
Sci. 15:1115).
[[Page 54639]]
Ingested Simmondsin, a glycoside in jojoba bean, caused rats to
avoid food. Administration of 6,000 ppm of simmondsin in the diet of
rats produced a 24% body weight decrease. Twenty percent of mice fed
with 10% simmondsin in the diet died within 1 week (Letter from Andrew
Laumbach (FDA) to Don Barioni (Jojoba Oil Oils, CA) dated July 8,
1992). (Letter from Karen Korman to Don Barioni dated July 22, 1992).
When weanling rats were given simmondsin orally for 5 days at 750
mg/kg/day, all rats lost weight and died within 10 days (R.K. Locke,
FDA memo 3/22/78)).
A dose of 2.5 g/kg simmondsin orally did not decrease body weight
in rats (Khalsa, J.H. FDA memo May 27, 1983; R.K. Locke, FDA memo 3/22/
78).
A dose of 3.6 g/kg simmondsin by i.p. injection had no effect on
rats' body weight (Khalsa, J.H. FDA memo May 27, 1983; R.K. Locke, FDA
memo 3/22/78).
A single oral dose of 4 g/kg of simmondsin to weanling rats
produced no effects during a 14-day observation (Khalsa, J.H. FDA memo
May 27, 1983; R.K. Locke, FDA memo 3/22/78).
A diet containing 0.6% of Simmondsin produced weight loss in rats
as did a diet containing 10% jojoba oil (Locke, R.K. to L.J. Lin, FDA
memo 3/22/78).
B. Erucic Acid
Erucic acid (13%) in jojoba oil may contribute to heart disease.
Nestle Technical Product Assistance-Orbe, Switzerland.
Jojoba oil contains 14% of erucic acid which has been shown to
cause myocardial fibrosis (Abdullatif, A.M.M. and E.O Vles, 1971. Nutr.
Metabol. 13:63-74).
C. Jojoba Oil Acute Oral Toxicity Studies
Fewer than 50% of rats died when orally administered 21.5 mL/kg of
jojoba oil (Wisniak, J., 1977, ``Jojoba Oil and Derivatives.'' Proc.
Chem. Fats and Lipids 15(3):167-218.). Four groups (10 males and 10
females/group) rats were orally administered 0.5, 0.75, 1.13 and 1.69
mL/10 g of crude jojoba oil. After 7 days, rats were killed and
necropsied. One rat died before the end of the 7 days; renal capsule
discoloration was noted in all groups; peritonitis was noted in one
1.69 mL/10g group (Taguchi, M. and Kunimoto, 1977. ``Toxicity Studies
on Jojoba Oil for Cosmetic Uses,'' Cosmetics Toiletries, 19:53-62
(September issue).CS (RP)).
The oral LD50 for crude jojoba oil in mice is greater than
1.69 mL/10 g. No death or clinical signs were noted (Taguchi, Masayuki,
1990. ``Test Results on Safety on Jojoba oil to be Used for Cosmetics''
in La Jojoba, Apache Junction, AZ; p 149-170.).
Four groups (10 males and 10 females/group) of rats were fed basal
diet (5g/feeding containing 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 g of refined jojoba
oil. The first two groups were dosed for 7 days, and the last two
groups were dosed for 4 days. Signs of toxicity were noted in five rats
in the 1.0-g group and six rats each in the 2.0-g and 3.0-g groups. One
rat died in each of the 1.0-, 2.0-, and 3.0-g dose groups (Hamm, D. J.,
1984. ``Preparation and Evaluation of Trail-koxytricarballylate,
Trialhoxycitrate, Trailkoxyglycerylether, Jojoba Oil and Sucrose
Polyester as Low calories Replacements of edible Fats and Oils'' J. of
Food Science (49):419-428). (OW)
Twenty percent of weanling mice died when fed a diet with 10%
jojoba oil (Locke, R.K. to L.J. Lin, FDA memo, 3/22/1978).
A single oral administration at 5,050 mg/kg of DETUR (a pesticide
product containing 97.5% jojoba oil) to HSD:SD rats did not produce
death in any animal. The oral LD50 for DETUR in HSD:SD rats is
greater than 5,050 mg/kg body weight which is classified as toxicity
category IV for pesticide precautionary labeling purposes.
In the testing of a lip balm product containing 20% jojoba oil,
none of the rats (5 males and 5 females) died when orally administered
with 5.0 g/kg of 20% jojoba oil (lip balm product) (CTFA, 1985. CIR
Safety Data Test Summary Response Form. Acute oral toxicity study on
lip balm product containing 20% jojoba oil, 1 p.)
Acute Dermal Toxicity Studies
A single dose of 2,020 mg/kg of DETUR (a pesticide product
containing 97.5% jojoba oil) was topically applied to the shaved intact
skin of 5 male and 5 female rabbits for 24 hours and treated rabbits
were observed for 14 days. No mortality was noted; transient skin
irritation and diarrhea were noted; one female had mottled liver. The
acute dermal LD50 of DETUR is greater than 2,020 mg/kg body weight
and classified as Toxicity category III for pesticide precautionary
labeling purposes.
Primary Eye Irritation Studies
Instillation of refined Jojoba Oil (0.1 mL) into the eyes of six
male rabbits produced slight ablepharia and slight conjunctival
hyperemia at 1 hour after instillation. All signs cleared by 24 hours
post-instillation (Taguchi, M. and Kunimoto, 1977. ``Toxicity Studies
on Jojoba Oil for Cosmetic Uses,'' Cosmetics Toiletries, 19:53-62
(September issue). CS (RP) Instillation of lip balm product containing
20% of jojoba oil (0.1 mL) into the eyes of six rabbits produced eye
irritation score of 0.3 0.8 (Draize scale) at 24 hours
post-instillation. All reactions were cleared at 48 hours post-
instillation (CTFA, 1985 as reported in Diener, Robert M. ed., 1992.
``Final Report on the Safety Assessment of Jojoba Oil and Jojoba Wax.''
Nineteenth Report of the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel. J.
American College of Toxicology, Vol. 11(1):57-82).
Administration of DETUR (a pesticide product containing 97.5%
jojoba oil) into rabbit eyes caused positive conjunctival irritation in
rabbits for 48 hours. DETUR is considered to be a mild eye irritant and
is classified as EPA toxicity category III for precautionary labeling
purposes.
Primary Dermal Irritation Studies
Refined jojoba oil (0.5 mL) as well as olive oil and light liquid
paraffin (0.5 mL) serving as controls were topically applied to the
shaved skin of three groups of 5 guinea pigs daily for 15 days. The
same procedure was conducted in the other three groups of 5 guinea pigs
daily for 30 days. A Draize scoring system was used. No significant
reactions to jojoba oil and olive oil were noted. Flare reactions to
liquid paraffin were noted on the third day of the study (Taguchi, M.
and Kunimoto, 1977. ``Toxicity Studies on Jojoba Oil for Cosmetic
Uses.'' Cosmetics Toiletries, 19:53-62 (September issue)). CS (RP).
Jojoba oil (10.0% w/w in refined Jojoba oil) was topically applied
to albino marmots according to Draize method. No skin reactions were
noted in any animals (Taguchi, Masayuki, 1990. ``Test Results on Safety
on Jojoba oil to be Used for Cosmetics'' in La Jojoba, Apache Junction,
AZ; p. 149-170.).
A topical application of lip balm product containing 20% jojoba oil
to New Zealand white rabbits produced a primary irritation score of
0.33--minimally irritating (CTFA, 1985 as reported in Diener, Robert
M., ed., 1992. ``Final Report on the Safety Assessment of Jojoba Oil
and Jojoba Wax. Nineteenth Report of the Cosmetic Ingredient Review
Expert Panel.'' J. American College of Toxicology, Vol. 11(1): 57-82.).
Application of 0.5 mL of DETUR (a pesticide product containing
97.5% jojoba oil) on the shaved dorsal skin of 6 rabbits did not
produce deaths or other signs of systemic toxicity. Transient erythema/
eschar formation was seen in two males and two females. Within 24 hours
all treated skin sites were normal. The primary dermal
[[Page 54640]]
irritation index was 0.17. DETUR is considered to be slightly
irritating and in EPA's toxicity category IV for precautionary labeling
purposes.
Dermal Sensitization Studies
The skin sensitization potential of jojoba alcohol (10.0% w/w in
refined Jojoba oil) was evaluated according to the maximization test
using albino marmots (10 males and 10 females). Two groups of marmots
(10 males and 10 females) were used as the controls. No sensitization
reaction was observed 24 or 48 hours after the challenge application
(Taguchi, Masayuki, 1990. ``Test Results on Safety on Jojoba oil to be
Used for Cosmetics.'' La Jojoba, Apache Junction, AZ; p. 149-170.).
Five out of six human subjects suspected to be sensitive to jojoba
oil had positive reactions when patch tested with jojoba olive oil and
jojoba oil-petrolatum mixtures. Twenty-eight human subjects with no
known sensitivities did not have sensitization reactions to pure jojoba
oil (Scott, M.J. and M.J. Scott, Jr., 1982, ``Jojoba Oil,'' J. Am.
Acad. Dermatology 6(4):545.).
The skin irritation and sensitization test of lip balm product
containing 20% jojoba oil in humans produced no skin sensitization and
irritation (CTFA, 1988, as reported in Diener, Robert M., ed., 1992.
``Final Report on the Safety Assessment of Jojoba Oil and Jojoba Wax.
Nineteenth Report of the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel.'' J.
American College of Toxicology, Vol. 11(1): 57-82.).
The skin irritation and sensitization test of topical product
containing 10% jojoba oil was conducted in humans using the Draize-
Shelanski repeat insult patch test. No skin sensitization or irritation
was evident (CTFA, 1988 as reported in Diener, Robert M., ed., 1992.
``Final Report on the Safety Assessment of Jojoba Oil and Jojoba Wax.
Nineteenth Report of the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel.'' J.
American College of Toxicology, Vol. 11(1): 57-82).
90-Day Feeding Toxicity Study in Rodents and Dogs
Jojoba oil incorporated in the diet of rat at 0.5, 5.0, and 10.0%
(w/w) for 2 months produced elevations of transaminase and alkaline
phosphatase at weeks 4 and 13 of the study period. Nestle Product
Technical Assistance - Orbe, Switzerland (n.d)
Metabolism and Absorption Studies
Effects of Ingestion of Jojoba Oil on Blood Cholesterol Levels and
Lipoprotein Patterns in New Zealand White Rabbits
This study was conducted to determine the cholesterol-lowering
effect of crude jojoba if fed to animals. Six groups (4 per group) of
New Zealand White Rabbits were fed for 30 days with various combination
of basal diet mixed with cholesterol, jojoba oil, and safflower. Blood
cholesterol was then determined. Two or six percent crude jojoba oil
added to the atherogenic diet containing 1% cholesterol resulted in a
40% reduction of blood cholesterol as compared to cholesterol control
rabbits. Under the same conditions, 2% safflower oil was not effective
in lowering blood cholesterol levels. The authors suggested that jojoba
oil was absorbed across the intestinal mucosa, contrary to the
hypothesis that it is totally excreted and not metabolized (Clarke,
J.A. and D.M. Yermanos, 1981. ``Effects of Ingestion of Jojoba Oil on
Blood Cholesterol Levels and Lipoprotein Patterns in New Zealand White
Rabbits.'' Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communication
102(4):14091415).
Preparation and Evaluation of Trailkoxytricarballylate,
Trialkoxycitrate, Trailkoxyglycerylether, Jojoba Oil, and Sucrose
Polyester as Low Calories Replacements of Edible Fats and Oils
This study evaluated the digestibility and caloric availability of
test oils including refined jojoba oil. Crude jojoba oil was refined by
a standard alkali refining process which is used to refine edible
vegetable oils. In the refined jojoba oil, free fatty acids were
reduced to 0.023% from 1.45% in the crude oil. A trace nitrogen level
of 6 2 ppm was found in the refined oil which translated
to an upper limit of 160 54 ppm of Simmondsin in the
finished oil. Simmondsin and/or its breakdown products have been linked
with the diet rejection or restriction in rats. Four groups of 10
Sprague-Dawley rats each were fed with 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 grams of
refined jojoba oil once a day for 7 consecutive days. Feces were
collected, weighed and then the percentages of water, ash, fat,
protein, and carbohydrate were analyzed. No diet rejection was noted in
any dose group. Weakness and depression were noted in 50% of 1.0-g
dosed rats and in all 2.0- and 3.0-gms dosed rats; one rat in each of
these dose groups died during the study. Jojoba oil was poorly absorbed
and resistant to digestion, but anal leakage was noted. Jojoba oil can
act as a laxative and interfere with certain vitamin and mineral
absorption from the gut. (Hamm, D. J., 1984. ``Preparation and
Evaluation of Trailkoxytricarballylate, Trialhoxycitrate,
Trailkoxyglycerylether, Jojoba Oil and Sucrose Polyester as Low
calories Replacements of Edible Fats and Oils,'' J. of Food Science
(49):419-428). (OW)
Conclusion
The Agency estimates that the dietary exposure to humans from
jojoba oil when applied in accordance with the limitations set forth in
this proposed exemption is far below the levels that produced no
adverse effects in laboratory animals. For this reason, and upon review
of its use, EPA has determined that jojoba oil, when used in accordance
with good agricultural practices is useful and poses no hazard to the
public health. Accordingly, EPA proposes to exempt jojoba oil from the
requirements of a tolerance under the conditions set forth below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, which contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after publication
of this notice in the Federal Register that this rulemaking proposal be
referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance with section 408(e) of
the FFDCA.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed regulation. Comments must bear a notation indicating the
document control number, [PP 3E4230/P634]. All written comments filed
in response to this petition will be available in the Public Response
and Program Resources Branch, at the address given above from 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays.
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 3E4230/P634] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2,
[[Page 54641]]
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
opp-D[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer 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, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order (i.e.,
Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines ``significant'' as
those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially
affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities (also known as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user
fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the
principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates under Title II of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Pub. L. 104-4 for State,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector because it would not
impose enforceable duties on them.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 29, 1995.
Janet L. Andersen,
Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be 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 subpart D, by adding new Sec. 180.1160, to read as follows:
Sec. 180.1160 Jojoba oil; exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance.
The insecticide and spray tank adjuvant jojoba oil is exempted from
the requirement of a tolerance in or on all raw agricultural
commodities when applied at the rate of 1.0% or less of the final spray
in accordance with good agricultural practices, provided the jojoba oil
does not contain simmondsin, simmondsin-2-ferulate and related
conjugated organonitriles including demethyl simmondsin and
didemethylsimmondsin.
[FR Doc. 95-26325 Filed 10-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26060 Styrene-2-Ethylhexyl Acrylate-Glycidyl Methacrylate-2-Acrylamido- 2-Methylpropanesulfonic Acid Graft Copolymer; Tolerance Exemption
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54643-54645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26060]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-300398; FRL-4981-1]
RIN 2070-AB78
Styrene-2-Ethylhexyl Acrylate-Glycidyl Methacrylate-2-Acrylamido-
2-Methylpropanesulfonic Acid Graft Copolymer; Tolerance Exemption
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to establish an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of styrene-2-ethylhexyl
acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate-2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic
acid graft copolymer when used as an inert ingredient (dispersing
agent/solvent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or to
raw agricultural commodities after harvest. Dow Chemical Co. requested
this proposed regulation pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: Written comments, identified by the document control number
[OPP-300398], must be received on or before November 24, 1995.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments 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, deliver comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202. Information submitted
as a comment concerning this document may be claimed confidential by
marking any part or all of that information as ``Confidential Business
Information'' (CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
comment that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in
the public record. Information not marked confidential will be included
in the public docket by EPA without prior notice. All written comments
will be available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the address
given above, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays.
A copy of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing
Clerk may also be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail
(e-mail) to: [email protected]. Copies of objections and
hearing requests must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of
special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of objections and
hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1
file format or ASCII file format. All copies of objections and hearing
requests in electronic form must be identified by the docket number
[OPP-300398]. No Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be
submitted through e-mail. Electronic copies of objections and hearing
requests on this rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository
Libraries. Additional information on electronic submissions can be
found below in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Rita Kumar, Registration
Support Branch, Registration Division (7505W), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and
telephone number: 2800 Crystal Drive, North Tower, 6th Floor,
Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-308-8811; e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dow Chemical Co., 1803 Building, Midland, MI
48674-1803, has submitted pesticide petition (PP) 5E04461 to EPA
requesting that the Administrator, pursuant to section 408(e) of the
Federal Food Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C.
[[Page 54644]]
346a(e)), propose to amend 40 CFR 180.1001(c) by exempting styrene-2-
ethylhexyl acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate-2-acrylamido-2-
methylpropanesulfonic acid graft copolymer when used as an inert
ingredient (dispersing agent/solvent) in pesticide formulations applied
to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest,
under 40 CFR 180.1001(c). The inert ingredient meets the definition of
a polymer under 40 CFR section 723.250(b) and the criteria listed in 40
CFR section 723.250(e) that define a chemical substance that poses no
unreasonable risk under section 5 of the Toxic Substance Control Act
(TSCA).
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125, and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not to imply nontoxicity; the
ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
The data submitted in the petition and other relevant material have
been evaluated. As part of the EPA policy statement on inert
ingredients published in the Federal Register of April 22, 1987 (52 FR
13305), the Agency set forth a list of studies which would generally be
used to evaluate the risks posed by the presence of an inert ingredient
in a pesticide formulation. However, where it can be determined without
that data that the inert ingredient will present minimal or no risk,
the Agency generally does not require some or all of the listed studies
to rule on the proposed tolerance or exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance for an inert ingredient. The Agency has decided that no
data, in addition to that described below, for styrene-2-ethylhexyl
acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate-2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic
acid graft copolymer will need to be submitted. The rationale for this
decision is described below.
In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as
``polymers,'' the Agency has established a set of criteria which
identify categories of polymers that present low risk. These criteria
(described in 40 CFR 723.250) identify polymers that are relatively
unreactive and stable compared to other chemical substances as well as
polymers that typically are not readily absorbed. These properties
generally limit a polymer's ability to cause adverse effects. In
addition, these criteria exclude polymers about which little is known.
The Agency believes that polymers meeting the criteria noted above will
present minimal or no risk.
Styrene-2-ethylhexyl acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate-2-acrylamido-2-
methylpropanesulfonic acid graft copolymer conforms to the definition
of a polymer in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that
are used to identify low-risk polymers:
1. Styrene-2-ethylhexyl acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate-2-
acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid graft copolymer is not a
cationic polymer, nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a cationic
polymer in a natural aquatic environment.
2. Styrene-2-ethylhexyl acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate-2-
acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid graft copolymer contains as an
integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur.
3. Styrene-2-ethylhexyl acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate-2-
acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid graft copolymer does not
contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities,
any elements other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
4. Styrene-2-ethylhexyl acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate-2-
acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid graft copolymer is not
designed, nor is it reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade,
decompose, or depolymerize.
5. Styrene-2-ethylhexyl acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate-2-
acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid graft copolymer is not
manufactured or imported from monomers and/or other reactants that are
not already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or
manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
6. Styrene-2-ethylhexyl acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate-2-
acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid graft copolymer is not a water-
absorbing polymer.
7. The minimum number-average molecular weight of styrene-2-
ethylhexyl acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate-2-acrylamido-2-
methylpropanesulfonic acid graft copolymer is 12,500 daltons.
Substances with molecular weights greater than 400 generally are not
absorbed through the intact skin, and substances with molecular weights
greater than 1,000 generally are not absorbed through the intact
gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Chemicals not absorbed through skin or GI
tract generally are incapable of eliciting a toxic response.
8. Styrene-2-ethylhexyl acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate-2-
acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid graft copolymer has a number
average molecular weight of 12,500, and contains oligormeric content
less than 2 percent below MW 500 and less than 5 percent below MW
1,000.
9. Styrene-2-ethylhexyl acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate-2-
acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid graft copolymer does not
contain reactive functional groups that are intended or reasonably
anticipated to undergo further reaction.
Based on the information above and review of its use, EPA has found
that, when used in accordance with good agricultural practice, this
ingredient is useful, and a tolerance is not necessary to protect the
public health. Therefore, EPA proposes that the exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance be established as set forth below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, that contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after the
publication of this document in the Federal Register that this
rulemaking proposal be referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance
with section 408(e) of the FFDCA.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed regulation. Comments must bear a notation indicating the
document control number, [OPP-300398]. All written comments filed in
response to this petition will be available in the Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, at the address given above, from 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays.
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [OPP-300398] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed paper versions of electronic comments, which does not
include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
[[Page 54645]]
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
opp-D[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will be placed in the paper copies
of the official rulemaking record which also will include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the address in the ``ADDRESSES'' section at
the beginning of this document.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 2 of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the requirement 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 an 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 Subject in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 27, 1995.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.1001(c) is amended in the table therein by adding
and alphabetically inserting the inert ingredient, to read as follows:
Sec. 180.1001 Exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert ingredients Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Styrene-2-ethylhexyl acrylate- .............. Dispersing agent/
glycidyl methacrylate-2- solvent.
acrylamido-2-
methylpropanesulfonic acid
graft copolymer, minimum
number-average molecular
weight 12,500.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-26060 Filed 10-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-26059 Octadecanoic Acid, 12-Hydroxy-, Homopolymer, Octadecanoate; Tolerance Exemption
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54641-54643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26059]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-300399; FRL-4981-2]
RIN 2070-AC18
Octadecanoic Acid, 12-Hydroxy-, Homopolymer, Octadecanoate;
Tolerance Exemption
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to establish an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of octadecanoic acid, 12-
hydroxy-, homopolymer, octadecanoate (CAS Reg. No. 58128-22-6) when
used as an inert ingredient (surfactant and dispersing agent) in
pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural
commodities after harvest, under 40 CFR 180.1001(c). ICI Americas,
Inc., requested this proposed regulation pursuant to the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: Written comments, identified by the document control number
[OPP-300399], must be received on or before November 24, 1995.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments 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, deliver comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202. Information submitted
as a comment concerning this document may be claimed confidential by
marking any part or all of that information as ``Confidential Business
Information'' (CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
comment that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in
the public record. Information not marked confidential will be included
in the public docket by EPA without prior notice. All written comments
will be available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the address
given above, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file
format. All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by
the docket number [OPP-300399]. No Confidential Business Information
(CBI) should be submitted through e-mail. Electronic comments on this
proposed 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: Rita Kumar, Registration
Support Branch, Registration Division (7505W), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and
telephone number: 2800 Crystal Drive, North Tower, 6th Floor,
Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-308-
[[Page 54642]]
8811; e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ICI Americas, Inc., Concord Plaza, 3411
Silverside Rd., P.O. Box 15391, Wilmington, DE 19850, submitted
pesticide petition (PP) 5E04506 to EPA requesting that the
Administrator, pursuant to section 408(e) of the Federal Food Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 346a(e)), propose to amend 40 CFR
180.1001(c) by exempting octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer,
octadecanoate from the requirement of a tolerance. Octadecanoic acid,
12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, octadecanoate, when used as an inert
ingredient (surfactant and dispersing agent) in pesticide formulations
applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after
harvest, under 40 CFR 180.1001(c), meets the definition of a polymer
under 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the criteria listed in 40 CFR 723.250(e)
that define a chemical substance that poses no unreasonable risk under
section 5 of the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA).
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125, and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not to imply nontoxicity; the
ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
The data submitted in the petition and other relevant material have
been evaluated. As part of the EPA policy statement on inert
ingredients published in the Federal Register of April 22, 1987 (52 FR
13305), the Agency set forth a list of studies which would generally be
used to evaluate the risks posed by the presence of an inert ingredient
in a pesticide formulation. However, where it can be determined without
that data that the inert ingredient will present minimal or no risk,
the Agency generally does not require some or all of the listed studies
to rule on the proposed tolerance or exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance for an inert ingredient. The Agency has decided that no
data, in addition to that described below, for octadecanoic acid, 12-
hydroxy-, homopolymer, octadecanoate will need to be submitted. The
rationale for this decision is described below.
In the case of certain chemical substances that are defined as
``polymers,'' the Agency has established a set of criteria which
identify categories of polymers that present low risk. These criteria
(described in 40 CFR 723.250) identify polymers that are relatively
unreactive and stable compared to other chemical substances as well as
polymers that typically are not readily absorbed. These properties
generally limit a polymer's ability to cause adverse effects. In
addition, these criteria exclude polymers about which little is known.
The Agency believes that polymers meeting the criteria noted above will
present minimal or no risk.
Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, octadecanoate conforms
to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the
following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.
1. Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, octadecanoate is
not a cationic polymer, nor is it reasonably anticipated to become a
cationic polymer in a natural aquatic environment.
2. Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, octadecanoate
contains as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements
carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
3. Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, octadecanoate does
not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as
impurities, any elements other than those listed in 40 CFR
723.250(d)(2)(ii).
4. Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, octadecanoate is
not designed, nor is it reasonably anticipated to substantially
degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
5. Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, octadecanoate is
not manufactured or imported from monomers and/or other reactants that
are not already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or
manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
6. Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, octadecanoate is
not a water-absorbing polymer.
7. The minimum number-average molecular weight of octadecanoic
acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, octadecanoate is 1,370 daltons.
Substances with molecular weights greater than 400 generally are not
absorbed through the intact skin, and substances with molecular weights
greater than 1,000 generally are not absorbed through the intact
gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Chemicals not absorbed through skin or GI
tract generally are incapable of eliciting a toxic response.
8. Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, octadecanoate has a
number average molecular weight of 1,370 and has an oligomeric material
less than 10 percent below MW 500 and less than 25 percent below MW
1,000.
9. Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy-, homopolymer, octadecanoate does
not contain reactive functional groups that are intended or reasonably
anticipated to undergo further reaction.
Based on the information above and review of its use, EPA has found
that, when used in accordance with good agricultural practice, this
ingredient is useful, and a tolerance is not necessary to protect the
public health. Therefore, EPA proposes that the exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance be established as set forth below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, that contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after the
publication of this document in the Federal Register that this
rulemaking proposal be referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance
with section 408(e) of the FFDCA.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed regulation. Comments must bear a notation indicating the
document control number, [OPP-300399]. All written comments filed in
response to this petition will be available in the Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, at the address given above, from 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays.
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [OPP-300399] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed paper versions of electronic comments, which does not
include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
opp-D[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
[[Page 54643]]
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will be placed in the paper copies
of the official rulemaking record which also will include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the address in the ADDRESSES section at the
beginning of this document.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 2 of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the requirement 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 an 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 Subject in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 27, 1995.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.1001(c) is amended in the table therein by adding
and alphabetically inserting the inert ingredient, to read as follows:
Sec. 180.1001 Exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert ingredient Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Octadecanoic acid, 12-hydroxy- .............. Surfactant and
, homopolymer, octadecanoate dispersing agent.
(CAS Reg. No. 58128-22-6),
minimum number-average
molecular weight 1,370.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-26059 Filed 10-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-25776 Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54771-54792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-25776]
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 25, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 54771]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 403 and 503
[FRL-5315-6]
RIN 2040-AC29
Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 25, 1992, pursuant to Section 405 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA), EPA promulgated the Standards for the Use or Disposal
of Sewage Sludge (40 CFR parts 257, 403 and 503). In addition, EPA
amended the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR part 403) to
establish a list of pollutants for which a removal credit may be
available. Today's action proposes additional amendments to both
regulations to clarify existing regulatory requirements and provide
increased flexibility to the permitting authority and the regulated
community in complying with some requirements.
The proposed amendments to part 503 would modify various land
application, surface disposal, pathogen and vector attraction
reduction, and incineration provisions. Most importantly, the proposed
rule would delete the requirement for EPA or the State to issue sludge
permits and would allow the regulated community flexibility to
determine how to meet the sewage sludge incinerator requirements using
existing Agency guidance. EPA is also proposing to amend part 403 to
add a concentation limit for chromium in the list of unregulated
pollutants eligible for a removal credit. Some of the changes EPA is
proposing today will lessen the regulatory burden on States, local
government, Tribes, and the regulated community.
When EPA promulgated the Sewage Sludge Regulation in 1992, EPA
asked for public comment on several issues. Today's notice also
responds to those comments.
DATES: Comments must be received by December 26, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Comment Clerk; Proposed Amendments
to the Final Sewage Sludge Regulation; Water Docket MC-4101;
Environmental Protection Agency; 401 M Street, SW; Washington, DC
20460. Respondents are requested to submit an original and three copies
of their written comments. Respondents who want receipt of their
comments acknowledged should include a self-addressed, stamped
envelope. All submissions must be postmarked or delivered by hand, no
facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
A copy of the final part 503 rule and comments received on the
final rule are available for review at EPA's Water Docket; 401 M
Street, SW; Washington, DC 20460. Other references cited in the
preamble also are available for review in the Docket. The Docket is
located in room L-102. For access to Docket materials, call (202) 260-
3027 between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. for an appointment. The EPA public
information regulation (40 CFR Part 2) provides that a reasonable fee
may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert M. Southworth, Biosolids
Manager, Health and Ecological Criteria Division (4304), Office of
Science and Technology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, telephone (202) 260-7157.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Sewage Sludge Management Program
B. Revisions to the Part 503 Sewage Sludge Rule
II. Response to Comments on Final Sewage Sludge Rule
A. Field Monitoring Study
B. Pollutant Limits for Cadmium
C. Percent of the MCL for the Ground-Water Pathway
III. Proposed Amendments to Land Application, Surface Disposal, and
Pathogens and Vector Attraction Reduction Subparts
A. Ceiling Concentration Limits--Land Application
B. Frequency of Monitoring
C. Certification Language
D. Time of Application
E. Definition of pH
F. Class B, Alternative 1--at the Time of Use or Disposal
G. Class B Site Restriction For Grazing of Animals
H. Vector Attraction Reduction Equivalency
I. Vector Attraction Reduction at the Time of Use or Disposal
J. Technical Corrections
1. Sec. 503.16(a)(1) and Sec. 503.26(a)(1)--Frequency of
Monitoring
2. Sec. 503.17(b)(7)--Recordkeeping for Land Application of
Domestic Septage
3. Sec. 503.18--Reporting
4. Sec. 503.22(b)--General requirements
5. Sec. 503.32(a)(3)--Pathogens
6. Appendix B to Part 503--Pathogen Treatment Processes
IV. Proposed Amendments to the Incinerator Subpart
A. Introduction
B. Description of Current Regulation and Proposed Amendments
1. Site-Specific Exemption from Frequency of Monitoring,
Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements for Pollutants in
Incineration Subpart
a. Current Regulation
b. Proposed Amendment
2. Pollutant Limits for Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead and
Nickel
a. Current Regulation
b. Proposed Amendment
3. Management Practices
a. Current Regulation
i. Specification for Instruments
ii. Specification of Maximum Combustion Temperature
iii. Specification of Air Pollution Control Device Operating
Parameters
b. Proposed Amendment
4. Monitoring Frequencies
a. Current Regulation
i. Beryllium, Mercury, and Operating Parameters for Air
Pollution Control Devices
ii. Total Hydrocarbons, Oxygen Concentration, and Moisture
Content
b. Proposed Amendment
5. Recordkeeping and Reporting Obligations
6. Compliance Deadlines
a. Current Regulation
b. Proposed Amendment
V. Proposed Amendment to Part 403
VI. Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Executive Order 12875
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Unfunded Mandates
I. Background
On November 25, 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
promulgated, pursuant to section 405 of the Clean Water Act, Standards
for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge (58 FR 9248, February 19,
1993). This regulation establishes requirements to protect public
health and the environment when: (1) The sewage sludge is applied to
the land either to condition the soil or to fertilize crops grown in
the soil; (2) the sewage sludge is disposed on land by placing it in a
surface disposal site; (3) the sewage sludge is placed in a municipal
solid waste landfill unit; or (4) the sewage sludge is incinerated.
Section 405(f) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) provides that any CWA
discharge (section 402) permit issued to a publicly owned treatment
works (POTW) or other treatment works treating domestic sewage (TWTDS)
must include conditions to implement the sewage sludge regulation
issued under section 405(d) unless these conditions are included in
other permits. The other permits may either be other Federal permits or
a State permit issued under an approved State program.
In 1989, EPA published regulations that establish State sewage
sludge management program requirements and procedures for approving
State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) (40 CFR
part 123) and non-
[[Page 54772]]
NPDES sewage sludge programs (40 CFR part 501), and that revised the
NPDES permit requirements and procedures (parts 122-124) to incorporate
sewage sludge permitting requirements. (See 54 FR 18716 (May 2, 1989);
59 FR 9404 (February 19, 1993).) State assumption of the sewage sludge
program is optional. EPA is working with a number of States seeking
authorization for the Federal sewage sludge permit and management
program, but has not yet authorized any State sewage sludge program.
Until State sewage sludge programs are authorized, EPA will administer
the program.
EPA is including conditions to implement its sewage sludge
regulation in EPA-issued NPDES permits as these permits are reissued.
In all other cases, EPA plans to issue permits to TWTDS over time, and
has established phased application submittal procedures for the NPDES
and non-NPDES programs to support this approach. See 40 CFR 122.21 and
501.15. (For a detailed discussion of EPA's plans for staged permitting
of sewage sludge generators, users, and disposers, see 58 FR at 9249-50
and 9357-66, February 19, 1993.)
In addition to today's proposal, EPA plans several related actions
in the near term to address sewage sludge issues. These actions include
changes in the sewage sludge management program and further revisions
to the part 503 rule. These actions are briefly discussed below.
A. Sewage Sludge Management Program
As part of its effort to reinvent its permit program, EPA is in the
process of reviewing its sewage sludge management program. The Agency
is looking at how to tailor the program more efficiently to reduce the
burden to the regulated community of complying with Federal sewage
sludge management program requirements. With this objective in mind,
EPA is exploring a number of options with stakeholders. Given the wide
(and successful) regulation of sewage sludge use or disposal by a
number of States, EPA is reviewing its State sewage sludge program
authorization regulations to simplify the approval process. In
addition, the Agency will try to accelerate approval of State programs
through the use of partial program approvals (i.e., approval may be
granted by use or disposal practice). EPA will place greater emphasis
on building a State/Federal partnership rather than on an EPA-directed
permitting effort while maintaining its goal of protecting public
health and the environment.
As noted, EPA will be taking a look at its State program approval
regulations with an eye to streamlining the approval process. The
Agency recognizes that State sewage sludge programs may vary from State
to State depending on local conditions. EPA will be exploring how to
provide greater flexibility to States to accommodate States' choices
about the structuring of their regulatory programs and efficient use of
available local resources where appropriate. To accomplish its
objective to provide greater flexibility to the States, EPA will
consider modifications to its sewage sludge permit program regulations
so as to accommodate more variations in State programs. EPA stresses
that its willingness to allow greater variation in the State permit
programs does not mean that the Agency will retreat from public health
and environmental protection. EPA's policy on authorizing State permit
programs for sewage sludge will still reflect the need for certain
minimum requirements. These include requirements for adequate State
authority to enforce against violators of the sewage sludge regulation.
In addition, States, as is now the case, must provide for citizen
participation in both the sewage sludge permitting and enforcement
efforts.
B. Revisions to the Part 503 Sewage Sludge Rule
EPA also is considering whether it needs to provide more
flexibility in the technical standards. A number of parties have
suggested to the Agency that part 503 should include a provision that
would relieve a sewage sludge user or disposer from certain regulatory
requirements in defined circumstances. EPA is now considering what
specific conditions would warrant relief from regulatory requirements.
Further, in addition to its effort to provide more flexibility in the
technical regulation, EPA is reviewing the regulation in response to
judicial challenges. On November 15, 1994, the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its decision in
Leather Industries of America, Inc., et al. v. EPA, No. 93-1187. In
this decision, the court addressed several of the petitions for review
of the sewage sludge regulation. The D.C. Circuit remanded several
aspects of the regulation to the Agency for modification or additional
justification. Concurrent with today's proposal, the Agency is taking
final action on the remanded pollutant limits for chromium and selenium
in sewage sludge that is land-applied. Moreover, the Agency will
address other litigation issues in a future Federal Register notice to
be published in early 1996.
The part 503 regulation promulgated in November, 1992, partially
fulfilled the Agency's commitment under the terms of a consent decree
that settled a citizens suit to compel issuance of sewage sludge
regulations. Gearhart, et al. v. Reilly, Civil No. 89-6266-JO (D.Ore).
Under the terms of that decree, EPA must propose and take final action
on a second round of sewage sludge regulations by December 15, 2001.
EPA has already begun the process of evaluating a number of pollutants
for potential adverse effects to public health and the environment when
present in sewage sludge. In May, 1993, pursuant to the terms of the
consent decree in the Gearhart case, the Agency notified the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon that, based on the
information then available, EPA would evaluate 31 pollutants for
possible regulation. The consent decree also stipulates that EPA will
file with the court a revised list of pollutants for regulation by
November, 1995. In the event that EPA determines not to regulate some
or all of these pollutants, EPA will make available the rationale for
not regulating those pollutants.
II. Response to Comments on Final Sewage Sludge Rule
In developing the numerical pollutant limits for sewage sludge when
used or disposed, EPA evaluated the risk of these pollutants through
exposure assessments. In the preamble to the final part 503 regulation,
EPA requested public comment on three issues related to these risk
assessments.
A. Field Monitoring Study
For its risk assessments, EPA relied on available scientific
information to evaluate risk to public health and the environment. In
the case of the Agency's evaluation of ecological risks, the data were
limited. In the final rule, EPA explained that it would continue to
assess the adverse potential of sewage sludge, particularly with
respect to ecosystem risks. EPA stated its intention to conduct an
environmental evaluation and monitoring study to aid the Agency in its
efforts to develop a comprehensive ecological risk assessment
methodology (see 58 FR 9275, February 19, 1993).
At the present time, EPA's Office of Research and Development is
funding a number of initiatives in these areas. Under a grant from EPA,
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory has begun work on an ecological risk
study as part of a field project evaluating sewage sludge land
application. In addition, the Ecosystems Research Division (Athens,
Georgia) in EPA's National Exposure Research Laboratory has started
work to test the
[[Page 54773]]
hypothesis that sewage sludge binds metals in an organic matrix, which
reduces their bioavailability. The Ecosystems Research Division also
will validate the ground-water model used to develop the pollutant
limits for the ground-water exposure pathway for land application and
surface disposal. Further, the Western Ecology Division (Corvallis,
Oregon) in EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory is examining issues concerning evaluation of phytotoxic
risk. This will include a review of appropriate measures of
phytotoxicity and studies concerning plant uptake of metals.
EPA received a single comment on the proposed field study for
evaluation of ecological effects. The commenter stressed that it is
critical that realistic exposure scenarios be used. The Agency agrees
with that comment. EPA is currently working with the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory to define the environmental end points of concerns and
reasonable exposure assumptions for the ecological risk study.
B. Pollutant Limits for Cadmium
The Agency received a number of public comments on the final
cadmium pollutant limits for land application. Some comments were
supportive of the final limits for this pollutant. However, a few
commenters expressed some concerns. These concerns fell into two
general categories: (1) The United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) expressed concern that the final cadmium limits may jeopardize
the export of grains to foreign markets, and (2) other commenters
expressed concern that the risk-based cadmium limits may not be
protective enough. In arguing for lower cadmium limits, commenters
indicated that the limiting exposure pathway, the exposure assumptions,
and the analysis methods used in the risk assessment should be
reevaluated.
With respect to the first issue, EPA believes that the current
cadmium pollutant concentration limit of 39 mg Cd/kg sewage sludge
generally should not be a concern for the export of most grains.
However, because it is possible that some local conditions may cause
cadmium levels to exceed European commodity tolerance levels for grain
crops, EPA and USDA have agreed to develop a joint advisory statement
for farmers who may export grain to the European markets. The advisory
would recommend lower cadmium limits for cropland that may be used to
produce crops for exports.
As requested by some commenters, the Agency has reevaluated the
cadmium risk assessment and has concluded that its risk assessment
approach for cadmium is conservative and defensible. EPA has thoroughly
responded to these comments in the record for today's rulemaking. EPA
continues to believe that the present cadmium pollutant limits are
sufficiently protective of highly exposed individuals. There may be
circumstances where site-specific conditions would suggest that a more
stringent pollutant limit may be more appropriate. However, EPA's
regulatory policy is to use conservative assumptions that will protect
highly exposed individuals. This approach ensures protection against
reasonably anticipated risks, not the risk associated with highly
unlikely or unusual circumstances. The selection of data, assumptions,
and analysis methods used in developing the land application cadmium
pollutant limits are consistent with this policy. After further review,
EPA concluded that the data and methods used in the risk assessment
reflect actual growing conditions found throughout the United States.
As the Agency previously determined, the land application cadmium
pollutant limit adopted for the final rule adequately protects public
health and the environment. EPA has not received any new information
since publication of the final rule that would indicate that a change
in the current cadmium pollutant limit is warranted. Therefore, the
current land application ceiling concentration limit of 85 mg/kg, the
current cumulative pollutant loading rate of 39 kg/ha, the current
pollutant concentration limit of 39 mg/kg, and the current annual
pollutant loading rate of 1.9 kg/ha/365 day period remain in effect.
For additional discussion of the specific risk assessment issues
and EPA's rationale for the final land application cadmium pollutant
limits, EPA refers readers to the Response to Comments Document
available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
C. Percent of the MCL for the Ground-Water Pathway
In the final rule, EPA asked for comment on whether, in its
exposure assessments, a percentage of the end point to be protected
(i.e., a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)) should be used to develop the
allowable concentration of pollutants in sewage sludge for the ground-
water pathway in both the land application and surface disposal risk
assessments. EPA did not receive any public comments on this issue and
is not, therefore, proposing any corresponding change to the
regulation.
III. Proposed Amendments to Land Application, Surface Disposal, and
Pathogens and Vector Attraction Reduction Subparts
A. Ceiling Concentration Limits--Land Application
Today's notice would amend the applicability section of the land
application requirements to clarify that the ceiling concentration
limits apply to all sewage sludge that is land-applied. While
Sec. 503.13(a)(1) requires that all land-applied sewage sludge must
meet the ceiling concentration limits in Table 1 of Sec. 503.13, the
current language in Sec. 503.10 (b)(1), (c)(1), (d), (e), (f), and (g)
does not expressly require meeting the ceiling concentration limits.
The proposed amendment would remove any ambiguity about the obligation
to comply with ceiling concentration limits for land-applied sewage
sludge.
B. Frequency of Monitoring
Sections 503.16, 503.26, and 503.46 of the current sewage sludge
regulation require that sewage sludge be monitored for certain
pollutants. How frequently sewage sludge must be monitored varies with
the amount of sewage sludge that is used or disposed. The regulation
allows the permitting authority to reduce the monitoring frequency
after the sewage sludge has been monitored for two years. In no case,
however, under the present requirements, may the permitting authority
authorize monitoring less frequently than once per year for each use or
disposal practice.
Today's notice would amend Sec. 503.16, Sec. 503.26, and
Sec. 503.46 to delete the language requiring monitoring of sewage
sludge at least once per year. This amendment would provide additional
flexibility to the permitting authority to reduce the frequency of
monitoring for sewage sludge to less than once per year.
C. Certification Language
Sections 503.17 and 503.27 of the current sewage sludge regulation
require sewage sludge preparers, land appliers, and the owner/operator
of a surface disposal site to keep certain records, and in the case of
Class I sludge management facilities and certain POTWs, to report this
information to the permitting authority. The regulation also requires
the recordkeepers to certify to compliance with all applicable
requirements. Failure to certify may result in significant penalties.
The effect of this requirement may be to discourage self-reporting
of violations. If monitoring measurements indicate that applicable
sewage sludge requirements are not being met, a
[[Page 54774]]
recordkeeper obviously cannot certify to compliance without perjury.
This puts the recordkeeper in the position of either committing perjury
or failing to make the certifications. In either event, the
recordkeeper risks significant penalties.
EPA is proposing to amend the language for the certification
statements in Sec. 503.17 and Sec. 503.27. Under today's proposal, the
recordkeeper would be required to certify only to the accuracy of the
information that will be used to determine compliance with a part 503
requirement and its preparation under the certifier's supervision
rather than to compliance with applicable part 503 requirement.
D. Time of Application
Sections 503.17 (a)(5)(ii)(C) and (b)(3) of the current regulation
require the applier of sewage sludge subject to cumulative pollutant
loading rates and the applier of domestic septage to agricultural land,
forest, or a reclamation site, respectively, to record the time of
application as well as supply certain other information needed to track
the amount of regulated pollutants and the volume of domestic septage
applied to a site. (See Sec. 503.17(a)(5)(ii)( D) and (E);
Sec. 503.17(b)(5), which require recordkeeping on the cumulative amount
of each pollutant applied at the site, the amount of sewage sludge
applied, and the rate at which domestic septage is applied.) The
information on cumulative amounts of pollutants applied is needed so
that subsequent land appliers may determine whether additional amounts
of sewage sludge can be applied at a site without exceeding the
cumulative pollutant loading rate for any pollutant.
Questions have been raised about the meaning of the time of
application requirement as well as the need for this information. After
reviewing this issue, EPA has concluded that information on the time of
application is not needed to track the amount of the part 503
pollutants applied to a site in bulk sewage sludge or the volume of
domestic septage applied to the land. EPA has determined that, with
information identifying the site at which the sewage sludge has been
applied, the total cumulative load of metals at the site and the
quantity of sewage sludge, subsequent sewage sludge appliers will have
all the information needed to comply with the land application
cumulative pollutant loading rates. The time of application also is not
needed when domestic septage is applied to agricultural land, forest,
or a reclamation site. For this reason, today's proposal deletes the
requirement to record the time of application.
Today's proposal does not delete the requirement to record the date
that sewage sludge or domestic septage is applied to site. The date is
needed to know when the site restrictions for Class B sewage sludge
begin and when they end. The date of application also is needed to
determine when site restrictions begin and end when domestic septage is
applied to agricultural land, forest, and reclamation sites.
EPA also is proposing today to amend section 503.17(a)(4)(ii) to
add the requirement that the date of application be kept. This is
needed because in this recordkeeping scenario, the sewage sludge is
Class B with respect to pathogens. When a Class B sewage sludge is land
applied, the date the site restrictions begin and end has to be known.
Adding the requirement to record the date of application will provide
the information needed to know when the site restrictions begin.
E. Definition of pH
EPA is proposing to clarify the definition of pH in Sec. 503.31 in
response to a recommendation received from the National Lime
Association (NLA). The NLA recommended that EPA clarify the definition
of pH to indicate that the pH is expressed at 25 deg. C, the reference
temperature for reporting pH values in the scientific literature.
The pH is very sensitive to temperature, especially at pHs of 12
and above. Certain of the pathogen alternatives and vector attraction
reduction options call for raising the pH of sewage sludge or domestic
septage to 12 or higher by alkali addition. Concern has been expressed
that the pH readings taken after the addition of alkali will be high
for temperatures below 25 deg. C and low for temperatures above 25 deg.
C (i.e., there is an inverse relationship between temperature and pH).
See discussion in 58 FR 46052, August 31, 1993.
Based on the above, the Agency has concluded that the pH of the
sewage sludge or domestic septage must be measured at 25 deg. C or, if
measured at a different temperature, must be converted to an equivalent
value at 25 deg. C. See Smith and Farrell, which provides the following
equation:
pH correction=0.03 pH units/1.0 deg. C X (Temp deg. Cmeas-25 deg.
C).
EPA is proposing to amend the regulation accordingly.
F. Class B, Alternative 1--at the Time of Use or Disposal
EPA has concluded that the requirement in Class B, Alternative 1 does
not have to be met at the time sewage sludge is used or disposed. This
alternative, which requires that the fecal coliform density in the
sewage sludge be less than either 2,000,000 Most Probable Number per
gram of total solids or 2,000,000 Colony Forming Units per gram of
total solids, can be met any time before the sewage sludge is used or
disposed. The site restrictions that have to be met when a Class B
sewage sludge is land applied and the surface disposal management
practices provide the environment time to reduce remaining pathogens in
a Class B sewage sludge to below detectable levels. This proposed
change makes Class B, Alternative 1 consistent with Class B,
Alternatives 2 and 3.
G. Class B Site Restriction for Grazing of Animals
When sewage sludge is used or disposed at a site, the current rule
(Sec. 503.32(b)(5)(v) and Sec. 503. 24(l)) prohibits grazing of animals
at the site in certain circumstances. Controlling access to limit the
exposure of all animals is difficult, if not impossible, to implement.
EPA is accordingly proposing to amend the text of Sec. 503.32(b)(5)(v))
to remove ambiguity in the language. The Agency's intention is to
prohibit intentional, not inadvertent, grazing of animals.
Note, however, that the land application site restriction and
surface disposal management practices that restrict public access may
prevent access to the site for many types of animals depending on how
public access is restricted (e.g., by a fence).
H. Vector Attraction Reduction Equivalency
Sewage sludge has a number of characteristics that may attract
disease-spreading agents like birds, flies and rats. Consequently, the
regulation includes requirements to reduce the potential for attracting
these disease-spreading agents--so-called ``vector attraction
reduction'' requirements. The rule provides a number of options for
achieving the required vector attraction reduction.
The Agency has received requests for additional flexibility in
meeting these requirements similar to that provided in the current
regulation for Class A and Class B pathogen reduction requirements.
Processes other than those prescribed in the regulation may be used to
reduce pathogens if the
[[Page 54775]]
permitting authority determines they are equivalent to a Process to
Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP) or a Process to Significantly Reduce
Pathogens (PSRP). See 58 FR 9400, February 19, 1993.
Under the current system, the permitting authority must decide
whether a pathogen reduction process is equivalent. Often, the
permitting authority requests assistance in making this decision from
EPA's Pathogen Equivalency Committee (PEC). The PEC, which consists of
representatives from EPA's Office of Research and Development and from
EPA's Office of Water, provides technical assistance on pathogen issues
and makes recommendations on equivalency determinations. The PEC only
makes recommendations on pathogen equivalency determinations. Thus, the
final decision rests with the permitting authority.
EPA is proposing in today's notice to amend Sec. 503.15(c),
Sec. 503.25(b) and Sec. 503.33(a) so as to allow the same flexibility
with respect to the vector attraction reduction options that require
treatment of the sewage sludge. EPA is not proposing to authorize an
equivalency determination for the barrier vector attraction reduction
options (i.e., Options 9 and 10 for land application and Options 9, 10
and 11 for surface disposal) because EPA is unaware of any barrier
options other than those already provided in part 503. Commenters
should submit any information they may have about other options. As
with equivalency for pathogen reduction, the final decision on vector
attraction reduction equivalency will be the responsibility of the
permitting authority. EPA's PEC may assist the permitting authority in
making vector attraction reduction equivalency determinations.
I. Vector Attraction Reduction at the Time of Use or Disposal
Under the current regulation, the vector attraction reduction
options that require treatment of the sewage sludge (i.e., Options 1
through 8) may be met any time before the sewage sludge is used or
disposed. Options 9, 10, and 11 must be met at the time the sewage
sludge is used or disposed. EPA has reviewed these options and
concluded that certain modifications may be needed to protect public
health and the environment and to introduce additional flexibility.
When any of the first five options is employed, the sewage sludge
does not become more attractive to vectors if it is stored before it is
used or disposed. Thus, Options 1 through 5 may appropriately be met
any time before the sewage sludge is used or disposed. However, EPA has
concluded that this may not be true in the case of Options 6, 7, and 8.
Vector attraction reduction achieved by pH adjustment (i.e., Option
6) is not permanent. Adjusting the pH of the sewage sludge to 12 does
not change the characteristics of the sewage sludge significantly, but
instead causes stasis in biological activity. If the pH should drop,
the surviving bacterial spores could become active and the sewage
sludge could putrefy and attract vectors. The target pH conditions in
Option 6 allow the sewage sludge to be stored for several days before
it is used or disposed without the pH dropping.
If quicklime or slaked lime is used to adjust the pH, the pH is not
expected to fall below 12 for up to 25 days after the addition of the
lime. If a different alkali (e.g., cement kiln dust or wood ash) is
used to adjust the pH, the period before which the pH drops may be
different because other alkali materials are more soluble than lime.
Thus, less undissolved material is available to maintain the pH as it
starts to drop.
Because the pH of the sewage sludge could drop after the target
conditions in Option 6 are reached, the Agency is proposing in today's
rulemaking to require that vector attraction reduction Option 6 must be
met at the time the sewage sludge is used or disposed.
Two approaches could be used to meet this proposed requirement.
First, the target pH conditions could be met at any time. Just prior to
use or disposal (e.g., within one or two days), the pH of the sewage
sludge could be checked. If the pH of a representative sample of the
sewage sludge is 11.5 or above, vector attraction reduction is
achieved. If the pH is below 11.5, the pH has to be adjusted again to
reach the target conditions in Option 6 or another vector attraction
reduction option (e.g., incorporation) has to be met. The other
approach is to meet the target conditions in Option 6 at the time of
use or disposal. For example, the pH could be adjusted two days prior
to when the sewage sludge is used or disposed and the target conditions
could be met during those two days.
Vector attraction reduction Options 7 and 8 require that the
percent solids in the sewage sludge be above a certain value. If the
percent solids drops (i.e., moisture content increases), vectors could
be attracted to the sewage sludge. Thus, today's proposal also would
require that vector attraction reduction Options 7 and 8 be met at the
time the sewage sludge is used or disposed.
Vector attraction reduction Option 10 requires incorporation of
sewage sludge into the soil within six hours after it is land applied
or surfaced disposed. This reduces the attraction of vectors to the
sewage sludge by placing a barrier between the sewage sludge and the
vectors. In some cases, it may not be feasible to incorporate the
sewage sludge into the soil within six hours after it is land applied
or surface disposed. Today's proposal would allow the permitting
authority the flexibility to address those cases on a site-specific
basis.
Today's proposal would amend Sec. 503.33 (b)(6), (b)(7), and (b)(8)
by adding language making it clear that these requirements must be met
at a defined time rather than any time before the sewage sludge is used
or disposed.
The proposal also would amend Sec. 503.33(b)(10)(i) to add language
to authorize the permitting authority to specify a different time
period during which sewage sludge has to be incorporated into the soil
after it is land applied or surface disposed. This would allow the
permitting authority to consider site-specific conditions (e.g., the
remoteness of a land application site) that may affect the time period
during which sewage sludge can be incorporated into the soil.
J. Technical Corrections
Today's proposal also contains several technical corrections. The
following proposed amendments are minor in nature and provide
clarification on some of the technical requirements of the final part
503 regulation.
1. Sec. 503.16(a)(1) and Sec. 503.26(a)(1)--Frequency of Monitoring
Sections 503.16(a)(1) and 503.26(a)(1) contain the requirement for
monitoring for pollutants, pathogen densities, and vector attraction
reduction. Those sections incorrectly indicate there are pathogen
density requirements in Sec. 503.32 (b)(3) and (b)(4). Today's notice
deletes the reference to Sec. 503.32 (b)(3) and (b)(4) from
Sec. 503.16(a)(1) and Sec. 503.26(a)(1).
Sections 503.16(a)(1) and 503.26(a)(1) also incorrectly indicate
that the frequency of monitoring requirements apply to vector
attraction reduction Option 5 in Sec. 503.33(b)(5). Today's notice
deletes the reference to vector attraction reduction Option 5 from
Sec. 503.16(a)(1) and Sec. 503.26(a)(1).
2. Sec. 503.17(b)(7)--Recordkeeping for Land Application of Domestic
Septage
Today's notice amends Sec. 503.17(b)(7) by changing an incorrect
reference.
[[Page 54776]]
3. Sec. 503.18--Reporting
Today's notice corrects the omission of a reporting date in the
current rule by inserting February 19th in Sec. 503.18(a)(2).
4. Sec. 503.22(b)--General Requirements
Today's notice amends Sec. 503.22(b) correcting the statutory
reference and by inserting the appropriate date.
5. Sec. 503.32(a)(3)--Pathogens
Today's notice amends Sec. 503.32(a)(3) to clarify that this option
excludes composting. Class A, Alternative 1 was designed for thermal
processes such as anaerobic digestion and does not apply to composting.
6. Appendix B to Part 503--Pathogen Treatment Processes
The description of Process to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP) No. 6
(Gamma ray irradiation) is corrected to insert the phrase ``at dosages
of at least 1.0 megarad at room temperature (ca. 20 deg. C)'' that was
inadvertently omitted.
IV. Proposed Amendments to the Incineration Subpart
A. Introduction
A sewage sludge incinerator is a treatment works treating domestic
sewage as defined in 40 CFR 122.2 and 501.2. In most cases, the
treatment works generating the sewage sludge operates the sewage sludge
incinerator so that a permit issued to the generating treatment works
will contain the part 503 requirements applicable to its incinerator.
Subpart E of part 503, 40 CFR 503.40-503.48, establishes the
technical requirements for the incineration of sewage sludge. Under
section 405 of the CWA, EPA must establish adequately protective
pollutant limits for the use or disposal of sewage sludge. However,
where numerical pollutant limits are not feasible, EPA may adopt design
or operational standards. EPA has done both for incinerated sewage
sludge. EPA established pollutant limits that restrict the level of
certain pollutants in the sewage sludge to ensure that pollutants in
emissions from a sewage sludge incinerator will not exceed safe levels.
In the case of organic pollutants, EPA established an operational
standard for total hydrocarbons (THC) in the emissions rather than
limits on organic pollutants in the sewage sludge fed to the
incinerator.
Subpart E establishes these requirements for the firing of sewage
sludge: (1) A general requirement in Sec. 503.42, (2) compliance with
the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)
for beryllium and mercury (Sec. 503.43); (3) sewage sludge pollutant
limits for lead, arsenic, cadmium, chromium and nickel (Sec. 503.43);
(4) an operational standard for total hydrocarbons (THC) in the stack
emissions (Sec. 503.44); (5) management practices (Sec. 503.45); and
(6) frequency of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
(Sec. 503.46-503.48).
Under the regulation, as discussed in more detail below, site-
specific variables are used to determine the specific requirements for
an individual sewage sludge incinerator. These variables include the
type of incinerator, type of air pollution control device(s) (APCD),
incinerator combustion temperature, dispersion factor, incinerator
control efficiency, and incinerator stack height. Thus, for example,
allowable pollutant concentrations in the sewage sludge will vary
depending on dispersion of the emissions from the incinerator stack.
This, in turn, is a function of meteorological conditions around the
incinerator site as well as the height of the incinerator exit gas
stack.
Under current 40 CFR 503.43, the pollutant limits for all sewage
sludge incinerators depend on actual site-specific conditions rather
than default values or standard factors that necessarily overgeneralize
sewage sludge incinerator site conditions. Thus, the regulation
provides flexibility to tailor pollutant limits for individual sewage
sludge incinerators based on actual conditions at the incinerator. (For
example, the allowable lead concentration in incinerated sewage sludge
depends on a dispersion factor. However, the dispersion factor must be
determined from an air dispersion model which in turn requires site-
specific data.) As a result, while the current regulation describes
what the standard is and how it is determined, the actual requirements
are not detailed in the regulation. Instead, the regulation calls for
determination of site-specific factors in accordance with instructions
from the permitting authority (e.g., section 503.43(a)(2)(i), ``when *
* * specified by the permitting authority * * *'').
The current regulation also requires continuous emission monitoring
of certain incinerator operating conditions to ensure compliance with
the part 503 requirements. Again, the sewage sludge incinerator
requirements in current 40 CFR 503.45 call for the permitting authority
to ``specify'' the criteria for installation, calibration, operation,
and maintenance of the instruments used to measure and record these
conditions (e.g., combustion temperature). Other current management
practices require the permitting authority to ``specify'' maximum
combustion temperature and values for the operating parameters for the
sewage sludge incinerator air pollution control device(s), which also
may vary from sewage sludge incinerator to sewage sludge incinerator.
Finally, current subpart E requires the permitting authority to specify
the frequency of monitoring for beryllium and mercury and for the
operating parameters for the air pollution control devices.
In summary, the subpart E part 503 requirements provide for
consideration of site-specific factors by directing the permitting
authority to specify parameters required to determine applicable
requirements. The result of this site-by-site tailoring of incinerator
requirements is that the determination of an individual incinerator's
applicable requirements are deferred until the permitting authority's
decision. Put another way, the regulation already contains a provision
requiring that incinerators meet the specific requirements, but until
the permitting authority specifies the underlying site-specific factors
for the individual sewage sludge incinerator, compliance or non-
compliance with the requirements cannot be determined. This approach is
different from the other sewage sludge use or disposal requirements in
part 503, which are designed to be self-implementing.
B. Description of Current Regulation and Proposed Amendments
1. Site-specific Exemption From Frequency of Monitoring, Recordkeeping,
and Reporting Requirements in Incineration Subpart
a. Current Regulation
Section 503.43 establishes pollutant limits for metals in sewage
sludge that is incinerated. As discussed further below, these pollutant
limits vary for each incinerator based on site-specific factors (e.g.,
location, control efficiency).
Since publication of the part 503 regulation, EPA has reviewed
information on the pollutant limits, determined as prescribed in
Sec. 503.43, for a number of different sewage sludge incinerators. In
many cases, the pollutant limits are considerably higher--often several
orders of magnitude--than the actual concentration of metals in the
sewage sludge being incinerated. This indicates that the incinerator
operating conditions and site conditions will permit safe incineration
of sewage sludge with high
[[Page 54777]]
concentration of pollutants. Given the resulting ample margin of safety
between the calculated pollutant limit and the actual concentrations of
metals in incinerated sewage sludge, EPA is considering introducing
additional flexibility into the incinerator requirements.
b. Proposed Amendment
To reduce the burden of compliance with the part 503 requirements,
EPA is proposing to amend the applicability section (Sec. 503.40) of
the incineration subpart to not subject an incinerator to a pollutant
limit and the associated frequency of monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for the pollutant in certain circumstances, if
approved by the permitting authority. Under the approach proposed
today, the sewage sludge would not have to be monitored for a
particular pollutant and records of the concentration of a pollutant in
sewage sludge would not have to be kept if the calculated pollutant
limit exceeds the highest average daily concentration for that
pollutant in the sewage sludge for the months in the previous calendar
year.
The proposed approach assumes that the incinerator continues to be
operated as it was operated during its performance test. If it is not
operated in that manner, the permitting authority may reimpose the
frequency of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for
the particular pollutant.
EPA requests comments on the proposed site-specific exemption from
the frequency of monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements
for sewage sludge incinerators. EPA also requests comments on other
approaches that should be considered.
For example, should the Agency limit the exemption to circumstances
in which the calculated pollutant limit is significantly higher than
the average daily concentration of the pollutant in the incinerated
sewage sludge? If so, how should the Agency define significantly
higher? An order of magnitude higher than the actual concentration in
the sewage sludge, 50 percent higher, or some other percentage?
2. Pollutant Limits for Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead and Nickel
a. Current Regulation
40 CFR 503.43 establishes limits on the allowable ``daily
concentration'' of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and nickel in
sewage sludge that is incinerated. The allowable limits are calculated
using equations set forth in the regulation and are dependent on a
number of factors that vary with specific conditions at an incinerator
site. For all five regulated metals, the regulation requires
determination of the following two factors that are dependent on site-
specific conditions. These are: (1) A dispersion factor (DF)--how
pollutants are dispersed when they exit the incinerator stack, and (2)
the incinerator's control efficiency (CE)--how efficiently the
incinerator removes pollutants in the sewage sludge that is
incinerated. The regulation requires use of an air dispersion model to
determine the DF and a performance test to establish the CE, both of
which must be ``specified by the permitting authority.'' In addition,
if authorized by the permitting authority, the regulation provides for
the calculation of an alternative allowable chromium limit based on a
site-specific measurement of the fraction of hexavalent chromium to
total chromium in an incinerator's stack emissions. The preamble to the
final part 503 regulation explains in more detail at 58 FR 9355,
February 19, 1993, how allowable concentrations are determined. EPA did
not rely on assumed values for dispersion factors and control
efficiency because the Agency concluded that use of such values would
overgeneralize site conditions and establish more restrictive
conditions than dictated by protection of public health and the
environment (see 58 FR at 9355).
b. Proposed Amendment
The proposal would revise 40 CFR 503.43(c)(1) and (d)(1) to clarify
that the sewage sludge must meet the average daily concentration for a
pollutant based on the number of days in a month that the incinerator
operates. This clarification is consistent with EPA's risk assessment
for incinerators, which was based on average daily values. (See the
definition of risk specific concentration (RSC) in Sec. 503.41(i),
which is used in the calculation of the allowable average daily sewage
sludge concentration.)
The proposal also would revise 40 CFR 503.43(c)(2), (c)(3), (d)(4),
and (d)(5) to remove the requirement for the permitting authority to
prescribe the air dispersion model used in determining the DF, and the
performance test to determine CE. In addition, the proposal would
delete the requirement in current Sec. 503(d)(3) that requires the
permitting authority to authorize an allowable chromium limit based on
site-specific hexavalent chromium stack emissions.
EPA is proposing these changes to modify the regulation to make it
self-implementing and thus reduce the burden on the regulated community
as well as the Agency's own limited permitting resources. In the
current form, the regulation requires that the permitting authority
determine appropriate models and performance tests parameters before
pollutant limits can be calculated. This approach assumed a process in
which the person who fires sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator
worked closely with a permitting authority in deciding what models and
performance test procedures would be appropriate.
Recognizing that such a process can be very resource-intensive, EPA
is today proposing a different approach. Under this approach, allowable
pollutant limits must be calculated using the equation provided in the
regulation. To establish these limits, the dispersion factor must be
determined through an air dispersion model and the incinerator control
efficiencies must be determined through a performance test of the
incinerator. The choice of appropriate models and the specifications
for the performance tests rests with the person who fires sewage sludge
in a sewage sludge incinerator. These choices will, of course, be
reviewed by the permitting authority. Sewage sludge incinerators should
retain all records that show how allowable pollutant limits were
calculated.
Proposed new Sec. 503.43(e)(1) describes the factors that should be
considered in selecting an air dispersion model. The air dispersion
model must be appropriate for the geographical, physical, and
population conditions at the sewage sludge incinerator site. Its
selection must be consistent with good air pollution control practices
for minimizing air emissions. New dispersion modeling to establish the
DF is required where, as provided in proposed 40 CFR 503.43(e)(4),
geographic or physical conditions at the incinerator site warrant.
Under proposed 40 CFR 503.43(e)(2), a person who fires sewage
sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator must submit a proposed air
dispersion modeling protocol to the permitting authority no later than
30 days from the date of publication of a final rule promulgating such
an amendment. This will provide the permitting authority the
opportunity to review the submitted protocol to insure that it
accurately models conditions at the incinerator site. The permitting
authority must notify the operator within 30 days if the selected model
may not be used to determine the DF because it is inappropriate. If the
person who fires sewage sludge does not hear from the permitting
authority to the
[[Page 54778]]
contrary, that person may use the submitted protocol to calculate its
DF.
EPA has published several guidance documents that contain
recommendations as to how to select appropriate air dispersion models.
These models take into account such site-specific factors as stack
height, stack diameter, stack gas temperature, exit velocity, and
surrounding terrain. See U.S. EPA, ``Guideline on Air Quality Models
(Revised)'' (EPA-450/2-78-027R) (July 1993). This information also is
available in Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51. See also U.S. EPA,
``Technical Support Document for Sewage Sludge Incineration'' at
Section 5.6.1 (EPA 822/R-93-003) (November 1992).
In many cases, the appropriate air dispersion factor can be
determined using the ISCLT2 air dispersion model. The ISCLT2 model is a
steady-state Gaussian plume model that can be used to assess pollutant
emissions from a wide variety of sources including sewage sludge
incinerators in the long-term mode. It is appropriate for both rural or
urban areas, and either flat or rolling terrain whenever the terrain
elevation is lower than the stack height. The model can account for the
following factors: settling and dry deposition of particles; downwash;
area, line and volume sources; plume rise as a function of downwind
distance; separation of point sources (multiple stacks); and limited
terrain adjustment. If ground level terrain in the impact area exceeds
the stack height, complex and intermediate terrain modeling also must
be addressed.
As noted, this proposed rulemaking also would revise Sec. 503.43
(c)(3) and (d)(5) to delete the requirement that the permitting
authority specify how to determine the CE. Proposed Sec. 503.43 (c)(3)
and (d)(5) provide, instead, that the CE for equation (4) and equation
(5), respectively, shall be determined from a performance test of the
sewage sludge incinerator. Proposed paragraph (e)(1) of Sec. 503.43
requires that the performance test be appropriate for the type of
sewage sludge incinerator and that the test be conducted in a manner
consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing air
emissions. The performance test measures the degree to which the sewage
sludge incinerator and associated air pollution control devices remove
a given pollutant. As discussed below, performance tests also are
required because they generate data on which to base the parameter
operating ranges for the incinerator.
Proposed paragraph (e)(3) also specifies procedures to be followed
in conducting performance tests of sewage sludge incinerators. These
procedures parallel those in 40 CFR 60.8, a regulation that describes
the general procedures for conducting performance testing under the
Clean Air Act. EPA believes that it is necessary to specify minimal
procedures for conducting performance testing now that subpart E of
part 503 is self-implementing.
Proposed 40 CFR 503.43(e)(3) would require performance testing
under representative incinerator operating conditions for metals
emissions, with the highest expected feed rate of sewage sludge within
design specifications. Further, the permitting authority must be
notified at least 30 days prior to the test so the permitting authority
may observe the test. Each performance test must consist of at least
three separate runs at the same operating conditions. For the purpose
of establishing a control efficiency for a pollutant, the arithmetic
mean of the results of the three runs should be used.
EPA has prepared guidance on the performance test used to develop
the incinerator control efficiency for a pollutant. Section 5.6.2 and
appendix E of the ``Technical Support Document for Sewage Sludge
Incineration'' (EPA 822/R-93-003) (November 1992) discuss performance
testing to derive the control efficiency for the five metals limited
for sewage sludge incinerators under part 503 (arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, lead, and nickel). EPA also published guidance on performance
testing in the September, 1994 draft version of the ``Guidance for
Writing Permits for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge.''
As noted, this proposed rulemaking would delete the requirement in
current Sec. 503.43(d)(3) for the permitting authority authorization of
a site-specific chromium risk specific concentration (RSC) used in the
equation (5) calculation. Either the national default RSC or the RSC
calculated using equation (6) can be used in equation (5) to develop a
pollutant limit for chromium.
EPA has developed a methodology for determining hexavalent chromium
emissions from stationary sources. See U.S. EPA, ``Laboratory and Field
Evaluations of a Methodology for Determining Hexavalent Chromium
Emissions from Stationary Sources'' (EPA/600/3-91/052) (1992). Persons
who choose to calculate RSC values for chromium using equation (6) must
use a scientifically defensible methodology for determining hexavalent
chromium emissions.
EPA also proposes to make a technical change to Sec. 503.43(c)(3)
to correct the number of the referenced equation to (4). In addition,
EPA proposes to make three technical changes to Sec. 503.43(d) (1) and
(2). These changes will correct two typographical errors in the
definition of terms in (d)(1) and in the reference to Equation ``6'' in
(d)(2).
Given the proposed deadlines for complying with this regulation,
EPA would encourage incinerators that do not have a permit to begin the
effort to determine the pollutant limits for the incinerator. Prior to
the effective date of this regulation, if EPA has been notified about
the model used to determine the DF and if EPA was notified 30 days in
advance of a performance test, following promulgation, the information
on the DF model will not have to be resubmitted and a second
performance test will not have to be conducted. However, in the event
that conditions and circumstances change significantly at the
incinerator after the allowable pollutant limits are calculated, the
requirements in today's proposed rule will apply when the final
regulation becomes effective.
The control efficiency of a sewage sludge incinerator is derived
from a comparison of the mass of a pollutant in the sewage sludge fed
to the incinerator to the mass of the pollutant in the exit gas from
the incinerator stack. Thus, to determine the control efficiency,
representative samples of the sewage sludge fed to the incinerator and
the exit gas from the incinerator stack have to be collected and
analyzed for the pollutants in 40 CFR 503.43. Under Sec. 503.8(b)(4),
EPA requires the use of a specific test methodology for analyzing the
metals concentrations in the sewage sludge fed to the incinerator:
``Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,''
EPA Publication SW-846, Second Edition (1982) with Updates I (April
1984) and II (April 1985) and Third Edition (November 1986) with
Revision I (December 1987).
EPA does not currently require the use of a specific test
methodology for calculating the metals emissions in exit gases from
sewage sludge incinerator stacks. EPA does require, however, the use of
a specific methodology for the determination of metals emissions
(chromium, cadmium, arsenic, lead, and zinc) in exhaust gases from
hazardous waste incinerators and other similar combustion processes as
part of the Methods Manual for Compliance with the BIF Regulations in
40 CFR part 266, appendix IX. (The method also is available in ``EPA
Methods Manual for Compliance with the BIF Regulations'' (EPA 530-SW-
91-010).) Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has proposed to add
[[Page 54779]]
method 29, ``Determination of Metals Emissions from Stationary
Sources,'' to appendix A of part 60, and to propose amendments to
method 101A of appendix B of part 61. (59 FR 48259, September 20,
1994). Method 29 is being proposed so that it can be used to determine
mercury, cadmium, and lead emissions from municipal waste combusters
under subpart Ea of part 60. (Method 29 is already applicable to
arsenic, chromium, and nickel.) Public comment is specifically
requested on the propriety of requiring use of one of these methods
(assuming the air method is finalized as proposed) to analyze emissions
from sewage sludge incinerator stacks for the metals regulated under
Sec. 503.43(c) and (d).
3. Management Practices
a. Current Regulation
i. Specification for Instruments
40 CFR 503.45 contains seven management practices for incineration
of sewage sludge. These include requirements to install four
instruments to measure and record data to determine compliance with the
THC operational standard. Key operating parameters for sewage sludge
incinerators are monitored continuously to indicate that adequate
combustion conditions are maintained in the incinerator (consistent
with the conducted performance test) and to minimize metal and THC
emissions. The regulation requires that the four monitoring instruments
be installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained, as specified by the
permitting authority.
40 CFR 503.44 contains an operational standard for the total
hydrocarbons (THC) concentration in the exit gas from a sewage sludge
incinerator. By controlling THC, EPA controls the emission of organic
pollutants in the sewage sludge fed to the incinerator and created
during the incineration process. Under Sec. 503.44(c), the monthly
average concentration for total hydrocarbons in the sewage sludge
incinerator exit gas may not exceed 100 parts per million on a
volumetric basis, when corrected for zero-percent moisture and to
seven-percent oxygen using equations (7) and (8) of Sec. 503.44.
As revised in February 1994, 40 CFR 503.40(c) provides the option
of continuous monitoring of the carbon monoxide concentration in the
exit gas in lieu of continuous monitoring of the THC concentration in
the exit gas if specified conditions are met. See 59 FR 9095, February
25, 1994. As discussed at 59 FR 9098, the alternative of monitoring for
carbon monoxide is effective pending changes after an EPA study of the
matter. At the completion of the study, which EPA contemplates will
address monitoring for carbon monoxide or other parameters (including
temperature) to measure compliance with the THC operational standard in
lieu of monitoring THC continuously, EPA will decide whether further
amendments to part 503 are needed.
Under 40 CFR 503.45, an instrument must be installed, calibrated,
operated, and maintained, as specified by the permitting authority,
that continuously measures and records the following information: the
total hydrocarbon concentration in the exit gas, the oxygen
concentration in the exit gas, and information to determine the
moisture content in the exit gas; and the combustion temperatures in
the sewage sludge incinerator. By continuously measuring the oxygen
content and information needed to determine moisture content of the
exit gas, the THC emission value can be corrected to seven-percent
oxygen and for zero-percent moisture.
Where incinerators have monitors that automatically correct for
moisture content (e.g., continuous CO monitors), a correction for
moisture content need not be made. In addition, CO and THC monitors and
measuring devices may be shared if there is more than one sewage sludge
incinerator at the treatment works.
ii. Specification of Maximum Combustion Temperature
40 CFR 503.45(e) requires the permitting authority to specify the
maximum combustion temperature for a sewage sludge incinerator based on
information obtained from the performance test of the sewage sludge
incinerator. This practice ensures that the maximum combustion
temperature does not significantly exceed the combustion temperature
during the performance test of the incinerator.
iii. Specification of Air Pollution Control Device Operating Parameters
Another management practice for sewage sludge incineration, which
is described in Sec. 503.45(f), requires that an air pollution control
device be operated within the values for the operating parameters
specified by the permitting authority and that those values be based on
information obtained during the performance test of the sewage sludge
incinerator. The regulation contemplates that sewage sludge
incinerators will have limits and monitoring requirements for selected
parameters that are consistent with the performance of air pollution
control devices. Examples of air pollution control devices include
venturi scrubbers, impingement scrubbers, mist eliminators, dry
scrubbers, fabric filters, and wet electrostatic precipitators. For
example, pressure drop, liquid flow rate, gas temperature, and gas flow
rate are recommended parameters for assessing performance for venturi
scrubbers.
b. Proposed Regulation
This proposed rulemaking would revise 40 CFR 503.45 (a)(1) and (b)-
(d) to delete the requirement for the permitting authority to specify
the manner in which the described instruments are to be installed,
calibrated, operated, and maintained. Under proposed Sec. 503.45(h)(1),
the person who fires sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator must
select the instruments described in Sec. 503.45 (a)(1) and (b)-(d) that
are appropriate for the type of sewage sludge incinerator and the
instruments must be installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained
consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing
emissions.
In the final part 503 rule, EPA required the permitting authority
to specify the manner in which these instruments were to be installed,
calibrated, operated, and maintained because, at that time, there was
only limited EPA guidance in this area. In June 1994, however, EPA
published new guidance entitled ``THC Continuous Emission Monitoring
Guidance for Part 503 Sewage Sludge Incinerators'' (EPA 833-B-94-003).
The guidance contains recommended installation, calibration, operation,
and maintenance procedures for the instruments specified in
Sec. 503.45(a)-(c). With regard to the instrument required under
Sec. 503.45(d) for continuous measurement of combustion temperatures,
see the ``Technical Support Document for Sewage Sludge Incineration''
at section 7.4 (EPA 822/R-93-003).
EPA is today also proposing to delete the current requirement for
the permitting authority to specify the maximum combustion temperature
for a sewage sludge incinerator and the values for the operating
parameters for the air pollution control devices in current Sec. 503.45
(e) and (f). Both sections already provide that the specified values
are to be based on information obtained during the performance test of
the sewage sludge incinerator.
Proposed Sec. 503.45(e) states that the operation of the sewage
sludge incinerator shall not significantly
[[Page 54780]]
exceed the maximum combustion temperature for the sewage sludge
incinerator and that the maximum combustion temperature for the sewage
sludge incinerator shall be based on information obtained during the
performance test of the sewage sludge incinerator. EPA recognizes the
variability during operation of a sewage sludge incinerator and intends
that the maximum temperature be an average temperature. EPA requests
comment on the type of averaging and on a range above the maximum seen
in the performance test that should be allowed.
Proposed Sec. 503.45(f) states that the operation of the sewage
sludge incinerator shall not cause the values for the operating
parameters for the sewage sludge incinerator air pollution control
device to be exceeded. Proposed Sec. 503.45(f) also requires that the
air pollution control device selected be appropriate for the particular
sewage sludge incinerator; that the operating parameters for the air
pollution control device indicate adequate performance of the device;
and that the values for the operating parameters for the sewage sludge
incinerator air pollution control devices be based on results of the
performance test of the sewage sludge incinerator. No changes should be
made in the values for the air pollution control device operating
parameters after the performance test. EPA intends that the values for
the operating parameters for the sewage sludge incinerator air
pollution control devices be a range. EPA requests comment on
appropriate ranges around those seen in the performance test that
should be allowed for each parameter.
EPA has developed guidance describing common air pollution control
devices, the parameters for various air pollution control device
technologies that indicate adequate performance of the device, and the
common measuring devices for the respective parameters. See the
``Technical Support Document for Sewage Sludge Incineration'' sections
2.3, 7.5, and appendix M (EPA 822/R-93-003).
As noted above, EPA has developed guidance describing recommended
parameters for various air pollution control device technologies that
indicate adequate performance of the device. EPA is considering whether
it is appropriate to standardize, by regulation, which parameters can
be used to indicate adequate performance for a particular air pollution
control device. EPA would appreciate receiving comments concerning
whether such a regulation is necessary and whether the parameters that
are listed in appendix M to the ``Technical Support Document for Sewage
Sludge Incineration,'' as cited above, for each air pollution control
device continue to be appropriate. If developed, such a regulation
could allow flexibility in the selection of alternative parameters,
unless the permitting authority specifies otherwise.
4. Frequency of Monitoring
a. Current Regulation
i. Beryllium, Mercury, and Operating Parameters for Air Pollution
Control Devices
40 CFR 503.43 (a) and (b) provide that the firing of sewage sludge
in a sewage sludge incinerator may not violate the National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutant (NESHAP) for beryllium in subpart
C and for mercury in subpart E of 40 CFR part 61, if applicable. To
support this pollutant limit, 40 CFR 503.46(a) requires monitoring for
mercury and beryllium as specified by the permitting authority.
The NESHAP in 40 CFR 61.32(a) establishes an emission standard for
beryllium of no more than 10 grams of beryllium emitted over a 24-hour
period; or, alternatively, upon the approval of the Administrator, 40
CFR 61.32(b) establishes an ambient concentration limit for beryllium
in the vicinity of the stationary source of 0.01 g/m\3\,
averaged over a 30-day period. To comply with Sec. 61.32(a), Sec. 61.33
imposes a one-time start-up stack sampling requirement for beryllium
emissions. If the option of compliance with Sec. 61.32(b) is chosen,
Sec. 61.34 requires the stationary source to locate air sampling sites
in accordance with a plan approved by the Administrator and to operate
monitoring sites continuously.
With regard to mercury, the NESHAP in 40 CFR 61.52(b) establishes
an emission standard of 3200 grams of mercury per 24-hour period.
Sections 61.53(d) and 61.54 establish two alternatives means of
establishing compliance with the emission standard: (1) an emissions
test or (2) a sewage sludge sampling test. If the incinerator chooses
sewage sludge sampling, Sec. 61.54 requires the sewage sludge to be
sampled according to method 105 in appendix B to part 61 and includes
an equation to determine the mercury emissions from the sewage sludge
sampling results:
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP25OC95.000
EHg=Mercury emissions, g/day.
M=Mercury concentration of sewage sludge on a dry solids basis,
g/g.
Q=Sewage sludge charging rate, Kg/day.
Fsm=Weight fraction of solids in the collected sewage sludge after
mixing.
1000=Conversion factor, Kg g/g2.
Sections 61.53(d) and 61.54 impose a one-time start-up sampling
requirement. Section 61.55 imposes an annual monitoring requirement for
incinerators for which mercury emissions exceed 1,600 grams per 24-hour
period, demonstrated either by stack sampling according to Sec. 61.53
or sewage sludge sampling according to Sec. 61.54.
Part 503 also imposes a monitoring obligation for sewage sludge
incinerator air pollution control device operating parameters. Current
40 CFR 503.46(c) requires monitoring for these parameters as specified
by the permitting authority.
ii. Total Hydrocarbons, Oxygen Concentration, and Information To
Determine Moisture Content
Section 503.46(b) requires that the total hydrocarbons (THC)
concentration and oxygen concentration in the exit gas from a sewage
sludge incinerator stack and information used to determine moisture
content in the exit gas be monitored continuously. Oxygen content and
information used to determine moisture content have to be measured
continuously because that information is needed to correct the measured
exit gas THC concentrations to seven percent oxygen and for zero
percent moisture.
Sections 503.45 (a) and (b) require that a continuous emissions
monitor (CEM) for THC and oxygen, respectively, be installed,
calibrated, operated, and maintained. As mentioned previously, today's
proposal deletes the requirement for the permitting authority to
specify how to install, calibrate, operate, and maintain these CEMs.
b. Proposed Regulation
This proposed rulemaking would incorporate the monitoring
frequencies for beryllium and mercury now contained in 40 CFR Part 61
and establish specific monitoring frequencies for the sewage sludge air
pollution control device operating parameters. With regard to
monitoring for beryllium and mercury, EPA proposes to revise current 40
CFR 503.46(a)(1), which requires the permitting authority to specify
monitoring frequencies for beryllium and mercury, to provide that
beryllium shall be monitored as required under subpart C of 40 CFR part
61 and mercury as required under subpart E of 40 CFR part 61. For
beryllium, this represents a one-time start-up stack
[[Page 54781]]
sampling requirement or, alternatively, a continuous air sampling
requirement. For mercury, this represents a one-time start-up stack or
sewage sludge sampling requirement, with annual monitoring for those
sources for which mercury emissions exceed 1600 grams per 24-hour
period, as specified in 40 CFR 61.53-.55. Because this monitoring is
already required under the air program, the proposed regulation would
not impose an additional monitoring burden on the regulated community.
EPA requests comments concerning whether it is appropriate to
establish a periodic monitoring frequency for beryllium and mercury for
sewage sludge incinerators. In contrast to the Clean Air Act, EPA has
historically required periodic monitoring to determine compliance with
Clean Water Act requirements.
For mercury, some options that EPA is considering are:
1. A periodic (quarterly or annual) stack or sewage sludge sampling
requirement, depending on whether the incinerator has selected the
emissions or sewage sludge sampling alternative spe
FR Doc. 95-25776 Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge
cified in 40 CFR
61.53(d) or 61.54. The sampling obligation could apply to all sewage
sludge incinerators that emit mercury, and could be conducted according
to the test methods specified in the NESHAP (method 101A in appendix B
to part 61 for stack sampling or method 105 in appendix B to part 61
for sewage sludge sampling). One disadvantage with this approach is the
cost of conducting stack sampling for metals emissions, which can be in
the range of several thousand dollars per sampling event. In contrast,
the cost of sampling sewage sludge for most metals, including mercury,
is normally less than $80 per sample. Sewage sludge sampling would not
impose any additional burden because part 503 already requires sewage
sludge sampling of other metals.
2. A periodic (monthly or quarterly or annual) requirement to
sample sewage sludge for mercury. The difference between options 1 and
2 is that all sewage sludge incinerators would monitor the sewage
sludge for mercury, even those incinerators that choose to conduct
stack sampling to meet the NESHAP requirements. All sewage sludge
incinerators may use the equation specified in Sec. 61.54(d) to assess
whether the mercury concentration measured in the sewage sludge meets
the NESHAP emission standard. EPA also requests comments concerning the
use of the Sec. 61.54 equation for purposes of part 503 sewage sludge
sampling for beryllium. The advantage of this option is that the cost
of NESHAPs sampling sewage sludge is reduced to a minimal analytic cost
alone, as discussed above.
3. Periodic sewage sludge monitoring based on the amount of sewage
sludge fed to the sewage sludge incinerator. Option 3 represents a
variation on Option 2. Option 3 would require sewage sludge sampling
for all incinerators, as above. The frequency of monitoring, however,
would vary for particular sewage sludge incinerators based on annual
amount of sewage sludge fired in an incinerator as it does for other
pollutants. This could be accomplished by revising current 40 CFR
503.46(a)(2) to add mercury as a pollutant for which monitoring can be
conducted according to the requirements of Table 1 of Sec. 503.46.
Table 1 currently establishes a range of monitoring frequencies from
once per year to once per month, depending on the amount of sewage
sludge fired in a sewage sludge incinerator (metric tons per 365-day
period) for the pollutants arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and nickel.
Current Sec. 503.46(a)(3) also allows the permitting authority to
reduce the frequency of monitoring to a minimum of once per year after
the sewage sludge has been monitored for two years at the frequency
stated in Table 1. [See discussion above in section III.B on a proposed
amendment to allow the permitting authority to reduce the frequency of
monitoring for each use or disposal practice to less than once a year
after the sewage sludge has been monitored for two years.] EPA also
could include mercury on the list of pollutants for which the
permitting authority may decrease the frequency of monitoring. This
approach to monitoring for mercury appears to be simple to implement
and relatively inexpensive. As is the case for the pollutants currently
monitored according to Table 1, it links frequency of monitoring to
amount of sewage sludge fired in an incinerator, which would decrease
monitoring obligations and related costs for smaller sewage sludge
incinerators.
For beryllium, EPA may consider imposing a periodic stack sampling
obligation (such as annual monitoring), for those few incinerators that
must comply with the emission standard specified in 40 CFR 61.32(a).
(There is no need to impose a periodic monitoring obligation for those
incinerators that conduct air sampling under 40 CFR 61.32(b). Section
61.34 requires continuous operation of monitoring sites.) Again, the
disadvantage of conducting stack sampling is the cost, which can range
to several thousand dollars per sampling event. As discussed above, the
sampling of sewage sludge for a metal such as beryllium is much lower
in cost. However, such sampling is not an option that is available
under the beryllium NESHAP. EPA would appreciate receiving comments
concerning whether it is appropriate and feasible to develop a
conversion factor so that, for purposes of part 503, results of
sampling sewage sludge for beryllium can be compared to the emission
standard.
Proposed Sec. 503.46(c) requires that the air pollution control
device operating parameters be monitored daily. EPA believes that the
burden on the regulated community to meet a daily monitoring obligation
is minimal. To insure the proper operation of the sewage sludge
incinerator, due to the variable characteristics of the sewage sludge
fed to the incinerator, the operating parameters for the applicable air
pollution control operating devices are monitored on at least a daily
(if not hourly or continuous) basis. EPA envisions that, among other
acceptable approaches, this monitoring obligation, where the monitoring
is not conducted on a continuous basis, could be met by recording the
values for the operating parameters for the air pollution control
devices in a daily log book. Retention of this logbook would fulfill
the recordkeeping obligations of 40 CFR 503.47(g) and the logbook
records could form the basis for the annual report to be submitted
under Sec. 503.48.
Other frequencies of monitoring that EPA considered for this
management practice are: (1) Monitoring as appropriate for the air
pollution control device and (2) monitoring per manufacturer's
instructions for the air pollution control device. It appears likely,
however, that in many instances these options would result in the same
monitoring frequency or the monitoring obligation might be greater than
a daily monitoring obligation. EPA sees no need for reason to impose a
greater than daily minimum monitoring obligation.
The Agency is proposing to amend section 503.46(b) to allow the
permitting authority to specify an alternative to continuous monitoring
of the exit gas from a sewage sludge incinerator for THC, oxygen, and
information needed to determine moisture content. In some cases,
continuous monitoring may not be necessary to show compliance with the
THC operational standard of 100 parts per million on a volumetric
basis. EPA is considering two options for determining when the
monitoring frequency may be reduced. Both of these options assume that
the emissions will be monitored for THC periodically, but not
continuously.
[[Page 54782]]
The first option bases the frequency of monitoring for THC, oxygen,
and information used to determine moisture content on the amount of
sewage sludge fired in a sewage incinerator annually. For example, if
the amount fired is 25 metric tons per year or less, the permitting
authority could require periodic monitoring for THC, oxygen, and
information to determine moisture content and then require that the
incinerator be operated consistent with the way it was operated during
the monitoring episode. The monitoring frequency for oxygen and
information used to measure moisture content should be consistent with
the monitoring frequency for THC because the oxygen concentration and
moisture content information are used to adjust the measured THC
values. This approach is similar to the current part 503 frequency of
monitoring approach for pollutants in the incineration subpart, which
is based on the amount of sewage sludge fired in a sewage sludge
incinerator annually. The lower the amount of sewage sludge fired, the
less frequent samples of sewage sludge have to be collected and
analyzed for pollutants.
The second option for determining whether to reduce the frequency
of monitoring for THC is the number of days in a year that the
incinerator operates. For example, if the incinerator operates less
than 100 days per year, the frequency for THC monitoring may be
something less than continuously. This is similar to Option 1 in that
the more days an incinerator operates, the more sewage sludge is
expected to be fired in the incinerator.
EPA specifically solicits public comment on the question of what is
the appropriate monitoring frequency for beryllium, mercury, and the
operating parameters for air pollution control devices. EPA also is
requesting comments on the proposal to monitor THC, oxygen content, and
information needed to determine moisture content less than
continuously. Should less than continuous monitoring be allowed for
those parameters?
EPA also is requesting comments on the above options to determine
when less than continuous monitoring for THC (also oxygen and
information needed to determine moisture content) should be allowed.
Should less than continuous monitoring be allowed when the amount of
sewage sludge incinerated annually or the number of days the
incinerator operates during the year is below a certain value? Or,
should some other parameter be used to decide whether the frequency can
be reduced? If it is based on the amount of sewage sludge fired
annually or number of days the incinerator operates during the year,
what should be the amount or number of days below which less than
continuous monitoring will be allowed?
In addition, should less than continuous monitoring be allowed if
carbon monoxide (CO) is monitored in the exit gas in lieu of monitoring
THC? A part 503 amendment published in the Federal Register on February
24, 1994 (59 FR 9095) allows CO to be monitored in lieu of monitoring
THC in certain situations.
5. Reporting and Recordkeeping Obligations
This proposed rulemaking does not change the current recordkeeping
and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 503.47 and 503.48. The information
retained under Sec. 503.47 and reported under Sec. 503.48 would
continue to form the basis for permitting authority oversight,
including enforcement, of subpart E requirements.
6. Compliance Deadlines
a. Current Regulation
Current 40 CFR 503.2 establishes the deadlines for compliance with
the requirements of part 503. Paragraph (a) provides that compliance
with all standards must be achieved as expeditiously as practicable,
but no later than February 19, 1994. Where compliance with the
standards requires construction of new pollution control facilities,
compliance with the standards must be achieved as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than February 19, 1995.
Paragraphs (b) and (c) establish the deadlines for compliance with
the frequency of monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
under part 503. Paragraph (b) provides that the THC operational
standard is effective on February 19, 1994, or, if compliance with the
operational standard for THC requires the construction of new pollution
control facilities, by February 19, 1995. Paragraph (c) provides that
all other requirements for frequency of monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting imposed under part 503 were effective on July 20, 1993.
b. Proposed Regulation
EPA proposes to require compliance with the new requirements of
subpart E of part 503 as expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than 90 days from the publication date of the final rule. When new
pollution control facilities must be constructed to comply with the
revised requirements for sewage sludge incineration in subpart E,
compliance shall be achieved as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than 12 months from the date of publication of the final rule.
The compliance deadline in proposed Sec. 503.2(d) only applies where
the permitting authority has not already specified requirements for the
incinerator. EPA requests comment on the compliance deadlines.
V. Proposed Amendment to Part 403
EPA is today proposing to amend 40 CFR part 403, Appendix G--
Section II (Additional Pollutants Eligible for Removal Credits). EPA is
proposing to amend the General Pretreatment Regulations so that a
removal credit may be authorized for chromium in sewage sludge that is
land applied, given compliance with other regulatory requirements, as
long as the chromium concentration in the sewage sludge does not exceed
12,000 mg/kg.
Many industrial facilities discharge large amounts of pollutants to
POTWs where their wastewaters mix with wastewater from other sources,
domestic sewage from private residences and run-off from various
sources prior to treatment and discharge by the POTW. The introduction
of pollutants to a POTW from industrial discharges may pose several
problems. These include potential interference with the POTW's
operation or pass-through of pollutants if inadequately treated.
Congress, in section 307(b) of the Act, directed EPA to establish
pretreatment standards to prevent these potential problems. Congress
also recognized that, in certain instances, POTWs could provide some or
all of the treatment of an industrial user's wastewater that would be
required pursuant to the pretreatment standard. Consequently, Congress
established a discretionary program for POTWs to grant `` removal
credits'' to their indirect dischargers. The credit, in the form of a
less stringent pretreatment standard, allows an increased concentration
of a pollutant in the flow from the indirect discharger to the POTW.
Section 307(b) of the CWA establishes a three-part test a POTW
would need to meet to obtain removal credit authority for a given
pollutant. A removal credit may be authorized only if (1) the POTW
``removes all or any part of such toxic pollutant,'' (2) the POTW's
ultimate discharge would ``not violate that effluent limitation, or
standard which would be applicable to that toxic pollutant if it were
discharged'' directly rather than through a POTW and (3) the POTW's
discharge would ``not prevent sludge use and disposal by such [POTW] in
accordance with section [405]. * * *'' Section 307(b).
[[Page 54783]]
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has
interpreted the statute to require EPA to promulgate comprehensive
sewage sludge regulations before any removal credits could be
authorized. NRDC v. EPA, 790 F.2d 289, 292 (3rd Cir. 1986) cert.
denied. 479 U.S. 1084 (1987). Congress made this explicit in the Water
Quality Act of 1987, which indicated that EPA could not authorize any
removal credits until it issued the sewage sludge use or disposal
regulation required by section 405(d)(2)(a)(ii). EPA has promulgated
removal credit regulations that are codified at 40 CFR part 403.7.
At the same time EPA promulgated the part 503 regulation, EPA
amended its General Pretreatment Regulations to add a new Appendix G
that includes two tables of pollutants that would be eligible for a
removal credit so long as the other procedural and substantive
requirements of 40 CFR part 503 and 40 CFR 403.7 are met. The first
table (Appendix G--Section I) lists, by use or disposal practice, the
pollutants that are regulated in part 503 and eligible for a removal
credit. The second table (Appendix G--Section II) lists, by use or
disposal practice, additional pollutants that are eligible for a
removal credit if the concentration of the pollutant does not exceed a
prescribed concentration. The pollutants in Appendix G--Section II are
the pollutants that EPA evaluated and decided not to regulate during
development of the part 503 regulation. See 58 FR at 9381-5. EPA
included chromium in Appendix G--Section I because the Agency
established pollutant limits in the Part 503 regulation for sewage
sludge that is land applied, surface disposed, or incinerated.
In the final part 503 regulation, EPA limited the chromium content
of land-applied sewage sludge to prevent possible plant injury. On
November 15, 1994, the D.C. Circuit remanded the chromium pollutant
limits for modification or additional justification, concluding that
EPA lacked an adequate evidentiary basis for its risk-based chromium
limit. Leather Industries of America, Inc. v. Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 F.3d 392 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Elsewhere in today's Federal
Register, in response to the remand, EPA is promulgating a final rule
that deletes chromium from the pollutants that are regulated when
sewage sludge is applied to the land. EPA has concluded that there is
no current basis for establishing chromium limits in land-applied
sewage sludge. EPA's decision not to regulate chromium in land-applied
sewage sludge is based on its reevaluation of the Agency's land
application risk assessment for chromium developed during the part 503
rulemaking. This reassessment showed that chromium is unlikely to be
present in sewage sludge in concentrations that present a risk to
public health or the environment.1
\1\For the Part 503 regulation, in descending order of
stringency, the risk assessment cumulative loading rates for
chromium are 3,000 kg/hectare (Pathway 8--plant toxicity), 5,000 kg/
hectare (Pathway 11--tractor operator) and 12,000 kg/hectare
(Pathway 14--groundwater). See Technical Support Document for the
Land Application of Sewage Sludge Table 5.4-5, p. 5-435. Having
determined that current information would not support regulation of
chromium to prevent plant injury, EPA took a second look at Pathways
11 and 14. EPA revised the Pathway 11 analysis and determined that a
significantly less stringent cumulative pollutant loading rate than
5,000 kg/hectare would protect a tractor operator from potential
injury from inhaled chromium. A complete explanation of EPA's
reanalysis may be found in the docket for this rulemaking.
Given the fact that the Pathway 11 and Pathway 14 risk limits
(expressed as a chromium concentration in sewage sludge) exceeded
the 99th percentile sludge concentration by at least an order of
magnitude, EPA decided not to establish land application pollutant
limits for chromium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time EPA deleted chromium limits from its part 503 land
application requirements, EPA took two other actions. First, the Agency
removed chromium from the list of regulated pollutants for land
application in Appendix G--Section I for which a removal credit is
available. Second, to ensure the continued eligibility of chromium for
a removal credit, EPA added a footnote in Appendix G--Section II
stating the chromium concentration in Section II for land application
would be determined on a case-by-case basis. Case-by-case
determinations would continue to be made until EPA determines a safe
concentration for chromium in sewage sludge that is land applied--the
action being proposed here.
In the 1993 amendments to part 403, EPA included pollutants that it
evaluated for risk and decided not to regulate in Appendix G--Section
II at the highest concentration evaluated as safe based on the
concentrations developed during the risk assessment for the final part
503 regulation. See 58 FR 9382. Consequently, EPA reviewed its land
application risk assessment to determine the safe level for chromium.
Based on the results of the 1993 risk assessment and the results of the
revaluation of Pathway 11, EPA is proposing to include a number for
land-applied chromium in Appendix G--Section II at a concentration of
12,000 mg/kg. EPA has concluded that this is the highest level EPA
identified as safe for the following reasons.
As explained above, EPA reevaluated its 1993 land application risk
assessment for Pathway 11 and determined that a cumulative pollutant
loading rate for chromium for land-applied sewage sludge well in excess
of the 5,000 kg/hectare loading rate calculated in the 1993 assessment
presents little threat to a tractor operator because of the low
hexavalent chromium concentration in the sewage sludge. Consequently,
the next pathway in EPA's land application risk assessment at which
chromium may present a threat to public health and the environment is
Pathway 14, the ground-water pathway. (Technical Support Document for
the Land Application of Sewage Sludge, November 1992, Table 5.4-5, p.
5-435). The 1993 risk assessment concluded that as long as the total
amount of chromium applied to the land in sewage sludge did not exceed
12,000 kg/hectare, the potential for adverse affects on the ground
water beneath a land application site is low. EPA is asking for public
comment on whether a concentration of 12,000 mg/kg2 is the
appropriate level at which chromium should be included on Appendix G--
Section II.
\2\In the case of those pollutants EPA evaluated in the 1993
risk assessment and decided not to regulate, EPA established Section
II pollutant concentrations that are derived from the 1993 risk
assessment cumulative pollutant loading rates. To convert a
cumulative pollutant loading rate to a pollutant concentration, EPA
assumed that 10 metric tons of sewage sludge would be applied to a
hectare of land each year for 100 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the
[[Page 54784]]
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.''
Executive Order 12866 requires EPA to prepare an assessment of the
costs and benefits of any ``significant regulatory action.'' It has
been determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is not subject,
therefore, to OMB review. Further, because the effect of today's rule
is to modify current requirements and provide additional flexibility to
the regulated community, costs to the regulated community should be
reduced or at least remain unchanged. OMB has waived review of this
proposed rule.
B. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993),
entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, the Agency is
required to develop an effective process to permit elected officials
and other representatives of State, local, and tribal governments to
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory
proposals.
EPA sought the involvement of those persons who are intended to
benefit from or expected to be burdened by this proposal before issuing
a notice of proposed rulemaking. Following informal consultation, in
January 1995, EPA circulated a draft of the proposed changes for
comment to the regulated community, environmentalists, and States. EPA
received a small number of comments, which have been addressed in
today's rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612,
whenever an agency is required to publish a General Notice of
Rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the impact of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the head of
the Agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
This action to amend the part 403 and part 503 regulations proposed
today provides added flexibility and technical clarification for some
of the requirements. It will only provide beneficial opportunities for
entities that may be affected by the rule. Accordingly, I certify that
this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This regulation, therefore, does
not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements for part 503 were approved
by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (See
58 FR 9377, February 19, 1993.) There are no new reporting,
notification, or recordkeeping (information) provisions in this
proposed rule.
E. Unfunded Mandates
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. When such a statement is needed for an EPA rule, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, giving them meaningful and
timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,
educating, and advising them on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
EPA has determined that today's amendments to part 503 do not
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local or tribal governments or the private
sector in any one year. With one exception, the proposed amendments
either clarify existing regulatory requirements or provide additional
flexibility to the regulated community in complying with current
regulatory requirements.
[[Page 54785]]
For example, EPA is proposing a number of changes to reduce the
reporting and recordkeeping burden of the current requirements. These
would include amendments to authorize the permitting authority to
reduce the required frequency of monitoring of sewage sludge or, in the
case of incinerated sewage sludge, to exempt certain facilities
entirely from monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
EPA also is proposing to amend the current regulation to delete the
requirement for land appliers of sewage sludge to record the time of
day sewage sludge is applied. In addition, the proposal would modify
the certification provision of the current substantive requirement to
certify certain information to the permitting authority. Under the
proposal, the certifier would certify to the accuracy of the submitted
information and not, as is the case at present, to the submitter's
compliance with regulatory requirements.
EPA is proposing to delete language from the current regulation
that required the permitting authority to specify certain factors used
to calculate site-by-site pollutant limits for sewage sludge
incinerators and to specify how to install, calibrate, operate and
maintain incinerator continuous emission monitors. The proposal also
includes technical amendments that would correct inaccurate cross-
references and add omitted reporting dates and inadvertently omitted
phrases. Therefore, to the extent that the proposed regulation would
reduce the costs of complying with current part 503 requirements, the
proposed changes will lessen the regulatory burden on State, local, or
tribal governments.
One proposed change may result in a small annual increase in costs
to State, local, or tribal governments in certain circumstances. The
current regulation provides that sewage sludge that is applied to land
for a beneficial purpose or disposed at surface disposal sites must,
among other conditions, meet requirements for reducing the pathogen
content of the sewage sludge. Sewage sludge must meet either Class A or
Class B pathogen requirements. The regulation provides a number of
alternatives for achieving the Class A and Class B requirements. These
alternatives include treatment processes that reduce the density of
enteric viruses, viable helminth ova and Salmonella, sp. bacteria in
the sewage sludge. In addition, in the case of the Class A
alternatives, the density of either fecal coliform or Salmonella sp.
bacteria in the sewage sludge may not exceed prescribed levels at the
time the sewage sludge is used or disposed. Today's proposal would
change the description of one of the Processes to Further Reduce
Pathogens to require that a certain dose of gamma rays be used. The
dosage was inadvertently deleted from the process description in the
final rule.
As noted above, there are either no (or reduced) costs associated
with the other changes proposed today. Thus, today's proposed rule is
not subject to the requirements in sections 202 and 205 of the Act.
EPA has determined that this proposal contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments that may operate publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
generating sewage sludge. The proposed amendments would not
significantly affect small governments because as explained above, the
proposed amendments would either provide additional flexibility in
complying with pre-existing regulatory requirements or clarify these
requirements. The proposed amendments also would not uniquely affect
small governments because the increased flexibility provided by the
proposed changes would be available to POTWs operated by small
governments to the same extent as to other sewage sludge users or
disposers.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 403
Environmental protection, Incineration, Land application,
Pollutants, Removal Credits, Sewage sludge, and Surface disposal.
40 CFR Part 503
Environmental Protection, Frequency of monitoring, Incineration,
Incorporation by reference, Land application, Management practices,
Pathogens, Pollutants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sewage
sludge, Surface disposal and Vector attraction reduction.
Dated: October 10, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as set forth below:
PART 403--GENERAL PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FOR EXISTING AND NEW
SOURCES OF POLLUTION
1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 403 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 54(c)(2) of the Clean Water of 1977, (Pub. L.
95-217) sections 204(b)(1)(C), 208(b)(2)(C)(iii), 301(b)(1)(A)(ii),
301(b)(2)(A)(ii), 301(b)(2)(C), 301(h)(5), 301(i)(2), 304(e),
304(g), 307, 308, 309, 402(b), 405, and 501(a) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (Pub. L. 92-500) as amended by the Clean Water
Act of 1977 and the Water Quality Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-4).
2. Appendix G to part 403 is proposed to be amended by revising
section ``II.'' to read as follows:
Appendix G--Pollutants Eligible for A Removal Credit
I. * * *
[[Page 54786]]
II. Additional Pollutants Eligible for a Removal Credit
[Milligrams per kilogram--dry weight basis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use or disposal practice (SD)
Pollutant ----------------------------------------------
LA Unlined\1\ Lined\2\ I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic.......................................................... ......... ........... \3\100 ........
Aldrin/Dieldrin (Total).......................................... 2.7 ........... ........... ........
Benzene.......................................................... \3\16.0 140 3,400 ........
Benzo(a)pyrene................................................... 15.0 \3\100 \3\100 ........
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate....................................... ......... \3\100 \3\100 ........
Cadmium.......................................................... ......... \3\100 \3\100 ........
Chlordane........................................................ 86.0 \3\100 \3\100 ........
Chromium......................................................... 12,000.0 ........... \3\100 ........
Copper........................................................... ......... \3\46 \3\100 1,400.0
DDD, DDE, DDT (Total)............................................ 1.2 2,000 2,000 ........
2,4 Dichlorophenoxy-acetic acid.................................. ......... 7 7 ........
Fluoride......................................................... 730.0 ........... ........... ........
Heptachlor....................................................... 7.4 ........... ........... ........
Hexachlorobenzene................................................ 29.0 ........... ........... ........
Hexachlorobutadiene.............................................. 600.0 ........... ........... ........
Iron............................................................. \3\78.0 ........... ........... ........
Lead............................................................. ......... \3\100 \3\100 ........
Lindane.......................................................... 84.0 \3\28 \3\28 ........
Malathion........................................................ ......... 0.63 0.63 ........
Mercury.......................................................... ......... \3\100 \3\100 ........
Molybdenum....................................................... ......... 40 40 ........
Nickel........................................................... ......... ........... \3\100 ........
N-Nitrosodimethylamine........................................... 2.1 0.088 0.088 ........
Pentachlorophenol................................................ 30.0 ........... ........... ........
Phenol........................................................... ......... 82 82 ........
Polychlorinated biphenyls........................................ 4.6 <50 <50 ........
Selenium......................................................... ......... 4.8 4.8 4.8
Toxaphene........................................................ 10.0 \3\26 \3\26 ........
Trichloroethylene................................................ \3\10.0 9,500 \3\10 ........
Zinc............................................................. ......... 4,500 4,500 4,500.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Sewage sludge unit without a liner and leachate collection system.
\2\Sewage sludge unit with a liner and leachate collection system.
\3\Value expressed in grams per kilogram--dry weight basis.
KEY:
LA--land application
SD--surface disposal
I--incineration
PART 503--STANDARDS FOR THE USE OR DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE SLUDGE
1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 503 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Sections 405(d) and (e) of the Clean Water Act, as
amended by Pub. L. 95-217, Sec. 54(d), 91 Stat. 1591 (33 U.S.C. 1345
(d) and (e)); and Pub. L. 100-4, Title IV, Sec. 406(a), (b), 101
Stat., 71, 72 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
* * * * *
2. Section 503.2 is amended by adding a new paragraph (d) to read
as follows:
Sec. 503.2 Compliance period.
* * * * *
(d) Compliance with the requirements for sewage sludge incineration
in subpart E that were revised on [date of publication of the final
regulations] shall be achieved as expeditiously as practicable, but in
no case later than [90 days from the date of publication of the final
regulations]. When new pollution control facilities must be constructed
to comply with the revised requirements for sewage sludge incineration
in subpart E, compliance with the revised requirements shall be
achieved as expeditiously as practicable but no later than [12 months
from date of publication of the final regulations].
3. Section 503.10 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1),
(d), (e), (f), and (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 503.10 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Bulk sewage sludge. The general requirements in Sec. 503.12 and
the management practices in Sec. 503.14 do not apply when bulk sewage
sludge is applied to the land if the bulk sewage sludge meets the
ceiling concentrations in Table 1 of Sec. 503.13 and the pollutant
concentrations in Table 3 of Sec. 503.13; the Class A pathogen
requirements in Sec. 503.32(a); and one of the vector attraction
reduction requirements in Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through (b)(8) or an
equivalent vector attraction reduction requirement, as determined by
the permitting authority.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) The general requirements in Sec. 503.12 and the management
practices in Sec. 503.14 do not apply when a bulk material derived from
sewage sludge is applied to the land if the derived bulk material meets
the ceiling concentrations in Table 1 of Sec. 503.13 and the pollutant
concentrations in Table 3 of Sec. 503.13; the Class A pathogen
requirements in Sec. 503.32(a); and one of the vector attraction
reduction requirements in Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through (b)(8) or an
equivalent vector attraction reduction requirement, as determined by
the permitting authority.
* * * * *
(d) The requirements in this subpart do not apply when a bulk
material derived from sewage sludge is applied to the land if the
sewage sludge from
[[Page 54787]]
which the bulk material is derived meets the ceiling concentrations in
Table 1 of Sec. 503.13 and the pollutant concentrations in Table 3 of
Sec. 503.13; the Class A pathogen requirements in Sec. 503.32(a); and
one of the vector attraction reduction requirements in Sec. 503.33
(b)(1) through (b)(8) or an equivalent vector attraction reduction
requirement, as determined by the permitting authority.
(e) Sewage sludge sold or given away in a bag or other container
for application to the land. The general requirements in Sec. 503.12
and the management practices in Sec. 503.14 do not apply when sewage
sludge is sold or given away in a bag or other container for
application to the land if the sewage sludge sold or given away in a
bag or other container for application to the land meets the ceiling
concentrations in Table 1 of Sec. 503.13 and the pollutant
concentrations in Table 3 of Sec. 503.13; the Class A pathogen
requirements in Sec. 503.32(a); and one of the vector attraction
reduction requirements in Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through (b)(8) or an
equivalent vector attraction reduction requirement, as determined by
the permitting authority.
(f) The general requirements in Sec. 503.12 and the management
practices in Sec. 503.14 do not apply when a material derived from
sewage sludge is sold or given away in a bag or other container for
application to the land if the derived material meets the ceiling
concentrations in Table 1 of Sec. 503.13 and the pollutant
concentrations in Table 3 of Sec. 503.13; the Class A pathogen
requirements in Sec. 503.32(a); and one of the vector attraction
reduction requirements in Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through (b)(8) or an
equivalent vector attraction reduction requirement, as determined by
the permitting authority.
(g) The requirements in this subpart do not apply when a material
derived from sewage sludge is sold or given away in a bag or other
container for application to the land if the sewage sludge from which
the material is derived meets the ceiling concentrations in Table 1 of
Sec. 503.13 and the pollutant concentrations in Table 3 of Sec. 503.13;
the Class A pathogen requirements in Sec. 503.32(a); and one of the
vector attraction reduction requirements in Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through
(b)(8) or an equivalent vector attraction reduction requirement, as
determined by the permitting authority.
4. Section 503.15 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2),
and (c)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 503.15 Operational standards--pathogens and vector attraction
reduction.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) One of the vector attraction reduction requirements in
Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through (b)(8); a requirement that is equivalent to
one of the vector attraction reduction requirements in Sec. 503.33
(b)(1) through (b)(8), as determined by the permitting authority; or
the vector attraction reduction requirements in Sec. 503.33 (b)(9) or
(b)(10) shall be met when bulk sewage sludge is applied to agricultural
land, forest, a public contact site, or a reclamation site.
(2) One of the vector attraction reduction requirements in
Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through (b)(8) or an equivalent vector attraction
reduction requirement, as determined by the permitting authority, shall
be met when bulk sewage sludge is applied to a lawn or home garden.
(3) One of the vector attraction reduction requirements in
Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through (b)(8) or an equivalent vector attraction
reduction requirement, as determined by the permitting authority, shall
be met when sewage sludge is sold or given away in a bag or other
container for application to the land.
* * * * *
5. Section 503.16 is amended by revising the text preceding the
table in paragraph (a)(1) and revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 503.16 Frequency of monitoring.
(a) Sewage sludge. (1) The frequency of monitoring for the
pollutants listed in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 of
Sec. 503.13; the pathogen density requirements in Sec. 503.32(a) and in
Sec. 503.32(b)(2); the vector attraction reduction requirements in
Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through (b)(4) and Sec. 503.33 (b)(6) through (b)(8)
shall be the frequency in Table 1 of Sec. 503.16.
* * * * *
(2) After the sewage sludge has been monitored for two years at the
frequency in Table 1 of Sec. 503.16, the permitting authority may
reduce the frequency of monitoring for pollutant concentrations and for
the pathogen density requirements in Sec. 503.32(a)(5)(ii) and
(a)(5)(iii).
* * * * *
6. Section 503.17 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii),
(a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), (a)(2)(iv), (a)(3)(i)(B), (a)(3)(ii)(A),
(a)(4)(i)(B), (a)(4)(i)(D), (a)(4)(ii)(A), (a)(5)(i)(B), (a)(5)(i)(D),
(a)(5)(ii)(C), (a)(5)(ii)(F), (a)(5)(ii)(H), (a)(5)(ii)(J),
(a)(5)(ii)(L), (a)(6)(iii), (a)(6)(v), (b)(3), (b)(6), and (b)(7) and
by adding a new paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(E) to read as follows:
Sec. 503.17 Recordkeeping.
(a) Sewage sludge.
(1) * * *
(ii) The following certification statement:
``I certify, under penalty of law, that the information that will
be used to determine compliance with the Class A pathogen requirements
in Sec. 503.32(a) and the vector attraction reduction requirement in
[insert one of the vector attraction reduction requirements in
Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through Sec. 503.33(b)(8) or an equivalent vector
attraction reduction requirement, as determined by the permitting
authority] has been prepared under my direction and supervision in
accordance with the system designed to ensure that qualified personnel
properly gather and evaluate this information. I am aware that there
are significant penalties for false certification including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment.''
* * * * *
(iv) A description of how one of the vector attraction reduction
requirements in Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through (b)(8) or an equivalent
vector attraction reduction requirement, as determined by the
permitting authority, is met.
(2) * * *
(ii) The following certification statement:
``I certify, under penalty of law, that the information that will
be used to determine compliance with the Class A pathogen requirements
in Sec. 503.32(a) and the vector attraction reduction requirement in
[insert one of the vector attraction reduction requirements in
Sec. 503.33(b)(1) through (b)(8) or an equivalent vector attraction
reduction requirement, as determined by the permitting authority] has
been prepared under my direction and supervision in accordance with the
system designed to ensure that qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate this information. I am aware that there are significant
penalties for false certification including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment.''
* * * * *
(iv) A description of how one of the vector attraction reduction
requirements in Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through (b)(8) or an equivalent
vector attraction reduction requirement, as determined by the
permitting, is met.
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(B) The following certification statement:
[[Page 54788]]
``I certify, under penalty of law, that the information that will
be used to determine compliance with the pathogen requirements in
Sec. 503.32(a) has been prepared under my direction and supervision in
accordance with the system designed to ensure that qualified personnel
properly gather and evaluate this information. I am aware that there
are significant penalties for false certification including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment.''
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) The following certification statement:
``I certify, under penalty of law, that the information that will
be used to determine compliance with the management practices in
Sec. 503.14 and the vector attraction reduction requirement in [insert
either Sec. 503.33 (b)(9) or (b)(10)] has been prepared under my
direction and supervision in accordance with the system designed to
ensure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate this
information. I am aware that there are significant penalties for false
certification including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.''
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) The following certification statement:
``I certify, under penalty of law, that the information that will
be used to determine compliance with the Class B pathogen requirements
in Sec. 503.32(b) and the vector attraction reduction requirement in
[insert one of the vector attraction reduction requirements in
Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through (b)(8) or an equivalent vector attraction
reduction requirement, as determined by the permitting authority, if
one of those requirements is met] has been prepared under my direction
and supervision in accordance with the system designed to ensure that
qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate this information. I am
aware that there are significant penalties for false certification
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.''
* * * * *
(D) When one of the vector attraction reduction requirements in
Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through (b)(8) or when an equivalent vector
attraction reduction requirement, as determined by the permitting
authority, is met, a description of how the vector attraction reduction
requirement is met.
(ii) * * *
(A) The following certification statement:
``I certify, under penalty of law, that the information that will
be used to determine compliance with the management practices in
Sec. 503.14, the site restrictions in Sec. 503.32(b)(5), and the vector
attraction reduction requirement in [insert either Sec. 503.33 (b)(9)
or (b)(10) if one of those requirements is met] has been prepared for
each site on which bulk sewage sludge is applied under my direction and
supervision in accordance with the system designed to ensure that
qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate this information. I am
aware that there are significant penalties for false certification
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.''
* * * * *
(E) The date bulk sewage sludge is applied to each site.
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) The following certification statement:
``I certify, under penalty of law, that the information that will
be used to determine compliance with the pathogen requirements in
[insert either Sec. 503.32(a) or Sec. 503.32(b)] and the vector
attraction reduction requirement in [insert one of the vector
attraction reduction requirements in Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through (b)(8)
or an equivalent vector attraction reduction requirement, as determined
by the permitting authority, if one of those requirements is met] has
been prepared under my direction and supervision in accordance with the
system designed to ensure that qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate this information. I am aware that there are significant
penalties for false certification including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment.''
* * * * *
(D) When one of the vector attraction reduction requirements in
Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through (b)(8) or an equivalent vector attraction
reduction requirement, as determined by the permitting authority, is
met, a description of how the vector attraction reduction requirement
is met.
(ii) * * *
(C) The date bulk sewage sludge is applied to each site.
* * * * *
(F) The following certification statement:
``I certify, under penalty of law, that the information that will
be used to determine compliance with the requirements to obtain
information in Sec. 503.12(e)(2) has been prepared for each site on
which bulk sewage sludge is applied under my direction and supervision
in accordance with the system designed to ensure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate this information. I am aware
that there are significant penalties for false certification including
the possibility of fine and imprisonment.''
* * * * *
(H) The following certification statement:
``I certify, under penalty of law, that the information that will
be used to determine compliance with the management practices in
Sec. 503.14 has been prepared for each site on which bulk sewage sludge
is applied under my direction and supervision in accordance with the
system designed to ensure that qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate this information. I am aware that there are significant
penalties for false certification including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment.''
* * * * *
(J) The following certification statement when the bulk sewage
sludge meets the Class B pathogen requirements in Sec. 503.32(b):
``I certify, under penalty of law, that the information that will
be used to determine compliance with the site restrictions in
Sec. 503.32(b)(5) has been prepared under my direction and supervision
in accordance with the system designed to ensure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate this information. I am aware
that there are significant penalties for false certification including
the possibility of fine and imprisonment.''
* * * * *
(L) The following certification statement when the vector
attraction reduction requirement in either Sec. 503.33 (b)(9) or
(b)(10) is met:
``I certify, under penalty of law, that the information that will
be used to determine compliance with the vector attraction reduction
requirement in [insert either Sec. 503.33(b)(9) or Sec. 503.33(b)(10)]
has been prepared under my direction and supervision in accordance with
the system designed to ensure that qualified personnel properly gather
and evaluate this information. I am aware that there are significant
penalties for false certification including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment.''
* * * * *
(6) * * *
(iii) The following certification statement:
``I certify, under penalty of law, that the information that will
be used to determine compliance with the management practice in
Sec. 503.14(e), the Class A pathogen requirement in Sec. 503.32(a), and
the vector attraction
[[Page 54789]]
reduction requirement in [insert one of the vector attraction reduction
requirements in Sec. 503.33(b)(1) through Sec. 503.33(b)(8) or an
equivalent vector attraction reduction requirement, as determined by
the permitting authority] has been prepared under my direction and
supervision in accordance with the system designed to ensure that
qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate this information. I am
aware that there are significant penalties for false certification
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.''
* * * * *
(v) A description of how one of the vector attraction reduction
requirements in Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through (b)(8) or an equivalent
vector attraction reduction requirement, as determined by the
permitting authority, is met.
(b) * * *
(3) The date domestic septage is applied to each site.
* * * * *
(6) The following certification statement:
``I certify, under penalty of law, that the information that will
be used to determine compliance with the pathogen requirements [insert
either Sec. 503.32(c)(1) or Sec. 503.32(c)(2)] and the vector
attraction reduction requirement in [insert Sec. 503.33(b)(9),
Sec. 503.33(b)(10), or Sec. 503.33(b)(12)] has been prepared under my
direction and supervision in accordance with the system designed to
ensure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate this
information. I am aware that there are significant penalties for false
certification including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.''
(7) A description of how the pathogen requirements in either
Sec. 503.32 (c)(1) or (c)(2) are met.
* * * * *
7. Section 503.18 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read
as follows:
Sec. 503.18 Reporting.
(a) * * *
(2) The information in Sec. 503.17 (a)(5)(ii)(A) through
(a)(5)(ii)(g) on February 19th of each year when 90 percent or more of
any of the cumulative pollutant loading rates in Table 2 of Sec. 503.13
is reached at a site.
* * * * *
8. Section 503.22 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 503.22 General requirements.
* * * * *
(b) An active sewage sludge unit located within 60 meters of a
fault that has displacement in Holocene time; located in an unstable
area; or located in a wetland, except as provided in a permit issued
pursuant to either section 402 or 404 of the CWA, shall close by March
22, 1994, unless, in the case of an active sewage sludge unit located
within 60 meters of a fault that has displacement in Holocene time,
otherwise specified by the permitting authority.
* * * * *
9. Section 503.25 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 503.25 Operational standards--pathogens and vector attraction
reduction.
* * * * *
(b) Vector attraction reduction--sewage sludge (other than domestic
septage). One of the vector attraction reduction requirements in
Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through (b)(8); a requirement that is equivalent to
one of the vector attraction reduction requirements in Sec. 503.33
(b)(1) through (b)(8), as determined by the permitting authority; or
one of the vector attraction reduction requirements in Sec. 503.33
(b)(9) through (b)(11) shall be met when sewage sludge is placed on an
active sewage sludge unit.
* * * * *
10. Section 503.26 is amended by revising the text preceding the
table in paragraph (a)(1), and revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 503.26 Frequency of monitoring.
(a) Sewage sludge (other than domestic septage).
(1) The frequency of monitoring for the pollutants in Tables 1 and
2 of Sec. 503.23; the pathogen density requirements in Sec. 503.32(a)
and in Sec. 503.32(b)(2); and the vector attraction reduction
requirements in Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through (b)(4) and Sec. 503.33
(b)(6) through (b)(8) for sewage sludge placed on an active sewage
sludge unit shall be the frequency in Table 1 of Sec. 503.26.
* * * * *
(2) After the sewage sludge has been monitored for two years at the
frequency in Table 1 of Sec. 503.26, the permitting authority may
reduce the frequency of monitoring for pollutant concentrations and for
the pathogen density requirements in Sec. 503.32 (a)(5)(ii) and
(a)(5)(iii).
* * * * *
11. Section 503.27 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(ii),
(a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), (b)(1)(i), and (b)(2)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 503.27 Recordkeeping.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The following certification statement:
``I certify, under penalty of law, that the information that will
be used to determine compliance with the pathogen requirements in
[insert Sec. 503.32(a), Sec. 503.32(b)(2), Sec. 503.32(b)(3), or
Sec. 503.32(b)(4) when one of those requirements is met] and the vector
attraction reduction requirement in [insert one of the vector
attraction reduction requirements in Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through (b)(8)
or an equivalent vector attraction reduction requirement, as determined
by the permitting authority, when one of those requirements is met]
have been met. This determination has been made under my direction and
supervision in accordance with the system designed to ensure that
qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information used
to determine that the [pathogen requirements and vector attraction
reduction requirements] have been met. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for false certification including the possibility
of fine and imprisonment.''
* * * * *
(iv) A description of how one of the vector attraction reduction
requirements in Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through (b)(8) or an equivalent
vector attraction reduction requirement, as determined by the
permitting authority, is met when one of those requirements is met.
(2) * * *
(ii) The following certification statement:
``I certify, under penalty of law, that the information that will
be used to determine compliance with the management practices in
Sec. 503.24 and the vector attraction reduction requirement in [insert
one of the requirements in Sec. 503.33(b)(9) through Sec. 503.33(b)(11)
if one of those requirements is met] has been prepared under my
direction and supervision in accordance with the system designed to
ensure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate this
information. I am aware that there are significant penalties for false
certification including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.''
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The following certification statement:
``I certify, under penalty of law, that the information that will
be used to determine compliance with the vector attraction reduction
requirements in Sec. 503.33(b)(12) has been prepared under my direction
and supervision in
[[Page 54790]]
accordance with the system designed to ensure that qualified personnel
properly gather and evaluate this information. I am aware that there
are significant penalties for false certification including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment.''
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The following certification statement:
``I certify, under penalty of law, that the information that will
be used to determine compliance with the management practices in
Sec. 503.24 and the vector attraction reduction requirements in [insert
Sec. 503.33(b)(9) through Sec. 503.33(b)(11) when one of those
requirements is met] has been prepared under my direction and
supervision in accordance with the system designed to ensure that
qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate this information. I am
aware that there are significant penalties for false certification
including the possibility of fine or imprisonment.''
* * * * *
12. Section 503.31 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 503.31 Special definitions.
* * * * *
(g) pH means the logarithm of the reciprocal of the hydrogen ion
concentration measured at 25 deg.C or measured at another temperature
and then converted to an equivalent value at 25 deg.C.
* * * * *
13-15. Section 503.32 is amended by revising the heading for
paragraph (a)(3) and revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(5)(v) to
read as follows:
Sec. 503.32 Pathogens.
(a) * * *
(3) Class A--Alternative 1 (Not applicable for composting). * * *
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Class B--Alternative 1.
(i) Seven representative samples of the sewage sludge that is used
or disposed shall be collected.
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(v) Animals shall not be grazed on the land for 30 days after
application of sewage sludge.
* * * * *
16-17. Section 503.33 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(4) and paragraphs (b)(6) through (b)(8) and paragraph
(b)(10)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 503.33 Vector attraction reduction.
(a)(1) One of the vector attraction reduction requirements in
Sec. 503.33(b)(1) through Sec. 503.33(b)(8); a requirement that is
equivalent to one of the vector attraction reduction requirements in
Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through (b)(8), as determined by the permitting
authority; or the vector attraction reduction requirements in
Sec. 503.33 (b)(9) or (b)(10) shall be met when bulk sewage sludge is
applied to agricultural land, forest, a public contact site, or a
reclamation site.
(2) One of the vector attraction reduction requirements in
Sec. 503.33(b)(1) through Sec. 503.33(b)(8) or an equivalent vector
attraction reduction requirement, as determined by the permitting
authority, shall be met when bulk sewage sludge is applied to a lawn or
a home garden.
(3) One of the vector attraction reduction requirements in
Sec. 503.33(b)(1) through Sec. 503.33(b)(8) or an equivalent vector
attraction reduction requirement, as determined by the permitting
authority, shall be met when sewage sludge is sold or given away in a
bag or other container for application to the land.
(4) One of the vector attraction reduction requirements in
Sec. 503.33(b)(1) through Sec. 503.33(b)(8); a requirement that is
equivalent to one of the vector attraction reduction requirements in
Sec. 503.33 (b)(1) through (b)(8), as determined by the permitting
authority; or one of the vector attraction reduction requirements in
Sec. 503.33 (b)(9) through (b)(11) shall be met when sewage sludge
(other than domestic septage) is placed on an active sewage sludge
unit.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) The pH of sewage sludge shall be raised to 12 or higher by
alkali addition and, without the addition of more alkali, shall remain
at 12 or higher for two hours and then at 11.5 or higher for an
additional 22 hours at the time the sewage sludge is used or disposed;
at the time the sewage sludge is prepared for sale or given away in a
bag or other container for application to the land; or at the time the
sewage sludge is prepared to meet the requirements in Sec. 503.10 (b),
(c), (e), or (f).
(7) The percent solids of sewage sludge that does not contain
unstabilized solids generated in a primary wastewater treatment process
shall be equal to or greater than 75 percent, based on the moisture
content and total solids prior to mixing with other materials, at the
time the sewage sludge is used or disposed; at the time the sewage
sludge is prepared for sale or given away in a bag or other container
for application to the land; or at the time the sewage sludge is
prepared to meet the requirements in Sec. 503.10 (b), (c), (e), or (f).
(8) The percent solids of sewage sludge that contains unstabilized
solids generated in a primary wastewater treatment process shall be
equal to or greater than 90 percent, based on the moisture content and
total solids prior to mixing with other materials, at the time the
sewage sludge is used or disposed; at the time the sewage sludge is
prepared for sale or given away in a bag or other container for
application to the land; or the time the sewage sludge is prepared to
meet the requirements in Sec. 503.10 (b), (c), (e), or (f).
* * * * *
(10) (i) Sewage sludge applied to the land surface or placed on a
surface disposal site shall be incorporated into the soil within six
hours after application to or placement on the land, unless otherwise
specified by the permitting authority.
* * * * *
18. Section 503.40 is amended by adding a new paragraph (d) to read
as follows:
Sec. 503.40 Applicability.
* * * * *
(d) The frequency of monitoring requirements for a pollutant in
Sec. 503.46 (a)(2) and (a)(3), the recordkeeping requirement for a
pollutant in Sec. 503.47(b), and the reporting requirement for a
pollutant in Sec. 503.48 do not apply when the following conditions are
met, if approved by the permitting authority.
(i) The average daily concentration for the pollutant calculated
pursuant to Sec. 503.43(c) or Sec. 503.43(d) exceeds the highest
average daily concentration for the pollutant measured in the sewage
sludge for the months in the previous calendar year.
(ii) The incinerator is operated within the operating parameters
established during the performance test required by Sec. 503.43(c)(3)
or Sec. 503.43(d)(5).
19. Section 503.43 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1),
(c)(2), (c)(3), (d)(1), the text preceding the table in paragraphs
(d)(2) and (d)(3), revising paragraph (d)(4), and (d)(5), and by adding
a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 503.43 Pollutant limits.
* * * * *
(c) Pollutant limit--lead.
(1) The average daily concentration of lead in sewage sludge fed to
a sewage sludge incinerator shall not exceed the concentration
calculated using Equation (4).
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP25OC95.001
[[Page 54791]]
Where:
C=Average daily concentration of lead in sewage sludge in milligrams
per kilogram of total solids (dry weight basis) for the days in the
month that the sewage sludge incinerator operates.
NAAQS=National Ambient Air Quality Standard for lead in micrograms per
cubic meter.
DF=Dispersion factor in micrograms per cubic meter per gram per second.
CE=Sewage sludge incinerator control efficiency for lead in hundredths.
SF=Sewage sludge feed rate in metric tons per day (dry weight basis).
(2) The dispersion factor (DF) in equation (4) shall be determined
from an air dispersion model.
(i) When the sewage sludge stack height is 65 meters or less, the
actual sewage sludge incinerator stack height shall be used in the air
dispersion model to determine the dispersion factor (DF) for equation
(4).
(ii) When the sewage sludge incinerator stack height exceeds 65
meters, the creditable stack height shall be determined in accordance
with 40 CFR 51.100(ii) and the creditable stack height shall be used in
the air dispersion model to determine the dispersion factor (DF) for
equation (4).
(3) The control efficiency (CE) in equation (4) shall be determined
from a performance test of the sewage sludge incinerator.
(d) * * *
(1) The average daily concentration for arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
and nickel in sewage sludge fed to a sewage sludge incinerator each
shall not exceed the concentration calculated using equation (5).
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP25OC95.002
Where:
C=Average daily concentration of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, or nickel
in sewage sludge in milligrams per kilogram of total solids (dry weight
basis) for the days in the month that the incinerator operates.
CE=Sewage sludge incinerator control efficiency for arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, or nickel in hundredths.
DF=Dispersion factor in micrograms per cubic meter per gram per second.
RSC=Risk specific concentration, in micrograms per cubic meter.
SF=Sewage sludge feed rate in metric tons per day (dry weight basis).
(2) The risk specific concentrations for arsenic, cadmium, and
nickel used in equation (5) shall be obtained from Table 1 of
Sec. 503.43.
* * * * *
(3) The risk specific concentration for chromium used in equation
(5) shall be obtained from Table 2 of Sec. 503.43 or shall be
calculated using equation (6).
* * * * *
(4) The dispersion factor (DF) in equation (5) shall be determined
from an air dispersion model.
(i) When the sewage sludge incinerator stack height is equal to or
less than 65 meters, the actual sewage sludge incinerator stack height
shall be used in the air dispersion model to determine the dispersion
factor (DF) for equation (5).
(ii) When the sewage sludge incinerator stack height is greater
than 65 meters, the creditable stack height shall be determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.100(ii) and the creditable stack height shall
be used in the air dispersion model to determine the dispersion factor
(DF) for equation (5).
(5) The control efficiency (CE) in equation (5) shall be determined
from a performance test of the sewage sludge incinerator.
(e) Air Dispersion Modeling and Performance Testing
(1) The air dispersion models and performance tests used to
determine the pollutant limits in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this
section shall be consistent with good air pollution control practices
for minimizing air emissions. The air dispersion model shall be
appropriate for the geographical, physical, and population
characteristics at the sewage sludge incinerator site. The performance
test shall be appropriate for the type of sewage sludge incinerator.
(2) A proposed air dispersion modeling protocol shall be submitted
to the permitting authority no later than 30 days from [date of
publication of the final regulation]. The protocol shall include a
clear and complete description of the proposed model and rational
including data that supports the validity of the chosen approach. The
submitted air dispersion modeling protocol may be used to develop the
air dispersion factor if the permitting authority concurs or does not
respond within 30 days from submission.
(3) The following procedures, at a minimum, shall apply in
conducting performance tests:
(i) The performance test shall be conducted under representative
incinerator conditions at the highest expected sewage sludge feed rate
within design specifications.
(ii) The permitting authority shall be provided notice at least 30
days prior to any performance test so the permitting authority may have
the opportunity to observe the test. This notice shall include a test
protocol with incinerator operating conditions and a list of test
methods to be used.
(iii) Performance testing facilities shall contain safe sampling
platforms and safe access to them.
(iv) Each performance test shall consist of three separate runs
using the applicable test method. For the purpose of establishing a
control efficiency, the arithmetic mean of the results of the three
runs shall apply.
(4) The pollutant limits in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section
shall be submitted to the permitting authority no later than 30 days
after completion of the air dispersion modelling and performance test.
(5) Significant changes in geographic or physical characteristics
at the incinerator site or in incinerator operating conditions will
require new air dispersion modeling or performance testing to determine
a new dispersion factor or new control efficiency that will be used to
establish revised pollutant limits.
20. Section 503.45 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b),
(c), (d), (e), and (f), and by adding a new paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 503.45 Management practices.
(a)(1) An instrument that continuously measures and records the
total hydrocarbons concentration in the sewage sludge incinerator stack
exit gas shall be installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained for
each sewage sludge incinerator.
* * * * *
(b) An instrument that continuously measures and records the oxygen
concentration in the sewage sludge incinerator stack exit gas shall be
installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained for each sewage sludge
incinerator.
(c) An instrument that continuously measures and records
information used to determine the moisture content in the sewage sludge
incinerator stack exit gas shall be installed, calibrated, operated,
and maintained for each sewage sludge incinerator.
(d) An instrument that continuously measures and records combustion
temperatures shall be installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained
for each sewage sludge incinerator.
(e) Operation of the sewage sludge incinerator shall not cause a
significant exceedence of the maximum combustion temperature for the
sewage sludge incinerator. The maximum combustion temperature for the
sewage
[[Page 54792]]
sludge incinerator shall be based on information obtained during the
performance test of the sewage sludge incinerator to determine
pollutant control efficiencies.
(f) Appropriate air pollution control devices shall be installed
for the sewage sludge incinerator. Operating parameters for the air
pollution control devices shall be selected that indicate adequate
performance of the device. The values for the operating parameters for
the air pollution control device shall be based on information obtained
during the performance test of the sewage sludge incinerator to
determine pollutant control efficiencies. Operation of the sewage
sludge incinerator shall not cause a significant exceedence of the
values for the selected operating parameters for the air pollution
control device.
* * * * *
(h) The instruments required in Sec. 503.45(a)-(d) shall be
appropriate for the type of sewage sludge incinerator and shall be
installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained consistent with good
air pollution control practice for minimizing air emissions.
21. Section 503.46 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1),
(a)(3), (b) and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 503.46 Frequency of monitoring.
(a) Sewage sludge.
(1) The frequency of monitoring for beryllium shall be as required
under subpart C of 40 CFR part 61 and for mercury as required under
subpart E of 40 CFR part 61.
* * * * *
(3) After the sewage sludge has been monitored for two years at the
frequency in Table 1 of Sec. 503.46, the permitting authority may
reduce the frequency of monitoring for arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
lead, and nickel.
(b) Total hydrocarbons, oxygen concentration, information to
determine moisture content, and combustion temperatures.
The total hydrocarbons concentration and oxygen concentration in
the exit gas from a sewage sludge incinerator stack, the information
used to measure moisture content in the exit gas, and the combustion
temperatures for the sewage sludge incinerator shall be monitored
continuously, unless otherwise specified by the permitting authority.
(c) Air pollution control device operating parameters. The
frequency of monitoring for the air pollution control device operating
parameters shall be at least daily.
* * * * *
22. Appendix B to 40 CFR part 503 is amended by revising the
description of ``Process to Further Reduce Pathogen'' paragraph (6) to
read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 503--Pathogen Treatment Processes
* * * * *
B. Processes To Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP)
* * * * *
(6) Gamma ray irradiation--Sewage sludge is irradiated with
gamma rays from certain isotopes, such as 60Cobalt and
137Cesium, at dosages of at least 1.0 megarad at room
temperature (ca. 20 deg. C).
[FR Doc. 95-25776 Filed 10-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.