issue-1996-04-02•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-02
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-02
issue-1996-04-02Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-02Proposed 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. 96-8019 Distribution of Marketable Securities by a Partnership; Hearing Cancellation
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8019]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[PS-2-95]
RIN 1545-AT19
Distribution of Marketable Securities by a Partnership; Hearing
Cancellation
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed
regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document provides notice of cancellation of a public
hearing on proposed regulations relating to the treatment of a
distribution of marketable securities by a partnership.
DATES: The public hearing originally scheduled for Wednesday, April 3,
1996, beginning at 10 a.m. is cancelled.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Vasquez of the Regulations
Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate), (202) 622-7190, (not a toll-
free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject of the public hearing is
proposed regulations under section 731 of the Internal Revenue Code. A
notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing appearing in
the Federal Register for Tuesday, January 2, 1996 (61 FR 28), announced
that the public hearing on proposed regulations under section 731 of
the Internal Revenue Code would be held on Wednesday, April 3, 1996,
beginning at 10 a.m., in the IRS Auditorium Internal Revenue Building,
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C.
The public hearing scheduled for Wednesday, April 3, 1996, is
cancelled.
Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 96-8019 Filed 3-28-96; 4:40 pm]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8005 National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14531-14543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8005]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 59
[AD-FRL-5451-7]
RIN 2060-AF62
National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Consumer Products
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The proposed standards would reduce emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) from certain categories of consumer products.
The proposed standards implement Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and are based on the Administrator's determination that VOC
emissions from the use of consumer products can cause or contribute to
ozone levels that violate the national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for ozone. Ozone is a major component of smog which causes
negative health and environmental impacts when present in high
concentrations at ground level. These proposed standards would reduce
VOC emissions by 90,000 tons per year, by requiring manufacturers,
importers, and distributors to limit the VOC content of consumer
products. The proposed requirements were developed in consultation with
major stakeholders and are largely consistent with a proposal by
representatives of the affected industry and are similar to existing
standards in certain States. To date, many companies have taken steps
to reformulate their products to emit less VOCs.
A public hearing will be held, if requested, to provide interested
persons an opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or
arguments concerning the proposed standards for consumer products.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before June 3, 1996.
Public Hearing. Anyone requesting a public hearing must contact the
EPA no later than May 2, 1996. If a hearing is held, it will take place
on May 17, 1996, beginning at 10:00 a.m.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102),
Attention: Docket No. A-95-40, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests that a
separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed below.
The docket is located at the above address in Room M1500, Waterside
Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday; telephone number (202) 260-7548, FAX (202) 260-
4400. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public
hearing by the required date (see DATES), the hearing will be held at
the EPA Office of Administration Auditorium in Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711. Persons interested in presenting
[[Page 14532]]
testimony or attending the hearing should contact Ms. Kim Teal at (919)
541-5580.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing and any written statements
will be available for public inspection and copying during normal
working hours at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket in Washington, DC
(see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
proposed regulation, contact Mr. Bruce Moore at (919) 541-5460,
Coatings and Consumer Products Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-
13), U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the Proposed Regulatory Text can
be obtained through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). The TTN is
one of the EPA electronic bulletin boards. The TTN provides information
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. The
service is free except for the cost of a phone call. Dial (919) 541-
5472 for up to a 14,000 bps modem. Select (1) TTN Bulletin Board, (2)
Clean Air Act Amendments, and (3) Recently Signed Rules. If more
information on TTN is needed, contact the systems operator at (919)
541-5384.
Proposed Regulatory Text. The proposed regulatory text is not
included in this Federal Register notice, but is available in Docket
No. A-95-40, or by written or telephone request from the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSEES).
Technical Support Document. The Technical Support Document (TSD)
for the proposed standards may be obtained from the Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSEES).
Economic Impact Analysis (EIA). The EIA for the proposed standards
may be obtained from the Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center (see ADDRESSEES).
Preamble Outline. The information presented in this preamble is
organized as follows:
I. Acronyms and Definitions
A. Acronyms
B. Definitions
II. Background
A. Need for Proposed Rule
B. Consumer Products Survey
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
IV. Summary of Impacts
A. Environmental and Health Impacts
B. Energy Impacts
C. Cost and Economic Impacts
D. Cost-Effectiveness
V. Rationale for Proposed Standards
A. Selection of Pollutant
B. Selection of Best Available Controls (BAC)
C. Selection of Special Provisions
D. Selection of the Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
E. Selection of Test Methods
F. Alternative Regulatory Approaches
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive
Order 12875
C. Unfunded Mandates
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I. Acronyms and Definitions
The following acronyms and definitions are provided to aid in
reading the preamble.
A. Acronyms
ACMC=Automotive Chemical Manufacturers Council
ASC=Adhesive and Sealant Council
ASTM=American Society for Testing and Materials
BAC=best available control(s)
CAA=Clean Air Act
CARB=California Air Resources Board
CSMA=Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association
CTFA=Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association
CTG=Control Techniques Guidelines
FIFRA=Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
HVOC=high volatility organic compound
NAA=National Aerosol Association
NAAQS=national ambient air quality standard
OMB=Office of Management and Budget
OMS=Office of Mobile Sources
RFA=Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA=regulatory impact analysis
SDA=Soap and Detergent Association
SIP=State implementation plan(s)
STAPPA/ALAPCO=State and Territorial Air Pollution Administrators/
Association of Local Air Pollution Control Offices
TCA=1,1,1-trichloroethane
VOC=volatile organic compound(s)
B. Definitions
Consumer or commercial products are defined in Section 183(e)(1) of
the CAA as:
Any substance, product (including paints, coatings, and
solvents), or article (including any container or packaging) held by
any person, the use, consumption, storage, disposal, destruction, or
decomposition of which may result in the release of volatile organic
compounds. The term does not include fuels or fuel additives
regulated under Section 211, or motor vehicles, non-road vehicles,
and non-road engines as defined under Section 216.
Consumer products are products used by individuals in a household
setting (e.g., around the home, workshop, garden, garage).
Commercial products are products used in a variety of commercial,
institutional, or industrial settings and include products similar in
nature to consumer products that may be used in various commercial,
institutional, or industrial applications.
II. Background
A. Need for Proposed Rule
Exposure to ground-level ozone is associated with a wide variety of
human health effects, agricultural crop loss, and damage to forests and
ecosystems. The most thoroughly studied health effects of exposure to
ozone at elevated levels during periods of moderate to strenuous
exercise are the impairment of normal functioning of the lungs,
symptomatic effects, and reduction in the ability to engage in
activities that require various levels of physical exertion. Typical
symptoms associated with acute (one to three hour) exposure to ozone at
levels of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) or higher under heavy exercise
or 0.16 ppm or higher under moderate exercise include cough, chest
pain, nausea, shortness of breath, and throat irritation.
Ground-level ozone, which is a major component of ``smog,'' is
formed in the atmosphere by reactions of VOC and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) in the presence of sunlight. In order to reduce ground-level
ozone levels, emissions of VOC and NOX must be reduced.
Section 183(e) of the CAA addresses VOC emissions from the use of
consumer and commercial products. It requires the EPA to study VOC
emissions from the use of consumer and commercial products, to report
to Congress the results of the study, and to list for regulation
products accounting for at least 80 percent of VOC emissions resulting
from the use of such products in ozone nonattainment areas.
Accordingly, in the March 23, 1995 Federal Register, (60 FR 15264) the
EPA announced the availability of the ``Consumer and Commercial
Products Report to Congress'' (EPA-453/R-94-066-A), and published the
consumer and commercial products list and schedule for regulation.
Volatile organic compound emissions from the use of consumer
products are not currently regulated at the Federal level. However,
four States (California, Massachusetts, New York, and Texas) are
currently enforcing VOC standards for various consumer products. Four
additional States (Oregon, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Connecticut)
have proposed VOC standards for consumer products, and other States are
currently developing standards. All of these State rules address at
least some of the
[[Page 14533]]
products covered by the EPA's proposed rule. Representatives of the
consumer products industry (e.g., CSMA, CTFA, SDA, NAA, ACMC, and ASC)
have expressed concern that differences in State and local requirements
for consumer products could disrupt the national distribution network
for consumer products. They have, therefore, urged the EPA to issue
rules for consumer products to encourage consistency across the
country. Many States with ozone pollution problems are also supportive
of an EPA rulemaking that will assist them in their efforts toward
achievement of ozone attainment. At least 13 States have included
anticipated reductions from the Federal consumer products rule as part
of their plans to reduce VOC emissions by 15 percent by November 1996.
In response to these concerns, the EPA listed for regulation the 24
categories of household consumer products addressed by the proposed
rule. The BAC standards proposed today establish VOC content limits for
these 24 consumer products. States, however, may promulgate their own
VOC standards for consumer products if they are at least as stringent
as Federal rules. In some cases, depending upon their strategy for
achieving attainment with the NAAQS for ozone, certain States may need
to promulgate additional, or more stringent standards.
B. Consumer Products Survey
In order to ensure that the required 80 percent of VOC emissions
from the use of consumer and commercial products are accounted for in
the list and schedule for regulation, the EPA developed a comprehensive
emissions inventory. A significant part of this inventory consists of
data collected in a survey of consumer products. The survey was
distributed to over 3,700 manufacturers and marketers of consumer
products. All of the product categories addressed in this proposed rule
were covered in the survey. The survey requested detailed information
about consumer products on a formulation-specific basis including
product category and form, total VOC and speciated VOC content, and net
weight sold in 1990. The EPA compiled the survey responses into a data
base that has provided, in part, the basis for development of these
proposed consumer products standards. In particular, the data base was
used to determine demonstrated VOC contents for each category, and to
estimate the potential emission reduction and cost- effectiveness
attributable to the proposed standards.
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
The promulgated rule for the consumer and commercial products
scheduled for regulation under this proposal will be codified under 40
CFR Part 59. The proposed standards limit the VOC emissions from 24
categories of consumer products. These standards are largely consistent
with a proposal by the consumer products industry and are similar to
existing standards in certain States. The proposed standards apply to
manufacturers, importers, or distributors of subject consumer products
manufactured for sale or distribution in the United States. Compliance
with the proposed standards must be demonstrated by the manufacturer,
importer, or distributor listed on the product label. If more than one
company is identified on the label, the proposed standards apply to the
party for whom the product was manufactured or by whom the product was
distributed. With the exception of charcoal lighter fluid (see below),
the proposed product categories and their respective VOC content limits
are presented in Tables 1 and 2. The VOC content limits presented in
Tables 1 and 2 must be achieved by September 1, 1996. To identify
subject consumer products, the proposed rule requires that each
manufacturer or importer of a subject consumer product display on each
consumer product container or package, the day, month, and year on
which the product was manufactured, or a code indicating such date.
Charcoal lighter fluid manufactured after September 1, 1996 may not
emit greater than nine grams (0.02 pound) of VOC per start, as
determined using procedures specified in Section 59.208 of the proposed
rule.
Manufacturers or importers of subject charcoal lighter fluid must
label their products with information specifying the quantity of
charcoal lighter material per pound of charcoal that was used in the
testing protocol for that product.
Proposed exemptions from the above-mentioned VOC content limits (or
emission standards for charcoal lighters) include the following:
(1) Any consumer product manufactured in the United States for
shipment and use outside of the United States.
(2) Fragrances incorporated into a consumer product up to a
combined level of two weight-percent.
(3) Any VOC that has a vapor pressure of less than 0.1 millimeter
of mercury at 20 deg.C (68 deg.F). If the vapor pressure is unknown,
exempt compounds are those that have more than 12 carbon atoms or that
have a melting point higher than 20 deg.C (68 deg.F) and do not sublime
(i.e., do not change directly from a solid into a gas without melting).
(4) Insecticides containing at least 98 percent paradichlorobenzene
or at least 98 percent naphthalene.
(5) Adhesives sold in containers of 0.03 liter (one ounce) or less.
(6) Bait station insecticides. For the purpose of this section,
bait station insecticides are containers enclosing an insecticidal bait
that does not weigh more than 14 grams (0.03 pound), where bait is
designed to be ingested by insects and is composed of solid material
feeding stimulants with less than five percent active ingredients.
(7) Air fresheners whose VOC constituents are 100 percent fragrance
materials.
The proposed standards also include an innovative product provision
that allows a manufacturer to demonstrate that, due to some
characteristic of the product formulation, design, delivery system, or
other factor, the use of the product will result in equal or less VOC
emissions than a complying consumer product subject to the same VOC
content limit as presented in Tables 1 and 2.
The proposed rule also allows a manufacturer or importer to apply
for a temporary variance if, for reasons beyond their reasonable
control, they cannot comply with the VOC content limit requirements.
Criteria that must be met before the Administrator will grant a
variance are specified in the proposed rule.
A manufacturer of a consumer product (except for charcoal lighter
fluid) subject to the proposed provisions would be required to
demonstrate compliance with the VOC content limits presented in Tables
1 and 2 by calculating the VOC content of each product from records of
the weight percent of constituents used to make each batch of the
product. A manufacturer of charcoal lighter fluid must demonstrate
compliance using procedures specified in Section 59.208 of the proposed
rule, or by another validated alternate method approved by the
Administrator.
Manufacturers, importers, and distributors must keep records of
formulations for each consumer product subject to Section 59.203(a) of
the proposed rule for purposes of demonstrating compliance.
Manufacturers would also be required to maintain accurate records for
three years for each batch of production of the weight-percent and
chemical composition of the individual product constituents.
Manufacturers of subject charcoal lighter fluids must keep
[[Page 14534]]
records for three years of the results of tests performed according to
Section 59.208 of the proposed rule.
The proposed standards require that manufacturers and importers of
any subject consumer product submit a one-time initial notification
report containing the following information: (1) Company name; (2)
Location of facility(ies) manufacturing, importing, or distributing
subject consumer products; (3) A list of product categories and
subcategories, as found in Tables 1 and 2, that are manufactured or
imported at each facility; (4) Location where VOC content records are
kept for each subject consumer product; (5) Description of date coding
systems; and (6) Name, title, and signature of certifying company
official. An updated description of any date code that may have been
revised subsequent to the initial notification report must be submitted
within 30 days of its first use.
IV. Summary of Impacts
A. Environmental and Health Impacts
These standards will reduce nationwide emissions of VOC from these
consumer products by 82,000 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) [90,000 tons per
year (tpy)] by 1997 over emissions in 1990. This equates to a 20-
percent reduction, compared to the emissions that would have resulted
in the absence of these standards.
No adverse secondary air, water, or solid waste impacts are
anticipated from compliance with these standards. In general, the
proposed standards will lead to product reformulation to reduce the
amount of VOC released into the air. While some additional water is
likely to be added to formulations, this increase is not expected to
result in additional water discharges to the environment.
The standards affect products manufactured after September 1, 1996,
but do not impact existing product inventories. Excluding existing
product inventories will eliminate any incremental solid waste increase
due to discarded product. The new products are not expected to require
any more packaging than existing products; thus, the volume of
discarded packaging should not increase.
Impacts to health will be positive since the proposed standards
will reduce national emissions of VOC by 82,000 Mg/yr (90,000 tpy).
These reductions will result in a decrease in ground level ozone,
particularly in ozone nonattainment areas.
B. Energy Impacts
There will be no increase in the national annual energy usage as a
result of this rule. The proposed standards do not require the use of
control devices to reduce the amount of VOC emitted to the air; the EPA
is also not aware of any incremental energy increase expected from the
production of the new formulations.
C. Cost Impacts
Under a worst-case scenario, implementation of these standards
would result in national annualized costs of $26.0 million per year
(presented in 1991 dollars). Actual costs are likely to be lower. This
estimate includes the annualized one-time costs of product
reformulation. Recordkeeping and reporting costs have been estimated to
be approximately $950,000. Therefore, the total annualized costs are
approximately $27.0 million. There are no monitoring requirements for
this rule. No significant capital expenditures are expected. The EPA
has determined, and the consumer products industry has concurred, that
a significant proportion of subject products have been reformulated in
response to State regulation. Data are not available to quantify the
proportion of the one-time reformulation costs that have already been
incurred.
By establishing a set of product-specific standards for VOC
content, the proposed regulations have cost implications for producers
of the affected products. In 1996, manufacturers of consumer products
that do not meet the VOC levels in the proposed Table of Standards,
will be required to reformulate products or remove products from the
market. Each option imposes costs, some of which will be passed on to
other members of society (consumers) in the form of higher prices and
some of which will be borne directly by manufacturers.
The cost of reformulation includes the resources that must be
devoted to creating a compliant product, e.g., research and development
expenditures plus any net changes in the variable cost of producing the
new product. Variable costs may be affected by changes in the material
composition of the new product. The cost for each noncompliant product
depends on the level of effort required to develop a new product and
how these expenditures are incurred over time. Reformulation cost data
were provided by industry to the EPA for prototype reformulations in
the consumer product categories.
An economic impact analysis was performed for the proposed
regulatory requirements. Potential cost, price, and output effects for
the consumer products industry were examined. The analysis performed
was based on data from the 1990 Consumer Products Survey. The estimated
national cost of reformulating the ``noncompliant'' consumer products,
if all products exceeding the VOC standards reformulated, would be
approximately $26.0 million per year. This includes changes in variable
(material) costs as well as the initial reformulation cost annualized
over time. To the extent that lower-reformulations have already taken
place since 1990, this cost estimate will overstate the true costs of
this proposed regulation. Also, extremely small-volume products are
likely to be withdrawn from the market rather than incur the fixed
costs of reformulation.
The collective effect of some products being removed from the
market and other products bearing higher costs of production will
likely lead to changes in market prices and quantities. The estimated
market effects are generally quite slight. Price effects in each market
range from no effect to an approximately three percent increase.
Market-level price effects are typically less than 0.1 percent.
Quantity effects are similarly small, ranging from virtually no effect
to a 1.7 percent reduction. Quantity effects, too, are typically less
than 0.1 percent.
Given that producers would choose their least costly compliance
option (i.e., product withdraw or reformulation), the estimated social
cost of the regulation (including reformulation costs or lost profits
from product withdraws) is approximately $21.3 million per year
(estimated in 1991 dollars), with an estimated range from $17.1 million
to $23.0 million by varying some key assumptions. The range of total
social cost estimates for the regulation all fall below one percent of
baseline revenue for the affected industry sectors.
D. Cost-Effectiveness
The EPA often compares the relative cost of different measures for
controlling a pollutant by calculating the ``cost-effectiveness'' of
the measures. Using the EPA's traditional calculation methodology, the
cost-effectiveness of a regulation that applies nationwide is based on
a comparison of national costs and nationwide emission reductions. This
comparison is expressed as the cost per megagram (Mg) (or ton) of
emissions reduced. Using social cost and emission reduction figures
presented earlier in this section of the preamble, the nationwide cost-
effectiveness of the proposed regulation is $260 per Mg ($237 per ton).
Alternative ways to calculate a measure of the ``cost-
effectiveness'' of
[[Page 14535]]
the regulation have been suggested by others. One alternative would be
to calculate cost-effectiveness on the basis of the nationwide cost of
the regulation ($21.3 million for the proposed regulation) and the VOC
reduction achieved in ozone nonattainment areas. The stated rationale
for this approach is that cost-effectiveness measures should be
designed in a way that best represents the objective of the regulatory
action. In this case, for example, a major objective, though not the
only objective, of these regulations is the control of ozone formation
in nonattainment areas. By establishing nationwide standards, the cost
of achieving emission reductions in ozone nonattainment areas during
the ozone seasons requires nationwide expenditures during all seasons
of the year, including expenditures year-round in areas currently in
attainment with the current standard. These nationwide emission
reductions--including emission reductions outside of nonattainment
areas and out of the ozone season--may or may not contribute to efforts
to limit ozone in nonattainment areas, depending on whether they
participate in ozone transport from one area to another. One example of
the application of this method is presented in a December 21, 1993,
draft Regulatory Impact Analysis developed by the EPA OMS in which
control of emissions from refueling of light duty vehicles (i.e.,
onboard refueling vapor recovery, or ORVR) could viably be applied
either nationwide or in nonattainment areas alone. In this example,
regional regulation represented an important alternative to national
regulation. The OMS calculated cost-effectiveness using (1) nationwide
costs and nationwide emission reductions, as well as (2) nationwide
costs and the emission reductions achieved in nonattainment areas.
In the case of this consumer products rule, the proportion of
emission reductions occurring in ozone nonattainment areas can be
roughly calculated by assuming emission reductions are proportional to
population; approximately 110 million of the 260 million U.S.
population currently live in nonattainment areas. Thus, the fraction of
the nationwide year-round emission reductions that occur in
nonattainment areas is about 42 percent. Accordingly, on a
nonattainment area basis, the cost-effectiveness of the rule would be
$618/Mg ($563/ton). A similar calculation could be done to account for
the seasonality of ozone formation.
While such an approach offers a measure of the cost of emission
reductions in nonattainment areas, the EPA sees significant drawbacks
to this approach. First, cost-effectiveness figures would no longer
provide a consistent basis for comparison of the relative cost of
different control measures or regulations considered at different
points in time. Because the number and location of nonattainment areas
changes frequently, the initial calculation of the cost-effectiveness
of a rule would depend upon when it was issued. The EPA believes it is
important that cost-effectiveness be calculated in a consistent manner
that allows for valid comparisons. Also, introducing new methodology
would tend to make new control measures appear superficially to be less
cost-effective than measures utilized in the past, simply because of a
change in well-established terminology.
Second, this alternative approach attributes all costs of the rule
to emission reductions achieved in nonattainment areas and no cost to
emission reductions achieved in attainment areas. By not including
emission reductions in attainment areas, the methodology assumes that
emission reductions in areas which attain the NAAQS for ozone have no
value. In fact, attainment areas often contribute to pollution problems
in nonattainment areas through the transport of emissions downwind.
Also, emission reductions in attainment areas help to maintain clean
air as the economy grows and new pollution sources come into existence.
Furthermore, measures to reduce emissions of VOC often reduce emissions
of toxic air pollutants.
Another alternative that has been suggested would be to calculate
not only the emission reductions but also the cost if the requirements
applied only in ozone nonattainment areas, perhaps through issuance of
a CTG. The EPA has not estimated the cost of using a CTG to regulate
only those products sold for use in ozone nonattainment areas. However,
the industry has advised the EPA that the cost of having different
product lines for attainment versus nonattainment areas would be
prohibitive due to the duplicative effort of labeling, storage and
distribution management. Therefore, it is expected that a cost-
effectiveness estimate calculated based on this approach would be
significantly higher than one calculated on the basis of both
nationwide costs and emission reductions. Consequently, it is possible
that in the case of a CTG approach, the industry might choose to
reformulate products for nationwide distribution rather than develop
two formulations of the same product. The use of CTG is discussed
further in Section V(F)(2) of this notice.
The EPA is planning to review internally the generic question of
the alternative approach to measuring costs against emission
reductions. The results of this review are not available for
incorporation into this rulemaking. Therefore, the EPA requests
comments on the traditional and alternative methods discussed above to
characterize the cost-effectiveness of this and other Section 183(e)
regulations.
V. Rationale for Proposed Standards
A. Selection of Pollutant
The purpose of Section 183(e) of the CAA is to reduce the emissions
of VOC from the use, consumption, storage, disposal, destruction, or
decomposition of consumer and commercial products. Therefore, the
standards proposed today regulate VOC. The proposed rule requires that
the manufacturer, importer, or distributor of subject consumer products
document the VOC content of each formulation. The EPA definition of VOC
(found at 40 CFR Part 51, subpart F, and amended at 60 FR 31633) is
very broad and includes virtually any organic compound that is not
specifically exempted from the definition. (Compounds are exempt from
this definition when they have been found to have negligible
photochemical reactivity.)
Consumer products often contain ingredients which are of extremely
low volatility. These low-volatility compounds are used in such
ingredients as surfactants used in shampoos and laundry detergents,
heavy oils used in lubricants, and waxes used in lip balms and underarm
antiperspirants. If volatility is not considered, many consumer
products contain 100 percent VOC by definition. Since, in some cases,
all the products in a category may be of equal VOC content (100
percent), the EPA efforts to evaluate products with regard to
availability of alternative products were severely limited. To address
this problem, the EPA examined the possibility of targeting only those
consumer product ingredients with relatively higher volatility in order
to be able to distinguish among products. This in no way should be
construed to mean that the EPA is not concerned about emissions of all
VOC, regardless of volatility, and in no way alters the EPA existing
overall VOC policy.
For the reasons stated above, the EPA adopted a volatility
threshold for determining which ingredients are to be included in the
VOC content calculations under the proposed rule. This approach
addresses a subset of
[[Page 14536]]
VOC found in the consumer products subject to this proposed rule and is
not to be considered a precedent for future rules. A consumer product
ingredient is to be counted as part of the VOC content of a product
subject to the proposed rule if it is a VOC by the EPA definition and
meets one of the following criteria:
(1) The ingredient compound has a vapor pressure greater than 0.1
millimeter of mercury (mmHg) at 20 deg.C; or
(2) The vapor pressure for the ingredient compound is unknown, and
the compound's empirical formula contains 12 or less carbon atoms; or
(3) The vapor pressure for the ingredient compound is unknown, and
the compound exists as a solid at room temperature (20 deg.C) but
readily sublimes (becomes a vapor at room temperature).
As discussed in Section II.C of this preamble, several States have
adopted consumer product rules. Each of these State rules are based on
these same volatility criteria.
Throughout this preamble and regulation, the term VOC is used.
However, the only VOC that must be used in determining compliance are
those VOC not specifically excluded by the criteria listed above. All
reported emission reductions are also based on this subset of VOC. The
EPA recently exempted acetone from the definition of VOC (60 FR 31633);
therefore, the proposed standards do not apply to acetone. The EPA
recognizes that some States have not exempted acetone from their
definitions of VOC, and may need to adjust accordingly.
B. Selection of Best Available Controls (BAC)
Standards under Section 183(e) of the CAA must reflect BAC. The CAA
defines BAC as follows:
(A) Best Available Controls--The term `best available controls'
means the degree of emissions reduction the Administrator
determines, on the basis of technological and economic feasibility,
health, environmental, and energy impacts, is achievable through the
application of the most effective equipment, measures, processes,
methods, systems or techniques, including chemical reformulation,
product or feedstock substitution, repackaging, and directions for
use, consumption, storage, or disposal.
The EPA has determined that BAC for 23 of the consumer product
categories proposed for regulation consists of specific VOC content
limits, expressed as the weight-percent VOC, for each consumer product
category. For charcoal lighter fluid, BAC is expressed as the amount of
VOC emitted during use as determined by the method presented in Section
59.208 of the rule. Section 183(e) of the CAA allows the EPA to
consider a wide range of strategies and technologies in determining
BAC. The determination must be based on technological and economic
feasibility, as well as on health, environmental, and energy impacts.
The EPA has determined that, in most cases, all or most of a product's
VOC content is emitted during product use. (The EPA has determined that
the use of certain consumer products results in VOC being washed down
drains where they are decomposed and do not result in air emissions.
This issue is documented in the ``Consumer and Commercial Products
Report to Congress''; EPA-453/R-94-066-A.) Regulations that attempt to
control consumption or user habits are considered to be impractical and
undesirable. Therefore, the EPA concluded that limits on the amount of
VOC incorporated into the products would be the most feasible and least
disruptive control measure. Additionally, in working to comply with
State VOC rules over the past several years, the consumer products
industry has established product reformulation as the most
technologically and economically feasible strategy for reducing VOC
emissions. The proposed standard reflects BAC and was developed based
primarily on the EPA consumer products survey, analysis of existing
State rules for consumer products, and information gathered during the
EPA study of the consumer and commercial products industry.
The EPA recognizes a need to proceed with development of these
standards as quickly and expeditiously as possible. State and local
agencies and representatives of the consumer products industry have
expressed concern about the current lack of Federal VOC standards for
consumer products. The persistence of the ground-level ozone problem
has caused State and local air pollution agencies to seek emission
reductions beyond those obtained through regulation of the conventional
mobile and stationary sources of emissions. As a result, several
agencies are adopting rules to regulate various household consumer
products. Representatives of the consumer products industry have
expressed concern that differences in State and local requirements for
consumer products could disrupt the national distribution network for
consumer products. The industry has therefore urged the EPA to issue
national rules for consumer products to provide consistency across the
country. States needing emission reductions are also supportive of an
EPA rulemaking that will assist them in their efforts toward
achievement of ozone attainment.
In June 1994 the consumer products industry, represented by the
CSMA and the CTFA, submitted recommended VOC content limits to the EPA
for 24 consumer product categories. These limits were based on
extensive negotiations between industry and various State regulators.
The EPA determined that the regulatory development process for consumer
products could be expedited by using the CSMA/CTFA recommendations as a
starting point. Therefore, the EPA analyzed the CSMA/CTFA-recommended
VOC content limits to assess whether they reflect BAC as defined by the
CAA. The analysis revealed that the recommended VOC content limits
would require that approximately 34 percent of products in these 24
categories be reformulated and that emissions of VOC from the use of
products in these categories would be reduced by 20 percent. The
recommended limits would also allow for a variety of products in each
category, and would therefore not adversely affect the range of choices
available to consumers. The limit proposed for each product category is
currently demonstrated (i.e., available to consumers) in several
different formulations, and is consistent with limits currently
enforced by States that have consumer products rules (see Table 3).
For some product categories, the EPA's database suggested that
lower VOC content limits might be feasible (see Table 4). However, the
EPA has chosen to propose standards similar to those proposed or
currently enforced by States because the existence of these standards,
and the fact that industries are already complying with these
standards, provides stronger evidence that these levels are achievable
for a wide range of product applications at current levels of product
efficacy.
The EPA recently added acetone to the list of compounds exempt from
the definition of VOC. The proposed VOC limit for nail polish removers
is 85 percent. This level was not lowered following the acetone
exemption, because polish removers designed for use with artificial
nails are based on solvents other than acetone to avoid damage to the
nails. The EPA determined that subcategorization of polish removers for
natural nails and artificial nails would result in no emission
reductions and would increase recordkeeping and reporting burden
unnecessarily.
[[Page 14537]]
The regulation of consumer products will have unique technical and
economic impacts due to its direct effects on consumers and the degree
to which perception affects consumer product demand. Regulation of the
use of household and personal products will immediately and directly
impact the public. The EPA has determined, through intensive studies of
various sectors of the consumer products industry (as documented in the
Consumer and Commercial Products Report to Congress), that product VOC
content affects not only the technical performance of consumer
products, but the compatibility of ingredients with each other and with
packaging materials, the consumers' perception of efficacy, product
life, and aesthetic appeal. Additionally, particular populations of
consumers are sensitive to, or cannot use, some VOC ingredients, which
are therefore replaced with alternate ingredients in similar products.
Therefore, replacement of VOC ingredients requires a series of
relatively complex product development, and consumer and market testing
activities.
The range of VOC content levels in consumer products currently on
the market reflects the range of products that provides for the wide
variety of applications and expectations that comprise the consumer
products market. These VOC content levels also reflect several years of
negotiation between manufacturers and State regulatory agencies, and
subsequent redesign of products to meet State limits. Setting VOC
content limits equivalent to the lower end of the range currently
marketed has the potential to adversely affect consumer choices and to
eliminate certain product applications and efficacy levels from the
market. The EPA does not have evidence or information to indicate that
such impacts are warranted to achieve an additional level of emission
reductions. To the contrary, the recommended VOC content limits will
achieve significant VOC emission reductions without eliminating any
identifiable product niches or applications, and without adverse market
impacts. Therefore, the EPA has determined that the recommended VOC
content limits reflect BAC, and the EPA is proposing those limits in
this action.
C. Selection of Special Provisions
The standards proposed today include several special provisions;
these provisions were necessary to ensure that the standards apply only
where necessary and where the EPA has concluded that the standards can
be met. These provisions include methods for calculating VOC content of
specific products, as well as exemptions for specific product types.
1. Determination of VOC Content
As discussed in Section IV.B of this preamble, the EPA has limited
the VOC that are included for compliance determination. For aerosol
antiperspirant and aerosol deodorant products, the proposed VOC content
limits apply only to HVOC, which are defined as VOC with a vapor
pressure equal to or greater than 80 mmHg at 20 deg. C. As a result,
only the propellants in these products are regulated. Other VOC
ingredients in these products have vapor pressures less than 80 mmHg.
Ethanol is the most prevalent nonpropellant VOC ingredient in
antiperspirants and deodorants. Information submitted by the CTFA
states that ethanol provides several different functions in
antiperspirants and deodorants including active ingredient (as an
antimicrobial), a solvent for other active ingredients, and fragrance
enhancer. The CTFA reports that there is no non-VOC substitute for
ethanol in these products. Consequently, the proposed standards do not
apply to nonpropellant VOC in antiperspirants and deodorants.
In addition, the EPA has concluded that the minimum feasible
fragrance content in consumer products is two weight-percent.
Therefore, in calculating the total VOC weight-percent of a product to
demonstrate compliance, fragrance ingredients up to a combined level of
two weight-percent are not included; fragrance ingredients in excess of
two percent must be included in the calculation of total VOC content.
2. Products for Use Outside the U.S.
The EPA has also included a provision that limits the standards to
consumer products manufactured or imported for use in the United
States. The intent of Section 183(e) of the CAA is to limit VOC from
the use of consumer and commercial products in the United States;
therefore, impacting products exported for sale in other countries is
beyond the scope of these standards.
3. Product-Specific Exemptions
Several specific exemptions have been provided in cases where the
EPA has determined that no alternative technology exists. Insecticides
containing 98 percent paradichlorobenzene or naphthalene are exempt
from today's standards; no known reformulation technology exists to
replace these moth repellents. Similarly, air fresheners that consist
entirely of perfume are exempt because there is not non-volatile
replacement for perfumes.
Adhesives sold in containers less than one fluid ounce are also
exempted from these standards. Virtually all adhesives sold in
containers of less than one ounce are specialty hobby or instant bond
glues that are used in very small amounts (e.g., a few drops per
application). Again, the EPA has concluded that no reformulation
technology exists for these specialty adhesives. In addition, as these
glues form bonds, the volatile compounds absorb water from the air and
become nonvolatile. Therefore, emissions from their use are negligible.
The proposed standards allow one additional year before compliance
is required for subject FIFRA-registered products. This extra
compliance time is necessary due to the testing, labeling, and
registration burden associated with FIFRA compliance.
The EPA has added a specific exemption for insect bait standards
from the proposed standards. These products contain solid material
designed to be ingested by insects and contain no VOC. Without an
exemption, these products would be covered under the crawling insect
category. While these products could easily meet the standard, there is
no justification to require any reporting or recordkeeping for these
products.
4. Innovative Product Provisions
The proposed rule includes an alternate compliance method that
manufacturers and importers of consumer products may choose in lieu of
meeting a VOC content limit. The innovative product provisions exempt a
specific product formulation from the VOC content limits if that
product can be shown to emit less VOC than a representative product in
the same category that does meet the VOC content limit. The
manufacturer or importer must demonstrate to the Administrator's
satisfaction that use of the innovative product will result in equal or
less VOC emissions than a representative complying product due to the
innovative product's formulation, design, delivery system, or other
characteristics. The innovative product provisions are included in the
proposed rule to allow flexibility to consumer product formulations
without compromising VOC emission reductions, and to encourage
formulators to pursue new technologies that may reduce VOC emissions.
The consumer products industry is characterized by frequent
introduction
[[Page 14538]]
of new and modified products. Through the innovative product
provisions, manufacturers can continue to market a variety of product
choices while achieving the proposed emission reductions. In addition,
manufacturers or importers would be allowed to market innovative
products immediately upon notifying the Administrator of their intent
to do so, and provided that all required documentation on the
innovative product's potential emissions has been submitted.
5. Compliance Variance
The proposed rule includes a variance provision whereby
manufacturers or importers of subject consumer products may apply to
the Administrator for a temporary variance from compliance with the
standards. A variance will be granted if the applicant demonstrates
that compliance would result in economic hardship, and that granting
the variance would better serve the public interest than would
requiring continuous compliance under the conditions of economic
hardship. The EPA intends for this provision to allow manufacturers and
importers some flexibility in responding to unforeseen circumstances
that may cause additional, unanticipated compliance burden. The EPA
recognizes that certain interruptions in the availability of raw
materials and/or manufacturing processes may affect ability to
continuously comply with the standards. In particular, the EPA
anticipates that this variance provision will help to mitigate impacts
to small businesses. Within the consumer products industry, small
businesses are likely to have fewer research and development resources,
and therefore, will benefit from the allowed variance.
D. Selection of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
In selecting reporting and recordkeeping requirements for this
rule, the EPA balanced the need to ensure compliance with the directive
to ensure that burden is minimized. The proposed standards include the
minimum reporting and recordkeeping requirements that the EPA
determined were necessary to ensure compliance. Recordkeeping
requirements must be met for each product formulation by the
manufacturer or importer listed on the product label. If more than one
party is listed on the label, the company for whom the product was
manufactured is required to carry out recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
For products listed on Tables 1 and 2 (i.e., all subject products
except charcoal lighter fluid), records must be kept for three years of
each product's formulation, and daily records must be kept of the
weight percent of each VOC ingredient included in each product. For
charcoal lighter fluid, records must be kept for three years of the
data collected and results for all emissions tests performed according
to Section 59.208.
The only report required is a one-time initial notification report,
due on September 1, 1996, and required of all manufacturers or
importers of subject consumer products. The report must include
identifying and location information for the respondent, a description
of their product date coding systems, and a list of subject products
manufactured, imported, or distributed. An updated description of any
date code that may have been revised subsequent to the initial
notification report must be submitted within 30 days of its first use.
E. Selection of Test Method
The proposed standards rely predominantly on formulation
information to demonstrate compliance. The VOC content for each product
must be calculated based on mass balance of the constituents used to
manufacture the product and any other byproducts or waste streams.
The EPA is proposing a separate test protocol for determining
compliance for charcoal lighter materials. In order to accomplish their
intended purpose, charcoal lighter materials consist entirely of VOC.
The standard for charcoal lighter fluid, therefore, consists of a limit
on the amount of VOC that can be emitted during use.
F. Alternative Regulatory Approaches
1. Other Systems of Regulation
Section 183(e)(4) allows the EPA to consider ``any system or
systems of regulation as the Administrator may deem appropriate,
including requirements for registration and labeling, self-monitoring
and reporting, prohibitions, limitations, or economic incentives
(including marketable permits and auctions of emission rights)
concerning the manufacture, processing, distribution, use, consumption,
or disposal of the product.'' Accordingly, the EPA requests comment on
any alternative to the proposed system of regulation.
2. Regulation with the Use of CTG
Section 183(e)(3)(C) gives the EPA the flexibility to ``issue
control techniques guidelines under this Act in lieu of regulations
required under subparagraph (A) if the Administrator determines that
such guidance will be substantially as effective as regulations in
reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds which contribute to
ozone levels in areas which violate the national ambient air quality
standard for ozone.''
In many cases, CTG can be effective regulatory approaches to reduce
emissions of VOC in nonattainment areas--with the advantage of not
imposing control costs on attainment areas, where benefits of reducing
VOC emissions may be less. For example, VOC emissions from commercial
products used in industrial settings could be controlled effectively
with a CTG that targeted emissions at the point of end-use, as the
population of end users is likely to be readily identifiable. Also, for
a potentially large share of nonattainment area VOC emission sources,
enforcement and compliance could effectively be focused at the source
of the VOC emissions through the use of a CTG, be it the point of
manufacture, the point of end-use, or both. However, for small volume
consumer products that are widely used (e.g., the products covered by
this proposed rule), a CTG might not be effective at reducing VOC
emissions because of difficulties in enforcement. The EPA requests
comment on whether and how a CTG approach (by itself, or in combination
with any other regulatory alternatives) would be as effective as a
national rule in reducing VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas,
not only for the proposed consumer products rule but also for other
product categories scheduled for regulation under Section 183(e) of the
CAA (see 60 FR 15264, March 23, 1995).
3. VOC Standards for a Subset of Categories
Individual cost-effectiveness values for each of the 24 product
categories are based primarily on cost information which was developed
and provided by industry representatives to the EPA. The calculated
cost-effectiveness of the 24 categories varies widely, from $68 to
$10,400 per Mg ($62 to $9455 per ton). Rather than regulate all 24
product categories, the EPA could select a more cost-effective subset.
With this approach, it appears that the rule could achieve most of the
emissions reductions for a portion of the cost. For example, regulating
15 categories of consumer products would yield about 80 percent of the
emissions reductions expected to be achieved by the proposed rule at
about 30 percent of the total cost. As discussed in Section V.B., the
EPA has included requirements for all 24
[[Page 14539]]
product categories based on input from State and industry
representatives. The industry representatives have suggested that
national regulations for these products benefit industry by promoting
consistent regulation throughout the country. A national rule makes it
less likely that additional States will adopt different standards to
limit VOC emissions from the same products. The industry
representatives have also asserted that inconsistent State standards
could impose additional costs on the industry. The EPA requests comment
on setting emission limits for the most cost-effective subset of the 24
consumer product categories as discussed here.
4. Discretion to Consider Section 183(e) Ranking Factors During
Rulemaking
In establishing criteria for regulating consumer and commercial
products, Section 183(e)(2)(B) requires the EPA to consider the
following factors: (1) the uses, benefits, and commercial demand of
consumer and commercial products; (2) the health or safety functions
(if any) served such consumer and commercial products; (3) those
consumer and commercial products which emit highly reactive VOC into
the ambient air; (4) those consumer and commercial products which are
subject to the most cost-effective controls; and (5) the availability
of alternatives (if any) to such consumer and commercial products which
are of comparable costs, considering health, safety, and environmental
impacts.
In order to develop the schedule for regulation of consumer and
commercial products under Section 183(e), the EPA established and
exercised criteria based on the above factors and other considerations.
Others have suggested that the five factors should be considered not
only in setting priorities but also at the time of rulemaking for
specific categories of products. The EPA requests comment on their
discretion to consider the five factors in specific regulatory actions.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 5173, (October 4, 1993)), the
EPA must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to OMB review 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 President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the executive order.
Pursuant to the terms of the executive order, OMB has notified the
EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of the executive order. The EPA has submitted this action
to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented in the docket (see ADDRESSEES).
B. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership Under Executive Order
12875
In compliance with Executive Order 12875, the EPA has involved
State and local governments in the development of this rule. State and
local air pollution control associations (CARB, New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
and STAPPA/ALAPCO) have provided regulatory review support.
C. 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, the
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, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires the 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 the 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 the 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, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of the EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable
duties on any of these governmental entities. In any event, the EPA has
determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one
year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR)
document has been prepared by the EPA (ICR No. ____) and a copy may be
obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2136); 401 M St. SW.; Washington, DC
20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The information required to be collected by this proposed rule is
necessary to identify the regulated entities who are subject to the
rule and to ensure their compliance with the rule. The recordkeeping
and reporting requirements are mandatory and are being established
under authority of Section 114 of the CAA. All information submitted to
the EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be
safeguarded according to the EPA policies set forth in Title 40,
Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B--Confidentiality of Business Information
(see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36092, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999,
September 8, 1978; 43
[[Page 14540]]
FR 42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).
The total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this
collection averaged over the first three years is estimated to be
28,386 hours per year. The average burden, per respondent, is 129 hours
per year. The total annualized recordkeeping and reporting costs for
the proposed rule are estimated to be $964,416 and consist wholly of
operation and maintenance costs. There are no capital or startup costs,
or purchased services costs, associated with the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of this rule. There would be an estimated
220 respondents to the proposed collection requirements. Average
annualized cost of reporting and recordkeeping, per respondent, is
$4,384.
The proposed rule requires an initial one-time notification from
each respondent and subsequent notifications each time the date code is
changed.
Formulations and ingredient usage would be recorded for each batch
of production. Respondents seeking a variance must submit an
application which provides information to the EPA necessary in
determining whether to grant the variance. The application would
include the specific grounds on which the variance is sought, proposed
date by which the requirements of the rule will be met, and a plan for
achieving compliance. Supporting documentation is required of companies
who wish to market a product subject to the ``innovative products''
provision of the proposed rule. This documentation includes information
on VOC emissions from the use of the product as compared to emissions
from a product formulated in compliance with the Table of Standards.
The proposed rule requires that the labels of all subject consumer
products display the date of manufacture. However, there should be no
additional burden imposed due to this labeling requirement, because
manufacturers routinely date-code their products. The date can be in
coded form. All manufacturers and importers of subject products must
submit an explanation of all date codes used. Date code explanations
must be submitted with the initial report. Thereafter, respondents must
submit explanations of any new date codes within 30 days of their first
use.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Comments are requested on the EPA's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St. S.W.; Washington, DC 20460; and to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 17th St. N.W.; Washington, DC 20503; marked
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA''. Include the ICR number in any
correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the
ICR between 30 and 60 days after April 2, 1996, a comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by May 2,
1996. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (or RFA, Public Law 96-354,
September 19, 1980) requires Federal agencies to give special
consideration to the impact of regulation on small businesses. The RFA
specifies that a final regulatory flexibility analysis must be prepared
if a proposed regulation will have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. To determine whether a final RFA
is required, a screening analysis, otherwise known as an initial RFA,
is necessary.
Regulatory impacts are considered significant if:
(1) Annual compliance costs increase total costs of production by
more than five percent, or
(2) Annual compliance costs as a percentage of sales are at least
20 percent higher for small entities, or
(3) Capital cost of compliance represents a significant portion of
capital available to small entities, or
(4) The requirements of the regulation are likely to result in
closures of small entities.
A ``substantial number'' of small entities is generally considered
to be more than 20 percent of the small entities in the affected
industry.
The RFA requires the EPA to consider potential adverse impacts of
proposed regulations on small entities and to consider regulatory
options that might mitigate any such impacts. It is currently the EPA's
policy to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis of the potential
impacts of proposed regulations on small entities whenever it is
anticipated that any small entities may be adversely impacted. Because
it is anticipated that some small consumer product manufacturers could
be adversely impacted from implementation of the proposed standards, a
regulatory flexibility analysis was performed.
The analysis of small entity impacts focused on the potential
impacts on small manufacturers producing consumer products. Almost 80
percent of the consumer product firms identified as subject to the
regulation are considered ``small'' by the Small Business
Administration's standard for this industry. However, these small firms
only generate about two percent of the total revenue and employment
associated with all identified firms.
The proposed regulations are expected to have some negative impact
on small producers by virtue of the fact that they have a large
presence in the regulated industries, and because they may be likely to
experience significant rates of product withdraws because it may not be
cost-effective to reformulate very small volume products. The
regulation does not, however, appear more stringent for product
categories with higher small business presence. The potential effect on
small businesses is somewhat mitigated by the fact that overall
regulatory costs are a relatively small share of total industry
revenues. The complete economic impact and regulatory flexibility
analysis is provided in the docket.
In conclusion, and pursuant to Section 605(b) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The basis for the certification is that the economic impacts for small
entities do not meet or exceed the criteria in the Guidelines to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as shown above.
[[Page 14541]]
Table 1. Product Category Table of Standards VOC Content Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC
content
limit
Product category (weight-
percent
VOC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air fresheners:
Single-phase................................................ 70
Double-phase................................................ 30
Liquids/pump sprays......................................... 18
Solids/gels................................................. 3
Automotive windshield washer fluid, Bathroom and tile
cleaners: 35
Aerosols.................................................... 7
All other forms............................................. 5
Carburetor and choke cleaners................................. 75
Cooking sprays, Aerosols...................................... 18
Dusting aids:
Aerosols.................................................... 35
All other forms............................................. 7
Engine degreasers............................................. 75
Fabric protectants............................................ 75
Floor polishes/waxes:
Products for flexible flooring materials.................... 7
Products for nonresilient flooring.......................... 10
Wood floor wax.............................................. 90
Furniture maintenance products, Aerosols...................... 25
General purpose cleaners...................................... 10
Glass cleaners:
Aerosols.................................................... 12
All other forms............................................. 8
Hairsprays.................................................... 80
Hair mousses.................................................. 16
Hair styling gels............................................. 6
Household adhesives:
Aerosols.................................................... 75
Contact..................................................... 80
Construction and panel...................................... 40
General purpose............................................. 10
Structural waterproof....................................... 15
Insecticides:
Crawling bug................................................ 40
Flea and tick............................................... 25
Flying bug.................................................. 35
Foggers..................................................... 45
Lawn and Garden............................................. 20
Laundry prewash
Aerosols/solids............................................. 22
All other forms............................................. 5
Laundry starch products....................................... 5
Nail polish removers.......................................... 85
Oven cleaners:
Aerosols/pump sprays........................................ 8
Liquids..................................................... 5
Shaving creams................................................ 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Antiperspirant and Deodorant Table of Standards HVOC \1\
Content Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
HVOC \1\
content
Product category limit
(weight-
percent
HVOC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antiperspirants (aerosols).................................... 60
Deodorants (aerosols)......................................... 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ HVOC are volatile organic compounds with vapor pressure greater than
80 millimeters of mercury at 20 deg.C (68 deg.F).
Table 3.--Currently Enforced State Volatile Organic Compound Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent volatile organic compound by weight
---------------------------------------------------
Product category Proposed
VOC limit California New York Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air fresheners:
Single-phase............................................ 70 70 70 70
Double-phase............................................ 30 30 30 30
Liquids/pump sprays..................................... 18 18 18 18
Solids/gels............................................. 3 3 3 3
Automotive windshield washer fluids......................... 35 ........... ........... 23.5
Cold climate areas...................................... ........... 35 ........... ...........
All other areas......................................... ........... 10 ........... ...........
Bathroom and tile cleaners:
Aerosols.................................................. 7 7 ........... 7
All other forms........................................... 5 5 ........... 5
Carburetor and choke cleaners............................... 75 75 ........... 75
Cooking sprays--aerosols.................................... 18 18 ........... 18
Dusting aids:
Aerosols................................................ 35 35 ........... 35
All other forms......................................... 7 7 ........... 7
Engine degreasers........................................... 75 75 ........... 75
Fabric protectants.......................................... 75 75 ........... 75
Floor polishes/waxes:
Products for flexible flooring materials................ 7 7 ........... 7
Products for nonresilient flooring...................... 10 10 ........... 10
Wood floor wax.......................................... 90 90 ........... 90
Furniture maintenance product, Aerosols..................... 25 25 ........... 25
General purpose cleaners.................................... 10 10 10 10
Glass cleaners:
Aerosols................................................ 12 12 ........... 12
All other forms......................................... 8 8 ........... 6
Hairsprays.................................................. 80 80 80 80
Hair mousses................................................ 16 16 ........... 16
Hair styling gels........................................... 6 6 ........... 6
Household adhesives:
Aerosols................................................ 75 75 ........... 75
Contact................................................. 80 80 ........... 80
Construction and panel.................................. 40 40 ........... 40
General purpose......................................... 10 10 ........... 10
[[Page 14542]]
Insecticides:
Crawling bug............................................ 40 40 ........... 40
Flea and tick........................................... 25 25 ........... 25
Flying bug.............................................. 35 35 ........... 35
Foggers................................................. 45 45 ........... 45
Lawn and garden......................................... 20 20 ........... 20
Laundry prewash:
Aerosols/solids......................................... 22 22 ........... 22
All other forms......................................... 5 5 ........... 5
Laundry starch products..................................... 5 5 ........... 5
Nail polish removers........................................ 85 85 ........... 75
Oven cleaners:
Aerosols/pump sprays.................................... 8 8 ........... 8
Liquids................................................. 5 5 ........... 5
Shaving creams.............................................. 5 5 ........... 5
Antiperspirants-Aerosol..................................... 60a 60a/20b 60a20b 60a
Deodorants-Aerosol.......................................... 20a 20a/20b 20a/20b 20a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Limit is for VOC with vapor pressure equal to or greater than 80 mmHg at 20 deg.C (vp 2.0 mmHg @
20 deg.C).
b Limit is for VOC with vp 2.0 mmHg @ 20 deg.C.
Table 4.--Feasibility of VOC Content Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
Proposed Percentage of tons
VOC content of products sold in
Product category limit a achieving 1990
(weight- recommended achieving
percent limit a recommended
VOC) limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air fresheners:
Single phase......................................................... 70 13 28
Dual phase........................................................... 30 66 8
Liquids/pumps sprays................................................. 18 60 27
Solids/gels.......................................................... 3 49 63
Bathroom tile cleaners:
Aerosol.............................................................. 7 61 91
Other................................................................ 5 83 57
Carburetor and choke cleaners............................................ 75 48 13
Cooking sprays--aerosols................................................. 18 36 11
Dusting aids:
Aerosol.............................................................. 35 64 88
Other................................................................ 7 56 73
Engine degreasers........................................................ 75 64 83
Fabric protectants....................................................... 75 55 76
Floor polishes/waxes:
Flexible floors...................................................... 7 100 100
Non-resilient materials.............................................. 10 100 100
Wood................................................................. 90 97 98
Furniture maintenance products........................................... 25 65 86
General purpose cleaners................................................. 10 74 88
Glass cleaners:
Aerosols............................................................. 12 49 29
Other................................................................ 8 40 88
Hairsprays............................................................... 80 33 14
Hair mousses............................................................. 16 61 58
Hair styling gels........................................................ 6 71 82
Household adhesives:
Aerosols............................................................. 75 88 86
Contact.............................................................. 80 93 98
Construction and panel............................................... 40 84 94
General purpose...................................................... 10 61 83
Non-agricultural insecticides............................................ 40 57 61
Crawling insects..................................................... 45 50 55
Foggers.............................................................. 25 69 78
Flea/tick............................................................ 35 54 87
Flying bug........................................................... 20 59 83
Lawn and garden...................................................... ........... ........... ...........
Laundry prewash aerosols/solids.......................................... 22 64 23
[[Page 14543]]
Antiperspirants--aerosols................................................ 60 b 33 3
Deodorants--aerosols..................................................... 20 b 40 33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 59
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Consumer products,
Consumer and commercial products, Ozone, Volatile organic compound.
Dated: March 26, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-8005 Filed 4-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8004 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: State of Michigan
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14522-14531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8004]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[MI43-01-7043; AMS-FRL-5451-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: State of Michigan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve Michigan's request to redesignate
the Grand Rapids (Kent and Ottawa Counties) moderate ozone
nonattainment area to attainment for ozone. In addition, the EPA
proposes to approve the associated section 175A maintenance plan as
part of the Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attainment and
maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for
ozone.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
May 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Carlton T. Nash, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Copies of this SIP revision and
EPA's analysis are available for inspection at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline Nwia, Environmental
Engineer, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6081. Anyone
wishing to come to Region 5 offices should contact Jacqueline Nwia
first.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990
(Act), nonattainment areas can be redesignated to attainment if
sufficient data are available to warrant such changes and the area
satisfies other criteria contained in section 107(d)(3) of the Act. On
March 9, 1995, Michigan submitted a redesignation request and section
175A maintenance plan for the Grand Rapids and Muskegon moderate ozone
nonattainment areas. On May 1, 1995, Michigan submitted a supplement to
the March 9, 1995, request which included documentation of public
comment and hearing which was held on April 10, 1995. Further, on
January 24, 1996, the State submitted a letter advising EPA of its
intent to revise the section 175A maintenance plan for Grand Rapids to
add control measures to the list of contingency measures in the
contingency plan. Specifically, the State will include as contingency
measures reasonably available control technology (RACT) for volatile
organic compounds (VOC) sources in the wood furniture coating, plastic
parts coating, and industrial clean-up solvents source categories. In
the event one or more of these measures is selected to be implemented
as contingency measures, the State will adopt rules and submit them as
a revision to the SIP. The State must submit this maintenance plan SIP
revision before the EPA could take final action to approve its
redesignation request. If approved, the section 175A maintenance plan
would become a federally enforceable part of the SIP for this area. On
March 15, 1996, the State submitted a supplement to the redesignation
request qualifying that the
[[Page 14523]]
process by which a transport effected violation will be determined will
include a public participation process and consultation with the EPA.
A detailed analysis of the redesignation request and section 175A
maintenance plan SIP submittal for Grand Rapids is contained in the
EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD), dated March 20, 1996, from
Jacqueline Nwia to the Docket, entitled ``TSD for the Request to
Redesignate the Grand Rapids, Michigan Moderate Nonattainment Area to
Attainment for Ozone and the Proposed Revision to the Michigan Ozone
SIP for a 175A Maintenance Plan,'' which is available from the Region 5
office listed above.
I. Background
The 1977 Clean Air Act required areas that were designated
nonattainment, based on a failure to meet the ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), to develop SIPs with sufficient control
measures to expeditiously attain and maintain the NAAQS. The Grand
Rapids area was designated under section 107 of the 1977 Act as
nonattainment with respect to the ozone NAAQS (43 FR 8962, March 3,
1978 and 43 FR 45993, October 5, 1978).
After enactment of the amended Act on November 15, 1990, the
nonattainment designation of the Grand Rapids area continued by
operation of law in accordance with section 107(d)(1)(C)(i) of the Act;
furthermore, this area was classified by operation of law as moderate
for ozone pursuant to section 181(a)(1) (56 FR 56694, November 6,
1991), codified at 40 CFR Sec. 81.323.
The Grand Rapids area, more recently, has collected ambient
monitoring data that show no violations of the ozone NAAQS during the
period from 1992 through 1994. The area, therefore, became eligible for
redesignation from nonattainment to attainment consistent with the Act.
Quality assured data for 1995 shows that the area continues to monitor
attainment. On March 9, 1995, Michigan requested redesignation of the
area to attainment with respect to the ozone NAAQS and submitted a
section 175A ozone maintenance SIP for the Grand Rapids area to ensure
continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS. On April 10, 1995, Michigan
held a public hearing on the maintenance plan component of the
redesignation request. On May 1, 1995, Michigan submitted supplemental
materials and technical materials to support the redesignation request,
and evidence that the required opportunities for public comment were
provided by the State on April 10, 1995. Public comments received
during the State's public comment period and public hearing and the
State's response to each are presented in Appendix B of Michigan's May
1, 1995, submittal. The EPA deemed the submittal complete on May 15,
1995. On January 24, 1996, the State submitted a letter advising EPA of
its intent to revise the section 175A maintenance plan for Grand Rapids
to incorporate 3 additional contingency measures. The State must submit
this maintenance plan SIP revision before the EPA can take final action
to approve its redesignation request. On March 15, 1996, the State
submitted a supplement to the redesignation request qualifying that the
process by which a transport effected violation will be determined will
include a public participation process and consultation with the EPA.
In order to accommodate these additional steps, the schedule for a
final determination was extended from 30 days to 120 days.
II. Evaluation Criteria
The 1990 Amendments revised section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act to
provide five specific requirements that an area must meet in order to
be redesignated from nonattainment to attainment. Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) provides for redesignation if: (i) The Administrator
determines that the area has attained the NAAQS; (ii) The Administrator
has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area
under section 110(k); (iii) The Administrator determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable
implementation plan and applicable Federal air pollutant control
regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (iv) The
Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (v) The State containing
such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section
110 and part D.
III. Review of State Submittal
The Michigan redesignation request for the Grand Rapids area will
meet the five requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E), noted above, once
the State submits the revision to the maintenance plan noted
previously, as discussed in more detail below. Because the maintenance
plan is a critical element of the redesignation request, EPA will
discuss its evaluation of the maintenance plan under its analysis of
the redesignation request.
1. The Area Must Have Attained the Ozone NAAQS
For ozone, an area is considered attaining the NAAQS if there are
no violations, as determined in accordance with the regulation codified
at 40 CFR Sec. 50.9, based on three (3) consecutive calendar years of
complete, quality assured monitoring data. A violation occurs when the
ozone air quality monitoring data show greater than one (1) average
expected exceedance per year at any site in the area at issue. An
exceedance occurs when the maximum hourly ozone concentration exceeds
0.124 parts per million (ppm). The data should be collected and
quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, and recorded in the
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) in order for it to be
available to the public for review.
The redesignation request for the Grand Rapids area relies on ozone
monitoring data for the years 1992 through 1994, to show that the area
is meeting the NAAQS for ozone. The area must also demonstrate
continued attainment until the area is redesignated to attainment, i.e.
the area must also demonstrate attainment for the period 1993-1995.
Since the population of the urban area within the Grand Rapids
nonattainment area is about 688,000, NAMS monitor specifications are
applicable. NAMS requirements of 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D specify
that an area with a population of greater than 200,000 must have, at a
minimum, two NAMS monitors, one urban and one neighborhood scale
monitor. Since 1980, two NAMS monitors have operated in Kent County.
These monitors, are cited according to EPA guidelines set forth in 40
CFR Part 58, Appendix D as follows; an urban scale monitor in Grattan
township (26-081-2001), just northeast of the city of Grand Rapids
urban area, measures the highest ozone concentrations resulting from
ozone precursor emissions generated by the Grand Rapids urban area and
a neighborhood scale monitor, just on the northeast limits of the city
of Grand Rapids (26-081-0020), measures the population exposure to high
ozone concentrations. Both monitors are situated in the direction of
prevailing winds during the ozone season, i.e. southwest. The data from
these monitors was the basis of the 1991 ozone nonattainment
designation and moderate classification for Grand Rapids. Two
exceedances of the ozone NAAQS have been monitored since 1992 in Kent
County, both of these occurred at the Grand Rapids monitor (26-081-
0020). At this site, the first
[[Page 14524]]
exceedance of 0.156 ppm occurred in 1993, and the second exceedance of
0.149 ppm occurred in 1994. Quality assured AIRS data was used to
determine that the annual average expected exceedances for the years
1992, 1993, and 1994 for each monitor in Kent County is 0.7 and 0, both
values less than 1.0. In addition, the area must demonstrate that it
continues to attain the ozone NAAQS until the area is redesignated to
attainment. Quality assured AIRS data for the period 1993-1995
demonstrates that the monitors in Kent County continue to attain the
ozone NAAQS with an annual average expected exceedances for the years
1993, 1994, and 1995 for each monitor in Kent County is 1.0 and 0.3,
both values less than or equal to 1.0.
In 1989, the State established an ozone monitor in Ottawa County,
26-139-0005 (Jenison), which operated through part of 1992. The Jenison
site recorded two exceedances during each of the years 1989, 1990, and
1991. The monitor operated for 63 percent of the 1992 ozone season with
no exceedances of the ozone NAAQS. Based on the Lake Michigan Ozone
Study (LMOS) field study, which showed that higher ozone concentrations
are recorded along the Lake Michigan shoreline, the State relocated the
Jenison monitor to Holland, a lakeside urbanized area in Allegan
County. However, the Allegan County monitor cannot be considered part
of the Grand Rapids area since it is outside the two county area. In
addition, two Special Purpose monitors, 26-139-0006 (Borculo) and 26-
139-0007 (Holland) operated in Ottawa County during a portion of the
1991 ozone season as part of the LMOS field study. The Borculo and
Holland monitors recorded 3 and 5 exceedances, respectively, during
1991. The State discontinued these monitors after the 1991 LMOS field
study. At the encouragement of the EPA, the State reestablished a
monitor in Ottawa County, i.e. the Jenison site, in 1994. NAMS
monitoring specifications are not applicable in Ottawa County since it
does not contain an urbanized area. The Jenison site will provide
useful background ozone concentrations for the Grand Rapids urban area.
The EPA acknowledges that multiple exceedances of the ozone NAAQS
were recorded at the various monitors in Ottawa county during 1989-
1991. The redesignation, however, is based on the 3 year period 1992-
1994. Consequently, monitoring data prior to 1992 would not be taken
into account in the determination of attainment. The Jenison site has
partial 1992 data, and complete data for 1994 and 1995. No exceedances
of the ozone NAAQS were recorded at the Jenison monitor during its
operation in 1992 or 1994 and one exceedance was recorded in 1995 at
0.133 ppm. The January 1979 document entitled Guideline for the
Interpretation of Ozone Air Quality Standards (p. 13) suggests that
evaluating ozone data requires the use of all ozone data collected at
the site during the past 3 calendar years. If no data are available for
a particular year then the remaining years are used. Consequently,
since 1992 data for this monitor is incomplete and 1993 data is
unavailable for this monitor, it would suffice to use ozone monitoring
data for the remaining most recent calendar years, i.e. 1994-1995.
Therefore, for the years 1994-1995, the Ottawa County monitor, Jenison,
demonstrates attainment of the ozone NAAQS with an average number of
expected exceedances of 0.5, a value less than 1.0. The EPA, therefore,
believes that the more recent monitoring data for Ottawa county
demonstrates that the area is attaining the ozone NAAQS.
In summary, the Grand Rapids area's 1991 nonattainment designation
and moderate classification was based on the two monitors in Kent
County which have complete quality assured data for the periods 1992-
1994 and 1993-1995 demonstrating attainment of the NAAQS. Although
multiple exceedances of the ozone NAAQS were recorded in Ottawa County
in 1989-1991, more recent monitoring data demonstrates an improvement
in air quality and even attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
Since the annual average number of expected exceedances for each
monitor during the most recent three years is equal to or less than
1.0, at all monitors in the Grand Rapids area, the area has attained
the NAAQS.
Because the Grand Rapids area has complete quality-assured data
showing no violations of the standard over the most recent consecutive
three calendar year period, the Grand Rapids area has met the first
statutory criterion of attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The State has
committed to continue monitoring in this area in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58.
2. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved SIP Under Section 110(k); and
the Area Must Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110
and Part D.
Before the Grand Rapids area may be redesignated to attainment for
ozone, it must have fulfilled the applicable requirements of section
110 and part D. The memorandum from John Calcagni, September 4, 1992,
Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment
(September Calcagni) state that areas requesting redesignation to
attainment had to fully adopt rules and programs that come due prior to
the submittal of a complete redesignation request. If unimplemented,
these rules/programs may be rolled over into the area's maintenance
plan as contingency measures. As described below in the section of this
notice addressing VOC RACT rules, however, the EPA is allowing an
exception to this policy. While all requirements that come due prior to
the submission of the redesignation request remain applicable
requirements, the EPA believes it appropriate, in this instance, to
allow an exception to policy to provide that the requirement for
certain VOC RACT rules may be complied with simply through their
incorporation among the contingency measures in the maintenance plan.
For reasons described later in this action, these measures need not be
fully adopted and approved prior to redesignation. Furthermore,
requirements of the Act that come due subsequent to the area's
submittal of a complete redesignation request would continue to be
applicable to the area (see section 175A(c)) until a redesignation is
approved, but not required as a prerequisite for redesignation. If the
redesignation is disapproved, the State remains obligated to fulfill
those requirements.
Section 110 Requirements
General SIP elements are delineated in section 110(a)(2) of Title
I, part A. These requirements include but are not limited to the
following: submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the State after
reasonable notice and public hearing, provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures
necessary to monitor ambient air quality, implementation of a permit
program, provisions for Part C (Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)) and D (New Source Review (NSR)) permit programs, criteria for
stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and reporting,
provisions for modeling, and provisions for public and local agency
participation. For purposes of redesignation, the Michigan SIP was
reviewed to ensure that all requirements under the amended Act were
satisfied. On May 6, 1980 (45 FR 29801) and February 7, 1985 (50 FR
5250), the EPA fully approved Michigan's SIP as meeting the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) and part D of the 1977 Act
[[Page 14525]]
with the exception that Michigan must meet the part D RACT requirements
for the ozone SIP. See 40 CFR 52.1172. Michigan submitted, and the EPA
approved into the SIP, all part D VOC RACT requirements for the ozone
SIP.
Although section 110 of the Act was amended in 1990, the Grand
Rapids area SIP meets the requirements of amended section 110(a)(2). A
number of the requirements did not change in substance and, therefore,
EPA believes that the pre-amendment SIP met these requirements. As to
those requirements that were amended (57 FR 27936 and 27939, June 23,
1992) many are duplicative of other requirements of the Act. The EPA
has analyzed the SIP and determined that it is consistent with the
requirements of amended section 110(a)(2).
Part D Requirements
Under part D, an area's nonattainment classification determines the
requirements to which it is subject. Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the
basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas.
Subpart 2 of part D establishes additional requirements for
nonattainment areas classified under table 1 of section 181(a). As
described in the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title 1,
specific requirements of subpart 2 may override subpart 1's general
provisions (57 FR 13501, April 16, 1992). The Grand Rapids area was
classified as moderate (56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991), codified at 40
CFR 81.323. Therefore, in order to be redesignated, the State must meet
the applicable requirements of subpart 1 of part D--specifically
sections 172(c) and 176, as well as the applicable requirements of
subpart 2 of part D that apply to moderate areas such as Grand Rapids.
(a) Section 172(c) Requirements
Section 172(c) sets forth general requirements applicable to all
nonattainment areas. Under section 172(b), the section 172(c)
requirements are applicable as determined by the Administrator, but
must be met no later than 3 years after an area has been designated as
nonattainment under the amended Act. Furthermore, as noted above, some
of these section 172(c) requirements are superseded by more specific
requirements in subpart 2 of part D. In the case of the Grand Rapids
area, the State has satisfied all of the section 172(c) requirements
necessary for these areas to be redesignated.
For moderate ozone nonattainment areas, the section 172(c)(1)
Reasonably Available Control Measures requirement was superseded by
section 182(a)(2) RACT requirements. Section 182(a)(2) requires
moderate ozone nonattainment areas that were previously designated
nonattainment to submit RACT corrections. See General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I, 57 FR at 13503. The VOC RACT fix-up SIP was
fully approved on September 7, 1994 (59 FR 46182).
Since the Grand Rapids area has attained the ozone NAAQS, the
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirement is no longer relevant. A
May 10, 1995 memorandum from John Seitz to Regional Division Directors
entitled Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard indicates that the RFP, attainment
demonstration and 179(c)(9) contingency measure SIPs would not be
required for approval of a redesignation request for those areas which
the EPA determines have attained the ozone NAAQS. The EPA made such
determinations for the Grand Rapids area on July 20, 1995 (60 FR 37366)
which also halted the sanctions clocks started January 21, 1994, for
the 15 percent plans (RFP) and 179(c)(9) contingency measures. Also,
see General Preamble for Implementation of Title I, 57 FR at 13564.
The section 172(c)(3) emission inventory requirement has been met
by the State's submission and EPA's approval on July 26, 1994, of the
1990 base year emission inventory required by section 182(a)(1). See 59
FR 37944.
As for the section 172(c)(5) NSR requirement, the EPA has
determined that areas being redesignated need not comply with the NSR
requirement prior to redesignation provided that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR in effect. A memorandum
from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated
October 14, 1994, entitled Part D New Source Review (part D NSR)
Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment, fully
describes the rationale for this view, and is based on the Agency's
authority to establish de minimis exceptions to statutory requirements.
See Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F. 2d 323, 360-61 (D.C. Cir.
1979). As discussed below, the State of Michigan has demonstrated that
the Grand Rapids area will be able to maintain the NAAQS without part D
NSR in effect and, therefore, the State need not have a fully-approved
part D NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request for
Grand Rapids. Once the area is redesignated to attainment, the PSD
program, which has been delegated to Michigan, will become effective
immediately. The PSD program was delegated to Michigan on September 10,
1979, and amended on November 7, 1983, and September 26, 1988.
The section 172(c)(9) contingency measures requirements also are no
longer relevant since the Grand Rapids area has attained the ozone
NAAQS and is no longer subject to RFP requirements. These contingency
measures are intended to be applied only if the area fails to meet an
RFP milestone or fails to attain the ozone NAAQS; the Grand Rapids area
no longer has RFP milestones and has already attained the NAAQS. A May
10, 1995, memorandum from John Seitz to Regional Division Directors
entitled Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard indicates that the RFP, attainment
demonstration and 179(c)(9) contingency measure SIPs would not be
required for approval of a redesignation request for those areas which
the EPA determines have attained the ozone NAAQS. The EPA made such
determinations for the Grand Rapids area on July 20, 1995, (60 FR
37366) which also halted the sanctions clocks started January 21, 1994,
for the 15 percent plans (RFP) and 179(c)(9) contingency measures.
Section 175A contingency measures, however, still apply.
Finally, for purposes of redesignation, the Michigan SIP was
reviewed to ensure that all requirements of section 110(a)(2),
containing general SIP elements, were satisfied. As noted above, the
EPA believes the SIP satisfies all of those requirements.
(b) Section 176 Conformity Requirements
Section 176(c) of the Act requires States to revise their SIPs to
establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federal actions,
before they are taken, conform to the air quality planning goals in the
applicable SIP. The requirement to determine conformity applies to
transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or
approved under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act
(``transportation conformity''), as well as to all other Federal
actions (``general conformity''). Section 176 further provides that the
conformity revisions to be submitted by the States must be consistent
with Federal conformity regulations that the Act required the EPA to
promulgate. Congress provided
[[Page 14526]]
for the State revisions to be submitted one year after the date of
promulgation of final EPA conformity regulations.
The EPA promulgated final transportation conformity regulations on
November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188), and general conformity regulations on
November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214). These conformity rules require that
States adopt both transportation and general conformity provisions in
the SIP for areas designated nonattainment or subject to a maintenance
plan approved under section 175A of the Act. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.396
of the transportation conformity rule and 40 CFR section 51.851 of the
general conformity rule, the State of Michigan is required to submit a
SIP revision containing transportation conformity criteria and
procedures consistent with those established in the Federal rule by
November 25, 1994, and November 30, 1994, respectively. Michigan
submitted transportation and general conformity SIP revisions on
November 24, 1994 and November 29, 1994, respectively. The EPA has not
yet approved these rules as part of the SIP.
Although this redesignation request was submitted to EPA after the
due dates for the SIP revisions for transportation conformity and
general conformity rules, the EPA believes it is reasonable to
interpret the conformity requirements as not being applicable
requirements for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request under
section 107(d). The rationale for this is based on a combination of two
factors. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with
the conformity provisions of the Act continue to apply to areas after
redesignation to attainment, since such areas would be subject to a
section 175A maintenance plan. Therefore, the State remains obligated
to adopt the transportation and general conformity rules even after
redesignation and would risk sanctions for failure to do so. While
redesignation of an area to attainment enables the area to avoid
further compliance with most requirements of section 110 and part D,
since those requirements are linked to the nonattainment status of an
area, the conformity requirements apply to both nonattainment and
maintenance areas. Second, EPA's federal conformity rules require the
performance of conformity analyses in the absence of state-adopted
rules. Therefore, a delay in adopting State rules does not relieve an
area from the obligation to implement conformity requirements.
Because areas are subject to the conformity requirements regardless
of whether they are redesignated to attainment and must implement
conformity under Federal rules if State rules are not yet adopted, the
EPA believes it is reasonable to view these requirements as not being
applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating a redesignation
request.
For the reasons just discussed, the EPA believes that the ozone
redesignation request for the Grand Rapids area may be approved
notwithstanding the lack of fully approved State transportation and
general conformity rules. This policy was also exercised in the Tampa,
Florida ozone redesignation finalized on December 7, 1995 (60 FR
62748).
(c) Subpart 2 Requirements
Grand Rapids is a moderate ozone nonattainment area and is subject
to the section 182(a), 182(b) and 182(f) requirements. Under subpart 2,
Grand Rapids is required to have met the requirements of section
182(a)(1), (2), and (3), section 182(b)(1), (2), (3), and (4), and
section 182(f). The following discussion describes each of these
requirements.
The emission inventory required by section 182(a)(1) was approved
on July 26, 1994 (59 FR 37944). The RACT corrections required by
section 182(a)(2)(A) were approved on September 7, 1994, and the
section 182(a)(2)(B) motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M)
requirement is superseded by the section 182(b)(4) requirement
discussed below. The emission statement SIP required by section
182(a)(3)(B) was approved on March 8, 1994 (59 FR 10752).
The RFP and attainment demonstration requirements of section
182(b)(1) are no longer applicable, as noted previously, since the area
has attained the ozone NAAQS.\1\
\1\ A May 10, 1995 memorandum from John Seitz to Regional
Division Directors entitled Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standard indicates
that the RFP, attainment demonstration and 179(c)(9) contingency
measure SIPs would not be required for approval of a redesignation
request for those areas which the USEPA determines have attained the
ozone NAAQS. The USEPA made such determinations for the Grand Rapids
area on July 20, 1995 (60 FR 37366) which also concluded the
sanctions process started January 21, 1994 for the 15 percent plans
(RFP) and 179(c)(9) contingency measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 182(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires States to develop RACT
rules for sources ``covered by a CTG document issued by the
Administrator between November 15, 1990, and the date of attainment''
for moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas. With Appendix E of
the General Preamble, EPA published a CTG document setting a timetable
for the adoption, submittal, and implementation of certain newly-listed
CTG source categories. (57 FR 13513, April 16, 1992; 57 FR 18077, April
28, 1992.) Appendix E provided that if EPA did not issue CTGs for those
source categories by November 15, 1993, States were to submit RACT
rules for those source categories by November 15, 1994, which were to
be implemented by November 15, 1995.
The Grand Rapids area contains sources in three (Plastic Parts
Coating, Wood Furniture Coating and Industrial Clean-up Solvents) of
the source categories subject to the deadlines established in Appendix
E. As EPA did not issue CTGs covering those source categories, the due
date for the submission of RACT rules for those source categories was
November 15, 1994, a date preceding the submission of the redesignation
request for Grand Rapids.
Under EPA's policy regarding redesignations, since the due date for
the CTG RACT rules at issue preceded the submission of the
redesignation request, EPA would require full adoption, submission and
approval of these rules prior to approval of the redesignation request.
EPA believes, however, that, in the context of the particular
circumstances of this redesignation, that it is permissible to depart
from that policy and instead accept a commitment to implement these
RACT rules as contingency measures in the maintenance plan rather than
require full adoption and approval of the rules prior to approval of
the redesignation. The State of Michigan has submitted a letter to EPA
indicating its intent to revise the Grand Rapids maintenance plan so as
to include a commitment to adopt and implement these RACT rules as
contingency measures and, provided that the State completes its
proposed revision to the maintenance plan, EPA may take final action to
approve the Grand Rapids redesignation. The reasons justifying this
exception to EPA's general policy are explained below.
EPA believes that several factors in combination justify this
approach with respect to the Grand Rapids redesignation. First, the
RACT rules at issue in this redesignation proceeding came due after the
end of the ozone season in which Grand Rapids attained the standard and
were not needed to bring about attainment of the standard in Grand
Rapids. Second, the State has demonstrated continued maintenance of the
ozone standard through 2007 without the implementation of these
measures. Third, the State has placed other contingency measures in the
[[Page 14527]]
maintenance plan that would bring about far greater emission reductions
than the RACT rules and would therefore be substantially more effective
in terms of correcting violations attributable to local emissions from
the Grand Rapids area that may occur after redesignation. As presented
in more detail in the EPA's March 20, 1996 TSD, an analysis of emission
reduction estimates, at various time intervals, shows that the
implementation of enhanced I/M, Stage II or low Reid Vapor Pressure
(RVP) (to 7.8 psi) programs would bring about greater reductions than
VOC RACT rules for wood furniture coating, plastic parts coating and
industrial clean-up solvents in aggregate, and substantially greater
reductions than any of these RACT rules individually. As a consequence,
EPA believes that the other, more effective contingency measures,
should and would be implemented first even if the RACT rules were to be
fully adopted prior to redesignation.
EPA emphasizes that even under the exception to its policy proposed
herein, the requirement for these RACT rules remains an applicable
requirement for purposes of evaluating the redesignation request since
it predated the submission of the request. The requirement, however,
would be met in the form of the submission and full approval of a
commitment to adopt and implement these rules as contingency measures
in the maintenance plan. (Under EPA's existing policy, contingency
measures in maintenance plans may consist of commitments to adopt and
implement measures upon a violation of the standard. See September
Calcagni Memorandum.)
EPA further notes that even without this exception to its general
policy, the State would have been able to have the RACT rules become a
part of the contingency measures in the maintenance plan upon approval
of the redesignation. That could have occurred only after or upon EPA's
full approval of the adopted RACT rules, however. Thus, the only
difference between EPA's general policy and the exception to that
policy described in this proposal is that a commitment to adopt and
implement the RACT rules in an expeditious manner, rather than fully-
adopted RACT rules, would be among the contingency measures in the
maintenance plan. In light of the combination of factors discussed
above, including in particular the presence of other, significantly
more effective, contingency measures in the maintenance plan, EPA
believes that this difference has no significant environmental
consequence and that it is permissible to approve the Grand Rapids
redesignation on this basis.
The VOC RACT requirements of section 182(b)(2)(B) and (C) were
approved on September 7, 1994 (59 FR 46182) and October 23, 1995 (60 FR
54308) 2. The section 182(b)(3) Stage II gasoline vapor recovery
was also an applicable requirement. However, the ``onboard rule''
3 was published on April 6, 1994, and section 202(a)(6) of the Act
provides that once onboard rules are promulgated, Stage II gasoline
vapor recovery will no longer be a requirement. The motor vehicle I/M
requirement to satisfy section 182(b)(4) for the Grand Rapids area was
approved on October 11, 1994 (59 FR 51379). The State need not comply
with the requirements of section 182(a) and 182(b) concerning revisions
to the part D NSR program in order for the Grand Rapids area to be
redesignated for the reasons explained above in connection with the
discussion of the section 172(c)(5) NSR requirement. With respect to
the section 182(f) oxides of nitrogen (NOx) requirements, on July
13, 1994, Michigan submitted, along with Illinois, Indiana and
Wisconsin, a section 182(f) NOX petition to be relieved of the
section 182(f) NOX requirements based on urban airshed modeling
(UAM). The modeling demonstrates that NOX emission reductions
would not contribute to attainment of the NAAQS for ozone in the
modeled area, which includes Grand Rapids. Refer to section
182(f)(1)(A) of the Act. The EPA approved the section 182(f) petition
on January 26, 1996 (61 FR 2428) in a final rulemaking action.
\2\ The USEPA also notes that the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Distillation and Reactor CTG was
issued on November 15, 1993, prior to the submission of the Grad
Rapids redesignation request. That CTG, however, established a due
date for State submittal of the SOCMI Distillation and Reactor rules
of March 23, 1995 (See March 23, 1994, 59 FR 13717), a date after
submission of a request to redesignate Grand Rapids to attainment.
Thus, those rules are not applicable requirements for purposes of
this redesignation.
\3\ The rule which was published by the USEPA on April 6, 1994
requires a vehicle based (onboard) system for the control of vehicle
refueling emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan has presented an adequate demonstration that the State has
met all the requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and
part D. The final approval of this redesignation request is contingent
on the State's submittal of a revision to the SIP incorporating into
the maintenance plan, a commitment to adopt and implement the relevant
section 182(b)(2)(A) VOC RACT rules as contingency measures.
3. The Improvement in Air Quality Must Be Due to Permanent and
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From the SIP, Federal
Measures and Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
Michigan maintains that the Grand Rapids area is the recipient of
overwhelming amounts of ozone transported from the upwind Gary-Chicago-
Milwaukee severe nonattainment areas as demonstrated by their November
14, 1994 petition.4 The overwhelming transport demonstration
includes UAM which shows that there is minimal to no change in ozone
concentrations in the two Western Michigan areas even when the Grand
Rapids and Muskegon VOC and NOX emissions are entirely eliminated.
The State, therefore, concluded that emission reductions within the
Grand Rapids and Muskegon areas would have little or no impact on ozone
concentrations within these two areas. The State maintains that the
improvement in air quality in Grand Rapids is largely due to emission
reductions achieved throughout the Lake Michigan region.
\4\ Consistent with USEPA's September 1, 1994, memorandum from
Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation,
entitled Ozone Attainment Dates for Areas Affected by Overwhelming
Transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, the redesignation request demonstrates that permanent
and enforceable emission reductions have occurred in the Grand Rapids
area as a result of the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program
(FMVCP). The submittal provides a general discussion of the development
of the emission inventories for ozone precursors, VOC and NOX,
from 1991-1996 which were prepared by the Lake Michigan Air Directors
Consortium (LADCO) for use in the Lake Michigan Ozone Study (LMOS).
Although 1991 was not one of the years used to designate and classify
the area, it was a nonattainment year. The VOC and NOX emission
inventories for the years 1991 and 1996 submitted by the State show a
declining trend in emissions. Based on this declining trend, it may be
deduced that the VOC and NOX emissions from 1991 were at least
equal to or lower than those of the design value year. This would
demonstrate that the test of permanent and enforceable emission
reductions from 1991 is at least equal to or more stringent than that
from the design value year to an attainment year. With this, the EPA
believes that the use of a 1987-1989 emission inventory for Grand
Rapids would not have affected the conclusion that reductions in
emissions from permanent and
[[Page 14528]]
enforceable programs have contributed to improvements in air quality in
the area and proposes to accept 1991 as the nonattainment year for
purposes of demonstrating permanent and enforceable emission
reductions.
A 1996 emission inventory is provided as the attainment year
emission inventory. The State maintains that the differential between
the 1996 and 1994 emissions inventories for the purpose of
demonstrating permanent and enforceable emission reductions is
inconsequential. Michigan states that the 1996 emission inventory will
further hold the State to a more stringent inventory for general and
transportation conformity purposes. Although this may be true, future
year emission reductions from FMVCP, and Title IV Phase I NOx
controls which were not implemented during the years used to
demonstrate attainment of the ozone NAAQS, i.e. 1992-1994, cannot be
included as permanent and enforceable emission reductions since those
reductions have not yet occurred. Consequently, the EPA prepared 1994
emission inventories for the Grand Rapids area based on the emission
inventories and documentation submitted by the State with the
redesignation request.
Based on EPA's analysis, VOC emissions were reduced by 0.6 tons
(0.4 percent) and NOx emissions were reduced by 2.4 tons (1.1
percent) per day in Grand Rapids between 1991 and 1994. The emission
reductions are due to FMVCP.
4. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Meeting the
Requirements of Section 175A
Section 175A of the Act sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
The maintenance plan is a SIP revision which provides for maintenance
of the relevant NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years after
redesignation to attainment. The September Calcagni memorandum
regarding redesignation provides further guidance on the required
content of a maintenance plan.
An ozone maintenance plan should address the following five
elements: the attainment inventory, maintenance demonstration,
monitoring network, verification of continued attainment and a
contingency plan. The attainment emissions inventory identifies the
emissions level in the area which is sufficient to attain the ozone
NAAQS, and includes emissions during the time period which had no
monitored violations. Maintenance is demonstrated by showing that
future emissions will not exceed the level established by the
attainment inventory. Provisions for continued operation of an
appropriate air quality monitoring network are to be included in the
maintenance plan. The State must show how it will track and verify the
progress of the maintenance plan. Finally, the maintenance plan must
include contingency measures which ensure prompt correction of any
violation of the ozone NAAQS. Eight years after the redesignation, the
State must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates
attainment for the 10 years following the initial 10-year period. See
section 175A(b) of the Act.
The State has submitted an attainment emission inventory for 1996
that identifies 160 tons of VOC and 203 tons of NOx per day as the
level of emissions in the area sufficient to attain the ozone NAAQS in
the Grand Rapids area. The 1996 attainment inventory was based on an
inventory of VOC and NOx emissions from area, stationary, and
mobile sources for 1991. The September Calcagni memorandum states that
generally the attainment inventory would be the inventory at the time
the area attained the NAAQS and should include the emissions during the
time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment.
Under a strict interpretation of this policy, the 1996 emission
inventory presented by the State would not qualify as an attainment
year inventory. A comparison of the 1994 (an attainment year) emission
inventory prepared by the EPA and the 1996 emission inventory submitted
by the State and found the emission differential to be 0.25 percent for
VOC and 6.21 percent for NOx for Grand Rapids. Considering the
small differential and the fact that the 1996 emission inventory would
hold the Grand Rapids area to a more stringent attainment emission
inventory due to the declining trend and additional VOC and NOx
emission reductions accounted for in the 1996 emission inventory, the
EPA proposes to accept the 1996 emission inventory as the attainment
year inventory.
The 1991 emission inventory developed by LADCO for the LMOS
modeling effort also served as the basis for calculations to
demonstrate maintenance by projecting emissions forward to the years
1996 and 2007. The 1991 nonattainment year emission inventory
represents hot summer weekday actual emissions for the Grand Rapids
area. Point and area projections are based on growth factors extracted
from the EPA's Economic Growth Analysis System and supplemental
information used in the development of emission projections. Point
source growth factors for utilities were based on source specific data
provided by the utility companies. Area source growth factors were
supplemented with population and gasoline sales/marketing data. The
stationary source emission estimates (point and area) were developed
using the geocoded emissions modeling and projections system (GEMAP).
GEMAP employs projection methodologies equivalent to those in the EPA's
Emissions Projections System. In developing the mobile source emission
estimates, the MOBILE5a model was used with day specific temperatures
(for June 26, 1991). The input parameters for the MOBILE5a model are
provided in Appendix D of the submittal. The gasoline RVP used for all
inventories was 9.0 pounds per square inch (psi). The methodologies
employed in developing the on-highway mobile source emissions included
the Federal Highway Administration highway performance monitoring
system (HPMS) traffic count for 1991 vehicle miles traveled (VMT),
supplemental traffic count data obtained from the Michigan Department
of Transportation, projection of VMT to projection years using a
transportation model calibrated with HPMS VMT data, MOBILE5a emission
factors and estimating emissions with modeled VMT and MOBILE5a.
The EPA's TSD prepared for the redesignation request contains
additional details regarding the emission inventories for the Grand
Rapids area for all the analyses described within this notice. It
should be noted that use of the emission inventories prepared by LADCO
within this redesignation request and SIP revision does not constitute
approval of the emission inventories or methodologies for all the
States participating in the Lake Michigan Ozone Study, particularly for
purposes of UAM modeling.
In order to demonstrate continued attainment, the State projected
anthropogenic 1991 emissions of VOC and NOx to the years 1996 and
2007. These emission estimates are presented in the tables below and
demonstrate that the VOC and NOx emissions will decrease in future
years. The results of this analysis show that the area is expected to
maintain the air quality standard for at least ten years into the
future. In fact, the emissions projections through the year 2007 show
that emissions will be reduced from 1996 levels by 10 tons of VOC and 6
tons of NOx per day by 2007 in the Grand Rapids area. These
emission reductions would be the result of the implementation of FMVCP,
on-board
[[Page 14529]]
vapor recovery, Title IV NOx controls, and other Federal rules
expected to be promulgated for nonroad engines, autobody refinishing,
commercial/consumer solvents, and architectural and industrial
maintenance coatings.
Table 1. Grand Rapids: VOC Maintenance Emission Inventory Summary
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1991 1996 2001 2007
-----------------------------------------------------------\1\----------
Point.................................. 39 41 44 48
Area................................... 58 62 57 51
Mobile................................. 64 57 54 51
--------------------------------
Total............................ 161 160 155 150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These estimates were developed by the USEPA based on a linear
interpolation between 1996 and 2007.
Table 2. Grand Rapids: NOx Maintenance Emission Inventory Summary
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1991 1996 2001\1\ 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.................................. 126 115 117 120
Area................................... 31 32 29 26
Mobile................................. 61 56 54 51
--------------------------------
Total............................ 218 203 200 197
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These estimates were developed by the USEPA based on a linear
interpolation between 1996 and 2007.
The emission projections show that the emissions are not expected
to exceed the level of the base year 1996 inventory during the 10-year
maintenance period.
To demonstrate maintenance out to the year 2007 following
redesignation, the State did not rely on a certain SIP-approved
measure. The State now requests that this measure (discussed below) be
moved from the applicable SIP into the maintenance plan as a
contingency measure.
The State has demonstrated maintenance without an I/M program. This
required SIP submittal is fully adopted and fully approved into the
SIP. However, since the State has demonstrated attainment and
maintenance without this program, this measure can be incorporated into
the area's maintenance plan as a contingency measure. See September 17,
1993, memorandum from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, entitled SIP Requirements for Areas Submitting
Request for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide NAAQS on or after November 15, 1992. Since the Grand Rapids
area has demonstrated that it can maintain the standard without
implementation of this program, EPA proposes that the maintenance plan
be approved with this element as a contingency measure.
Continued attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the Grand Rapids area
depends, in part, on the State's efforts toward tracking indicators of
continued attainment during the maintenance period. The tracking plan
for the Grand Rapids area consists of continued ambient ozone
monitoring. To demonstrate ongoing compliance with the NAAQS, Michigan
will continue to monitor ozone levels throughout the Grand Rapids area
in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 58 as necessary to
demonstrate ongoing compliance with the NAAQS.
Michigan contends that the high concentrations of ozone monitored
and modeled in the Grand Rapids area are due to transport from upwind
areas such as Chicago and Milwaukee. The State also submits that
preliminary modeling to date indicates that total elimination of
anthropogenic VOC and NOX emission sources in Grand Rapids would
not significantly affect ozone concentrations in the area. The State
concludes that continued maintenance of the ozone NAAQS is dependent on
continued emission reductions from upwind areas. Consequently, the
State identifies an actual monitored ozone violation of the NAAQS, as
defined in 40 CFR Sec. 50.9, determined not to be attributable to
transport from upwind areas, as the triggering event that will cause
implementation of a contingency measure. The State's March 15, 1996,
supplement to the redesignation request qualifies, that as such, if a
violation is monitored, the State will inform EPA that a violation has
occurred, review data for quality assurance, and conduct a technical
analysis including an analysis of meteorological conditions leading up
to and during the exceedances contributing to the violation to
determine local culpability. The State will submit a preliminary
analysis to the EPA and afford the public the opportunity for review
and comment. The State will also solicit and consider EPA's technical
advice and analysis before making a final determination on the cause of
the violation. The trigger date will be the date that the State
certifies to the EPA that the air quality data are quality assured, and
that the exceedances contributing to the violation are determined not
to be attributable to transport from upwind areas which will be no
later than 120 days after the violation is monitored.
In the event, the EPA disagrees with the State's final
determination and believes that the violation was not attributable to
transport, but to the area's own emissions, authority exists under
section 179(a) and 110(k), to require the area to implement contingency
measures, and section 107, to redesignate the area to nonattainment. In
addition, the redesignation of the Grand Rapids area to attainment, in
no way removes the State's obligation to get further reductions in
emissions to address the broader transport phenomenon, which is being
investigated as part of the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG)
process.
The level of VOC and NOX emissions in the Grand Rapids area
and region wide will largely determine its ability to stay in
compliance with the ozone NAAQS in the future. Despite the best efforts
to demonstrate continued
[[Page 14530]]
compliance with the NAAQS, the ambient air pollutant concentrations may
exceed or violate the NAAQS. Therefore, as required by section 175A of
the Act, Michigan has provided contingency measures with a schedule for
implementation in the event of a future ozone air quality problem. Once
the triggering event, a violation of the ozone NAAQS determined not to
be attributable to transport from upwind areas, is confirmed, the State
will implement one or more appropriate contingency measure. The
contingency measure will be selected by the Governor or the Governor's
designee within 6 months of a triggering event, a monitored violation
determined not to be attributable to transport. Contingency measures
contained in the plan include a motor vehicle I/M program, gasoline RVP
reduction to 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi), and Stage II gasoline
vapor recovery. Legislative authority for implementation of these
measures as contingency measures in maintenance areas has been provided
by the State. In addition, the State intends to add three additional
measures as contingency measures, namely, a commitment to adopt and
implement VOC non-CTG RACT rules for plastic parts coating, wood
furniture coating and clean-up solvents, should they be necessary to
address a violation of the ozone NAAQS. The State is in the process of
revising the maintenance plan SIP revision which must be submitted to
the EPA before the EPA can take final action to redesignate the area to
attainment. The following schedule is provided by the State for
implementation of I/M, 7.8 psi RVP, and Stage II as contingency
measures:
Table 3.--Schedule for Contingency Measure Implementation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measure Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stage II............................... 6 months from decision to employ Stage II or 12 months from triggering
event at gasoline dispensing facilities of any size constructed after
November 15, 1990.
12 months from decision to employ Stage II or 18 months from triggering
event at existing gasoline dispensing facilities dispensing 100,000
gallons of gasoline per month.
24 months from decision to employ Stage II or 30 months from triggering
event at existing gasoline dispensing facilities dispensing less than
100,000 gallons of gasoline a month.
Vehicle emissions testing will commence 24 months from decision to employ I/M or 30 months from triggering
event.
Implement 7.8 RVP gasoline during No later than 12 months after decision to employ 7.8 RVP or no later
summer ozone season. than 18 months from triggering event.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA finds that the contingency measures provided for in the
State submittals, including the commitment to adopt and implement VOC
non-CTG RACT rules for plastic parts coating, wood furniture coating
and clean-up solvents, meet the requirements of section 175A(d) of the
Act since they would promptly correct any violation of the ozone NAAQS
attributable to the area's own emissions.
In accordance with section 175A(b) of the Act, the State has
committed to submit a revised maintenance SIP 8 years after the area is
redesignated to attainment. Such revised SIP will provide for
maintenance for an additional 10 years.
Urban Airshed Modeling
The EPA acknowledges that the Lake Michigan States of Michigan,
Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana are conducting UAM which is being
coordinated by LADCO. The modeling will be used for purposes of
demonstrating attainment throughout the Lake Michigan region.
Preliminary modeling results indicate that the Grand Rapids area is the
recipient of transported ozone and that the area may contribute to
ozone concentrations in downwind areas. The modeling, however, is not
complete and is being further refined. The EPA recognizes the
importance of the modeling effort and subsequent results. The EPA would
like to note that the Lake Michigan States are participating in the
OTAG process (Phase I/Phase II analysis) as provided for within the
March 2, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, entitled Ozone Attainment Demonstrations. Phase
II of the analysis will assess the need for regional control strategies
and refine the local control strategies. Phase II will also provide the
States and EPA the opportunity to determine appropriate regional
strategies to resolve transport issues including any impacts the Grand
Rapids area may have on ozone concentrations in its downwind areas. The
EPA has the authority under sections 126 and/or 110 of the Act to
ensure that the required and necessary reductions are achieved in the
Grand Rapids area should subsequent modeling become available such as
the modeling that will be available through completion of the Phase II
analysis, or any other subsequent modeling data.
IV. Proposed Action
The EPA proposes to approve the Grand Rapids redesignation request
and ozone maintenance plan as a SIP revision meeting the requirements
of section 175A once the States submits a revision to the maintenance
plan for Grand Rapids to incorporate the three additional contingency
measures, pursuant to the State's January 24, 1996, letter. In
addition, the EPA is proposing approval of the redesignation request
for the Grand Rapids areas, subject to final approval of the
maintenance plan, because the State has demonstrated compliance with
the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation pending full
approval of the maintenance plan SIP revision previously noted.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
Ozone SIPs are designed to satisfy the requirements of part D of
the Act and to provide for attainment and maintenance of the ozone
NAAQS. This proposed redesignation should not be interpreted as
authorizing the State to delete, alter, or rescind any of the VOC or
NOX emission limitations and restrictions contained in the
approved ozone SIP. Changes to ozone SIP VOC regulations rendering them
less stringent than those contained in the EPA approved plan cannot be
made unless a revised plan for attainment and maintenance is submitted
to and approved by EPA. Unauthorized relaxations, deletions, and
changes could result in both a finding of nonimplementation [section
173(b) of the Act] and in a SIP
[[Page 14531]]
deficiency call made pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the Act.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 Action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a July 10, 1995,
memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. section 600 et seq,
the EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the
impact of any proposed or final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C.
section 603 and 604.) Alternatively, the EPA may certify that the rule
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the
Agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule
that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Section 203 requires
the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input from and informing,
educating, and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely affected by the rule.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must
be prepared. The Agency must select from those alternatives the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Agency explains why
this alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative
is inconsistent with law.
Because this proposed rule is estimated to result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments or the private
sector of less than $100 million in any one year, the Agency has not
prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the
selection of the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative. Because small governments will not be significantly or
uniquely affected by this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a
plan with regard to small governments.
The SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Act,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIP's on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42
U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2).
Redesignation of an area to attainment under Section 107(d)(3)(E)
of the Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities.
Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical
area and does not impose any regulatory requirements on sources. The
Administrator certifies that the approval of the redesignation request
will not affect a substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Motor vehicle pollution, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic
compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: March 22, 1996.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-8004 Filed 4-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7988 Limited Access Management of Federal Fisheries In and Off of Alaska; Allow Processing of Non-Individual Fishing Quota Species
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14547-14550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7988]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 676
[Docket No. 960321089-6089-01; I.D. 031396B]
RIN 0648-AG41
Limited Access Management of Federal Fisheries In and Off of
Alaska; Allow Processing of Non-Individual Fishing Quota Species
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 33
to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Groundfish Fishery of the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (BSAI) and Amendment 37 to the
Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA).
These amendments are necessary to allow fuller use of the fishery
resources in and off of Alaska. This action is intended to allow
persons that are authorized to harvest individual fishing quota (IFQ)
sablefish based on an annual allocation of IFQ resulting from sablefish
quota share (QS) assigned to categories of catcher vessels equal or
greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) in length overall to process species other
than IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be sent to Ronald J. Berg, Chief, Fisheries
Management Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Room 453, 709 W. 9th Street,
Juneau, AK 99801, or P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attention: Lori
J. Gravel. Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact
Review (EA/RIR) for this action may be obtained from the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Lepore, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Beginning with the 1995 fishing season, the Pacific halibut
(Hippoglossus stenolepis) and sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) fixed gear
fisheries in the IFQ regulatory areas defined in 50 CFR 676.11 have
been managed under the IFQ Program. The IFQ Program is a regulatory
regime designed to promote the conservation and management of these
fisheries and to further the objectives of the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act.
Persons holding QS, which represents a transferable harvest privilege,
receive an annual allocation of IFQ. These persons are authorized to
harvest, within specified limitations, IFQ species. Further information
on the implementation of the IFQ Program, and the rationale supporting
it, is contained in the preamble to the final rule implementing the IFQ
Program published in the Federal Register, November 9, 1993 (58 FR
59375). Additions and/or changes to the final rule implementing the IFQ
Program were published June 1, 1994 (59 FR 28281); August 24, 1994 (59
FR 43502), corrected October 13, 1994 (59 FR 51874); October 7, 1994
(59 FR 51135); February 2, 1995 (60 FR 6448); March 3, 1995 (60 FR
11916); March 6, 1995 (60 FR 12152); May 5, 1995 (60 FR 22307); August
8, 1995 (60 FR 40304); August 31, 1995 (60 FR 45378); and November 28,
1995 (60 FR 58528).
Amendments 33 and 37 would allow persons who are authorized to
harvest IFQ sablefish based on an annual allocation of IFQ resulting
from sablefish QS assigned to vessel categories B or C to process
species other than IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish. Changes to the
regulatory text of the IFQ Program would be necessary to implement this
new policy, if it is approved. The definitions of ``freezer vessel''
and ``catcher vessel'' would be removed and a definition of
``processing'' would be added. References to the removed definitions
would be replaced with alternative language. A provision would be added
to allow the processing of fish, other than IFQ halibut and IFQ
sablefish, onboard vessels on which persons are harvesting IFQ
sablefish based on an annual allocation of IFQ resulting from sablefish
QS assigned to vessel categories B and C (catcher vessels that are
greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) length overall). A detailed explanation of
the proposed changes follows:
Removal of the ``Freezer Vessel'' and ``Catcher Vessel''
Definitions
After evaluating the effects that Amendments 33 and 37 would have
on the IFQ Program, NMFS determined that the definitions of ``freezer
vessel'' and ``catcher vessel'' at Sec. 676 subparts B and C are
unnecessary and now proposes their removal. NMFS proposes to replace
these definitions with the same definition of ``processing'' found at
Secs. 672.2 and 675.2.
This proposed definition would be important to the revised
specifications of vessel categories at Sec. 676.20(a)(2). Vessel
category A, currently described as ``freezer vessels of any length,''
would be changed to vessels of any length authorized to process IFQ
species. QS and the resulting IFQ is designated by IFQ species;
therefore, a person could only process the IFQ species designated on
the IFQ permit (i.e., IFQ halibut or IFQ sablefish). The authorization
to process IFQ species is an inherent characteristic of QS assigned to
vessel category A. This determination was made at initial issuance
based on criteria found at Sec. 676.20(c). The other vessel categories
(B, C, and D) found at Sec. 676.20(a)(2) also would not refer to the
removed definitions.
Other Changes to the Regulations Due to the Removal of the
``Freezer Vessel'' and ``Catcher Vessel'' Definitions
As explained above, Sec. 676.20(a)(2) would no longer refer to
freezer vessels or catcher vessels, but rather would describe vessel
categories in terms of: (1) Vessel length; (2) specific species
designations (i.e., vessel category D for IFQ halibut only); and (3)
authorization to process IFQ species. Similarly, any other references
in Sec. 676 subparts B and C to freezer vessels or catcher vessels
would be removed.
For example, Sec. 676.16(o) would prohibit persons from having
processed and unprocessed IFQ species on board a vessel during the same
trip. This would replace the current prohibition on operating as a
catcher vessel and a freezer vessel during the same trip. This
[[Page 14548]]
change, along with the addition of Sec. 676.22(k), would allow a person
who is authorized to harvest IFQ sablefish based on an annual
allocation of IFQ resulting from sablefish QS assigned to vessel
categories B or C to process fish other than IFQ halibut or IFQ
sablefish, a behavior consistent with the Council's intent in proposing
Amendments 33 and 37. Currently, a person who is authorized to harvest
IFQ sablefish based on an annual allocation of IFQ resulting from
sablefish QS assigned to vessel categories B or C is not allowed to
process fish other than IFQ halibut or IFQ sablefish on board the
harvesting vessel, because the definition of freezer vessel included
the processing of any fish, whether it were IFQ species or not. Other
sections in which the specific vessel categories would replace
references to freezer vessels and catcher vessels are:
Secs. 676.21(f)(1) through (4), and (g); and Secs. 676.22(i), (i)(1),
(i)(2), (j), (j)(1), and (j)(4).
Processing Fish Other Than IFQ Halibut or IFQ Sablefish
A new paragraph, Sec. 676.22(k), would be added to allow processing
of fish, other than IFQ halibut or IFQ sablefish, on board the
harvesting vessel by persons who are authorized to harvest IFQ
sablefish based on an annual allocation of IFQ resulting from sablefish
QS assigned to vessel categories B or C. Without this proposed change,
fish, other than IFQ halibut or IFQ sablefish, could not be processed
on board the harvesting vessel if, along with that fish, IFQ sablefish
were harvested by a person who is authorized to harvest IFQ sablefish
based on an annual allocation of IFQ resulting from sablefish QS
assigned to vessel categories B and C. The current prohibition on
processing fish, other than IFQ halibut or IFQ sablefish, on category B
or C vessels has resulted in the unanticipated waste of fish caught
incidentally with IFQ sablefish because sablefish can be preserved
longer on ice than some incidentally caught fish (e.g., Pacific cod).
The longer ``shelf life'' of fresh sablefish allows a typical sablefish
longline trip to exceed the time period in which fish other than IFQ
halibut or IFQ sablefish maintains sufficient quality to market as
fresh fish. This often results in the discard of some or all
incidentally caught fish. Also, persons are required to retain Pacific
cod and rockfish caught incidentally to IFQ sablefish. This forces
persons who are authorized to harvest IFQ sablefish based on an annual
allocation of IFQ resulting from sablefish QS assigned to vessel
categories B and C to keep Pacific cod and rockfish caught incidentally
with IFQ sablefish, even though the value of the Pacific cod and
rockfish is diminished during a long sablefish trip. The Council
intended that Amendments 33 and 37 address the lost revenue that occurs
because fish other than IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish are discarded, or
if not discarded, landed in poor condition, due to the current
prohibition on processing fish, other than IFQ halibut and IFQ
sablefish.
Section 676.22(i)(3) would be unnecessary with the addition of
Sec. 676.22(k) and the removal of the definitions of ``freezer vessel''
and ``catcher vessel.'' Furthermore, some of the provisions in
Sec. 676.22(i)(3) were contrary to the purposes of Amendments 33 and
37. For example, a person could not harvest IFQ sablefish with IFQ
resulting from sablefish QS assigned to vessel categories B or C if
``frozen or otherwise processed fish products'' were on the vessel,
whether the frozen or otherwise processed fish was IFQ halibut or IFQ
sablefish, or fish other than those species. The intent of the proposed
action is to allow persons to harvest IFQ sablefish with IFQ resulting
from sablefish QS assigned to vessel categories B or C, even if frozen
or otherwise processed fish other than IFQ halibut or IFQ sablefish are
on board the harvesting vessel.
The authorization to process fish, other than IFQ halibut or IFQ
sablefish, would not extend to persons who are authorized to harvest
IFQ halibut based on an annual allocation of IFQ resulting from halibut
QS assigned to vessel categories B, C, or D. The Council declined to
extend the IFQ sablefish exemption to IFQ halibut due to the socio-
economic differences between the fisheries. The halibut fishery
characteristically is prosecuted by local vessels that do not have on-
board processing capabilities. The Council does not intend to change
this characteristic of the halibut fishery. Also, not extending the
authorization to process fish other than IFQ sablefish and IFQ halibut
to persons that are authorized to harvest IFQ halibut based on an
annual allocation of IFQ resulting from halibut QS assigned to vessel
categories B, C, or D is consistent with one of the objectives of the
IFQ Program, which is to maintain a diverse fleet where all segments,
and the social structures associated with those segments, continue to
exist. The prohibition on processing on board the harvesting vessel by
persons harvesting IFQ species with IFQ resulting from QS assigned to
specific vessel categories is one method of accomplishing that
objective. The Council expressed concern that if the owners of large,
industrial-type vessels that process their catch could harvest IFQ
species with IFQ resulting from QS assigned to vessel categories B, C,
or D while processed fish is on board, these owners would acquire the
majority of the ``catcher vessel'' QS. The result would be an increase
in harvesting of IFQ species on large, industrial-type vessels that
process their catch and a decrease in harvesting of IFQ species on
small vessels that do not have processing capabilities. These small
vessels that do not have processing capabilities are more likely to
make landings at local coastal communities. The Council determined that
phasing out small vessels that do not have processing capabilities, and
which would not be able to compete with the large, industrial-type
vessels that process their catch for available IFQ, would have a
detrimental socio-economic impact on coastal communities. This is
especially true for halibut IFQ. Many coastal communities rely on the
delivery of halibut harvested by persons operating small vessels that
do not have processing capabilities as a source of revenue.
Classification
An EA/RIR was prepared for this proposed rule that describes the
management background, the purpose and need for action, the management
action alternatives, and the social impacts of the alternatives. The
EA/RIR estimates the total number of small entities affected by this
action, and analyzes the economic impact on those small entities. Based
on the analysis, it was determined that this proposed rule does not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, and the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and
Regulation of the Department of Commerce so certified to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. The EA/RIR
also supports the finding of no significant impact on the human
environment by this action. Copies of the EA/RIR can be obtained from
NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
This proposed rule will not change the collection of information
approved by the Office of Management and Budget, OMB Control Number
0648-0272, for the Pacific halibut and sablefish IFQ Program.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of E.O. 12866.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 676
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 14549]]
Dated: March 27, 1996.
Charles Karnella,
Acting Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 676 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 676--LIMITED ACCESS MANAGEMENT OF FEDERAL FISHERIES IN AND OFF
OF ALASKA
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 676 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq. and 1801 et seq.
2. Section 676.11 is amended by removing the definitions of
``Catcher vessel'' and ``Freezer vessel'' and by adding the definition
of ``Processing'', in alphabetical order, to read as follows:
Sec. 676.11 Definitions.
* * * * *
Processing, or to process, means the preparation of fish to render
it suitable for human consumption, industrial uses, or long-term
storage, including but not limited to cooking, canning, smoking,
salting, drying, freezing, or rendering into meal or oil, but does not
mean icing, bleeding, heading, or gutting.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 676.16 paragraph (o) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 676.16 General prohibitions.
* * * * *
(o) Have processed and unprocessed IFQ species on board a vessel
during the same trip except when fishing exclusively with IFQ derived
from vessel category A quota shares.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 676.20 paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 676.20 Individual allocations.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) Vessel categories. Quota shares assigned to vessel categories
include:
(i) Category A quota share, which authorizes an IFQ cardholder to
catch and process IFQ species on a vessel of any length;
(ii) Category B quota share, which authorizes an IFQ cardholder to
catch IFQ species on a vessel greater than 60 ft (18.3 m) in length
overall;
(iii) Category C quota share, which authorizes an IFQ cardholder to
catch IFQ sablefish on a vessel less than or equal to 60 ft (18.3 m) in
length overall, or which authorizes an IFQ cardholder to catch IFQ
halibut on a vessel greater than 35 ft (10.7 m) but less than or equal
to 60 ft (18.3 m) in length overall; and
(iv) Category D quota share, which authorizes an IFQ cardholder to
catch IFQ halibut on a vessel less than or equal to 35 ft (10.7 m) in
length overall.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 676.21 paragraphs (f) and (g) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 676.21 Transfer of QS and IFQ.
* * * * *
(f) Transfer restrictions. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)
or paragraph (f)(2) of this section, only persons who are IFQ crew
members, or that were initially assigned QS assigned to vessel
categories B, C, or D, and meet the other requirements in this section
may receive QS assigned to vessel categories B, C, or D.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(3) of this section, only
persons who are IFQ crew members may receive QS assigned to vessel
categories B, C, or D in IFQ regulatory area 2C for halibut or in the
IFQ regulatory area east of 140 deg. W. long. for sablefish.
(3) Individuals who were initially issued QS assigned to vessel
categories B, C, or D may transfer that QS to a corporation that is
solely owned by the same individual. Such transfers of QS assigned to
vessel categories B, C, or D in IFQ regulatory area 2C for halibut or
in the IFQ regulatory area east of 140 deg. W. long. for sablefish are
governed by the use provisions of Sec. 676.22(i); the use provisions
pertaining to corporations at Sec. 676.22(j) do not apply in this
situation.
(4) The Regional Director will not approve an Application for
Transfer of QS assigned to vessel categories B, C, or D subject to a
lease or any other condition of repossession or resale by the person
transferring QS, except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section,
or by court order, operation of law, or as part of a security
agreement. The Regional Director may request a copy of the sales
contract or other terms and conditions of transfer between two persons
as supplementary information to the transfer application.
(g) Leasing QS (applicable until January 2, 1998). A person may not
use IFQ resulting from a QS lease for harvesting halibut or sablefish
until an Application for Transfer complying with the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section and the lease agreement are approved by
the Regional Director. A person may lease no more than 10 percent of
that person's total QS assigned to vessel categories B, C, or D for any
IFQ species in any IFQ regulatory area to one or more persons for any
fishing year. After approving the Application for Transfer, the
Regional Director will change any IFQ accounts affected by an approved
QS lease and issue all necessary IFQ permits. QS leases must comply
with all transfer requirements specified in this section. All leases
expire on December 31 of the calendar year for which they are approved.
* * * * *
6. In Sec. 676.22 paragraph (i), paragraph (j) introductory text,
paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(4) are revised, and paragraph (k) is added to
read as follows:
Sec. 676.22 Limitations on use of QS and IFQ.
* * * * *
(i) Use of IFQ resulting from QS assigned to vessel categories B,
C, or D by individuals. In addition to the requirements of paragraph
(c) of this section, IFQ cards issued for IFQ resulting from QS
assigned to vessel categories B, C, or D must be used only by the
individual who holds the QS from which the associated IFQ is derived,
except as provided in paragraph (i)(1) of this section.
(1) An individual who receives an initial allocation of QS assigned
to vessel categories B, C, or D does not have to be aboard and sign IFQ
landing reports if that individual owns the vessel on which IFQ
sablefish or halibut are harvested, and is represented on the vessel by
a master employed by the individual who received the initial allocation
of QS.
(2) The exemption provided in paragraph (i)(1) of this section does
not apply to individuals who receive an initial allocation of QS
assigned to vessel categories B, C, or D for halibut in IFQ regulatory
area 2C or for sablefish QS in the IFQ regulatory area east of 140 deg.
W. long., and this exemption is not transferrable.
(j) Use of IFQ resulting from QS assigned to vessel categories B,
C, or D by corporations and partnerships. A corporation or partnership
that receives an initial allocation of QS assigned to vessel categories
B, C, or D may use the IFQ resulting from that QS and any additional QS
acquired within the limitations of this section provided the
corporation or partnership owns the vessel on which its IFQ is used,
and it is represented on the vessel by a master employed by the
corporation or partnership that received the initial allocation of QS.
This provision is not transferrable and does not apply to QS assigned
to vessel categories B, C, or D for halibut in IFQ regulatory area 2C
or for sablefish in the IFQ regulatory area east of 140 deg. W. long.
that is transferred to a corporation or partnership. Such transfers of
additional QS within these areas must be to an individual pursuant to
Sec. 676.21(b) and be used pursuant to paragraphs (c) and (i) of this
section.
[[Page 14550]]
(1) A corporation or partnership, except for a publicly-held
corporation, that receives an initial allocation of QS assigned to
vessel categories B, C, or D loses the exemption provided under
paragraph (j) of this section on the effective date of a change in the
corporation or partnership from that which existed at the time of
initial allocation.
* * * * *
(4) QS assigned to vessel categories B, C, or D and IFQ resulting
from that QS held in the name of a corporation or partnership that
changes, as defined in this paragraph (j), must be transferred to an
individual, as prescribed in Sec. 676.21 before it may be used at any
time after the effective date of the change.
(k) Processing of fish other than IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish.
Fish other than IFQ halibut or IFQ sablefish may be processed on a
vessel on which persons:
(1) Are authorized to harvest IFQ halibut or IFQ sablefish based on
allocations of IFQ resulting from QS assigned to vessel category A; or
(2) Are authorized to harvest IFQ sablefish based on allocations of
IFQ resulting from QS assigned to vessel categories B or C unless any
person aboard the vessel is authorized to harvest IFQ halibut based on
allocations of IFQ resulting from QS assigned to vessel categories B,
C, or D.
[FR Doc. 96-7988 Filed 3-28-96; 3:46 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7985 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14515-14517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7985]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 92-NM-71-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of
comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document revises an earlier proposed airworthiness
directive (AD), applicable to certain Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 series
airplanes, that would have required reinforcing the lower right-hand
wing skin at the fueling adapter. That proposal was prompted by results
of tests, which revealed that fatigue cracks can develop in the lower
right-hand wing skin at the attachment bolt holes of the fueling
adapter. This action revises the proposed rule by citing the latest
service information. This action also revises the applicability of the
proposed AD. The actions specified by this proposed AD are intended to
prevent reduced structural capability of the wing and fuel leakage.
DATES: Comments must be received by April 26, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 92-NM-71-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Fokker Aircraft USA, Inc., 1199 North Fairfax Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314. This information may be examined at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth E. Harder, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-1721; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 92-NM-71-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 92-NM-71-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 39) to add an airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to
certain Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 series airplanes, was published as a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register on June 4,
1992 (57 FR 23552). That NPRM would have required reinforcing the lower
right-hand wing skin at the fueling adapter. That NPRM was prompted by
results of tests, which revealed that fatigue cracks can develop in the
lower right-hand wing skin at the attachment bolt holes of the fueling
adapter. That condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced
[[Page 14516]]
structural capability of the wing and fuel leakage.
Since the issuance of that NPRM, Fokker issued Service Bulletin
SBF100-57-008, Revision 1, dated March 29, 1992, and Revision 2, dated
September 22, 1995. (The original issue of the service bulletin, dated
November 1, 1991, was cited in the NPRM as the appropriate source of
service information.) Revision 1 of the service bulletin provides
procedures for reinforcing the lower right-hand wing skin at the
fueling adapter that are significantly revised beyond the procedures
specified in the original issue of the service bulletin. Revision 2 of
the service bulletin provides additional procedures for reinforcement
that include installation of eight hilok bolts and cold sleeve
expansion of the fueling adapter attachment holes. In addition, the
effectivity of Revision 2 has been revised to include additional
airplanes that are subject to the addressed unsafe condition; certain
other airplanes have been removed from the effectivity listing.
The Rijksluchtvaartdienst (RLD), which is the airworthiness
authority for the Netherlands, classified these service bulletins as
mandatory, and issued Dutch airworthiness directive BLA 1991-131/3 (A),
dated October 31, 1995, in order to assure the continued airworthiness
of these airplanes in the Netherlands.
The FAA examined the findings of the RLD and reviewed the revised
service information. The FAA finds that the NPRM must be revised to
require that the reinforcement be accomplished in accordance with
Revision 2 of the service bulletin. Paragraph (a) of this supplemental
NPRM has been revised accordingly. In addition, a note has been added
to this supplemental NPRM to specify that no further action is required
for airplanes on which the reinforcement has been accomplished in
accordance with Revision 1 of the service bulletin prior to the
effective date of this proposed AD.
In addition, the applicability of the proposed AD has been revised
to include additional airplanes that are subject to the addressed
unsafe condition and to remove certain other airplanes.
Since these changes expand the scope of the originally proposed
rule, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment
period to provide additional opportunity for public comment.
The FAA also has revised the economic impact information, below, to
reflect the current number of airplanes of U.S. registry that would be
affected by this proposed AD. This information also has been revised to
reflect an increase in the cost for required parts from $880 to $950
per airplane based on the latest information from the manufacturer.
Additionally, the labor rate used in these calculations has been
increased from $55 per work hour to $60 per work hour to account for
the various inflationary costs in the airline industry.
The FAA estimates that 18 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 20 work
hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost
approximately $950 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost
impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $38,700,
or $2,150 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in
the future if this AD were not adopted.
However, the FAA has been advised that 14 U.S.-registered airplanes
have already been modified in accordance with the requirements of this
proposed AD. Therefore, the future economic cost impact of this
proposed rule on U.S. operators is now only $8,600.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Fokker: Docket 92-NM-71-AD.
Applicability: Model F28 Mark 0100 series airplanes; serial
numbers 11244 through 11286 inclusive, 11289, 11290 through 11293
inclusive, 11295, 11297, 11300, 11303, 11306, 11308, 11310, and
11312; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent reduced structural capability of the wing and fuel
leakage, accomplish the following:
(a) Prior to the accumulation of 12,000 total landings, or
within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later, reinforce the lower right-hand wing skin at the fueling
adapter by installing a new stringer and new internal and external
doubler plates, in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-
57-008, Revision 2, dated September 22, 1995.
Note 2: Accomplishment of the reinforcement in accordance with
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-57-008, Revision 1, dated March 29,
1992, prior to the effective date of this AD is acceptable for
compliance with the requirement of paragraph (a) of this AD.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA,
[[Page 14517]]
Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 27, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-7985 Filed 4-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7979 Export of River Otters Taken in Missouri in the 1996-97 and Subsequent Seasons
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14543-14547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7979]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 23
RIN 1018-AD63
Export of River Otters Taken in Missouri in the 1996-97 and
Subsequent Seasons
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) regulates international trade in certain
animal and plant species. Exports of animals and plants listed on
Appendix II of CITES require an export permit from the country of
origin. As a general rule, export permits are only issued after two
conditions are met. First, the exporting country's CITES Scientific
Authority must advise the permit-issuing CITES Management Authority
that such exports will not be detrimental to the survival of the
species. This advice is known as a ``no-detriment'' finding. Second,
the Management Authority must make a determination that the animals or
plants were not obtained in violation of laws for their protection. If
live specimens are being exported, the Management Authority must also
determine that the specimens are being shipped in a humane manner with
minimal risk of injury or damage to health.
The purpose of this proposed rule-making is to announce proposed
findings by the Scientific and Management Authorities of the United
States on the export of river otters harvested in the State of
Missouri, and to add Missouri to the list of States and Indian Nations
for which the export of river otters is approved. The Service intends
to apply these findings to harvests in Missouri during the 1996-97
season and subsequent seasons, subject to the conditions applying to
approved States.
DATES: The Service will consider comments received on or before June 3,
1996 in making its final determination on this proposal.
ADDRESSES: Please send correspondence concerning this proposed rule to
the Office of Scientific Authority; Room 725 (Room 750 for express and
messenger-delivered mail), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North
Fairfax Drive; Arlington, Virginia 22203. Comments and materials
received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Arlington Square
Building, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scientific Authority Finding--Dr.
Marshall A. Howe, Office of Scientific Authority; phone 703-358-1708;
FAX 703-358-2276.
Management Authority Findings/State Export Programs--Ms. Carol
Carson, Office of Management Authority; Mail Stop: Arlington Square,
Room 420c; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Washington, DC 20240 (phone
703-358-2095; FAX 703-358-2280).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 5, 1984 (49 FR 590), the Service
published a rule granting export approval for river otters and certain
other CITES-listed species of furbearing mammals from specified States
and Indian Nations and Tribes for the 1983-84 and subsequent harvest
seasons. In succeeding years, approval for export of one or more
species of furbearers has been granted to other States and Indian
Nations, Tribes, or Reservations through the rule-making process. These
approvals were and continue to be subject to certain population
monitoring and export requirements. The purpose of this notice is to
announce proposed findings by the Scientific and Management Authorities
of the United States on the proposed export of river otters, Lontra
canadensis, harvested in the State of Missouri, and to add Missouri to
the list of States and Indian Nations for which the export of river
otters is approved. The Service proposes these findings for the export
of specimens harvested in the State of Missouri during the 1996-97
season and subsequent seasons, subject to the conditions applying to
other approved entities.
CITES regulates import, export, re-export, and introduction from
the sea of certain animal and plant species. Species for which the
trade is controlled are included in three appendices. Appendix I
includes species threatened with extinction that are or may be affected
by trade. Appendix II includes species that, although not necessarily
now threatened with extinction, may become so unless trade in them is
strictly controlled. It also lists species that must be subject to
regulation in order that trade in other currently or potentially
threatened species may be brought under effective control (e.g.,
because of difficulty in distinguishing specimens of currently or
potentially threatened species from those of other species). Appendix
III includes species that any Party identifies as being subject to
regulation within its jurisdiction for purposes of preventing or
restricting exploitation, and for which it needs the cooperation of
other Parties to control trade.
In the January 5, 1984, Federal Register (49 FR 590), the Service
announced the results of a review of listed species at the Fourth
Conference of the CITES Parties that certain species of furbearing
mammals, including the river otter, should be regarded as listed in
Appendix II of CITES because of similarity in appearance to other
listed species or geographically separate populations. The January 5,
1984, document described how the Service, as Scientific Authority,
planned to monitor
[[Page 14544]]
annually the population and trade status of each of these species and
to institute restrictive export controls if prevailing export levels
appeared to be contributing to a trend of long-term population decline.
The document also described how the Service, as Management Authority,
would require States to assure that specimens entering trade are marked
with approved, serially unique tags as evidence that they had been
legally acquired.
Scientific Authority Findings
Article IV of CITES requires that, before a permit to export a
specimen of a species included in Appendix II can be granted by the
Management Authority of an exporting country, the Scientific Authority
must advise ``that such export will not be detrimental to the survival
of that species.'' The Scientific Authority for the United States must
develop such advice, known as a no-detriment finding, for the export of
Appendix II animals in accordance with Section 8A(c)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (the Act). The Act states
that the Secretary of the Interior is required to base export
determinations and advice ``upon the best available biological
information derived from professionally accepted wildlife management
practices; but is not required to make, or require any State to make,
estimates of population size in making such determinations or giving
such advice.''
The river otter is managed by the wildlife agencies of individual
States or Indian Nations. Most States and Indian Nations from which the
Service has approved the export of river otters in 1983-84 and
subsequent seasons were identified in the January 5, 1984, Federal
Register (49 FR 590) and listed in 50 CFR 23.53. The State of Tennessee
was approved administratively for the 1994-95 season and through a
rulemaking for 1995-96 and subsequent seasons (61 FR 2454, January 26,
1996). Each export-approved State or Indian Nation in which this animal
is harvested has a program to regulate the harvest. Based on
information received from the State of Missouri, the Service proposes
adding that State to the list of States and Indian Nations approved for
export of river otters.
Given that the river otter is listed on Appendix II of CITES
primarily because of similarity of appearance to other listed species
in need of rigorous trade controls, an important component of the no-
detriment finding by the Scientific Authority is consideration of the
impact of river otter trade on the status of these other species. The
Scientific Authority has determined that the dual practice of (1)
issuing export permits naming the species being traded and (2) marking
pelts with tags bearing the name of the species, country and State of
origin, year of harvest, and a unique serial number, is sufficient to
eliminate potential problems of confusion with, and therefore risk to,
other listed species (see Management Authority Findings for tag
specifications).
In addition to considering the effect of trade on species or
populations other than those being exported from the United States, the
Service will regularly examine information on river otters in the State
of Missouri to determine if there is a population decline that might
warrant more restrictive export controls. This monitoring and
assessment will follow the same procedures adopted for other States and
Indian Nations. As part of this monitoring program, the States and
Indian Nations that have been approved for export of river otters are
requested annually to certify that the best available biological
information derived from professionally accepted wildlife management
practices indicates that harvest of river otters during the forthcoming
season will not be detrimental to the survival of the species.
Whenever available information from the States or other sources
indicates a possible problem in a particular State, the Scientific
Authority will conduct a comprehensive review of accumulated
information to determine whether conclusions about the treatment of
these species as listed for similarity of appearance need to be
adjusted in the State.
Originally a common resident of Missouri, river otters were nearly
extirpated from the State between 1860 and 1910. Seventy animals were
estimated to survive in the southeastern part of Missouri by the mid-
1930's. Because most significant habitat change has occurred more
recently, it is believed that this early population decline was a
consequence of unregulated harvest. Although legal protection for the
species was established in 1937, the species did not begin to stage a
recovery until a reintroduction program was initiated in 1982. Between
1982 and 1993, 845 river otters obtained from Louisiana, Arkansas, and
Ontario were released in 13 of 14 major watersheds in Missouri. All
otters were marked with ear and web tags to maximize reporting rate of
encounters and to facilitate monitoring of reproductive success.
During the experimental release program, the following management
procedures were implemented: (a) restrictive beaver-trapping
regulations to reduce incidental catch of otters in the vicinity of
release sites, (b) routine examination of carcasses recovered, (c)
winter aerial surveys for otter sign (tracks, slides), (d) distribution
of forms for reporting incidental sightings of otters for use
statewide, and (e) a radiotelemetry study to monitor movements and
survival of released animals.
In the population of 31 radio-tagged animals released at two sites
between 1982 and 1984, annual survival rate was determined to be 81
percent. Since 1987, 255 (96 percent) of 266 otters reported trapped
incidental to other trapping operations were untagged, suggesting that
animals tagged and released were also reproducing successfully.
Examination of female carcasses recovered during this program indicated
an average litter size of 2.5, comparable to average litter sizes in
other studies. Using this information, supplemented by estimates of
age-specific pregnancy rates based on studies of other populations, a
population modelling exercise was conducted for each watershed in which
otters were released. Application of the model yielded a statewide
population estimate of 2,500 river otters in watersheds where releases
were made (3,000 to 3,200 for the entire State, including the
southeastern sector) in the spring of 1995. Using the same model and
assuming a harvest rate of 10 percent and a constant rate of population
growth, populations in the release areas in year 2000 were projected
based on two competing scenarios: (a) That all trapping mortality is
offset by declines in other mortality sources (compensatory mortality)
and (b) that all trapping mortality is additive to other mortality
sources (additive mortality). In scenario (a) the population increases
from 2,500 to 5,900 by the year 2000 and in scenario (b), after a brief
decline, it increases from 2,500 to 3,300. The true population
trajectory is likely to lie between these two model projections.
Except for the immediate vicinities of the Missouri and Mississippi
Rivers, and the largely cleared bottomland hardwood forest habitats of
the southeastern sector, there appears to be adequate aquatic habitat
in Missouri to support a growing river otter population. There are
15,700 miles of smaller permanent streams and an additional 39,600
miles of intermittent streams. There are also hundreds of thousands of
acres of natural and impounded wetlands of various sizes.
When harvest is legalized, all otters taken by trappers in Missouri
will be subject to mandatory pelt registration,
[[Page 14545]]
and the Department of Conservation will tag all commercial pelts with
CITES export tags. Skulls and carcasses will be obtained from willing
fur buyers and dealers and cooperating trappers. These procedures will
allow the size, demography, and geographic sources of the river otter
harvest to be monitored. The State also intends to continue winter
aerial surveys and compare results of population modelling with
population indices derived from the surveys and from harvest patterns
and sighting reports. Analysis of these data should detect population
declines symptomatic of either an unhealthy population or overharvest
in time to take corrective action through regulatory adjustments or
other means.
Based upon (a) the above biological information provided by the
Missouri Department of Conservation, (b) the existence of a harvest
management infrastructure for managing and enforcing harvest
regulations, and (c) the determination that permitting and tagging
requirements will eliminate the possibility that other similar-
appearing, CITES-listed species in trade will be misrepresented as
river otters, the Service proposes to issue Scientific Authority advice
in favor of export of river otters harvested in 1996-97 and subsequent
seasons from Missouri.
Management Authority Findings
Exports of Appendix II species are allowed under CITES only if the
Management Authority is satisfied that the specimens were not obtained
in contravention of laws for the protection of the involved species.
The Service, therefore, must be satisfied that the river otter pelts,
hides, or products being exported were not obtained in violation of
State, Indian Nation, Tribal, Reservation, or Federal law in order to
allow export. Evidence of legal taking for Alaskan gray wolf, Alaskan
brown or grizzly bear, American alligator, bobcat, lynx, and river
otter is provided by State or tribal tagging programs. The Service
annually contracts for the manufacture and delivery of special CITES
animal-hide tags for export-qualified States and Indian Nations,
Tribes, and Reservations. The Service has adopted the following export
requirements for the 1983-84 and subsequent seasons:
(1) Current State or Indian Nation, Tribe, or Reservation hunting,
trapping, and tagging regulations and sample tags must be on file with
the Office of Management Authority;
(2) The tags must be durable and permanently locking and must show
U.S.-CITES logo, State or Indian Nation, Tribe, or Reservation of
origin, year of take, species, and a unique serial number;
(3) The tag must be attached to all pelts taken within a minimum
time after take, as specified by the State and Indian regulation, and
such time should be as short as possible to minimize movement of
untagged pelts;
(4) The tag must be permanently attached as authorized and
prescribed by the State or Indian regulation;
(5) Takers/dealers who are licensed/registered by States or Indian
Nations, Tribes, or Reservations must account for tags received and
must return unused tags to the State or Indian Nation, Tribe, or
Reservation within a specified time after the taking season closes;
and,
(6) Fully manufactured fur (or hide) products may be exported from
the United States only when the CITES export tags, removed from the
hides used to make the product being exported, are surrendered to the
Service prior to export.
Proposed Export Decision
The Service proposes to approve exports of Missouri river otters
harvested during the 1996-97 or subsequent harvest seasons on the
grounds that both Scientific Authority and Management Authority
criteria have been satisfied.
Comments Solicited
The Service requests comments on these proposed findings and the
proposed rulemaking adding Missouri to the list of States approved for
export of river otters. The final decision on this proposed rule will
take into account comments received and any additional information
received. Such consideration may lead to findings different from those
presented in this proposal.
Effects of the Rule and Required Determinations
The Department has previously determined (48 FR 37494, August 18,
1983) that the export of river otters of various States and Indian
Tribes or Nations, taken in the 1983-84 and subsequent harvest seasons,
is not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the
quality of the human environment under the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). This action is covered under an
existing Departmental categorical exclusion for amendments to approved
actions when such changes have no potential for causing substantial
environmental impact.
This proposed rule was not subject to Office of Management and
Budget review under Executive Order 12866 and will not have significant
economic effects on a substantial number of small entities as outlined
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
the existing rule treats exports on a State-by-State and Indian Nation-
by-Indian Nation basis and proposes to approve export in accordance
with a State or Indian Nation, Tribe, or Reservation management
program, the proposed rule will have little effect on small entities in
and of itself. The proposed rule will allow continued international
trade in river otters from the United States in accordance with CITES,
and it does not contain any Federalism impacts as described in
Executive Order 12612.
This proposed rule has been examined under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 and has been found to contain no information collection
requirements.
This proposed rule is issued under authority of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The authors
are Marshall A. Howe, Office of Scientific Authority, and Carol Carson,
Office of Management Authority.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 23
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Treaties.
PART 23--ENDANGERED SPECIES CONVENTION
Accordingly, the Service proposes to amend Part 23 of Title 50,
Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for Part 23 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 27 U.S.T. 1087; and Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
2. In Subpart F--Export of Certain Species, revise Sec. 23.53 to
read as follows:
Sec. 23.53 River otter (Lontra canadensis).
States for which the export of the indicated season's harvest may
be permitted under Sec. 23.15 of this part:
(a) States and Harvest Seasons Approved for Export of River Otter
From the United States.
[[Page 14546]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1983-84 and 1995-96 and 1996-97 and
1977-78 \1\ 1978-79 \2\ 1979-80 \3\ 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 future future future
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Alaska............................................................ + + + + + + + + +
Arkansas.......................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Connecticut....................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Delaware.......................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Florida........................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Georgia........................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Louisiana......................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Maine............................................................. Q + + + + + + + +
Maryland.......................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Massachusetts..................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Michigan.......................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Minnesota......................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Mississippi....................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Missouri.......................................................... - - - - - - - - +
Montana........................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
New Hampshire..................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
New Jersey........................................................ - - - - - + + + +
New York.......................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
North Carolina.................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Oregon............................................................ Q + + + + + + + +
Penobscot Nation.................................................. - - - - - - + + +
Rhode Island...................................................... Q + - - - - - - -
South Carolina.................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Tennessee......................................................... - - - - - - - + * +
Vermont........................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Virginia.......................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Washington........................................................ Q + + + + + + + +
Wisconsin......................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For further information see 42 FR 43729, Aug. 30, 1977; 43 FR 11081, Mar. 16, 1978; and 43 FR 29469, July 7, 1978.
\2\ For further information see 43 FR 11096, Mar. 16, 1978; 43 FR 13913, Apr. 3, 1978; 43 FR 15097, Apr. 10, 1978; 43 FR 29469, July 7, 1978; 43 FR 35013, Aug. 7, 1978; 43 FR 36293, Aug. 16,
1978; and 43 FR 39305, Sept. 1, 1978.
\3\ For further information see 44 FR 25383, Apr. 30, 1979; 44 FR 31583, May 31, 1979; 44 FR 40842, July 12, 1979; 44 FR 52289, Sept. 7, 1979; and 44 FR 55540, Sept. 26, 1979.
Q Export approved with quota.
+ Export approved.
- Export not approved.
* Export for 1994-95 approved administratively.
[[Page 14547]]
(b) Condition on export: Each pelt must be clearly identified as to
species, State of origin and season of taking by a permanently
attached, serially numbered tag of a type approved by the Service and
attached under conditions established by the Service. Exception to
tagging requirement: finished furs and fully manufactured fur products
may be exported from the U.S. when the State export tags, removed from
the pelts used to manufacture the product being exported, are
surrendered to the Service before export. Such tags must be removed by
cutting the tag straps on the female side next to the locking socket of
the tag, so that the locking socket and locking tip remain joined.
Dated: February 21, 1996.
Geroge T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 96-7979 Filed 4-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7957 Safety Zone; Tampa Bay, Hillsborough Bay and Approaches, FL
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14518-14520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7957]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[COTP TAMPA 95-016]
RIN 2115-AA97
Safety Zone; Tampa Bay, Hillsborough Bay and Approaches, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish regulations
governing the movement of vessels with a beam greater than 110 feet
within Tampa Bay and Hillsborough Bay, Florida and their approaches. In
view of the safety hazards to the harbor, vessels and structures
associated with wide beam
[[Page 14519]]
vessels, the Coast Guard deems it necessary to control the movement of
these vessels and to establish safety zones surrounding these vessels
in prescribed areas under certain conditions. The purpose of this
action is to establish regulations governing vessel movement procedures
that were previously implemented on a case by case basis with Captain
of the Port Orders. By establishing this proposed permanent rule
companies would be aware of the scheduled wide beam transits and would
be able to adjust their movements accordingly and avoid incidents that
pose safety hazards.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Commanding Officer, Marine
Safety Office Tampa, 155 Columbia Drive, Tampa, Florida, 33606-3598.
The comments will be available for inspection and copying at 155
Columbia Drive, Tampa, Florida, telephone (813) 228-2189. Normal office
hours are between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. Comments may also be hand-delivered to that address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Dirk A. Greene, Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Tampa at
(813) 228-2189.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By establishing a permanent rule, the Coast
Guard will enhance public notice of the rule. Companies aware of
scheduled wide beam transits can adjust movements of their vessels to
avoid incidents that pose safety hazards. Interested persons are
invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written views,
data or arguments. Persons submitting comments should include their
names and addresses, identify this notice (COTP Tampa 95-016) and the
specific section of the proposal to which their comments apply, and
give reasons for each comment. Receipt of comments will be acknowledged
if a stamped self-addressed postcard or envelope is enclosed. All
comments received before the expiration of the comment period will be
considered before final action is taken on this proposal. The proposed
rule may be changed in light of the comments received. No public
hearing is planned, but one may be held if written requests for a
hearing are received and it is determined that the opportunity to make
oral presentations will aid the rulemaking process.
Discussion of Proposed Regulations
Wide beam vessels are defined as all vessels with a beam of 110
feet or greater, with drafts restricting them to narrow ship channels.
Historically, these vessels have posed added safety hazards to the
harbor, vessels, and structures due to their limited ability to
maneuver in narrow channels, navigate sharp turns, and pass other large
vessels within Tampa Bay, Hillsborough Bay and approaches. In order to
reduce the likelihood of any adverse incidents associated with the
passage of these vessels in Tampa Bay, Hillsborough Bay and their
approaches, the Coast Guard proposes that moving safety zones be
implemented around all such vessels in these areas. The proposed moving
safety zone would consist of an area around the vessel the width of the
channel and 1000 yards fore and aft of the vessel. The safety zone
would be in effect as the inbound wide beam passes Mullet Key Channel
buoy 23 and 24 and would remain in effect until the vessel is moored.
The proposed safety zone would be in effect anytime the vessel is
underway intrabay until the vessel passes Mullet Key Channel buoy 23
and 24 outbound. The precaution of a moving safety zone is deemed
necessary, because vessels with a wide beam have limited ability to
take evasive action when operating within the confines of the main ship
channel. The likelihood of collision would be minimized by eliminating
meeting, overtaking or crossing situations in the affected channels.
Vessels would not be permitted to meet or overtake the wide beam vessel
while it is underway. By establishing these proposed moving safety
zones, the Coast Guard expects to minimize the risk of collision on the
Tampa Bay, Hillsborough Bay and approaches.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that order. It has been exempted from review by the Office of
Management and Budget under that order. It is not significant under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation
(DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the
economic impact of this proposal to be so minimal that a full
Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies
and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. The conditions outlined herein
for moving wide beam vessels in Tampa Bay have been followed through
utilization of Captain of the Port Orders for at least five (5) years.
Since the impact of this proposed rule is expected to be minimal,
the Coast Guard certifies that it will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Collection of Information
This rule contains no collection-of-information requirements under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that
this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environmental Assessment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this
action and has determined pursuant to Section 2.B.2. of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1B that this action is categorically excluded from
further environmental documentation. A Categorical Exclusion
Determination and Environmental Analysis Checklist are available in the
docket for inspection or copying.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
Proposed Regulations
In consideration of the foregoing, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend Part 165 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g),
6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
Sec. 165.754 Tampa Bay, Hillsborough Bay and Approaches, FL.
(a) A moving safety zone is established around any vessel
restricted to the channel with a beam exceeding 110 feet during its
transit of Tampa Bay and Hillsborough Bay. The moving safety zone
consists of an area around the vessel the width of the channel and 1000
yards fore and aft of the vessel.
(1) The safety zone is established when a wide beam vessel passes
Mullet Key Channel buoys 23 and 24 (LLNR 1445 and LLNR 1446) inbound
and at all times when the vessel is under way within Tampa Bay and
Hillsborough Bay.
(2) The safety zone is disestablished when the wide beam vessel
passes
[[Page 14520]]
Mullet Key Channel buoys 23 and 24 (LLNR 1445 and LLNR 1146) outbound.
(b) No vessel shall enter the safety zone without the permission of
the Captain of the Port Tampa.
(c) The general regulations governing safety zones contained in 33
CFR Sec. 165.23 apply.
(d) Any vessel with a beam greater than 110 feet shall give Coast
Guard Marine Safety Office Tampa a minimum of 24 hours notice of its
intended arrival, departure, and berth transfer within Tampa Bay.
(e) Marine Safety Office Tampa will notify the marine community of
periods during which a safety zone will be in effect by providing
advance notice of scheduled arrivals and departures of wide beam
vessels via a marine broadcast Notice to Mariners.
(f) If a vessel with a beam greater than 110 feet begins its
transit more than a hour and a half from the scheduled time stated in
the Broadcast Notice to Mariners, the vessel shall notify and obtain
permission from the Captain of the Port Tampa before commencing its
inbound or outbound transit, or departing its berth to shift to another
berth.
(g) The Captain of the Port Tampa may waive any of the requirements
of this section for any vessel upon finding that the vessel or class of
vessel, operational conditions, or other circumstances make the
application of this section unnecessary or impractical for purposes of
port safety or environmental protection.
Dated: March 19, 1996.
R.W. Harbert,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Tampa.
[FR Doc. 96-7957 Filed 4-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7950 Missouri Regulatory Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14517-14518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7950]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 925
[SPATS No. MO-029-FOR]
Missouri Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public
hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSM is announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the
Missouri regulatory program (hereinafter the ``Missouri program'')
under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).
The proposed Amendment consists of revisions to the Missouri statutes
pertaining to requirements and procedures for adoption of new or
amended rules. The amendment is intended to revise the Missouri program
to be consistent with the corresponding Federal regulations and SMCRA.
DATES: Written comments must be received by 4:00 p.m., c.d.t., May 2,
1996. If requested, a public hearing on the proposed amendment will be
held on April 29, 1996. Requests to speak at the hearing must be
received by 4:00 p.m., c.d.t., April 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and requests to speak at the hearing should
be mailed or hand delivered to Brent Wahlquist, Regional Director, Mid-
Continent Regional Coordinating Center, at the address listed below.
Copies of the Missouri program, the proposed amendment, a listing
of any scheduled public hearings, 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 copy of
the proposed amendment by contacting OSM's Mid-Continent Regional
Coordinating Center.
Brent Wahlquist, Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating
Center, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Alton
Federal Building, 501 Belle Street, Alton, Illinois, 62002, Telephone:
(618) 463-6460.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Land Reclamation Program, 205
Jefferson Street, P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City Missouri, 65102,
Telephone: (573) 751-4041.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brent Wahlquist, Regional Director,
Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center, Telephone: (618) 463-6460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Missouri Program
On November 21, 1980, the Secretary of Interior conditionally
approved the Missouri program. General background information on the
Missouri program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition
of comments, and the conditions of approval of the Missouri program can
be found in the November 21, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 77017).
Subsequent actions concerning Missouri's program and program amendments
can be found at 30 CFR 925.12, 925.25 and 925.16.
II. Description of the Proposed Amendment
By letter dated March 20, 1996 (Administrative Record No. MO-637),
Missouri submitted a proposed amendment to its program pursuant to
SMCRA. Missouri submitted the proposed amendment at its own initiative.
The proposed amendment concerns changes to the Missouri Surface Coal
Mining Law contained in Senate Bill No. 3. The provisions of the
Revised Statutes of Missouri (RSMo) that Missouri proposes to amend are
discussed below.
1. RSMo 444.800.5 Rules May Be Suspended and Reinstated
Missouri proposes to remove the provision at RSMo 444.800.5
concerning the authority of the joint committee on administrative rules
to suspend and reinstate a rule based upon specified circumstances.
2. RSMo 444.810.2 Powers of Commission
Missouri proposes to remove the existing provisions at RSMo
444.810.2 through 8 concerning requirements and procedures for adoption
of new or amended rules and to add the following new provision at RSMo
444.810.2.
No rule or portion of a rule promulgated under the authority of
sections 444.800 to 444.970 shall become effective unless it has
been promulgated pursuant to the provisions of section 536.024,
RSMo.
[[Page 14518]]
3. RSMo 444.950.2 Phase I Reclamation Bond Requirement
Missouri proposes to remove the existing provisions at RSMo
444.950.2 through 8 concerning requirements and procedures for adoption
of new or amended rules; to add the following new provision at RSMo
444.950.2; and to redesignate RSMo 444.950.9 through 11 as RSMo
444.950.3 through 5.
No rule or portion of a rule promulgated under the authority of
sections 444.800 to 444.970 shall become effective unless it has
been promulgated pursuant to the provisions of section 536.024,
RSMo.
4. Missouri also submitted a copy of Chapter 536 of RSMo,
Administrative Procedure and Review, which is referenced in the
proposed revisions to RSMo 444.810 and 444.950.
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 Missouri 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 Mid-Continent Regional
Coordinating Center 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.d.t., on April 17, 1996. If no one requests an opportunity to speak
at the public hearing, the hearing will not be held.
The location and time of the hearing will be arranged with those
persons requesting the hearing. 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. 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.
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.
Public Meeting
If only one person requests an opportunity to speak at a hearing, a
public hearing, 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 collection 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.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 925
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: March 26, 1996.
Charles E. Sandberg,
Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 96-7950 Filed 4-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7914 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; PennsylvaniaEmission Statement Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7914]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[PA028-5913b; FRL-5427-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania--Emission Statement Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This revision
consists of an emission statement program for stationary sources that
emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and/or nitrogen oxides
(NOx) at or above specified actual emission threshold levels
within the County of Allegheny only. In the Final Rules section of this
Federal Register, EPA is approving the Pennsylvania's SIP revision as a
direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this
as a noncontroversial SIP revision 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
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. EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on
this action should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments must be received in writing by May 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Marcia L. Spink, Associate
Director, Air Programs, Mailcode 3AT00, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19107. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available
for public inspection during normal business hours at the EPA office
listed above; and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105; Allegheny County Health
Department, Bureau of Air Pollution Control, 301 39th Street,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto, (215) 597-3164, at the
EPA Region III address above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the Direct
Final action of the same title (Pennsylvania Emission Statement
Program) which is located in the Rules and Regulations section of this
Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: February 2, 1996.
W.T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 96-7914 Filed 4-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7912 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Tennessee; Revision to New Source Review, Construction and Operating Permit Requirements for Nashville/Davidson County
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14521-14522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7912]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TN-140-01-6910b: FRL-5443-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Tennessee; Revision to New Source Review, Construction and Operating
Permit Requirements for Nashville/Davidson County
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve revisions to the Nashville/
Davidson County portion of the Tennessee State Implementation Plan
(SIP), submitted by the State of Tennessee through the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation on September 27, 1994. These
include revisions to Nashville/Davidson County's new source review
(NSR) regulations, which were made to bring the Nashville/Davidson
County regulations into compliance with the 1990 amendments to the
Clean Air Act (the Act) and the Federal regulations. 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 proposed 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 document
should do so at this time.
DATES: To be considered, comments must be received by May 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Ms. Karen Borel, at
the Regional Office Address listed below.
Copies of the material submitted by the State of Tennessee may be
examined during normal business hours at the following locations:
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Programs Branch, 345
Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
Tennessee Division of Air Pollution Control, 9th Floor L&C Annex, 401
Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1531
Bureau of Environmental Health Services, Metropolitan Health
Department, Nashville-Davidson County, 311--23rd Avenue, North,
Nashville, Tennessee 37203.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Interested persons wanting to examine
documents relative to this action should
[[Page 14522]]
make an appointment with the Region 4 Air Programs Branch at least 24
hours before the visiting day. To schedule the appointment or to
request additional information, contact Karen C. Borel, Regulatory
Planning and Development Section, Air Programs Branch, Air, Pesticides
& Toxics Management Division, Region 4 EPA, 345 Courtland Street, NE,
Atlanta, Georgia 30365. The telephone number is 404/347-3555 extension
4197. Reference file TN140-01-6910.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the rules section of this Federal
Register.
Dated: March 4, 1996.
Phyllis P. Harris,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-7912 Filed 4-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7909 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Kentucky: Approval of Revisions to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7909]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[KY20-1-9612b; FRL-5447-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Kentucky:
Approval of Revisions to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to the Kentucky State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on June 15, 1983, by the
Commonwealth of Kentucky through the Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Cabinet (Cabinet). The revisions pertain to
Kentucky regulations 401 KAR 50:025, Classification of counties, and
401 KAR 61:015, Existing indirect heat exchangers. The purpose of these
revisions is to reclassify McCracken County from a Class I area to a
Class IA area, with respect to sulfur dioxide, and to allow a
relaxation of the sulfur dioxide emission limit in McCracken County.
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 EPA 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 proposed 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 document should do so at this time.
DATES: To be considered, comments must be received by May 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Scott M. Martin,
Regulatory Planning and Development Section, Air Programs Branch, Air,
Pesticides & Toxics Management Division, Region 4 Environmental
Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
Copies of the documents relative to this action 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.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington DC
20460.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Programs Branch, 345
Courtland Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Department
for Environmental Protection, Division for Air Quality 803 Schenkel
Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-1403.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Scott M. Martin, Regulatory
Planning and Development Section, Air Programs Branch, Air Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, Region 4 Environmental Protection
Agency, 345 Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30365. The
telephone number is (404) 347-3555 ext. 4216.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the rules section of this Federal
Register.
Dated: March 13, 1996.
Phyllis P. Harris,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-7909 Filed 4-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7906 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Indiana
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14520-14521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7906]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IN55-1-7076b; FRL-5435-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Indiana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USEPA proposes to approve the State implementation plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Indiana for 326 IAC 2-9-1 and
326 IAC 2-9-2 (a), (b), and (e) of its Source Specific Operating
Agreement (SSOA) regulation. The USEPA made a finding of completeness
in a letter dated November 25, 1994. These sections of the SSOA
regulation have been developed to establish federally enforceable
conditions for industrial or commercial surface coating operations,
graphic arts operations, or grain elevators by limiting potential
emissions below the title V major source threshold levels. In the final
rules section of this Federal Register, the USEPA is approving these
actions as a direct final rule without prior proposal because USEPA
views these as noncontroversial actions 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
that direct final rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation
to this proposed rule. If USEPA 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 the proposed rule. The
USEPA 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 on or before May
2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to: J. Elmer Bortzer,
Chief, Regulatory Development Section, Regulatory Development Branch
(AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Copies of the State submittal and USEPA's analysis of it are
available for inspection at: Regulatory Development Section, Regulatory
Development
[[Page 14521]]
Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sam Portanova, Environmental Engineer,
Permits and Grants Section, Regulatory Development Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-3189.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule published in the rules section of this Federal Register.
Dated: February 12, 1996.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-7906 Filed 4-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7905 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Illinois
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7905]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IL-18-6-6819b; FRL-5424-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Illinois
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 23, 1995, and June 7, 1995, the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA) submitted to the USEPA an adopted rule and
supporting information for the control of batch processes as a
requested State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision. This rule is part
of the State's control measures for volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions, for the Chicago and East St. Louis ozone nonattainment
areas, and is intended to satisfy part of the requirements of section
182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (Act) amendments of 1990. VOC is one of
the air pollutants which combine on hot summer days to form ground
level ozone, commonly known as smog. Ozone pollution is of particular
concern because of its harmful effects upon lung tissue and breathing
passages. This regulation requires a reasonably available control
technology (RACT) level of control as required by the amended ACT. This
action lists the State implementation plan revision that USEPA is
proposing to approve and provides an opportunity for public comment. A
rationale for approving this request is presented in the final rules
section of this Federal Register, where USEPA is approving the revision
request as a direct final rule without prior proposal because USEPA
views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse
comments. If no adverse comments are received in response to that
direct final rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation to
this proposed rule. If USEPA receives adverse comments the direct final
rule will be withdrawn. Any parties interested in commenting on this
notice should do so at this time. The final rule on this proposed
action will address all comments received.
DATES: Comments on this document must be received by May 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: J. Elmer Bortzer,
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Comments should be strictly limited to the subject matter of this
proposal.
Copies of the State submittal and USEPA's analysis of it are
available for inspection at: Regulation Development Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Air Programs Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, (312) 886-6052, at the
Chicago address indicated above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the rules section of this Federal
Register.
Dated: January 17, 1996.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-7905 Filed 4-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7900 Milk in the New York-New Jersey and Middle Atlantic Marketing Areas; Proposed Suspension of Certain Provisions of the Orders
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14514-14515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7900]
========================================================================
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. 61, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 2, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 14514]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 1002 and 1004
[DA-96-02]
Milk in the New York-New Jersey and Middle Atlantic Marketing
Areas; Proposed Suspension of Certain Provisions of the Orders
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed suspension of rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document invites written comments on a proposal to
suspend a pooling provision of the New York-New Jersey order and a
provision in the Middle Atlantic order's base-excess plan. The proposal
was submitted on behalf of several handlers (cooperative and
proprietary) who market the milk of dairy farmers who are located in a
common supply area and who have milk pooled under both orders.
Proponents contend that this suspension would enable them to assemble
and transport milk of producers more efficiently.
DATES: Comments are due no later than April 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments (two copies) should be filed with the USDA/AMS/
Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South Building,
P.O. Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gino M. Tosi, Marketing Specialist,
USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South
Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, (202) 690-1366.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601-612) requires the Agency to examine the impact of a proposed rule
on small entities. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator of
the Agricultural Marketing Service has certified that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This rule would lessen the regulatory impact
of the order on certain milk handlers and would tend to ensure that
dairy farmers would continue to have their milk priced under the order
and thereby receive the benefits that accrue from such pricing.
The Department is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with
Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have a retroactive
effect. If adopted, this proposed rule will not preempt any state or
local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an
irreconcilable conflict with the rule.
The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7
U.S.C. 601-674), provides that administrative proceedings must be
exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section
608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with
the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provisions of the
order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in
accordance with law and request a modification of an order or to be
exempted from the order. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a
hearing on the petition. After a hearing, the Secretary would rule on
the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United
States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has
its principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review
the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided a bill in equity is
filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the provisions of the
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act, the suspension of the following
provisions of the orders regulating the handling of milk in the New
York-New Jersey and Middle Atlantic marketing areas is being considered
through September 30, 1996, beginning on May 1, 1996:
1. In Sec. 1002.14 of the New York-New Jersey order, paragraph (d);
and
2. In Sec. 1004.92(c)of the Middle Atlantic order, the words ``and
who held such status in all or part of the 2 months of August and
September and who otherwise was a producer only under this part for all
of the remaining August through December period''.
All persons who want to submit written data, views or arguments
about the proposed suspension should send two copies of their views to
the USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South
Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, by the 10th day
after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
The comment period is limited to 10 days because a longer period
would not provide the time needed to complete the required procedures
before the requested suspension is to be effective.
All written submissions made pursuant to this notice will be made
available for public inspection in the Dairy Division during regular
business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)).
Statement of Consideration
This proposed action would suspend a pooling provision of the New
York-New Jersey (order 2) and a provision in the Middle Atlantic (Order
4) order's base-excess plan. The suspension would allow handlers
regulated under Order 2 and Order 4 to assemble and transport the milk
of dairy farmers more efficiently and thereby reduce costs. Suspension
of these provisions in the two orders would permit handlers to freely
shift the milk of individual dairy farmers between the two markets.
Proponents claim that this added flexibility would enable Order 2 and 4
handlers to furnish the fluid needs of bottling plants more
effectively. Handlers will be obligated to change the pooling status of
individual producers to achieve this efficiency, say the proponents.
Under the terms of Order 2, an individual dairy farmer's milk may
not be pool milk during the months of December through June if any of
the dairy farmer's milk was producer milk under another Federal order
in the preceding months of July through November. Under the Order 4
base-excess plan provisions, a dairy farmer's milk deliveries to
handlers regulated under Orders 2 and 4 during August and September
would be used to compute the producer's Order 4 base only if the dairy
farmer's milk was pooled on Order 4 during the remaining months
(October-December) of such base-forming period. Proponents contend that
suspending these order provisions would allow milk to be shifted to
Order 2 from Order 4 and would also allow Order 2 milk to be shifted to
Order 4
[[Page 14515]]
without negative consequences to producers.
Suspension of the foregoing provisions on Order 2 and 4 producers
would facilitate more efficient milk assembly and transportation in a
geographic area characterized by a significant overlap of milksheds and
pool plants, proponents claim.
Several handlers (cooperative and proprietary) who market the milk
of dairy farmers under Orders 2 and 4 requested the suspension.
Proponents ask that the provisions be suspended for the months of May
through September 1996.
In support of the action, proponents stated that the State of
Pennsylvania has become a common milkshed for Orders 2 and 4. In June
1995 there were 3,836 Pennsylvania dairy farmers pooled on Order 2 and
3,717 Pennsylvania producers pooled on Order 4. These dairy farmers
represented 37 percent of the total producers on Order 2 and 73 percent
of the total producers on Order 4. They produced 27 percent of the
Order 2 pool milk and 67 percent of the Order 4 producer receipts.
There is significant overlap of producers supplying the two markets in
the Pennsylvania counties of Lancaster, Lebanon, Chester, and Berks,
proponents stated.
Proponents also indicated in their request that a large percentage
of the milk that is picked up in the common supply area of Pennsylvania
is delivered to Order 4 fluid milk plants located at Wawa, Sunbury and
Fort Washington, Pennsylvania and Florence, New Jersey. Some of the
milk produced in this same area is delivered to the Order 2 pool plants
located at Lansdale and Reading.
Two proponent cooperatives (Atlantic Dairy Cooperative and Milk
Marketing, Inc.) and a proprietary handler, (Dietrich's Milk Products)
also a proponent of the suspension, have made plans to combine their
milk routes in Pennsylvania to assemble and haul the milk from farms
that are most advantageously located to plants where the milk is needed
for processing. The commingling of the milk supply of these three
handlers is scheduled to begin on May 1, 1996, which is the first month
the suspension is to be effective.
Accordingly, it may be appropriate to suspend the aforesaid
provisions from May 1, 1996 through September 30, 1996.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 1002 and 1004
Milk marketing orders.
The authority citation for 7 CFR Parts 1002 and 1004 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
Dated: March 27, 1996.
Kenneth C. Clayton,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-7900 Filed 4-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.