issue-1996-04-05•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-05
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-05
issue-1996-04-05Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-05Proposed 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. 96-8536 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 67 (Friday, April 5, 1996)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 15208] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 96-8536] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 36 and 69 [CC Docket No. 96-45; DA-96-483] Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule: extension of time. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: On April 1, 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (``Commission'') released an Order (``Order'') extending the deadline for filing comments to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order Establishing Joint Board, released March 8, 1996 (CC Docket No. 96-45). Previously, comments were due April 8, 1996 and reply comments were due May 3, 1996. The Order extends the comment deadline to April 12, 1996 and extends the reply comment deadline to May 7, 1996. This extension will allow interested parties additional time to file comments and reply comments. DATES: Comments are due on or before April 12, 1996. Reply comments are due on or before May 7, 1996. ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah A. Dupont, Senior Attorney, 202 418-0850, Accounting and Audits Division, Common Carrier Bureau. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 8, 1996, the Federal Communications Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order Establishing Joint Board (``NPRM''), 61 FR 10,499 . The Commission sought comment on all matters discussed in that NPRM. The deadline for comments was April 8, 1996 and the deadline for reply comments was May 3, 1996. On April 1, 1996, the Commission released an Order that denied the joint request of the following groups for a thirty-day extension of both the comment deadline and the reply comment deadline: the Consumer Federation of America; Alliance for Community Media; American Library Association; Benton Foundation; Center for Media Information; Consortium for School Networking; National Education Association; National School Boards Association; People for the American Way Action Fund; United Church of Christ, Office of Communications; and United States Catholic Conference. However, the Order extends the comment period until April 12, 1996 and the reply comment period until May 7, 1996 for all interested parties. Federal Communications Commission. Kenneth P. Moran, Chief, Accounting and Audits Division, Common Carrier Bureau. [FR Doc. 96-8536 Filed 4-2-96; 4:21 pm] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8504 Occupational Exposure to 1,3-Butadiene
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 67 (Friday, April 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8504]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915 and 1926
[Docket No. H-041]
Occupational Exposure to 1,3-Butadiene
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.
ACTION: Proposed Rule; Extension of time to submit comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 8, 1996, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) reopened the record for the proposed revision of
the 1,3 Butadiene (BD) standard. (61 FR 9381, March xx, 1996). OSHA is
extending the comment period to allow additional time for parties to
address the issues raised in the document, including the joint labor/
industry recommendations of January 29, 1996. The labor/industry
agreement recommended that OSHA reduce the permissible exposure limits
and expanded on some provisions that were addressed in OSHA's 1990
proposal. (55 FR 32736, August 10, 1990).
DATES: Written comments must be postmarked by April 26, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments are to be submitted in quadruplicate to the Docket
Office, Docket No. H-041, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2634, 200
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. Telephone (202) 219-
7894. Written comments limited to 10 pages or less in length may also
be transmitted by facsimile to (202) 219-5046, provided the original
and 3 copies are sent to the Docket Office thereafter.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne C. Cyr, Office of Information and
Consumer Affairs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20210. Telephone (202) 219-8148. Copies of the labor/
industry recommendations and submissions to the record are available
for inspection and copying in the Docket Office. For electronic copies
of this notice, contact the Labor News Bulletin Board (202) 219-4784;
or OSHA's WebPage on the Internet at http://www.osha.gov/. For news
releases, fact sheets, and other short documents, contact OSHA FAX at
(900) 555-3400 at $1.50 per minute.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On August 10, 1990, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) published a notice of proposed rulemaking on BD.
(55 FR 32736). Following receipt of recommendations from a joint labor/
industry group, OSHA reopened the BD rulemaking record for 30 days,
until April 8, 1996, (61 FR 9381), in order to give the public
opportunity to comment. The notice reprinted the agreement and raised
issues related to its provisions along with some agency concerns.
Representatives of the labor/industry group have requested additional
time to submit a clarification of their recommendations and their
responses to issues raised by the agency in the notice reopening the BD
record. OSHA is granting their request. Accordingly, this notice
extends the period for the submission of comments until April 26, 1996.
II. Public Participation--Comments
Written comments must be postmarked by April 26, 1996. Four copies
of these comments must be submitted to the Docket Office, Docket No.
HS-041), U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, D.C. 20210. Written comments limited to 10 pages or less in
length may also be transmitted by facsimile to (202) 219-5046, provided
the original and 3 copies are sent to the Docket Office thereafter. All
materials submitted will be available for inspection and copying at the
above address. Materials previously submitted to the Docket for this
rulemaking need not be re-submitted.
III. Authority
This document was prepared under the direction of Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.
20210. It is issued pursuant to section 6(b) of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 655), and 29 CFR part 1911.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 1st day of April, 1996.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 96-8504 Filed 4-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8489 Atlantic Swordfish Fishery; Quotas, Minimum Size, and Technical Changes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 67 (Friday, April 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15212-15214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8489]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 630
[Docket No. 960314073-6073-01; I.D. 030896E]
RIN 0648-AI23
Atlantic Swordfish Fishery; Quotas, Minimum Size, and Technical
Changes
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to amend the regulations governing the Atlantic
swordfish fishery to: Reduce the total allowable catch (TAC) to 2,625
metric tons (mt) dressed weight (dw) via a split season (June 1 - May
31), decrease the minimum size to 73 cm (29 inches) cleithrum to caudal
keel measure and eliminate the trip allowance for undersized fish, and
make technical changes to ensure consistency of regulations. The intent
of this action is to protect the swordfish resource while allowing
harvests of swordfish consistent with recommendations of the
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
(ICCAT).
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be submitted on or before May
2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of an Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact
Review (EA/RIR) supporting this action may be obtained from William
Hogarth, Acting Chief, Highly Migratory Species Management Division,
Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National Marine
Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Comments regarding the burden-hour estimate or any other aspect of the
collection-of-information requirement contained in this rule should be
sent to William Hogarth and to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), (0648-0016), Attention: NOAA Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Hogarth, 301-713-2339; fax:
301-713-0596.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Atlantic swordfish fishery is managed
under the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Swordfish and its
implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 630 under the authority of the
Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et
seq.) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA) (16 U.S.C. 971 et
seq.). Regulations issued under the authority of ATCA carry out the
recommendations of ICCAT.
The 1994 ICCAT stock assessment for North Atlantic swordfish
indicated the stock is continuing to decline and that large reductions
in quotas are required in the immediate future to rebuild the stock to
levels that can support the maximum sustainable yield. In 1995, the
Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) of ICCAT re-ran
the stock production model using revised catch data through 1993, and
results indicated that the North Atlantic swordfish resource has
continued to decline despite reductions in total reported landings from
peak values in 1987. Based on the assessment results, ICCAT recommended
reduced quotas for the major nations fishing for North Atlantic
swordfish, i.e., the United States, Spain, Canada, and Portugal. For
1996, the recommended U.S. quota is 3,500 mt whole weight (ww), or 5.8
million lb dw.
These proposed regulatory changes would improve NMFS' ability to
implement the ICCAT recommendations and further the management
objectives for the Atlantic swordfish fishery. NMFS has re-evaluated
the annual TAC, the seasonal implementation of this TAC, and the need
for technical changes to the regulatory text in the Atlantic swordfish
fishery in accordance with the procedures and factors specified in 50
CFR 630.24(d), including consideration of the latest stock assessment
and recommendations of ICCAT. The proposed regulations are summarized
as follows:
1. Total Allowable Catch (TAC)
NMFS proposes to change the definition of the fishing year for
purposes of TAC implementation for several reasons. First, establishing
that the fishing year begins June 1 would facilitate NMFS'
implementation of ICCAT quotas for all future years by allowing
additional months following the November ICCAT meeting for the
regulatory process (scoping, proposed rule, public hearings, final
rule). Second, this approach would ensure that the domestic swordfish
fishery would be open during certain critical marketing months, namely
early July and the December holiday period. Anecdotal evidence
indicates that if the swordfish fishery is subject to a calendar-year
quota, closures during December are particularly difficult, not only
due to the inability to supply the holiday market demand for swordfish,
but also due to the lack of alternative fisheries (no other tunas, for
example). There is a high probability that the large coastal shark
fishery would be closed during that end-of-the-year time period as
well.
NMFS proposes to decrease the annual TAC by 359 mt to 2,625 mt,
which is consistent with the 1994 ICCAT recommendation. All weights are
in dressed weight of swordfish, unless indicated otherwise. The TAC
would be divided between a directed-fishery quota of 2,371 mt and a
bycatch quota of 254 mt. The directed-fishery quota would be divided
into two 1,185.5 mt semiannual quotas for each of the 6-month periods,
June 1 through November 30, and December 1 through May 31. Each of the
1,185.5 mt semiannual quotas would be further subdivided into a drift
gillnet quota of 23.45 mt and a longline and harpoon quota of 1,162.05
mt. This allocation by gear types uses the same percentages that were
in effect in 1995.
NMFS estimates that approximately 97.6 mt of swordfish semiannually
will be discarded dead, based on the rate used in 1995. Therefore, the
semiannual landing quota for the longline and harpoon swordfish fishery
would be the semiannual catch quota of 1162.05 mt minus the estimated
semiannual dead discards of 97.6 mt, or 1,064.44 mt for each of the two
semiannual periods.
Following a closure of the directed longline fishery, any
overharvest or underharvest would be added or subtracted, respectively,
to the bycatch reserve of 254 mt. The ability to add or subtract
underage or overage ensures that the United States would abide by ICCAT
quotas.
NMFS has no new information sufficient to justify changes in the
existing 10 mt special set-aside quota for harpoon gear.
2. Bridge Period TAC
Because a split season is proposed, a bridge period TAC must be
determined for the first 5 months of 1996. NMFS proposes a TAC equal to
five twelfths of the 1995 U.S. quota, which is equivalent to 1,149.5 mt
(106 mt bycatch, 1021 mt longline, and 22.5 mt drift gillnet).
Quota for this bridge period plus the first semiannual quota result
in a January 1-December 1 quota of 2,364.4 mt dw, or approximately
3,144.6 mt round weight, which is 355 mt less than the 3,500 mt
calendar-year quota set by ICCAT. Since it is unlikely that December
1996 landings will exceed 355 mt, implementation of the split season
with the five twelfths bridge
[[Page 15213]]
period TAC also meets the ICCAT calendar year quota requirements.
3. Alternative Minimum Size
This proposed rule would implement the ICCAT-recommended
alternative minimum size of 119 cm lower jaw fork length with a zero
tolerance for undersized fish. Therefore, the current tolerance of
undersized fish (15 percent by number per trip) would be eliminated.
The minimum size is equivalent to a cleithrum to caudal keel measure
(CK) of 73 cm (29 inches) or 15 kg (33 lb) dw. SCRS research shows that
this reduced minimum size with zero tolerance is equivalent to the
alternative recommendation in terms of fishing mortality. This
alternative would allow U.S. fishermen to harvest smaller fish and may
reduce the discard rate. It also greatly facilitates enforcement.
4. Technical Changes
This proposed rule includes changes to the regulatory text
regarding vessel reporting requirements, in an effort to be consistent
with changes in the logbook program.
Classification
This proposed rule is published under the authority of ATCA. The
Assistant Administrator has preliminarily determined that the
regulations contained in this rule are necessary to implement the
recommendations of ICCAT and are necessary for management of the
Atlantic swordfish fishery. The Assistant General Counsel for
Legislation and Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The 1996 TAC represents about a
12 percent reduction from the TAC of the previous year, which could
result in short-term potential losses in gross revenue of about $3.2
million. However, these potential losses will be at least partially
offset by increases in price due to declining supply (demand is price-
inelastic) and the split season. In addition, pelagic longline vessels
may redirect fishing effort to Atlantic tunas, dolphin fish, and other
species, as occurred in the 1995 season. As a result, a regulatory
flexibility analysis was not prepared. The RIR provides further
discussion of the economic effects of the proposed rule.
This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes
of E.O. 12866.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to
comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
This proposed rule includes changes to the regulatory text
regarding vessel reporting requirements, in an effort to be consistent
with changes in the logbook program. However, there are no new
collection-of-information requirements since the proposed rule simply
clarifies requirements that have been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under Control Number 0648-0016. Public reporting
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2
minutes for logbook records and trip summaries.
These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspects of
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).
NMFS issued biological opinions under the Endangered Species Act on
September 1, 1995, and on February 2, 1996, indicating that the level
of impact and marine mammal takes from the longline and harpoon, and
drift gillnet swordfish fishery is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any sea turtle species or any marine mammal
populations.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 630
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Treaties.
Dated: April 2, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Program Manager, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 630 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 630--ATLANTIC SWORDFISH FISHERY
1. The authority citation for part 630 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. and 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.
2. In Sec. 630.5, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 630.5 Recordkeeping and recording.
(a) Fishing vessel reports. (1) The owner and operator of a vessel
for which a vessel permit has been issued under Sec. 630.4 must ensure
that a daily logbook form is maintained of the vessel's swordfishing
effort, catch, and disposition on logbook forms available from the
Science and Research Director. Such forms must be submitted to the
Science and Research Director postmarked not later than the 7th day
after sale of the swordfish off-loaded from a trip. If no fishing
occurred during a month, a report so stating must be submitted in
accordance with instructions provided with the logbook forms. Logbooks
must be kept on board the vessel at all times.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 630.7, paragraph (q) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 630.7 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(q) Possess on board a vessel a swordfish that is smaller than the
minimum size specified in Sec. 630.23(a).
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 630.23, paragraph (b) is removed, paragraphs (c) and (d)
are redesignated as paragraphs (b) and (c), respectively, and the first
sentence of paragraph (a) and the last sentence of newly designated
paragraph (b) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 630.23 Harvest limitations.
(a) Minimum size. The minimum allowable size for possession on
board a fishing vessel for a swordfish taken from the management unit
is 29 inches (73 cm) carcass length, measured along the body contour
(i.e., a curved measurement) from the cleithrum to the anterior portion
of the caudal keel (CK measurement) or, if swordfish are weighed, 33 lb
(15 kg) dressed weight. * * *
(b) * * * A shark-bit swordfish for which the remainder of the
carcass is less than the minimum size limit specified in paragraph (a)
of this section may not be landed.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 630.24, paragraphs (b)(1), (d)(4), and (e) are revised,
paragraph (b)(2) is redesignated as paragraph (b)(3), and a new
paragraph (b)(2) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 630.24 Quotas.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) The directed fishery quota for the period January 1, 1996,
through May 31, 1996, is 1,021 mt dressed weight for the longline
fishery, 22.5 mt dressed weight for the drift gillnet fishery, and 106
mt dressed weight for the bycatch fishery.
(2) The annual quota for the directed fishery for swordfish is
2,371 mt dressed
[[Page 15214]]
weight, divided into two semiannual quotas as follows:
(i) For the semiannual period June 1 through November 30:
(A) 23.45 mt dressed weight, that may be harvested by drift
gillnet; and
(B) 1,162.05 mt dressed weight that may be harvested by longline
and harpoon. To account for harvested fish that are discarded dead,
only 1064.44 mt dressed weight, may be landed in this category.
(ii) For the semiannual period December 1 through May 31:
(A) 23.45 mt dressed weight that may be harvested by drift gillnet;
and
(B) 1,162.05 mt dressed weight that may be harvested by longline
and harpoon. To account for harvested fish that are discarded dead,
only 1064.44 mt dressed weight may be landed in this category.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(4) Any adjustments to the 12-month directed-fishery quota will be
apportioned equally between the June 1 through November 30 and December
1 through May 31 semiannual periods.
* * * * *
(e) NMFS may adjust the December 1 through May 31 semiannual
directed-fishery quota and gear quotas to reflect actual catches during
the June 1 through November 30 semiannual period, provided that the 12-
month directed-fishery and gear quotas are not exceeded.
* * * * *
6. In Sec. 630.25, the first sentence of paragraph (b) is revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 630.25 Closures and bycatch limits.
* * * * *
(b) * * * The procedures of paragraph (a)(1) of this section
notwithstanding, during the June 1 through November 30 semiannual
period, swordfish not exceeding 21,500 lb (9,752 kg), dressed weight,
may be set aside for the harpoon segment of the fishery. * * *
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-8489 Filed 4-2-96; 4:45 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8472 Garbage; Disposal by Cruise Ships in Landfills at Alaskan Ports
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 67 (Friday, April 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15201-15204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8472]
========================================================================
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. 67 / Friday, April 5, 1996 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 15201]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 330
9 CFR Part 94
[Docket No. 93-037-1]
Garbage; Disposal by Cruise Ships in Landfills at Alaskan Ports
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations that apply to
garbage that can introduce diseases or pests of livestock, poultry, or
plants. The amendment would allow cruise ships to dispose of garbage in
landfills at certain Alaskan ports. This would apply only to cruise
ships that do not have prohibited or restricted meat or animal products
in the vessel stores. This amendment to the regulations would reduce
the cost of disposing of cruise ship garbage at Alaskan ports, while
continuing to help prevent the spread of plant pests and livestock and
poultry diseases into or within the United States.
DATES: Consideration will be given only to comments received on or
before June 4, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Please send an original and three copies of your comments to
Docket No. 93-037-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
suite 3C03, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please
state that your comments refer to Docket No. 93-037-1. Comments
received may be inspected at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th
Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to
inspect comments are requested to call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to
facilitate entry into the comment reading room.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Ronald B. Caffey, Assistant to the
Deputy Administrator, Veterinary Medical Office, PPQ, APHIS, Suite
4C03, 4700 River Road Unit 129, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236, (301) 734-
7633.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Our regulations concerning garbage are contained in 7 CFR 330.400
and 9 CFR 94.5 (referred to below as ``the regulations''). The
regulations in 7 CFR 330.400 are intended to prevent the dissemination
of plant pests and diseases. The regulations in 9 CFR 94.5 are intended
to prevent the dissemination of animal diseases.
Garbage is defined in Sec. 330.400(b) and Sec. 94.5(a) as all waste
material that is derived in whole or in part from fruits, vegetables,
meats, or other plant or animal (including poultry) material, and other
refuse of any character whatsoever that has been associated with any
such material on board any means of conveyance, and including food
scraps, table refuse, galley refuse, food wrappers or packaging
materials, and other waste material from stores, food preparation
areas, passengers' or crews' quarters, dining rooms, or any other areas
on means of conveyance. Garbage also means meals and other food that
were available for consumption by passengers and crew on an aircraft
but were not consumed.
Certain garbage is regulated under our regulations. There are three
categories of regulated garbage: (1) Garbage that is on or removed from
a means of conveyance if, at the time the garbage is on or removed from
the means of conveyance, the means of conveyance has been in any port
outside the continental United States and Canada within the previous 2-
year period (see Secs. 330.400(c) and 94.5(b) for definition; see
Secs. 330.400(c)(1) and (c)(2) and Secs. 94.5(b)(1) and (b)(2) for
exceptions); (2) garbage that is on or removed from a means of
conveyance if, at the time the garbage is on or removed from the means
of conveyance, the means of conveyance has moved during the previous 1-
year period, either directly or indirectly, to the continental United
States from any territory or possession or from Hawaii; to any
territory or possession from any other territory or possession or from
Hawaii; or to Hawaii from any territory or possession (see
Secs. 330.400(d) and 94.5(c) for definition; see Secs. 330.400(d)(2)
and 94.5(c)(2) for exceptions); and (3) garbage that is commingled with
regulated garbage (see Secs. 330.400(e) and 94.5(d)).
Under our regulations, regulated garbage must be stored in tight,
leak-proof, covered receptacles on board a means of conveyance while
the means of conveyance is in the territorial waters or while otherwise
within the territory of the United States. Also, regulated garbage must
be removed from the means of conveyance in tight, leak-proof
receptacles under the direction of an Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) inspector to an approved facility for
incineration, sterilization, or grinding into an approved sewage
system, under supervision of an APHIS inspector. Regulated garbage may
be removed for other handling in a manner and under such supervision as
the Administrator, APHIS, may approve in specific cases. Other handling
is approved only if it complies with the applicable laws for
environmental protection and is adequate to prevent the dissemination
of plant pests and livestock or poultry diseases into or within the
United States. (See Secs. 330.400(g)(1) and 94.5(f)(1).)
Garbage can also be disposed of outside the territorial limits of
the United States by dumping or in on-board incinerators, sterilizers,
or grinders. However, as explained elsewhere in this document, these
methods are limited to certain situations and are often impractical.
Cruise ships that sail between Alaskan ports currently dispose of
their garbage in landfills at Alaskan ports. The Administrator has
approved this alternate disposal method because we believe the garbage
would pose no disease risk to livestock or crops in the United States.
Disposing of garbage on the high seas, or by using on-board
incinerators or grinders was and is impractical for cruise ships
operating off the west coast of Alaska and Canada. The International
Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships at Sea, Annex V,
ratified by the United States in 1988, prohibits dumping any plastics
into the ocean. To dispose of garbage, all plastics must be separated
from the rest of the garbage and retained on board the vessel
[[Page 15202]]
for separate disposal. This is not practical for most cruise ships.
Using on-board garbage grinders is also impossible, because cruise
ships along the west coast of Alaska remain in United States and
Canadian territorial waters, and both the United States and Canada
prohibit use of on-board grinders within their territorial waters.
Using on-board garbage incinerators is also usually impractical for
cruise ships, because on-board incinerators are usually small units,
not intended for disposing of all of a ship's garbage. In addition, on-
board incinerators can only be used when on-board odors are not a
problem.
Cruise ships usually dispose of regulated garbage by off-loading
and incinerating or sterilizing it. Prior to 1991, Alaska had no
approved incinerators or sterilizers that could be used by cruise
ships. There was a small incinerator at Anchorage, but it was available
and used only for disposal of aircraft garbage. There are no facilities
in Alaska suitable for sterilizing maritime garbage. Grinding garbage
into an approved sewage system is also listed in our regulations as an
approved method of disposing of regulated garbage. However, there are
no sewage systems in Alaska approved for the disposal of maritime
garbage.
In 1991 an incinerator in Juneau, Alaska, was approved for disposal
of regulated maritime garbage. Because of the availability of this
facility, in early 1992 APHIS notified all cruise lines operating
vessels in Alaskan waters that regulated garbage would thereafter have
to be disposed of in accordance with the regulations. APHIS
specifically informed cruise lines that disposal of cruise ship garbage
in landfills at Alaskan ports would no longer be allowed.
The cruise lines questioned the need for and practicality of our
policy changes and said they did not have enough time to prepare for
the policy change before the next cruise season began. After
discussions with representatives of the cruise lines, APHIS agreed
verbally in 1992 to temporarily withdraw the policy change. APHIS and
cruise line representatives also agreed that APHIS would conduct a risk
assessment of the situation. If the risk assessment was positive--that
is, if disposing of regulated garbage from cruise ships in landfills at
Alaskan ports presented a risk to livestock or crops in the United
States--then cruise ships would have to comply with the regulations. In
the mean time, APHIS agreed that cruise ships could continue to dispose
of regulated garbage in landfills at Alaskan ports, provided that the
ships have no meat or animal products on board that are prohibited or
restricted under the regulations in 9 CFR part 94. These meats and
animal products are prohibited or restricted in order to prevent the
possible spread into the United States of various diseases of livestock
and poultry, including foot-and-mouth disease.
APHIS has completed an assessment of the pest and disease risks
posed by this situation. The risk assessment was limited to regulated
garbage that was removed from cruise ships operating in waters off the
west coast of Alaska and Canada and disposed of in landfills at Alaskan
ports. These ships did not have any prohibited or restricted meat or
animal products on board at the time the cruise ships entered Alaskan
waters. The results of the study were that there is no undue risk of
animal or plant disease or pest introduction.
The ecology, wildlife, and agriculture of Alaska are vastly
different from the 48 contiguous States. No plant diseases or pests
have been identified as posing any risk in Alaska. This is because no
plant pest or disease of concern can survive the Alaskan climate. APHIS
identified foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) as the livestock disease of
greatest risk in Alaska. Ruminants and swine are the animal species at
risk for FMD. At-risk animals could be infected by exposure to garbage
in landfills.
Requiring cruise ships to have no prohibited or restricted meat or
animal products on board at the time they enter Alaskan waters
minimizes any possibility that infectious materials would be disposed
of in landfills. The nature of agriculture and wildlife in Alaska
minimizes the possibility of animals being exposed to landfill garbage.
In Alaska, there are no wild swine, and very few herds of domestic
swine. There are many wild ruminants, such as deer, elk, and moose.
However, there are very few herds of domestic sheep, goats, and cattle.
None of the herds of domestic livestock are located near landfills
where cruise ship garbage is buried. Domestic Alaskan livestock are
therefore unlikely to be exposed to garbage disposed of in landfills.
Wild ruminants could be exposed to landfill garbage. However, ruminants
do not normally ``graze'' on landfills. In addition, experts do not
believe wild ruminant populations would sustain an FMD infection
without being continually exposed to infected domestic animals. In
Alaska, any FMD infection within the wild ruminant population would
therefore die out before it could present a threat to livestock. Under
these circumstances, any outbreak of FMD could be easily contained and
eradicated.
Based on this risk assessment, we have determined that continuing
to allow regulated garbage from cruise ships to be disposed of in
Alaskan landfills would not present any significant pest or disease
risk as long as the cruise ships do not have meat or animal products on
board that are restricted or prohibited under the regulations in 9 CFR
part 94. This amendment would also apply only to cruise ships that
remain in Alaskan or Canadian waters for the entire cruise season. We
are therefore proposing to amend 7 CFR 300.400(g)(1) and 9 CFR
94.5(f)(1) to reflect this determination. Cargo ships and other
conveyances, including cruise ships that do not comply with these
requirements, would continue to be required to follow existing
regulations in 7 CFR 330.400 and 9 CFR 94.5.
Under our proposed regulations, only cruise ships meeting certain
requirements would be allowed to dispose of regulated garbage in
landfills at Alaskan ports. Qualifying cruise ships would be prohibited
from having prohibited or restricted meat or animal products on board
at the time they enter Alaskan waters for the cruise season. Cruise
ships would be inspected by APHIS inspectors at the beginning of each
cruise season (approximately mid-May, depending on weather conditions).
Many types of meat and animal products are prohibited or restricted
under the regulations in 9 CFR part 94, in order to prevent the spread
into the United States of various diseases of livestock and poultry.
Among the meats and other products prohibited or restricted under 9 CFR
part 94 are fresh, chilled, and frozen meat of ruminants and swine that
originate in any country where rinderpest or FMD exists. Countries
where rinderpest or FMD exists are listed in Sec. 94.1(a) of those
regulations. Neither rinderpest nor FMD exists in Canada or in the
United States. Prohibiting cruise ships from having prohibited or
restricted meat or animal products on board would prevent the possible
spread of livestock and poultry diseases into the United States.
Qualifying cruise ships would also be required to remain in Alaskan
or Canadian waters for the entire cruise season. This would preclude
any possibility of prohibited or restricted meat or animal products
being brought on board the vessel.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
The rule
[[Page 15203]]
has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive
Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
There is a shortage of incinerators and sterilizers accessible to
cruise ships in Alaska. Incinerators are now available to dispose of
regulated maritime garbage only at Juneau, Ketchikan and Sitka.
Sterilizers to dispose of maritime garbage are not available. Further,
it is impractical for cruise ships to dispose of all regulated garbage
in on-board incinerators or grinders, or by dumping on the high seas.
During the period when cruise ship garbage is incinerated, the
total volume of garbage is too great for all of the garbage to be
incinerated. We are, therefore, currently allowing certain cruise ships
to dispose of regulated garbage in landfills at Alaskan ports. These
are ships which have no prohibited or restricted meat or animal
products on board at the time they enter Alaskan waters, and which
remain in Alaskan or Canadian waters during the entire cruise season.
Therefore, if this proposed rule is adopted, no major change in current
practice would be required.
Allowing for the continued use of landfills would have a beneficial
economic impact on cruise ships, as landfill disposal is less expensive
than incineration. Our information indicates that none of the cruise
ships that would be affected by this proposed rule are U.S.-owned and
none would be classified as ``small'' entities (defined as having fewer
than 500 employees, according to Small Business Administration (SBA)
size criteria.)
We also foresee no economic impact on incinerator or landfill
owners. Because the proposed amendments to the regulations only bring
the regulations into conformance with current practices, there should
be no impact of any kind on incinerator or landfill operations.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The alternatives to this proposed rule would be to take no action
or to prohibit disposal of all cruise ship garbage in landfills at
Alaskan ports. We do not consider prohibiting such garbage disposal a
reasonable alternative. Prohibiting such garbage disposal would disrupt
industry operations without any salutary effect on disease or pest
risk. We also do not consider doing nothing a reasonable alternative.
Doing nothing would continue the informal requirements which are now in
effect without giving notice to the public.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372,
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local
officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
Executive Order 12778
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State
and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule
will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this
rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before
parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
An environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact
have been prepared for this proposed rule. The assessment provides a
basis for the conclusion that the disposal, in landfills at Alaskan
ports, of garbage from cruise ships under the conditions specified in
this proposed rule would not present a risk of introducing or
disseminating plant or animal diseases or pests and would not have a
significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Based on
the finding of no significant impact, the Administrator of the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an
environmental impact statement need not be prepared.
The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact
were prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) Regulations of the
Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural
provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations
implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing
Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
Copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no
significant impact are available for public inspection at USDA, room
1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect copies are requested to
call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to facilitate entry into the reading room.
In addition, copies may be obtained by writing to the individual listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains no information collection or
recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 330
Customs duties and inspections, Imports, Plant diseases and pests,
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
9 CFR Part 94
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk,
Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 330 and 9 CFR part 94 would be amended as
follows:
PART 330--FEDERAL PLANT PEST REGULATIONS; GENERAL; PLANT PESTS;
SOIL, STONE, AND QUARRY PRODUCTS; GARBAGE
1. The authority citation for part 330 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 147a, 150bb, 150dd-150ff, 161, 162, 164a,
450, 2260; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 111, 114a; 136 and 136a; 31
U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 4331, 4332; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).
2. In Sec. 330.400, paragraph (g)(1), a new sentence would be added
at the end of the paragraph to read as follows:
Sec. 330.400 Regulation of certain garbage.
* * * * *
(g)(1) * * * Provided that, cruise ships may dispose of regulated
garbage in landfills at Alaskan ports if the cruise ships do not have
prohibited or restricted meat or animal products on board at the time
they enter Alaskan waters for the cruise season, and if the cruise
ships remain in Alaskan or Canadian waters for the entire cruise
season.
* * * * *
PART 94--RINDERPEST, FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL
PLAGUE), VELOGENIC VISCEROTROPIC NEWCASTLE DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE
FEVER, HOG CHOLERA, AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY:
PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS
3. The authority citation for part 94 would continue to read as
follows:
[[Page 15204]]
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 147a, 150ee, 161, 162, and 450; 19 U.S.C.
1306; 21 U.S.C. 111, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134f, 136, and 136a; 31
U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 4331, and 4332; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and
371.2(d).
4. In Sec. 94.5, paragraph (f)(1), a new sentence would be added at
the end of the paragraph to read as follows:
Sec. 94.5 Regulation of certain garbage.
* * * * *
(f)(1) * * * Provided that, cruise ships may dispose of regulated
garbage in landfills at Alaskan ports if the cruise ships do not have
prohibited or restricted meat or animal products on board at the time
they enter Alaskan waters for the cruise season, and if the cruise
ships remain in Alaskan or Canadian waters for the entire cruise
season.
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 2nd day of April 1996.
Lonnie J. King,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-8472 Filed 4-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8460 Reissuance of Mortgage Credit Certificates; Hearing
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 67 (Friday, April 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8460]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[FI-47-92]
RIN 1545-AR76
Reissuance of Mortgage Credit Certificates; Hearing
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document provides notice of a public hearing on proposed
regulations relating to implementing a provision of the Tax Reform Act
of 1984 permitting the reissuance of mortgage credit certificates.
DATES: The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 22, 1996,
beginning at 10:00 a.m. Requests to speak and outlines of oral comments
must be received by Wednesday, May 1, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be held in the Internal Revenue
Service Commissioner's Conference Room, Room 3313, Internal Revenue
Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20044.
Requests to speak and outlines of oral comments should be mailed to the
Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Attn:
CC:DOM:CORP:R [FI-47-92], Room 5228, Washington, D.C., 20044.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evangelista Lee of the Regulations
Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate), (202) 622-8452 (not a toll-
free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject of the public hearing is
proposed amendments to the Income Tax Regulations under section 25 of
the Internal Revenue Code. The proposed regulations appeared in the
Federal Register for Wednesday, December 22, 1993 (58 FR 67745).
The rules of Sec. 601.601(a)(3) of the ``Statement of Procedural
Rules'' (26 CFR Part 601) shall apply with respect to the public
hearing. Persons who have submitted written comments within the time
prescribed in the notice of proposed rulemaking and who also desire to
present oral comments at the hearing on the proposed regulations should
submit not later than Wednesday, May 1, 1996, an outline of the oral
comments/testimony to be presented at the hearing and the time they
wish to devote to each subject.
Each speaker (or group of speakers representing a single entity)
will be limited to 10 minutes for an oral presentation exclusive of the
time consumed by the questions from the panel for the government and
answer thereto.
Because of controlled access restrictions, attenders cannot be
admitted beyond the lobby of the Internal Revenue Building until 9:45
a.m.
An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be made after
outlines are received from the persons testifying. Copies of the agenda
will be available free of charge at the hearing.
Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 96-8460 Filed 4-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8459 Requirements for Tax Exempt Section 501(c)(5) Organizations; Hearing
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 67 (Friday, April 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15204-15205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8459]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
26 CFR Part 1
[EE-53-95]
RIN 1545-AT95
Requirements for Tax Exempt Section 501(c)(5) Organizations;
Hearing
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces a hearing on proposed regulations,
published on December 21, 1995, which clarify requirements of section
501(c)(5) to provide needed guidance to organizations as to the
requirements an organization must meet in order to be exempt from tax.
DATES: The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, June 5, 1996,
beginning at 10:00 a.m. Requests to speak and outlines of oral comments
must be received by Wednesday, May 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be held in the Internal Revenue
Service Commissioner's Conference Room, Room 3313, Internal Revenue
Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20044.
Requests to speak and outlines of oral comments should be mailed to the
Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Attn:
CC:DOM:CORP:R [EE-53-95], Room 5228, Washington, D.C. 20044.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evangelista Lee of the Regulations
Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate), (202) 622-8452 (not a toll-
free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject of the public hearing is
proposed amendments to the Income Tax Regulations under section
501(c)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code. The proposed regulations
appeared in the Federal Register for Thursday, December 21, 1995 (60 FR
66228).
The rules of Sec. 601.601(a)(3) of the ``Statement of Procedural
Rules'' (26 CFR Part 601) shall apply with respect to the public
hearing. Persons who have submitted written comments within the time
prescribed in the notice of proposed rulemaking and who also desire to
present oral comments at the hearing on the proposed regulations should
submit not later than Wednesday, May 15, 1996, an outline of the oral
comments/testimony to be presented at the hearing and the time they
wish to devote to each subject.
Each speaker (or group of speakers representing a single entity)
will be limited to 10 minutes for an oral presentation exclusive of the
time consumed by the questions from the panel for the government and
answer thereto.
Because of controlled access restrictions, attenders cannot be
admitted beyond the lobby of the Internal Revenue Building until 9:45
a.m.
An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be made after
outlines are received from the persons testifying.
[[Page 15205]]
Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing.
Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 96-8459 Filed 4-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8386 Spread Spectrum Transmitters
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 67 (Friday, April 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15206-15208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8386]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 2 and 15
[ET Docket No. 96-8; FCC 96-36]
Spread Spectrum Transmitters
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: By this Notice of Proposed Rule Making (``NPRM''), the
Commission proposes to amend its rules regarding the operation of
spread spectrum transmission systems in the 902-928 MHz, 2400-2483.5
MHz and 5725-5850 MHz bands. For simplicity, these bands will be
referenced in this proposal as 915 MHz, 2450 MHz and 5800 MHz,
respectively. The Commission proposes to eliminate the limit on
directional gain antennas for spread spectrum transmitters operating in
the 5800 MHz band. We are also proposing to reduce, from 50 to 25, the
minimum number of channels required for frequency hopping spread
spectrum systems operating in the 915 MHZ band. These proposals are in
response to Petitions for Rule Making filed by Western Multiplex
Corporation (WMC) and Spectralink Corporation (Spectralink). We are
also denying a Petition for Rule Making from Symbol Technologies, Inc.
(Symbol). Further, the Commission on its own motion proposes a number
of amendments to the spread spectrum regulations to clarify the
existing regulations, to codify existing policies into the rules, and
to update the current definitions. These changes will expand the
ability of equipment manufacturers to develop spread spectrum systems
for unlicensed use.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 19, 1996, and reply
comments must be filed on or before July 19, 1996.
[[Page 15207]]
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Reed, Office of Engineering and
Technology, (202) 418-2455.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 96-8, FCC 96-36, adopted January
30, 1996, and released February 5, 1996. The full text of this
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and also may be purchased from the
Commission's duplication contractor, International Transcription
Service, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington
D.C. 20037.
Summary of Notice
1. The Commission is proposing to amend Parts 2 and 15 of the rules
regarding the operation of spread spectrum transmission systems in the
915 MHz, 2450 MHz and 5800 MHz bands. The spread spectrum rules, as
originally adopted, did not specify a limit on antenna gain. At that
time there were few other operators in these bands and little potential
that interference would be caused to other users. Further, we wished to
offer an incentive to spur the development of spread spectrum systems.
These bands, especially the 915 MHz and the 2450 MHz bands, are now
becoming more crowded, particularly with mobile units, increasing the
potential that spread spectrum systems using high gain antennas will
cause harmful interference. In addition to the licensed radio services,
wireless computer local area network systems and various consumer
products, such as cordless telephones, are being used under Part 15 in
the 915 MHz and 2450 MHz bands.
2. Since there are few operators in the 5800 MHz band, the
potential that harmful interference will occur from the use of
directional antennas is much lower. There are also fewer mobile users
in the 5800 MHz band. It is easier to engineer a fixed, point-to-point
system to operate without causing harmful interference problems if the
other stations in that band are fixed in location. Further, the 5800
MHz band is ideal for fixed, point-to-point wideband microwave
operations, the type of applications desired by WMC. Accordingly, the
Commission believes the limit on directional antenna gain should only
be eliminated for spread spectrum systems operating in the 5800 MHz
band. We request comment on this proposal. While we are not inclined to
provide a similar relaxation for the 2450 MHz band, we also ask for
comment on whether we should eliminate the 6 dB limit on directional
antenna gain in this band.
3. The Commission further believes that if spread spectrum
transmitters employing high gain antennas were made available to the
general public, it would be difficult to ensure that these systems are
used only for fixed, point-to-point applications. In addition, high
gain directional antenna systems, because of their narrow transmission
beamwidth and the problems associated with aligning the transmitter
with the receiver site, are not products that would normally be
employed by the general public. Accordingly, we believe that the
marketing of spread spectrum systems employing high gain antennas
should be limited to commercial or industrial operators and exclude
sales to the general public. The Commission further proposes to hold
the operator of a spread spectrum system responsible for ensuring that
the system is operated in a compliant manner. In addition, we propose
to require that the manual supplied with the spread spectrum
transmitter contain language in the installation instructions notifying
the operator of this responsibility.
4. In addition, absent controls regarding the locations and manner
in which spread spectrum transmitters may be used, systems employing
high gain directional antennas could expose the public to potentially
harmful signal levels that exceed the radio frequency exposure limits
in our rules and recommended by various standards-setting
organizations. In order to meet our obligation under the National
Environmental Policy Act, we propose to hold the holder of the grant of
certification for the transmitter, the grantee, responsible for
ensuring that the equipment is designed to minimize exposure of the
public to excessive radio frequency (RF) signal levels. Comments are
requested concerning possible biological hazards from the high
effective radiated power levels that could be emitted from these
systems, any additional methods that can be employed to prevent
unnecessary exposure of the public, and whether we should prescribe the
use of specific means for preventing such exposure.
5. The Commission also seeks comments in two additional areas
regarding the technical standards for spread spectrum transmission
systems operating without a limit on directional antenna gain. The
first of these concerns a reduction in the output power of the
transmitter based on the amount that the increase in directional
antenna gain exceeds the current limit of 6 dBi. We propose that the
output power of a transmitter would need to be decreased by 1 dB for
every 3 dB that the antenna gain exceeds 6 dBi in order to maintain an
``equivalent'' area of interference, i.e., the geographic area over
which interference could result with a directional antenna as compared
to the area obtained with an omnidirectional antenna. See the proposed
new Section 15.274(b)(4) in Appendix B of the NPRM. We are also seeking
comments on whether the rules should specify limits on the horizontal
and vertical beamwidths of antennas used with point-to-point systems.
Certain antenna designs, e.g., a horizontally polarized yagi antenna,
concentrate the signal strength in azimuth (horizontal) but not in
elevation (vertical). A fixed, point-to-point system employing an
antenna with a wide elevation beamwidth that is pointed towards an
office building with multiple floors could result in severe
interference problems to any party in that building who is in line with
the system and is operating in the same band. Several antenna designs
concentrate the radiated signals in both azimuth and elevation, e.g.,
circular dish antennas and stacked yagi antennas. The Commission
believes that any interference problems resulting from excessive
vertical emissions could be resolved if the 3 dB beamwidths, in both
the vertical and the horizontal planes, of the high gain directional
antennas employed with these fixed, point-to-point systems differ by no
more than a factor of two and are proposing such a limit.
6. As SpectraLink observes in its petition, there could be mutual
interference problems between wideband, multilateration LMS systems and
Part 15 frequency hopping spread spectrum systems, and it would be
beneficial if these two operations could avoid sharing the same
spectrum. The modification sought by SpectraLink would appear to
promote frequency sharing within this band. Therefore, the Commission
proposes to amend the rules to permit frequency hopping spread spectrum
systems in the 915 MHz band to use only 25 hopping channels, provided
that those systems employ hopping channel bandwidths of at least 250
kHz and the transmitters operate at a reduced power level. Hopping
systems using channel bandwidths less than 250 kHz already can avoid
operating in the bands used by broadband multilateration LMS systems
and require no decrease in the
[[Page 15208]]
minimum number of hopping channels. For frequency hopping systems
employing channel bandwidths of 250 kHz or greater, we propose to
reduce the minimum number of hopping channels to 25. Consistent with
this plan, we are also proposing to modify the maximum average time of
occupancy on any hopping frequency to 0.4 seconds in any 10 second
period to correspond to the reduction in the number of hopping
channels. Comments are also requested as to whether the rules should
specify a formula for the minimum number of hopping channels based on
the amount by which the bandwidth of the hopping channel exceeds 250
kHz.
7. Further, in order to reduce the potential for interference due
to the smaller number of hopping channels, we propose to require that
frequency hopping spread spectrum systems in the 915 MHz band that use
fewer than 50 hopping channels operate with a maximum peak transmitter
output power of 500 mW.
8. We are also denying the Petition for Rule Making from Symbol to
reduce the minimum number of hopping channels for frequency hopping
spread spectrum systems operating in the 2450 MHz or 5800 MHz bands.
9. There are also several additional regulations concerning Part 15
spread spectrum transmission systems that need to be clarified,
codified or amended. They are Spectral power density, Short duration
transmissions, Measurement of processing gain, Limits on unwanted
emissions, Frequency hopping coordination, External radio frequency
power amplifiers, Transition provisions, Definition of direct sequence
and Pseudorandom sequence and frequency hopping systems. These are
discussed in more detail in the full text of the Commission's NPRM, ET
Docket 96-8.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. Reason for Action: This rule making proceeding is initiated to
obtain comment regarding proposed changes to the regulations for non-
licensed spread spectrum transmitters.
2. Objectives: The Commission seeks to determine if the standards
should be amended as sought in Petitions for Rule Making filed by WMC,
Symbol and SpectraLink. Additional amendments are also proposed to
clarify the existing regulations and to codify existing policies into
the rules.
3. Legal Basis: The proposed action is authorized under Sections
4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 301,
302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307.
4. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements: Part
15 spread spectrum transmitters are already required to be authorized
under the Commission's certification procedure as a prerequisite to
marketing and importation. The changes proposed in this proceeding
would not change any of the current reporting or recordkeeping
requirements. Further, the proposed regulations add permissible methods
of operation and would not require the modification of any existing
products.
5. Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With These
Rules: None.
6. Description, Potential Impact and Number of Small Entities
Involved: The actions proposed in this proceeding add permissible
methods of operation and will not require the modification of any
existing products. Accordingly, there should be no mandatory impact on
any small entities.
7. Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small
Entities Consistent with Stated Objectives: None.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 2
Communications equipment, Radio.
47 CFR Part 15
Communications equipment, Radio.
Federal Commications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-8386 Filed 4-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8383 Deposit of Mail With Insufficient Postage
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 67 (Friday, April 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15205-15206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8383]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 111
Deposit of Mail With Insufficient Postage
AGENCY: Postal Service.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would revise the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM)
regarding the treatment of mail with insufficient postage that is
deposited for delivery. Currently, mail deposited with no postage is
returned to the sender without an attempt at delivery, whereas mail
deposited with insufficient postage is marked ``POSTAGE DUE'' and
delivered to the addressee upon payment of the charges marked on the
mail. If a sender deposits 10 or more pieces of shortpaid mail, the
accepting post office may contact the sender to obtain payment of the
additional postage prior to dispatch.
The proposed rule would treat mail with no postage and insufficient
postage alike: such mail generally would be returned to the sender
without an attempt at delivery. As is currently the case with mail
bearing no postage, mail displaying no return address or a return
address that is actually the address of the intended recipient would be
sent to a Postal Service mail recovery center.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed or delivered to Manager,
Revenue Assurance, USPS Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW.,
Washington, DC 20260-5237. Copies of all written comments will be
available for inspection and photocopying between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, in Room 8831 at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rita W. Crawford, (202) 268-2831.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Current regulations allow the Postal Service
to mark shortpaid mail ``POSTAGE DUE'' and collect the amount due from
the addressee or return the mail to the sender for additional postage
after delivery is attempted. Societal changes have rendered this
procedure impractical. Letter carriers are often unable to find an
individual who can
[[Page 15206]]
pay for postage due at home during normal business hours. Furthermore,
a steadily increasing percentage of mail is delivered to receptacles
that are not immediately adjacent to a dwelling, such as grouped
receptacles in the lobby of an apartment building. Often postage is not
collected and the mail must be returned to the sender, causing that
mail to be delayed in reaching the intended recipient. To improve
customer service and avoid such delays, this proposed rule would allow
the Postal Service to immediately return shortpaid mail for additional
postage so that it can be resent and reach the addressee more
expeditiously than under the current procedures.
Additionally, the Postal Service has been victimized by numerous
schemes to mail letters with insufficient postage. Much of this loss
comes from the deposit of letters for delivery as regular First-Class
Mail with only 6 cents or less in postage affixed. The Postal Service
must recoup lost postage from mailings by customers who pay the proper
rate of postage. In such situations, it can be extremely difficult and
time-consuming for a letter carrier to attempt to collect postage due.
As a result, postage due on shortpaid mail frequently is not collected,
despite the effort and expense incurred to attempt delivery to the
addressee.
The proposed rule would treat shortpaid mail in the same manner as
mail without any postage. Both forms of mail generally would be
returned to the sender without any attempt at delivery. Thus, schemes
to mail letters with insufficient postage would no longer be effective.
As is currently the case with mail bearing no postage, mail displaying
no return address, or a return address that is, in fact, the address of
the intended recipient, would be sent to a Postal Service mail recovery
center.
In some recent incidents, postal employees have mistakenly treated
mail bearing proper postage at a discounted rate as shortpaid mail. An
aggressive campaign is under way to ensure that all employees who
handle mail can distinguish between discounted rate mail and shortpaid
mail. The proposed rule is meant to apply only to mail that is
genuinely shortpaid, and the Postal Service will take all steps
necessary to see that the rule is implemented accordingly.
Existing DMM sections P011.1.3, 1.4, and 1.7 (renumbered as 1.5)
are retained as exceptions to the general rule described above.
Proposed new section 1.6 is added to reflect current policy and states
clearly that additional postage for disqualified bulk or presort rate
mailings is collected from the mailer prior to dispatch. Proposed new
section 1.7 is added as a final exception, and provides that shortpaid
mail may be delivered to addressees who have made arrangements with
their postmasters to pay the postage due.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Postal Service proposes to
amend DMM P011 as set forth below.
Although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the
Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed
rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the Postal Service invites comments on
the following proposed revisions of the DMM, incorporated by reference
in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR part 111.
List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111
Postal Service.
PART 111--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 111 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 3001-
3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3626, 5001.
2. Revise the following units of the Domestic Mail Manual as noted
below:
P011 Payment
1.0 PREPAYMENT AND POSTAGE DUE
* * * * *
1.2 Unpaid and Shortpaid Mail
Except as provided by 1.3 through 1.7, matter of any class, either
with no postage or with insufficient postage, is endorsed ``RETURNED
FOR POSTAGE'' and returned to the sender without an attempt at
delivery. Matter bearing no postage or insufficient postage is treated
as dead mail and sent to a Postal Service mail recovery center if:
a. No return address is shown;
b. The delivery and return addresses are identical;
c. The delivery and return addresses are different but are actually
the same person or organization; or
d. The mail is refused by the sender when returned for collection
of postage due.
* * * * *
[Delete existing 1.5, 1.6, and 1.9; renumber existing 1.7 as 1.5; add
new 1.6 and 1.7 as follows:]
1.6 Bulk and Presort
Additional postage due must be paid prior to dispatch for a bulk or
presort rate mailing that is found to have insufficient postage when
presented to the USPS for acceptance.
1.7 Special Payment Arrangements
Shortpaid mail may be delivered if the addressee makes arrangements
with the delivery post office for the payment of additional postage.
* * * * *
An appropriate amendment to 39 CFR 111.3 to reflect these changes
will be published if the proposal is adopted.
Stanley F. Mires,
Chief Counsel, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 96-8383 Filed 4-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8379 Office of the Secretary; Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 67 (Friday, April 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15340-15348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8379]
[[Page 15339]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Housing and Urban Development
_______________________________________________________________________
24 CFR Part 50
Office of the Secretary; Protection and Enhancement of Environmental
Quality; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 1996 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 15340]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Part 50
[Docket No. FR-2206-P-01]
RIN 2501-AA30
Office of the Secretary; Protection and Enhancement of
Environmental Quality
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would simplify, improve, and update the
Department's implementation of responsibilities for environmental
review and decision making under the National Environmental Policy Act
and the other related Federal environmental laws and authorities. The
proposed rule would apply to all HUD activities and programs, except
those for which specific statutory authority exists to assign the
environmental review responsibilities to recipients and other
responsible entities that are States, units of general local
government, Indian Tribes or other entities subject to HUD regulations.
DATES: Comment due date: June 4, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding
this proposed rule to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of General
Counsel, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications should
refer to the above docket number and title. Facsimile (FAX) comments
are not acceptable. A copy of each communication submitted will be
available for public inspection and copying between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30
p.m. weekdays at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard H. Broun, Director, Office of
Community Viability, Room 7240, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-7000,
telephone (202) 708-2894. For telephone communication, contact Walter
Prybyla, Deputy Director for Policy, Environmental Review Division at
(202) 708-1767. Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may call the
Federal Information Relay Service number at 1-800-877-TDDY (1-800-877-
8339) and refer to (202) 708-1767.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed rule would amend HUD's
regulations in 24 CFR part 50 to simplify, improve, and update the
current policy and procedures used by HUD for its environmental review
and decision making in carrying out responsibilities in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-
4347), the NEPA implementing regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality, and the other Federal environmental laws and
authorities related to NEPA as cited in Sec. 50.4 of this proposed
rule. The proposed rule would apply to all HUD activities and programs,
except those for which specific statutory authority exists to assign
the environmental review responsibilities to recipients and other
responsible entities that are States, units of general local
government, Indian Tribes or other entities subject to 24 CFR part 58.
When this proposed rule is issued as a final rule, it would replace the
current interim rule originally issued on December 15, 1982 (47 FR
56268) and amended since then. For HUD programs covered by this rule,
see paragraph E.
Some of the more recent action-driving developments for this
rulemaking result from the implementation of a series of innovative
initiatives designed to improve the way the Department delivers
services to the public. These and other reasons for this proposed rule
are the following:
A. HUD Regulatory Reinvention
This proposed rule is consistent with the President's March 4,
1995, memorandum directing Federal agencies to examine all regulations,
to eliminate those that are obsolete and to revise other regulations to
increase flexibility and reduce regulatory burden.
B. HUD Reorganization of Field Offices
The Secretary of HUD directed the transformation of HUD to make it
an activist, enabling agent for change through the recent empowering of
HUD field staff through reorganization of HUD field offices. The
proposed rule would remove from the current part 50 the nomenclature of
the previous HUD field office organization and assignments of
responsibility that no longer exist.
C. Environmental Justice
The President issued on February 11, 1994, Executive Order 12898,
(59 FR 7629-7633, February 16, 1994) which directed Federal agencies to
address environmental justice issues affecting minority and low-income
populations. HUD is awaiting additional guidance to Federal agencies
that the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is preparing on how
agencies are to implement this Executive Order.
D. General Updating
There is need for general updating of current part 50, based on
program experience and changes in authorizations. The proposed rule
would restructure part 50 to focus on the new condition that Federal
environmental laws and authorities cited in Sec. 50.4 are now as
prominent as NEPA itself in HUD's environmental review processing. The
need for the preparation of environmental assessments under NEPA has
declined and will continue to decline as the number of categorical
exclusions increases in response to the evolving nature of HUD programs
of assistance. In addition, the proposed rule would respond to the
National Performance Review on government regulations in that the
proposed rule would simplify part 50 by removing the appendices and
other non-statutory provisions. Further information on the general
updating is provided in the following discussion of revisions proposed
in each subpart of the current rule:
Subpart A
Definitions are provided for the terms: HUD approving
official, project, and environmental review.
Additional related Federal laws and authorities are
referenced. Examples of new references are: Executive Order 12898 on
Environmental Justice; the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); and the National Flood
Insurance Reform Act. Removed is the reference to HUD Notice 79-33,
Policy Guidance to Address the Problems Posed by Toxic Chemicals and
Radioactive Material (September 10, 1979). Issues related to toxic
chemicals and radioactive material would be covered under a new
Sec. 50.3(i). Removed also was the reference to the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, because HUD believes this act does not impose a duty
on this Department in light of the nature of HUD's assistance programs
and activities.
Subpart B
Basic responsibility is revised to conform with the new
HUD field office organization.
Terminated functions. Removed from the current rule are
the sections covering functions abolished by the field reorganization,
for example, references to area and service office supervisors and
regional administrators.
Simplification. Also, removed is non-statutory and
internal organizational material that is more suitable for inclusion in
a HUD
[[Page 15341]]
handbook, for example, the section which currently details the
responsibilities of the Other Assistant Secretaries, Administrators,
and the General Counsel.
Responsibility for environmental review is specified. This
new section makes clear that the HUD approving official is responsible
for the environmental review and may use any information supplied by
the applicant or contractor for the environmental review, provided that
HUD independently evaluates the information.
Subpart C
Terminated programs. The proposed rule would remove from
the list of project decision points all references to liquidated
programs such as the Urban Renewal Program, New Community Development
Corporation, and Rehabilitation Loan Program (Sec. 312). Also, the
proposed rule would remove project decision points for hospitals to
remove duplication of environmental review between HUD and the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS is the Federal lead
agency responsible for all aspects of hospital need, type, necessary
services, design, capacity, location and physical/structural
requirements as well as for environmental review and decisionmaking.
HUD's function is confined to insuring the loan after all other
considerations (local, State, and Federal) are met. With each
application submitted to HUD for assistance, HHS would provide HUD with
a certification that HHS has complied with the applicable requirements
of NEPA and other related authorities in accordance with its
regulations.
Other program decision points. At Sec. 50.17(e), the
proposed rule would replace the reference to the Community Development
Block Grants Program (CDBG) with a general reference to ``HUD programs
subject to 24 CFR part 58.'' This general reference now covers a
greater number of HUD programs other than the CDBG program. Section
50.17(g) would provide the decision points for the Stewart B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Act Programs where the recipients are nonprofit
organizations or governmental entities with special or limited purpose
powers.
Subpart D
Categorical exclusions. Sec. 50.19 is being revised to
cover all actions that are excluded from NEPA as well as the related
laws and authorities in Sec. 50.4. Sec. 50.20 continues to cover
actions that are categorically excluded from NEPA, but may be subject
to the laws and authorities cited in Sec. 50.4.
Sec. 50.19: The exclusions listed at Sec. 50.19--unlike
the exclusions listed at Sec. 50.20--rarely, if ever, assist physical
development and therefore are not generally subject to compliance with
the related Federal laws and authorities cited at Sec. 50.4. The rule
proposes additions to include simple transfers from the current list at
Sec. 50.20, for example, GNMA secondary mortgage market activities and
interstate land sales disclosure. Other additions include assistance to
control the effects of imminent threats to health and safety,
activities related to assistance for homeownership, and HUD's
acceptance for insurance of loans under Title I of the National Housing
Act. Also, in response to deregulation goals, the proposed rule at
Sec. 50.19 would require HUD to prepare environmental assessments and
findings of no significant impact on Departmental clearance documents
only when they involve physical development.
Sec. 50.20: The NEPA categorical exclusions listed at
Sec. 50.20 do assist physical development and therefore are generally
subject to compliance with the related Federal laws and authorities
cited at Sec. 50.4. An example of a new addition is any assistance for
the removal of material and architectural barriers that restrict the
mobility of and accessibility to the elderly and persons with
disabilities. In making its determinations that an activity is excluded
at Sec. 50.20 and in compliance with the Federal laws and authorities
cited at Sec. 50.4, HUD will use new form HUD-4128 to replace both the
current form HUD-4128 (an amended version of Appendix A of the current
rule) and the current form HUD-4128.1 (issued 07/93) (an amended
version of Appendix B of the current rule).
Intergovernmental Review: HUD policy is to provide notices
to the affected public and those who have requested them. The proposed
rule would remove references in Secs. 50.25 and 50.31 of the current
interim rule which requires HUD to submit notices to the state process
adopted under 24 CFR part 52, ``Intergovernmental Review of
Departmental Programs.'' Because both part 52 and the underlying
Executive Order 12372 are currently not in active use, HUD would
provide notices only to state agencies requesting them. This would
reduce unnecessary paperwork and acknowledge a decline in the state
process, largely due to the fact that States and local governments have
their own environmental review procedures, which regulate projects
including those proposed by developers with HUD assistance. Also, for a
number of years, HUD no longer is involved in programs that support
large-scale new community and residential subdivision development
having multi-jurisdictional impacts, which necessitated
intergovernmental coordination and review.
Subpart E
Compliance record for environmental assessment. To
document the environmental assessment for projects, the proposed rule
removes references to Appendix A of the current rule and states that
HUD shall use form HUD-4128--Environmental Assessment and Compliance
Findings for the Related Laws.
Subpart F
EIS policy: Rarely do HUD approvals involve a major
Federal action for which a detailed environmental impact statement is
required under the National Environmental Policy Act. As a result,
subpart F has become inactive. The proposed rule would address this
matter by improving this subpart in the following ways. It would reduce
duplication by eliminating the several sections of the current interim
rule which repeat guidance found in 40 CFR part 1502. The duplicative
guidance that is proposed for deletion includes the following sections:
Sec. 50.44 (Notice of intent to prepare an EIS); Sec. 50.45 (Scoping,
lead agencies and co-operating agencies); Sec. 50.46 (Tiering);
Sec. 50.47 (Procedural requirements); Sec. 50.48 (Adoption of other
agencies' environmental impact statements); and Sec. 50.49 (Use of
prior environmental impact statements). The proposed change in no way
diminishes the basic legal requirements under the removed sections,
because Sec. 50.1 of the proposed rule continues to incorporate the CEQ
regulations, including the requirements of part 1502 with respect to
EISs, by reference into part 50.
Cases when an EIS is required. Because HUD's New Community
Program no longer exists, the proposed rule would remove the reference
to the normal EIS requirement for an amendment to a Development Plan
for a new community.
Emergencies. The proposed rule would broaden the concept
of emergencies: (i) to include those other than national emergencies
and disasters and cases of imminent threat to health and safety; and
(ii) to apply to applicable Sec. 50.4 authorities which provide for
emergencies.
[[Page 15342]]
Appendices to 24 CFR 50
The proposed rule would remove dated Appendix A to Part 50
(Environmental Assessments for Subdivision and Multifamily Projects)
and Appendix B to Part 50 (Compliance and LAC Conditions Record). The
current rule references Appendices A (form HUD-4128) and B (form HUD-
4128.1) for use by HUD for documenting environmental assessments and
environmental reviews for categorical exclusions, respectively. Under
the proposed rule, the two forms (last issued 07/93) would be
simplified and combined into a new form HUD-4128--Environmental
Assessment and Compliance Findings for Related Laws.
E. HUD Programs Subject to 24 CFR 50
HUD programs that lack specific authority for assigning the Federal
environmental review responsibilities to recipients are presented below
by the HUD office that administers the program, the program title, the
program regulation part number of title 24 CFR, and the program number
used in the Catalog of Federal Programs. This list is provided for the
reader's convenience. Generally, this list covers all HUD programs
other than those identified at Sec. 58.1(b) of 24 CFR Part 58 (60 FR
49469). In addition to the programs listed below, part 50 applies to
projects and activities carried out by recipients subject to
environmental policy and procedures of 24 CFR part 58 in specific
circumstances discussed at Sec. 50.1(d) of this proposed rule. The
following may not be an exhaustive list, but contains the principal HUD
assistance programs subject to part 50.
Office of Community Planning and Development
HOPE for Homeownership of Single Family Homes: HOPE 3
[572] 14.240
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS [574] 14.241
Emergency Shelter Grants Program: Stewart B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Act [576] [Part 50 applies only to applicants that
are private nonprofit organizations and to governmental entities with
special or limited purpose powers] 14.231
Supportive Housing Program [583] [Part 50 applies only to
applicants that are private nonprofit organizations and to governmental
entities with special or limited purpose powers] 14.235
Shelter Plus Care [582] [Part 50 applies only to
conditionally selected applications received from Public Housing
Authority applicants] 14.238
Opportunities for Youth: Youthbuild [585] 14.243
John Heinz Neighborhood Development Program [594] 14.242
Special Purpose Grants for Historically-Black Colleges and
Universities [570.404] 14.237
Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless
Assistance [586] 14.227
Office of Housing: Single Family Housing Programs
HUD-Owned Single Family Property Disposition [291] 14.XXX
Office of Housing: Multifamily Housing Programs
Multifamily Rental Housing for Moderate-Income Families:
Section 221(d) (3) and (4) [221] 14.135
Existing Multifamily Rental Housing: Section 223(f)
[207.32a] 14.155
Supportive Housing for the Elderly: Section 202 [889]
14.157
Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities: Section
811 [890] 14.181
Mortgage Insurance for Single Room Occupancy Projects:
Section 221(d) pursuant to Section 223(g) [221.565] 14.135
Mortgage Insurance for Nursing Homes, Intermediate Care
Facilities, and Board and Care Homes: Section 232 [232] 14.129
Supplemental Loans for Multifamily Projects: Section 241
[241] 14.151
HOPE for Homeownership of Multifamily Units: HOPE 2
[Appendix B to Subtitle A of 24 CFR] 14.185
Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident
Homeownership: Title VI [248 A] 14.187
Emergency Low-Income Housing Preservation: Title II [248
B] 14.187
Flexible Subsidy Program for Troubled Projects: Section
201 [219] 14.164
Manufactured Home Parks: Section 207 Land development
[207.33] 14.127
Management and Disposition of HUD-owned Multifamily
Projects [290] 14.XXX
Mortgage Insurance for Housing for the Elderly: Section
231 [231] 14.138 [Not used. Instead Section 221(d)3 and (d)(4) are
used.]
Cooperative Housing: Section 213 [213] 14.126 [Authorized
but not used. New construction and substantial rehabilitation
cooperative projects are currently insured under Section 221(d)(3)]
Multifamily Rental Housing: Section 207 [207] 14.134 [Not
used. Instead Section 221(d)3 and (d)(4) are used.]
Mortgage Insurance and Insured Improvement Loans for Urban
Renewal and Concentrated Development Areas: Section 220 [220] 14.139
[Not frequently used]
Group Practice Medical Facilities: Title XI [244] 14.116
[Not used in recent years]
Nehemiah Housing Opportunity Grants Program [280] [No
current funding]
Office of Public and Indian Housing
HOPE for Public and Indian Housing Homeownership Program:
[Appendix A to Subtitle A of 24 CFR] 14.858
Public and Indian Housing Youth Sports Program [proposed
961.50] 14.863
Public and Indian Housing Drug Elimination Program [961]
14.854
Part 50 continues to be used, because the implementation
of part 58 is delayed for the remaining Public housing programs until a
Federal Register notice is published making part 58 effective or until
October 14, 1996, whichever comes first:
Public Housing Development [941] 14.850 and 14.851
Public Housing Modernization [968] 14.852 and 14.859
Demolition or Disposition of Public Housing Projects [970]
14.850
Office of Policy Research and Development
CDBG Joint Community Development Program [570.411] 14.XXX
[Part 50 applies only to applicants (e.g. to universities) that are not
a State or unit of general local government.]
Findings and Other Matters
Environmental Impact
A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment
has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50,
implementing section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332). The Finding of No Significant Impact is
available for public inspection during business hours in the Office of
the Rules Docket Clerk, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20410-0500.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under section 6(a)
of Executive Order 12612, ``Federalism,'' has determined that the
policies contained in this proposed rule have no federalism
implications, and that the policies are not subject to review under the
order. This proposed rule is limited to updating the Department's
[[Page 15343]]
implementation of its responsibilities for environmental review and
decisionmaking under the National Environmental Policy Act and other
related Federal environmental laws and authorities.
Executive Order 12606, the Family
The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under Executive
Order, ``The Family,'' has determined that this proposed rule does not
have potential for significant impact on family formation, maintenance,
and general well-being, and, thus, is not subject to review under the
order. No significant change in existing HUD policies or programs will
result from promulgation of this proposed rule, as those policies and
programs relate to family concerns.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 605(b)) has reviewed and approved this proposed rule, and in so
doing certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule would streamline 24 CFR part 50 and carry out the
statutory mandate of the National Environmental Policy Act and the
other Federal environmental laws and authorities listed in Sec. 50.4.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (1994)
The program numbers are 14.128-14.900. Also see the above paragraph
E.
List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 50
Environmental quality, Environmental protection, Environmental
review policy and procedures, Environmental assessment, Environmental
impact statement, Compliance record.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 50 of title 24 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be revised to read as
follows:
PART 50--PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Subpart A--General: Federal Laws and Authorities
Sec.
50.1 Purpose, authority, and applicability.
50.2 Terms and abbreviations.
50.3 Environmental policy.
50.4 Related Federal laws and authorities.
50.5--50.9 [Reserved]
Subpart B--General Policy: Responsibilities and Program Coverage
50.10 Basic environmental responsibility.
50.11 [Reserved]
50.12 Responsibility of the HUD approving official.
50.13--50.15 [Reserved]
Subpart C--General Policy: Decision Points
50.16 Decision points for policy actions.
50.17 Decision points for projects.
Subpart D--General Policy: Environmental Review Procedures
50.18 General.
50.19 Categorical exclusions not subject to the Federal laws and
authorities cited in Sec. 50.4.
50.20 Categorical exclusions subject to the Federal laws and
authorities cited in Sec. 50.4.
50.21 Aggregation.
50.22 Environmental management and monitoring.
50.23 Public participation.
50.24 HUD review of another agency's EIS.
50.25--50.30 [Reserved]
Subpart E--Environmental Assessments and Related Reviews
50.31 The EA.
50.32 Responsibility for environmental processing.
50.33 Action resulting from the assessment.
50.34 Time delays for exceptional circumstances.
50.35 Use of prior environmental assessments.
50.36 Updating of environmental reviews.
50.37--50.40 [Reserved]
Subpart F--Environmental Impact Statements
50.41 EIS policy.
50.42 Cases when an EIS is required.
50.43 Emergencies.
50.44--50.50 [Reserved]
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 4332; and Executive Order
11991, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 123.
Subpart A--General: Federal Laws and Authorities
Sec. 50.1 Purpose, authority, and applicability.
(a) This part implements the policies of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and other environmental requirements (as specified in
Sec. 50.4).
(b) NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., establishes national policy,
goals and procedures for protecting, restoring and enhancing
environmental quality. NEPA is implemented by Executive Order 11514 of
March 5, 1970, (3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 902) as amended by Executive
Order 11991 of May 24, 1977, (3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 123) and by the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations, 40 CFR parts 1500
through 1508.
(c) The regulations issued by CEQ at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508
establish the basic procedural requirements for compliance with NEPA.
These procedures are to be followed by all Federal agencies. This part,
therefore, provides supplemental instructions to reflect the particular
nature of HUD programs, and is to be used in tandem with 40 CFR parts
1500 through 1508 and regulations that implement authorities cited at
Sec. 50.4.
(d) The regulations in this part apply to all HUD policy actions
(as defined in Sec. 50.16), and to all HUD project actions (see
Sec. 50.2(a)(2)). Also, they apply to projects and activities carried
out by recipients subject to environmental policy and procedures of 24
CFR part 58, when the recipient that is regulated under 24 CFR part 58
claims the lack of legal capacity to assume the Secretary's
environmental review responsibilities and the claim is approved by HUD
or when HUD determines to conduct an environmental review itself in
place of a nonrecipient responsible entity. For programs, activities or
actions not specifically identified or when there are questions
regarding the applicability of this part, the Assistant Secretary for
Community Planning and Development shall be consulted.
Sec. 50.2 Terms and abbreviations.
(a) The definitions for most of the key terms or phrases contained
in this part appear in 40 CFR part 1508 and in the authorities cited in
Sec. 50.4. The following definitions also apply to this part:
(1) HUD approving official means the HUD official authorized to
make the approval decision for any proposed policy or project subject
to this part.
(2) Project means an activity, or a group of integrally-related
activities, undertaken directly by HUD or proposed for HUD assistance
or insurance.
(3) Environmental review means a process for complying with NEPA
(through an EA or EIS) and/or with the laws and authorities cited in
Sec. 50.4.
(b) The following abbreviations are used throughout this part:
AS/CPD--Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development
CEQ--Council on Environmental Quality
CO--HUD Headquarters (Central Office)
DECO--Departmental Environmental Clearance Officer
EA--Environmental Assessment
EIS--Environmental Impact Statement
EPA--U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FECO--Field Environmental Clearance Officer
FO--HUD Field Office
FONSI--Finding of No Significant Impact
HUD--Department of Housing and Urban Development
NEPA--National Environmental Policy Act
NOI/EIS--Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement
PECO--Program Environmental Clearance Officer
PHA--Public Housing Authority
[[Page 15344]]
Sec. 50.3 Environmental policy.
(a) It is the policy of the Department to reject proposals which
have significant adverse environmental impacts and to encourage the
modification of projects in order to enhance environmental quality and
minimize environmental harm.
(b) The HUD approving official shall consider environmental and
other Departmental objectives in the decisionmaking process.
(c) When EA's or EIS's or reviews under Sec. 50.4 reveal conditions
or safeguards that should be implemented once a proposal is approved in
order to protect and enhance environmental quality or minimize adverse
environmental impacts, such conditions or safeguards must be included
in agreements or other relevant documents.
(d) A systematic, interdisciplinary approach shall be used to
assure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the
environmental design arts in making decisions.
(e) Environmental impacts shall be evaluated on as comprehensive a
scale as is practicable.
(f) HUD offices shall begin the environmental review process at the
earliest possible time so that potential conflicts between program
procedures and environmental requirements are identified at an early
stage.
(g) Applicants for HUD assistance shall be advised of environmental
requirements and consultation with governmental agencies and
individuals shall take place at the earliest time feasible.
(h) For HUD grant programs in which the funding approval for an
applicant's program must occur before the applicant's selection of
properties, the application shall contain an assurance that the
applicant agrees to assist HUD to comply with this part and that the
applicant shall:
(1) Supply HUD with all available, relevant information necessary
for HUD to perform for each property any environmental review required
by this part;
(2) Carry out mitigating measures required by HUD or select
alternate eligible property; and
(3) Not acquire, rehabilitate, convert, lease, repair or construct
property, nor commit or expend HUD or local funds for these program
activities with respect to any eligible property, until HUD approval of
the property is received.
(i)(1) It is HUD policy that all property proposed for use in HUD
programs be free of hazardous materials, contamination, toxic chemicals
and gasses, and radioactive substances, where a hazard could affect the
health and safety of occupants or the utilization of the property.
(2) HUD environmental review of multifamily and non-residential
properties shall include evaluation of previous uses of the site and
other evidence of contamination on or near the site, to assure that
occupants of proposed sites are not adversely affected by the hazards
listed in paragraph (i)(1) of this section.
(3) Particular attention should be given to any proposed site on or
in the general proximity of such areas as dumps, landfills, industrial
sites or other locations that contain hazardous wastes.
(4) HUD shall require the use of current techniques by qualified
professionals to undertake investigations determined necessary.
Sec. 50.4 Related Federal laws and authorities.
HUD and/or applicants must comply, where applicable, with all
environmental requirements, guidelines and statutory obligations under
the following authorities and HUD standards:
(a) Historic properties: (1) The National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
(2) Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the
Cultural Environment, May 13, 1971 (3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 559).
(3) The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, which
amends the Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.).
(4) Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural
Properties (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation--36 CFR part
800).
(b) Flood insurance, floodplain management and wetland protection:
(1) Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4001-4128) and the
National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (Pub. L.103-325, 108 Stat.
2160).
(2) HUD Procedure for the Implementation of Executive Order 11988
of May 24, 1977 (3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 117)--24 CFR part 55, Floodplain
Management.
(3) Executive Order 11990 of May 24, 1977 (Protection of Wetlands),
(3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p. 121).
(c) Coastal areas protection and management: (1) The Coastal
Barrier Resources Act, as amended by the Coastal Barrier Improvement
Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
(2) The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et
seq.), as amended.
(d) Sole source aquifers: The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 201, 300 et seq., and 21 U.S.C. 349), as amended. (See 40 CFR
part 149.)
(e) Endangered species: The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), as amended. (See 50 CFR part 402.)
(f) Wild and scenic rivers: The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16
U.S.C 1271 et seq.), as amended.
(g) Water quality: The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and later enactments.
(h) Air quality: The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), as
amended. (See 40 CFR parts 6, 51, and 93.)
(i) [Reserved]
(j) Solid waste management: (1) The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42
U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), and later enactments.
(2) The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).
(k) Farmlands protection: The Farmland Protection Policy Act of
1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.). (See 7 CFR part 658.)
(l) HUD environmental standards: Applicable criteria and standards
specified in HUD environmental regulations (24 CFR part 51).
(m) Environmental justice: Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 859).
Secs. 50.5-50.9 [Reserved]
Subpart B--General Policy: Responsibilities and Program Coverage
Sec. 50.10 Basic environmental responsibility.
(a) It is the responsibility of all Assistant Secretaries, the
General Counsel, and the HUD approving official to assure that the
requirements of this part are implemented.
(b) The Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development
(A/S CPD), represented by the Office of Community Viability, whose
Director shall serve as the DECO, is assigned the overall Departmental
responsibility for environmental policies and procedures for compliance
with NEPA and the related laws and authorities. To the extent permitted
by applicable laws and the CEQ regulations, the A/S CPD shall approve
waivers and exceptions or establish criteria for exceptions from the
requirements of this part.
[[Page 15345]]
Sec. 50.11 [Reserved]
Sec. 50.12 Responsibility of the HUD approving official.
(a) The HUD approving official shall make an independent evaluation
of the environmental issues, take responsibility for the scope and
content of the compliance finding, EA or EIS, and make the
environmental finding, where applicable. (Also, see Sec. 50.32.)
(b) Copies of environmental reviews and findings shall be
maintained in the project file for projects, in the Rules Docket files
for Federal Register publications, and in program files for non-Federal
Register policy documents.
Secs. 50.13-50.15 [Reserved]
Subpart C--General Policy: Decision Points
Sec. 50.16 Decision points for policy actions.
Either an EA and FONSI or an EIS on all policy actions not meeting
the criteria of Sec. 50.19 shall be completed prior to the approval
action. Policy actions include all proposed Federal Register policy
documents and other policy-related Federal actions (40 CFR 1508.18).
The decision as to whether a proposed policy action is categorically
excluded from an EA shall be made by the PECO as early as possible.
Where the PECO has any doubt as to whether a proposed action qualifies
for exclusion, the PECO shall request a determination by the AS/CPD.
The EA and FONSI may be combined into a single document.
Sec. 50.17 Decision points for projects.
Either an EA and FONSI or an EIS for individual projects shall be
completed before the applicable program decision points described in
this section for projects not meeting the criteria of Sec. 50.20.
Compliance with applicable authorities cited in Sec. 50.4 shall be
completed before the applicable program decision points described in
this section unless the project meets the criteria for exclusion under
Sec. 50.19.
(a) New Construction. (1) Project mortgage insurance or other
financial assistance for multifamily housing projects (including
Sections 202 and 811), nursing homes, group practice facilities and
manufactured home parks: Issuance of Site Appraisal and Market Analysis
(SAMA) Letter or initial equivalent indication of HUD approval of a
specific site;
(2) Public Housing: PHA proposal approval.
(b) Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Projects: Use the decision
points under ``new construction'' for HUD programs cited in paragraph
(a) of this section; otherwise the decision point is the HUD project
approval.
(c) Public Housing Programs. Modernization Programs: HUD approval
of the modernization grants.
(d) Property Disposition. (1) Vacant land and one to four family
structures: HUD approval of the Disposition Program.
(2) Multifamily structures, college housing, nursing homes,
manufactured homes and parks, group practice facilities: HUD approval
of the Disposition Program.
(e) HUD programs subject to 24 CFR part 58. For cases in which HUD
exercises environmental responsibility under this part where a
recipient lacks legal capacity to do so or HUD determines to do so in
place of a nonrecipient responsible entity under 24 CFR part 58 (see
Sec. 50.1(d)), the decision point is: HUD's execution of an agreement
or contract, whichever comes first, or in the case of Section 8
Project-Based Certificate Assistance and Moderate Rehabilitation, HUD
notification to the PHA to proceed with execution of an Agreement to
Enter into Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) Contract.
(f) Notwithstanding the other paragraphs of this section, the
decision point for grant programs in which HUD approval of funding for
an applicant's program must occur before the applicant's selection of
properties for use in its program is: HUD approval of specific
properties (see Sec. 50.3(h)).
(g) Steward B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act Programs. Where the
recipients are nonprofit organizations or governmental entities with
special or limited purpose powers, the decision point is: HUD project
approval.
(h) Programs not specifically covered in this section. Consult with
the AS/CPD for decision points.
Subpart D--General Policy: Environmental Review Procedures
Sec. 50.18 General.
HUD may, from time to time, complete programmatic reviews that
further avoid the necessity of complying with the laws and authorities
in Sec. 50.4 on a property-by-property basis.
Sec. 50.19 Categorical exclusions not subject to the Federal laws and
authorities cited in Sec. 50.4.
(a) The activities listed in this section are not subject to the
individual compliance requirements of the Federal laws and authorities
cited in Sec. 50.4, unless otherwise indicated in this section. These
activities are also categorically excluded from the EA required by NEPA
except in extraordinary circumstances (Sec. 50.20(b)). HUD approval or
implementation of these categories of activities and related policy
actions does not require environmental review, because they do not
alter physical conditions in a manner or to an extent that would
require review under NEPA or the other laws and authorities cited at
Sec. 50.4.
(b)(1) Environmental and other studies, resource identification and
the development of plans and strategies.
(2) Information and financial advisory services.
(3) Administrative and management activities by HUD clients.
(4) Public services that will not have a physical impact or result
in any physical changes, including but not limited to services
concerned with employment, crime prevention, child care, health, drug
abuse, education, counseling, energy conservation and welfare or
recreational needs.
(5) Inspections and testing of properties for hazards or defects.
(6) Purchase of insurance.
(7) Purchase of tools.
(8) Engineering or design costs.
(9) Technical assistance and training.
(10) Assistance for temporary or permanent improvements that do not
alter environmental conditions and are limited to protection, repair or
restoration activities necessary only to control or arrest the effects
from disasters, imminent threats or physical deterioration.
(11) Tenant-based rental assistance.
(12) Supportive services including, but not limited to, health
care, housing services, permanent housing placement, day care,
nutritional services, short-term payments for rent/mortgage/utility
costs, and assistance in gaining access to local, State, and Federal
government benefits and services.
(13) Operating costs including maintenance, security, operation,
utilities, furnishings, equipment, supplies, staff training and
recruitment and other incidental costs; however, in the case of
equipment, compliance with Sec. 50.4(b)(1) is required.
(14) Economic development activities, including but not limited to,
equipment purchase, inventory financing, interest subsidy, operating
expenses and similar costs not associated with construction or
expansion of existing operations; however, in the case of equipment
purchase, compliance with Sec. 50.4(b)(1) is required.
(15) Activities to assist homeownership of existing dwelling units,
including closing costs and down payment assistance to home buyers,
[[Page 15346]]
interest buydowns and similar activities that result in the transfer of
title to a property; however, compliance with Sec. 50.4 (b)(1) and
(c)(1), and 24 CFR 51.303(a)(3) is required.
(16) Housing pre-development costs including legal, consulting,
developer and other costs related to site options, project financing,
administrative costs and fees for loan commitments, zoning approvals,
and other related activities which do not have a physical impact.
(17) HUD's endorsement of one-to-four family mortgage insurance
under the Direct Endorsement program and HUD's acceptance for insurance
of loans under Title I of the National Housing Act; however, compliance
with Sec. 50.4 (b)(1) and (c)(1), and 24 CFR 51.303(a)(3) is required.
(18) HUD's endorsement of one-to-four family mortgage insurance for
proposed construction under Improved Area processing, however, the
Appraiser/Review Appraiser Checksheet (Form HUD-54891) must be
completed.
(19) Activities of the Government National Mortgage Association
under Title III of the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1716 et seq.
(20) Activities under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act
(15 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
(c)(1) Approval of policy documents that do not direct, provide for
assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or
regulate property acquisition, disposition, lease, rehabilitation,
alteration, demolition, or new construction, or set out or provide for
standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured
housing, or occupancy.
(2) Approval of policy documents that amend a previous document
where the underlying document as a whole would not fall within the
exclusion but the amendment by itself would do so.
(3) Approval of policy documents that set out fair housing or
nondiscrimination standards or provide for assistance in promoting or
enforcing fair housing or nondiscrimination.
(4) Approval of handbooks, notices and other documents that provide
operating instructions and procedures in connection with activities
under a Federal Register document that has previously been subject to a
required environmental review.
(5) Approval of a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) that
provides funding under, and does not alter environmental requirements
of, a regulation or program guideline that was previously published in
the Federal Register, provided that the NOFA specifically refers to the
environmental review provisions of the regulation or guideline;
(6) Statutorily required and/or discretionary establishment and
review of interest rates, loan limits, building cost limits, prototype
costs, fair market rent schedules, HUD-determined prevailing wage
rates, and similar rate and cost determinations and related external
administrative or fiscal requirements or procedures which do not
constitute a development decision that affects the physical condition
of specific project areas or building sites.
Sec. 50.20 Categorical exclusions subject to the Federal laws and
authorities cited in Sec. 50.4.
(a) The following actions, activities and programs are
categorically excluded from the NEPA requirements of this part.
However, they are not excluded from individual compliance requirements
of other environmental statutes, Executive orders and HUD standards
cited in Sec. 50.4, where appropriate. Form HUD-4128 shall be used to
document compliance. Where the responsible official determines that any
item identified in this paragraph may have an environmental effect
because of extraordinary circumstances (40 CFR 1508.4), the
requirements of NEPA shall apply (see paragraph (b) of this section).
(1) Special projects directed to the removal of material and
architectural barriers that restrict the mobility of and accessibility
to elderly and persons with disabilities.
(2) Rehabilitation of structures when the following conditions are
met:
(i) In the case of residential buildings, the unit density is not
changed more than 20 percent;
(ii) The project does not involve changes in land use (from non-
residential to residential or from residential to non-residential); and
(iii) The estimated cost of rehabilitation is less than 75 percent
of the total estimated cost of replacement after rehabilitation.
(3) An individual action on a one- to four-family dwelling or an
individual action on a project of five or more units developed on
scattered sites when the sites are more than 2,000 feet apart and there
are not more than four units on any one site.
(4) Acquisition or disposition of, or equity loans on, an existing
structure.
(5) Purchased or refinanced housing and medical facilities under
section 223(f) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715n).
(6) Mortgage prepayments or plans of actions (including incentives)
under 24 CFR part 248.
(b) For categorical exclusions having the potential for significant
impact because of extraordinary circumstances, HUD must prepare an EA
in accordance with subpart E of this part. If it is evident without
preparing an EA that an EIS is required pursuant to Sec. 50.42, HUD
should proceed directly to the preparation of an EIS in accordance with
subpart F of this part.
Sec. 50.21 Aggregation.
Activities which are geographically related and are logical parts
of a composite of contemplated HUD projects shall be evaluated
together.
Sec. 50.22 Environmental management and monitoring.
An Environmental Management and Monitoring Program shall be
established prior to project approval when it is deemed necessary by
the HUD approving official. The program shall be part of the approval
document and must:
(a) Be concurred in by the FECO and any cooperating agencies;
(b) Contain specific standards, safeguards and commitments to be
completed during project implementation;
(c) Identify the staff who will be responsible for the post-
approval inspection; and
(d) Specify the time periods for conducting the evaluation and
monitoring the applicant's compliance with the project agreements.
Sec. 50.23 Public participation.
HUD shall inform the affected public about NEPA-related hearings
and public meetings and environmental documents. Where project actions
result in a FONSI, the FONSI will be available in the project file. In
all cases, HUD shall mail notices to those who have requested them.
Additional efforts for involving the public in specific notice or
compliance requirements shall be made in accord with the NEPA-related
laws and authorities and their implementing procedures cited in
Sec. 50.4.
(a) A NOI/EIS shall be forwarded to the AS/CPD to the attention of
the DECO for publication in the Federal Register.
(b) Notices will be bilingual if the affected public includes a
significant portion of non-English speaking persons and will identify a
date when the official public involvement element of the proposed
action is to be completed and HUD internal processing is to continue.
(c) All notices shall be published in an appropriate local printed
news
[[Page 15347]]
medium, and sent to individuals and groups known to be interested in
the proposed action.
(d) All notices shall inform the public where additional
information may be obtained.
Sec. 50.24 HUD review of another agency's EIS.
Where another agency's EIS is referred to the HUD FO in whose
jurisdiction the project is located, the FECO shall determine whether
HUD has an interest in the EIS and, if so, will review and comment. Any
EIS received from another Federal agency requesting comment on
legislative proposals, regulations, or other policy documents shall be
sent to the AS/CPD for comment, and the AS/CPD shall provide the
General Counsel the opportunity for comment.
Secs. 50.25-50.30 [Reserved]
Subpart E--Environmental Assessments and Related Reviews
Sec. 50.31 The EA.
(a) Form HUD-4128--Environmental Assessment and Compliance Findings
for the Related Laws is the EA form to be used for analysis and
documentation by HUD for projects and activities under subpart E of
this part. The DECO shall approve the issuance of equivalent formats,
if Form HUD-4128 does not meet specific program needs.
(b) The program representative shall obtain interdisciplinary
assistance from professional experts and other HUD staff as needed.
Additional information may also be requested of the sponsor/applicant.
HUD is responsible for assessing and documenting the extent of the
environmental impact.
Sec. 50.32 Responsibility for environmental processing.
The program staff in the HUD office responsible for processing the
project application or recommending a policy action is responsible for
conducting the compliance finding, EA, or EIS. The collection of data
and studies as part of the information contained in the environmental
review may be done by an applicant or the applicant's contractor. The
HUD program staff may use any information supplied by the applicant or
contractor, provided HUD independently evaluates the information, will
be responsible for its accuracy, supplements the information, if
necessary, to conform to the requirements of this part, and prepares
the environmental finding. Assessments for projects over 200 lots/
dwelling units or beds shall be sent to the FECO or, in the absence of
a FECO, to the PECO for review and comment.
Sec. 50.33 Action resulting from the assessment.
(a) A proposal may be accepted without modifications if the EA
indicates that the proposal will not significantly (see 40 CFR 1508.27)
affect the quality of the human environment and a FONSI is prepared.
(b) A proposal may be accepted with modifications provided that:
(1) Changes have been made that would reduce adverse environmental
impact to acceptable and insignificant levels; and
(2) An Environmental Management and Monitoring Program is developed
in accordance with Sec. 50.22 when it is deemed necessary by the HUD
approving official.
(c) A proposal should be rejected if significant and unavoidable
adverse environmental impacts would still exist after modifications
have been made to the proposal and an EIS is not prepared.
(d) A proposal (if not rejected) shall require an EIS if the EA
indicates that significant environmental impacts would result.
Sec. 50.34 Time delays for exceptional circumstances.
(a) Under the circumstances described in this section, the FONSI
must be made available for public review for 30 calendar days before a
final decision is made whether to prepare an EIS and before the HUD
action is taken. The circumstances are:
(1) When the proposed action is, or is closely similar to, one
which normally requires the preparation of an EIS pursuant to
Sec. 50.42(b) but it is determined, as a result of an EA or in the
course of preparation of a draft EIS, that the proposed action will not
have a significant impact on the human environment; or
(2) When the nature of the proposed action is without precedent and
does not appear to require more than an assessment.
(b) In such cases, the FONSI must be concurred in by the AS/CPD and
the PECO. Notice of the availability of the FONSI shall be given to the
public in accordance with paragraphs (a) through (d) of Sec. 50.23.
Sec. 50.35 Use of prior environmental assessments.
When other Federal, State, or local agencies have prepared an EA or
other environmental analysis for a proposed HUD project, these
documents should be requested and used to the extent possible. HUD
must, however, conduct the environmental analysis and prepare the EA
and be responsible for the required environmental finding.
Sec. 50.36 Updating of environmental reviews.
The environmental review must be re-evaluated and updated when the
basis for the original environmental or compliance findings is affected
by a major change requiring HUD approval in the nature, magnitude or
extent of a project and the project is not yet complete. A change only
in the amount of financing or mortgage insurance involved does not
normally require the environmental review to be re-evaluated or
updated.
Secs. 50.37-50.40 [Reserved]
Subpart F--Environmental Impact Statements
Sec. 50.41 EIS policy.
EIS's will be prepared and considered in program determinations
pursuant to the general environmental policy stated in Sec. 50.3 and 40
CFR 1505.2(b) and (c).
Sec. 50.42 Cases when an EIS is required.
(a) An EIS is required if the proposal is determined to have a
significant impact on the human environment pursuant to subpart E of
this part.
(b) An EIS will normally be required if the proposal:
(1) Would provide a site or sites for nursing homes containing a
total of 2,500 or more beds; or
(2) Would remove, demolish, convert, or substantially rehabilitate
2,500 or more existing housing units (but not including rehabilitation
projects categorically excluded under Sec. 50.20), or which would
result in the construction or installation of 2,500 or more housing
units, or which would provide sites for 2,500 or more housing units.
(c) When the environmental concerns of one or more Federal
authorities cited in Sec. 50.4 will be affected by the proposal, the
cumulative impact of all such effects should be assessed to determine
whether an EIS is required. However, where all of the affected
authorities provide alternative procedures for resolution, those
procedures should be used in lieu of an EIS.
Sec. 50.43 Emergencies.
In cases of national emergency and disasters or cases of imminent
threat to health and safety or other emergency which require the taking
of an action with significant environmental impact, the provisions of
40 CFR 1506.11 and of any applicable Sec. 50.4 authorities which
provide for emergencies shall apply.
[[Page 15348]]
Secs. 50.44--50.50 [Reserved]
Dated: February 26, 1996.
Henry G. Cisneros,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-8379 Filed 4-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-32-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8293 Regulations Governing Fees for Services Performed In Connection With Licensing and Related Services1996 Update
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 67 (Friday, April 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15208-15212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8293]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
49 CFR Part 1002
[STB Ex Parte No. 542]
Regulations Governing Fees for Services Performed In Connection
With Licensing and Related Services--1996 Update
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15209]]
SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (Board) is proposing to adopt
its 1996 User Fee Update and to revise its fee schedule at this time to
recover the costs associated with providing services to the public.
DATES: Comments are due on May 6, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments (an original and 10 copies referring to STB Ex
Parte No. 5427) to: Surface Transportation Board, Office of the
Secretary, Case Control Branch, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20423.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen M. King, (202) 927-5249 or
David T. Groves, (202) 927-6395. [TDD for the hearing impaired: (202)
927-5721.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board's regulations in 49 CFR 1002.3
require the Board to update its user fee schedule annually.1 In
this proceeding, the Board proposes to revise its fee schedule based on
the cost study formula set forth at 49 CFR 1002.3(d). The Board also
proposes to modify selected fees to reflect new cost study data. In
addition, new fees are proposed for services and activities that have
not previously been included in the Board's user fee schedule.
\1\ Effective January 1, 1996, the ICC Termination Act of 1995,
Pub. L. No. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803 abolished the Interstate Commerce
Commission and established the Board within the Department of
Transportation. The Act provides that with certain exceptions, all
regulations previously issued by the Commission shall continue in
effect according to their terms until modified or terminated.
Accordingly, all of the Commission's regulations, including those
related to user fees in 49 CFR Part 1002 were transferred to the
Board in Transfer of Regulations from the Interstate Commerce
Commission to the Surface Transportation Board Pursuant to the ICC
Termination Act of 1995, STB Ex Parte No. 525 61 FR 1842 (1-24-96).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the current fee schedule, the fees for a number of Board
proceedings have been set at less than fully distributed cost. The
Board is proposing to adopt the policy of setting all of its user fees
at a level that will recover the Board's full cost of providing the
involved services. Accordingly, the Board proposes to establish the
fees for such proceedings as major and significant rail mergers, rail
finance proceedings, formal complaints, and petitions for declaratory
order at the fully distributed cost level.
In this proceeding, the Board also is proposing to update these
regulations to reflect the recent enactment of the ICC Termination Act
of 1995.
The Board concludes that the fee changes proposed here will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities because the Board's regulations in 49 CFR 1002.2(e) provide
for waiver of filing fees for those entities which can make the
required showing of financial hardship.
Additional information is contained in the Commission's decision.
To obtain a copy of the full decision, write, call, or pick up in
person from DC News & Data, Inc., Room 2229, 1201 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20423. Telephone: (202) 289-4357/4359. [Assistance
for the hearing impaired is available through TDD services (202) 927-
5721.]
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1002
Administrative practice and procedure, Common carriers, Freedom of
information, User fees.
Decided: March 26, 1996.
By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Simmons, and
Commissioner Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 49, chapter X,
part 1002, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 1002--FEES
1. The authority citation for part 1002 is proposed to be revised
to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A), and 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701 and 49
U.S.C. 721.
2. Section 1002.1 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs
(b), (e)(1) and the chart in paragraph (f)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 1002.1 Fees for records search, review, copying, certification,
and related services.
* * * * *
(b) Service involved in examination of tariffs or schedules for
preparation of certified copies of tariffs or schedules or extracts
therefrom at the rate of $24.00 per hour.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) A fee of $42.00 per hour for professional staff time will be
charged when it is required to fulfill a request for ADP data.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(6) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GS-1.......................................................... $7.13
GS-2.......................................................... 7.76
GS-3.......................................................... 8.75
GS-4.......................................................... 9.82
GS-5.......................................................... 10.99
GS-6.......................................................... 12.25
GS-7.......................................................... 13.61
GS-8.......................................................... 15.07
GS-9.......................................................... 16.65
GS-10......................................................... 18.33
GS-11......................................................... 20.14
GS-12......................................................... 24.14
GS-13......................................................... 28.71
GS-14......................................................... 33.93
GS-15 and over................................................ 39.91
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
3. Section 1002.2 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs
(d), and (f), and the heading of paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 1002.2 Filing fees.
* * * * *
(d) Related or consolidated proceedings. (1) Separate fees need not
be paid for related applications filed by the same applicant which
would be the subject of one proceeding.
(2) A separate fee will be assessed for the filing of an
application for temporary authority to operate a motor carrier of
passengers as provided in paragraph (f)(5) of this section regardless
of whether such application is related to a corresponding transfer
proceeding as provided for in paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
(3) The Board may reject concurrently filed applications,
petitions, notices, contracts summaries, or other documents asserted to
be related and refund the filing fee if, in its judgment, they embrace
two or more severable matters which should be the subject of separate
proceedings.
(e) Waiver or reduction of filing fees.
* * * * *
(f) Schedule of filing fees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of Proceeding Fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part I: Non-rail applications or
proceedings to enter upon a particular
financial transaction or joint
arrangement:
(1) An application for the pooling or $2,400.
division of traffic.
(2) An application involving the $1,100.
purchase, lease, consolidation,
merger, or acquisition of control of a
motor carrier of passengers under 49
U.S.C. 14303.
(3) An application for approval of a $15,400.
non-rail rate association agreement.
49 U.S.C. 13706.
[[Page 15210]]
(4) An application for approval of an
amendment to a non-rail rate
association agreement:
(i) Significant amendment.......... $2,500.
(ii) Minor amendment............... $50.
(5) An application for temporary $250.
authority to operate a motor carrier
of passengers 49 U.S.C. 14303(i).
(6)-(10) [Reserved]
Part II: Rail licensing proceedings other
than abandonment or discontinuance
proceedings:
(11) (i) An application for a $4,000.
certificate authorizing the
construction, extension, acquisition,
or operation of lines of railroad. 49
U.S.C. 10901.
(ii) Notice of exemption under 49 CFR $1,000.
1150.31-1150.35.
(iii) Petition for exemption under 49 $7,000.
U.S.C. 10502 (except petitions
involving construction of a rail line).
(12) A petition for exemption under 49 $41,700.
U.S.C. 10502 involving the
construction of a rail line.
(13) A Feeder Line Development Program $12,800.
application filed under 49 U.S.C.
10907(b)(1)(A)(i) or
10907(b)(1)(A)(ii).
(14) (i) An application of a class II $3,400.
or class III carrier to acquire an
extended or additional rail line under
49 U.S.C. 10902.
(ii) Petition for exemption under 49 $3,700.
U.S.C. 10502 relating to an exemption
from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10902.
(15) A notice of a modified certificate $950.
of public convenience and necessity
under 49 CFR 1150.21-1150.24.
(16)-(20) [Reserved]
Part III: Rail abandonment or
discontinuance of transportation services
proceedings:
(21) (i) An application for authority $12,400.
to abandon all or a portion of a line
of railroad or discontinue operation
thereof filed by a railroad (except
applications filed by Consolidated
Rail Corporation pursuant to the North
East Rail Service Act [Subtitle E of
Title XI of Pub. L. 97-35], bankrupt
railroads, or exempt abandonments.
(ii) Notice of an exempt abandonment or $2,000.
discontinuance under 49 CFR 1152.50.
(iii) A petition for exemption under 49 $3,500.
U.S.C. 10502.
(22) An application for authority to $250.
abandon all or a portion of a line of
a railroad or operation thereof filed
by Consolidated Rail Corporation
pursuant to North East Rail Service
Act.
(23) Abandonments filed by bankrupt $1,000.
railroads.
(24) A request for waiver of filing $1,000.
requirements for abandonment
application proceedings.
(25) An offer of financial assistance $900.
(OFA) under 49 U.S.C. 10904 relating
to the purchase of or subsidy for a
rail line proposed for abandonment.
(26) A request to set terms and $12,700.
conditions for the sale of or subsidy
for a rail line proposed to be
abandoned.
(27) A request for a trail use $650.
condition in an abandonment proceeding
under 16 U.S.C. 1247(d).
(28)-(35) [Reserved]
Part IV: Rail applications to enter upon a
particular financial transaction or joint
arrangement:
(36) An application for use of terminal $10,600.
facilities or other applications under
49 U.S.C. 11102.
(37) An application for the pooling or $5,700.
division of traffic. 49 U.S.C. 11322.
(38) An application for two or more
carriers to consolidate or merge their
properties or franchises (or a part
thereof) into one corporation for
ownership, management, and operation
of the properties previously in
separate ownership. 49 U.S.C. 11324:
(i) Major transaction.............. $830,500.
(ii) Significant transaction....... $166,100.
(iii) Minor transaction............ $3,400.
(iv) Notice of an exempt $950.
transaction under 49 CFR 1180.2(d).
(v) Responsive application......... $3,400.
(vi) Petition for exemption under $5,200.
49 U.S.C. 10502.
(39) An application of a non-carrier to
acquire control of two or more
carriers through ownership of stock or
otherwise. 49 U.S.C. 11324.
(i) Major transaction.............. $830,500.
(ii) Significant transaction....... $166,100.
(iii) Minor transaction............ $3,400.
(iv) A notice of an exempt $750.
transaction under 49 CFR 1180.2(d).
(v) Responsive application......... $3,400.
(vi) Petition for exemption under $5,200.
49 U.S.C. 10502.
(40) An application to acquire trackage
rights over, joint ownership in, or
joint use of any railroad lines owned
and operated by any other carrier and
terminals incidental thereto. 49
U.S.C. 11324:
(i) Major transaction.............. $830,500.
(ii) Significant transaction....... $166,100.
(iii) Minor transaction............ $3,400.
(iv) Notice of an exempt $650.
transaction under 49 CFR 1180.2(d).
(v) Responsive application......... $3,400.
(vi) Petition for exemption under $5,200.
49 U.S.C. 10502.
(41) An application of a carrier or
carriers to purchase, lease, or
contract to operate the properties of
another, or to acquire control of
another by purchase of stock or
otherwise. 49 U.S.C. 11324:
(i) Major transaction.............. $830,500.
(ii) Significant transaction....... $166,100.
(iii) Minor transaction............ $3,400.
(iv) Notice of an exempt $800.
transaction under 49 CFR 1180.2(d).
(v) Responsive application......... $3,400.
(vi) Petition for exemption under $3,700.
49 U.S.C. 10502.
(42) Notice of a joint project $1.300.
involving relocation of a rail line
under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(5).
(43) An application for approval of a $39,000.
rail rate association agreement. 49
U.S.C. 10706.
(44) An application for approval of an
amendment to a rail rate association
agreement. 49 U.S.C. 10706:
(i) Significant amendment.......... $7,200.
(ii) Minor amendment............... $50.
(45) An application for authority to $400.
hold a position as officer or director
under 49 U.S.C. 11328.
[[Page 15211]]
(46) A petition for exemption under 49 $4,400.
U.S.C. 10502 (other than a rulemaking)
filed by rail carrier not otherwise
covered.
(47) National Railroad Passenger $84,200.
Corporation (Amtrak) conveyance
proceeding under 45 U.S.C. 562.
(48) National Railroad Passenger $102,100.
Corporation (Amtrak) compensation
proceeding under Section 402(a) of the
Rail Passenger Service Act.
(49)-(55) [Reserved]
Part V: Formal proceedings:
(56) A formal complaint alleging
unlawful rates or practices of rail
carriers, motor carriers of passengers
or motor carriers of household goods:
(i) A formal complaint filed under $233,200.
the coal rate guidelines (Stand-
Alone Cost Methodology) alleging
unlawful rates and/or practices of
rail carriers under 49 U.S.C.
10704(c)(1).
(ii) All other formal complaints... $23,100
(57) A complaint seeking or a petition $4,900.
requesting institution of an
investigation seeking the prescription
or division of joint rates, or
charges. 49 U.S.C. 10705.
(58) A petition for declaratory order:
(i) A petition for declaratory $5,000.
order involving a dispute over an
existing rate or practice which is
comparable to a complaint
proceeding.
(ii) All other petitions for $3,700.
declaratory order.
(59) An application for shipper $3,900.
antitrust immunity. 49 U.S.C.
10706(a)(5)(A).
(60) Labor arbitration proceedings..... $7,600.
(61) Appeals to a Surface $3,700.
Transportation Board decision and
petitions to revoke an exemption
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(d).
(62) Motor carrier undercharge $5,800.
proceedings.
(63)-(75) [Reserved]
Part VI: Informal proceedings:
(76) An application for authority to $650.
establish released value rates or
ratings for motor carriers and freight
forwarders of household goods under 49
U.S.C. 14706.
(77) An application for special $70.
permission for short notice or the
waiver of other tariff publishing
requirements.
(78) (i) The filing of tariffs, $1 per page ($13 minimum
including supplements, or contract charge.)
summaries.
(ii) Tariffs transmitted by fax.... $1 per page.
(79) Special docket applications from
rail and water carriers:
(i) Applications involving $25,000 $40.
or less.
(ii) Applications involving over $80.
$25,000.
(80) Informal complaint about rail rate $300.
applications.
(81) Tariff reconciliation petitions
from motor common carriers:
(i) Petitions involving $25,000 or $40.
less.
(ii) Petitions involving over $80.
$25,000.
(82) Request for a determination of the $100.
applicability or reasonableness of
motor carrier rates under 49 U.S.C.
13710(a) (2) and (3).
(83) Filing of documents for $22 per document.
recordation. 49 U.S.C. 11301 and 49
CFR 1177.3(c).
(84) Informal opinions about rate $100.
applications (all modes).
(85) A railroad accounting $600.
interpretation.
(86) An operational interpretation..... $800.
(87)-(95) [Reserved]
Part VII: Services:
(96) Messenger delivery of decision to $17 per delivery.
a railroad carrier's Washington, DC,
agent.
(97) Request for service or pleading $13 per list.
list for proceedings.
(98) (i) Processing the paperwork $150.
related to a request for the Carload
Waybill Sample to be used in a Surface
Transportation Board or State
proceeding that does not require a
Federal Register notice.
(ii) Processing the paperwork $350.
related to a request for Carload
Waybill Sample to be used for
reasons other than a Surface
Transportation Board or State
proceeding that requires a Federal
Register notice.
(99) (i) Application fee for the $100.
Surface Transportation Board's
Practitioners' Exam.
(ii) Practitioners' Exam $25.
Information Package.
(100) Uniform Railroad Costing System
(URCS) software and information:
(i) Initial PC version URCS Phase $50.
III software program and manual.
(ii) Updated URCS PC version Phase $10.
III cost file, if computer disk
provided by requestor.
(iii) Updated URCS PC version Phase $20.
III cost file, if computer disk
provided by the Board.
(iv) Public requests for Source $500.
Codes to the PC version URCS Phase
III.
(v) PC version or mainframe version $400.
URCS Phase II.
(vi) PC version or mainframe $50.
version Updated Phase II databases.
(vii) Public requests for Source $1,500.
Codes to PC version URCS Phase II.
(101) Carload Waybill Sample data on
recordable compact disk (R-CD):
(i) Requests for Public Use File on $450.
R-CD First Year.
(ii) Requests for Public Use File $150.
on R-CD Each Additional Year.
(iii) Waybill--Surface $650.
Transportation Board or State
proceedings on R-CD--First Year.
(iv) Waybill--Surface $450.
Transportation Board or State
proceedings on R-CD--Second Year
on same R-CD.
(v) Waybill--Surface Transportation $500.
Board of State proceeding on R-CD--
Second Year on different R-CD.
(vi) User Guide for latest $50.
available Carload Waybill Sample.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[[Page 15212]]
[FR Doc. 96-8293 Filed 4-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.