issue-1996-04-09•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-09
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-09
issue-1996-04-09Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-09Proposed 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. 96-8913 Certain Transfers of Domestic Stock or Securities by U.S. Persons to Foreign Corporations; Hearing Cancellation
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 15743] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 96-8913] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [INTL-0009-95] RIN 1545-AT42 Certain Transfers of Domestic Stock or Securities by U.S. Persons to Foreign Corporations; Hearing Cancellation AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Treasury. ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed regulations. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This document provides notice of cancellation of a public hearing on proposed regulations relating to certain transfers of stock or securities of domestic corporations by United States persons pursuant to the corporate organization, reorganization or liquidation provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. DATES: The public hearing originally scheduled for April 11, 1996, beginning at 10:00 a.m. is cancelled. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Vasquez of the Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate), (202) 622-7180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject of the public hearing is proposed regulations under section 367 of the Internal Revenue Code. A notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations and notice of public hearing appearing in the Federal Register for Tuesday, December 26, 1995 (60 FR 66771), announced that a public hearing on the proposed regulations would by held on Thursday, April 11, 1996, beginning at 10:00 a.m., in the IRS Auditorium, 7400 Corridor, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. The public hearing scheduled for Thursday, April 11, 1996, is cancelled. Cynthia E. Grigsby, Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate). [FR Doc. 96-8913 Filed 4-5-96; 12:08 pm] BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8807 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona Maricopa Nonattainment Area; Carbon Monoxide
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15745-15751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8807]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[AZ033-0002 FRL-5456-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona--
Maricopa Nonattainment Area; Carbon Monoxide
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve contingency measures adopted
pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) and submitted to EPA as revisions
to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Maricopa
(Phoenix) carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area. The intended effect
of approving these contingency measures is to regulate emissions of CO
in accordance with the requirements of the CAA. Based on the proposed
approval of these measures, EPA is proposing to withdraw its Federal
contingency process for the Maricopa area and its proposed list of
highway projects subject to delay.
DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be submitted to EPA at
the address below by May 9, 1996. A public hearing, if requested, will
be held in Phoenix, Arizona. If such a hearing is requested, it will be
held on April 23, 1996. If a hearing is requested, the comment period
will be extended until May 24, 1996. The purpose of the extension of
the comment period beyond May 9, 1996 is to provide an opportunity for
the submission of rebuttal and supplementary information. Anyone who
wishes to request a public hearing should call Wallace Woo at 415-744-
1207 by April 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Wallace Woo, Chief,
Plans Development Section, A-2-2, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
The rulemaking docket for this notice, Docket No. 96-AZ-PL-001, may
be inspected and copied at the following location between 8 a.m. and
4:30 p.m. on weekdays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying
parts of the docket. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9,
Air and Toxics Division, Plans Development Section, A-2-2, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
Copies of the docket are also available at the State office listed
below:
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Library, 3033 North
Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85012
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Wamsley, A-2-2, Air and Toxics
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105, (415) 744-1226.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. 1991 Federal Implementation Plan
On February 11, 1991, EPA disapproved under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
portions of the Arizona State implementation plan (SIP) and promulgated
a limited Federal implementation plan (FIP) for the Maricopa County
(Phoenix), Arizona carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area. EPA
disapproved portions of the SIP and promulgated the FIP in response to
an order of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Delaney v. EPA, 898
F.2d 687 (9th Cir. 1990). For a discussion of Delaney, the SIP
disapproval, and the FIP, see the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
for the FIP, 55 FR 41204 (October 10, 1990) and the notice of final
rulemaking (NFRM) for the FIP, 56 FR 5458 (February 11, 1991).
The Delaney order required EPA to promulgate, as part of the FIP, a
two-part contingency process consistent with the Agency's 1982 ozone
and CO SIP guidance (1982 guidance) regarding contingency procedures
found at 46 FR 7187, 7192 (January 22, 1981). These two parts were a
list of transportation projects that would be delayed while an
inadequate plan was being revised and a procedure to adopt measures to
compensate for unanticipated emission reduction shortfalls. The FIP
contingency process is described in detail at 56 FR 5458, 5470-
5472.1
\1\ Implementation of the FIP contingency process was triggered
by violations of the CO standard in Phoenix in December 1992. On
June 28, 1993, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
proposing to find that the implementation plan was inadequate and
that additional control measures were necessary to attain and
maintain the CO NAAQS in the Maricopa area. In the same notice, EPA
also proposed an updated list of highway projects subject to delay
while the implementation plan was being revised. On August 9, 1993,
EPA issued a SIP call under section 110(k)(5) of the CAA requiring
that Arizona submit a new plan by July 19, 1994. Arizona submitted
SIP revisions to EPA in November 1993, March 1994 and August 1995
that contained new control measures and a demonstration that the
area would attain the CO NAAQS by December 31, 1995, the attainment
deadline for Phoenix under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. As a
result, EPA took no final action on the June 28, 1993 proposal.
Therefore, EPA is today withdrawing the proposed list of highway
projects subject to delay because it is no longer current and would
have to be updated and revised if the FIP contingency process were
to be implemented again.
[[Page 15746]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
Following the FIP proposal, but before the final rulemaking,
Congress passed and the President signed into law on November 15, 1990,
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA), 42 U.S.C. Secs. 7401-
7671q. These Amendments made significant changes to the pre-existing
Act and established a new context in which the air quality goals of the
nation are to be achieved. In particular, Congress completely revised
the nonattainment provisions of the Act, Part D of Title I, repealing
the generally applicable provisions of section 172 and adopting
substantial new requirements and planning and attainment deadlines
applicable to CO nonattainment SIPs. Sections 171-193.
The 1990 Amendments established two classifications of CO
nonattainment areas, ``moderate'' and ``serious,'' depending on the
severity of the problem, and set new deadlines for the attainment of
the NAAQS for each classification. Pursuant to the 1990 Amendments, the
Phoenix nonattainment area was classified as moderate by operation of
law. 40 CFR Part 81.303. The 1990 Amendments set forth new and separate
requirements for moderate CO nonattainment areas depending on whether
their design value was below or above 12.7 ppm. The design value for
Phoenix is below 12.7 ppm. 40 CFR Part 81.303. The attainment deadline
for moderate CO areas, regardless of their design value, was as
expeditiously as practicable but not later than December 31, 1995. See
section 186(a)(1).
Under section 186(a)(4), EPA may, upon application by a state
extend the attainment deadline if the state has complied with all
requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable
plan, and there has been no more than one exceedance of the CO NAAQS in
the year preceding the extension year. Under this provision, EPA may
grant up to two such extensions if these conditions have been met.
Under section 186(b)(2) of the amended Act, EPA is required to
determine within six months following the attainment deadline whether
the area has attained the CO standard. If the Agency determines that
the area has not attained the standard, the area is reclassified to
serious by operation of law and must comply with a new set of
requirements applicable to that classification.
II. CAA Contingency Requirements and EPA Guidance
A. Section 172(c)(9)
Among the new requirements in the 1990 Amendments for moderate
areas with design values below 12.7 ppm (low moderate areas) is a new
provision relating to contingency measures.2 Section 172(c)(9)
requires that the plan for such an area ``shall provide for the
implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails
to make reasonable further progress, or to attain the national ambient
air quality standard by the attainment date applicable under this [Part
D]. Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingency
measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the
State or the Administrator.''
\2\ The pre-1990 Act contained no statutory provision for
contingency measures. As a result of this absence, EPA developed the
1982 guidance pursuant to which EPA promulgated the FIP contingency
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. EPA Guidance
EPA has issued several guidance documents related to the post-1990
requirements for CO SIPs. Among them is the ``General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990''
that sets forth EPA's preliminary views on how the Agency intends to
act on SIPs submitted under Title I of the Act. See generally 57 FR
13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). EPA has also
issued a ``Technical Support Document to Aid the States with the
Development of Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plans,'' July 1992.
This 1992 TSD expands on EPA's interpretation of the CO SIP
requirements in the General Preamble.
For CO, the General Preamble addresses specifically only the
contingency measures required under section 187(a)(3) of the Act for
moderate areas with design values above 12.7 ppm. See 57 FR 13498,
13532-13533. In connection with the discussion of requirements for
moderate ozone areas, the General Preamble addresses generally the
section 172(c)(9) requirements which are applicable to low moderate CO
nonattainment areas such as Phoenix as well. See 57 FR 13498, 13510-
13511. In both discussions, EPA states that the contingency measure
provisions of the 1990 Amendments supersede the contingency
requirements contained in the 1982 guidance.
The 1992 TSD contains a discussion directly applicable to low
moderate CO areas. See pages 5-6. This guidance explains that the
trigger for implementation of the section 172(c)(9) measures is a
finding by EPA that such an area failed to attain the CO NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date and that states must show that their
contingency measures can be implemented with minimal further action on
their part and with no additional rulemaking actions upon such a
finding. As a result of this requirement, the 1992 TSD states that
contingency measures must be adopted and enforceable prior to
submission to EPA.
In the TSD, EPA notes that section 172(c)(9) does not specify how
many contingency measures are needed or the magnitude of emission
reductions they must provide if an area fails to attain the CO NAAQS.
EPA suggests that one appropriate choice would be to provide for the
implementation of sufficient reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
or emission reductions to counteract the effect of one year's growth in
VMT while the state revises its SIP to incorporate the new requirements
for a serious CO area. Thus, in suggesting a benchmark of one year's
growth in VMT, EPA concluded that the purpose of the Act's contingency
requirement is to maintain the actual attainment year emissions level
while the serious area attainment demonstration is being developed.
In the TSD, EPA lists several examples of contingency measures that
a state might choose, and concludes that the selected measures must be
implemented within 12 months after the finding of failure to attain.
III. Contingency Measure SIP Revisions
A. Enhanced Remote Sensing Program
On November 11, 1993, the Arizona legislature adopted House Bill
(H.B.) 2001. H.B. 2001 is included in the Maricopa Association of
Government's (MAG) Addendum to the 1993 Carbon Monoxide Plan for the
Maricopa County Area.3 MAG held a public hearing on the 1993 CO
Plan Addendum on March 17, 1994. Following adoption by the MAG Regional
Council on March 25, 1994, the 1993 CO Plan Addendum was forwarded to
the State of Arizona. The State then submitted the plan to EPA as a
revision to the Arizona CO SIP on April 4, 1994. For more information
on the public hearing process, see ``MAG 1993 Carbon Monoxide Plan for
the Maricopa County Area, Addendum,'' Appendix, Exhibit 5.
\3\ EPA intends to propose action on the rest of the measures
and the attainment demonstration in the 1993 CO Plan Addendum later
this year.
[[Page 15747]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An enhanced remote sensing program was included in H.B. 2001 which,
among other things, revised title 49 of the Arizona Revised Statutes
(ARS) by adding section 49-542.01. Section 49-542.01 describes the
requirements of the remote sensing program, including the enhanced
remote sensing component which is set forth in section 49-542.01.E.:
If the Administrator of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency finds that Area A 4 has failed to demonstrate
reasonable further progress or has failed to attain the national
ambient air quality standard for ozone or carbon monoxide by the
applicable attainment date, the notification procedure and
requirements shall comply with subsection C of this section, except
that the emissions test shall be required the first time a vehicle
is identified.
\4\ Area A, as defined in ARS section 49-541.1., is a CO
nonattainment area in a county with a population of one million two
hundred thousand or more persons as determined by the most recent
U.S. census. The Phoenix CO nonattainment area currently falls
within this definition.
The enhanced remote sensing program differs from the basic remote
sensing program, subsections B. and C. of section 49-542.01, in its
immediate requirement for vehicle inspection and testing. Under the
enhanced remote sensing program, once a vehicle has been identified as
exceeding specified emissions cutpoints, the vehicle owner is informed
of the test results and required to have the vehicle tested within 30
days at an official state vehicle emissions inspection station. If the
vehicle owner does not comply with this requirement, the Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT) is required to suspend the
vehicle's registration. Under the basic remote sensing program the
vehicle owner is not required to have the vehicle tested at a state
vehicle emissions inspection station unless a second notification is
received within 12 months of the first notification that the vehicle
has again failed a remote sensor emissions test.
The enhanced remote sensing contingency measure is administered by
the State through the Arizona Vehicle Emission Inspection program which
was approved into the CO SIP by EPA on May 8, 1995 at 60 FR 22518. That
Federal Register notice describes the statutory and regulatory
provisions applicable to the inspection and maintenance (I/M) program.
Those provisions include an annual emissions inspection program, ARS
section 49-542, and funding for that program and the remote sensing
programs, ARS section 49-544. The emission reductions assigned to the
enhanced remote sensing program are 6.5 metric tons/day (tpd) of CO.
These reductions represent a 0.79% reduction from the total estimated
1995 CO baseline emissions. See 1993 CO Plan Addendum, Appendix,
Exhibit 3, ``Revised Base Case and Demonstration of Attainment for
Carbon Monoxide for Maricopa County,'' Table 2-7, page 2-11.
B. Traffic Diversion Measure
On September 10, 1992, MAG held a public hearing on a traffic
diversion measure which was adopted by the MAG Regional Council on
October 28, 1992 subject to receiving an implementation commitment. On
November 20, 1992, the Arizona Transportation Board adopted a
resolution (ADOT resolution) committing to implement the measure. On
November 24, 1992, MAG forwarded the ADOT resolution to ADEQ and the
State submitted it to EPA on December 11, 1992. On February 24, 1993,
MAG adopted the ``MAG Process and Impact Documentation for Carbon
Monoxide Contingency Measures'' (MAG process document) which describes
the traffic diversion measure. The State submitted the MAG process
document as a SIP revision to EPA on June 23, 1993.\5\ The traffic
diversion measure would divert interstate through traffic around the
Phoenix nonattainment area during the high pollution season by
installing signs along alternative state highway routes. The purpose of
the traffic diversion is to manage congestion by eliminating
unnecessary traffic from the urbanized portion of the nonattainment
area, thereby reducing CO emissions.
\5\ This SIP revision also contained a MAG contingency process
that was intended to replace the FIP contingency process. EPA
proposed to approve the MAG process on December 8, 1993, but never
took final action on the proposal. 58 FR 64530. The traffic
diversion measure is also contained in the 1993 CO Plan Addendum at
p. 2-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment A to the ADOT resolution describes the implementation
and funding mechanisms for the measure. The appropriate signs will be
placed at designated locations within 60 days of a determination by EPA
that the Phoenix area has failed to make reasonable further progress
for CO or has failed to meet the applicable attainment date for CO.
ADOT has indicated in its 1992 resolution that it has the financial
resources and access to manpower to fabricate, install and maintain the
appropriate signs.
The traffic diversion measure was modeled based on the assumption
that half of the through traffic would be diverted to alternate routes.
Based on the modeling runs it performed, MAG estimated that if half of
the trips were voluntarily diverted through the use of alternate route
signs, there would be a .1% reduction in regional CO emissions which
equates to a reduction of .8 tpd. For additional information on the
traffic diversion measure, see the MAG process document, the November
20, 1992 ADOT resolution and the 1993 CO Plan Addendum.
IV. Standard for SIP Approval
A. Completeness
Under section 110(k)(1)(B) of the CAA, within 60 days of receipt of
a SIP submittal, but no later than six months after the date, if any,
by which a state is required to submit the plan or plan revision, EPA
must determine if the submittal meets the ``Criteria for Determining
the Completeness of Plan Submissions'' at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V.
If EPA has not determined six months after the receipt of the
submission that it fails to meet the Appendix V criteria, the
submission is deemed to be complete by operation of law.
EPA made no completeness finding on the 1993 CO Plan Addendum which
contains the enhanced remote sensing program. As a result, this
submittal became complete by operation of law on October 8, 1994.
EPA made no completeness finding on the submittal of the ADOT
resolution in which the Department commits to implement the traffic
diversion measure. As a result, the submittal became complete by
operation of law on June 11, 1993. EPA found the MAG process document,
which describes the traffic diversion measure, complete on July 26,
1993. See July 26, 1993 letter from David P. Howekamp, EPA, to Edward
Z. Fox, ADEQ. The traffic diversion measure is also described in the
1993 CO Plan Addendum which became complete by operation of law on
October 8, 1994.
B. Section 110(l)
Once a SIP submittal is deemed complete, EPA must next determine if
the submittal is approvable as a revision to the SIP. EPA's primary
responsibility when approving SIP revisions is to ensure that the
revisions strengthen or maintain the SIP and are consistent with CAA
requirements.
Section 110(l) of the CAA states that the ``Administrator shall not
approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress * * * or any other applicable requirement of [the Clean Air]
Act.'' Therefore, before
[[Page 15748]]
approving the State's 172(c)(9) measures and withdrawing the FIP
contingency process, EPA must demonstrate that the revision will not:
(1) delay attainment, (2) interfere with reasonable further progress
(RFP), or (3) conflict with the Phoenix area's compliance with other
requirements of the Act. As stated previously, for low moderate CO
areas, section 172(c)(9) establishes the only requirement for
contingency measures. As discussed elsewhere in this notice, EPA is
proposing to conclude that the State's submittals meet the requirements
of section 172(c)(9). Neither the statute nor current EPA policy
requires contingency procedures (as distinguished from actual measures)
in SIPs. As noted above, the 1982 SIP guidance, which required
contingency procedures and under which the FIP was promulgated, has
been superseded. Therefore, withdrawal of the FIP contingency process,
in conjunction with the approval of contingency measures consistent
with the requirements of the CAAA, does not conflict with current law
or EPA policy regarding contingency requirements.
EPA has also concluded that approval of the section 172(c)(9)
measures and withdrawal of the FIP contingency process does not
interfere with RFP. Under section 171(1) of the Act, RFP means ``such
annual incremental emission reductions as are required by this part [D]
or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of
assuring attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality
standard by the applicable attainment date.'' Under section 172(c)(9),
contingency measures are designed to go into effect if the area fails
to make RFP or to attain the NAAQS. Thus, by their very nature, such
measures become operative only when there has been a failure to make
RFP. Therefore, approval of the State's contingency measures and
withdrawal of the FIP contingency process cannot be said to interfere
with RFP.
The final remaining inquiry under section 110(l) is whether
approval of the State's section 172(c)(9) measures and withdrawal of
the FIP process would interfere with timely attainment. Under the pre-
amended Act there were no statutory provisions to extend the attainment
deadline or to establish a new deadline if an area failed to attain the
NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline. EPA's pre-amendment
contingency guidance was created to fill this vacuum by requiring
states to include in their SIPs a self-executing process 6 to
delay highway projects that could adversely affect air quality while
new control measures were being adopted to cure the attainment
shortfall. See 46 FR 7182. The FIP contingency process was developed to
comply with this guidance in the context of the pre-amended Act.7
\6\ Under section 110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended Act, EPA could
require a state to revise its SIP if the Agency made a finding that
the plan was substantially inadequate to achieve the NAAQS or to
otherwise comply with the requirements of the Act.
\7\ The FIP, which contained control measures, an attainment
demonstration and conformity procedures as well as a contingency
process, was proposed prior to the passage of the CAAA. Therefore it
was developed under the pre-1990 statute and EPA guidance designed
to implement that Act. Even though the CAAA were enacted prior to
EPA's final FIP rulemaking, the final FIP reflected the requirements
of the old law and guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FIP contingency process involves, among other things, various
assessments and findings that then determine what action, if any, EPA
must take if a violation occurs after the attainment deadline,
currently December 31, 1995. At its most aggressive, the FIP process
requires EPA to adopt measures to cure the shortfall within a minimum
of 14 to 16 months from a violation occurring after the attainment
deadline. Even if the FIP requirement to adopt new control measures to
cure the shortfall can be construed as, effectively, a requirement to
adopt a new attainment demonstration, such a demonstration would be
developed under the amended Act's provisions.
The CAAA contain an entirely different scheme for dealing with a
violation of the NAAQS after 1995. In the case of Phoenix, which
recorded apparent violations 8 of the CO standard in 1995 and
early 1996, the area is not expected to be able to qualify for
attainment deadline extensions under the extension provisions of the
amended Act. Rather, following a finding by EPA that the area failed to
attain the CO standard, it would be reclassified to serious. Once
reclassified, under section 187(f) and EPA guidance,9 Arizona
would be required to submit a new plan meeting the serious area
requirements of section 187(c)(1) 18 months after reclassification that
demonstrates attainment as expeditiously as practicable but not later
than December 31, 2000. See section 186(a)(1). For the 18 month period
during which the new SIP is being developed, the section 172(c)(9)
contingency measures would go into effect to ensure that air quality in
the area does not deteriorate pending development of the serious area
attainment demonstration.
\8\ EPA has not yet completed its review of the 1995 air quality
data for the Phoenix area and, under 40 CFR section 58.35(c)(1), the
State has until June 30, 1996 to formally submit data from the first
quarter of 1996.
\9\ See Memorandum from Sally Shaver, Director, Air Quality
Strategies and Standards Division, EPA, to Air Division Directors
entitled ``Criteria for Granting Attainment Date Extensions, Making
Attainment Determinations, and Determinations of Failure to Attain
the NAAQS for Moderate CO Nonattainment Areas.'' October 23, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As demonstrated above, the section 172(c)(9) measures in the
amended Act take the place of, and serve the same purpose as, the
highway delay provision in EPA's pre-amendment guidance and the FIP
contingency process. Similarly, the extension and reclassification
provisions of the amended Act replace the pre-amendment contingency
guidance and the FIP provision for adoption of additional control
measures to cure the shortfall. EPA recognized this when it indicated
that its 1982 guidance on contingency procedures was no longer
applicable.
Interference with timely attainment under section 110(l) can be
found only if the existing statutory scheme for attainment would be
thwarted by replacing the FIP contingency process with the State's
section 172(c)(9) measures. Rather than thwarting the amended Act's
statutory scheme, such a substitution will serve to bring Phoenix in
line with what Congress intended in the CAAA. In short, the existence
of the FIP contingency process in the context of the CAAA is at best an
uncomfortable fit, and at worst it is duplicative and inconsistent with
the new statutory scheme. Thus approving Arizona's section 172(c)(9)
measures and withdrawing the FIP process would promote Congress' intent
in crafting the new attainment provisions. Under these circumstances,
EPA believes that such an outcome would clearly not interfere with
timely attainment within the meaning of section 110(l).
C. Section 193
On December 8, 1993, EPA proposed to withdraw the FIP contingency
process and to approve in its place a similar process adopted by MAG
and submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. 58 FR 64530. While EPA did not
take final action on this proposal, during the public comment period
following its publication, the Arizona Center for Law in the Public
Interest (ACLIPI) filed comments in which it asserted, among other
things, that section 193, the general savings clause, applies to the
FIP contingency process. EPA disagrees with ACLIPI. Since such a
comment is relevant to today's proposal, the Agency is addressing it
here. Section 193 provides in pertinent part that:
[[Page 15749]]
[N]o control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by
an order, settlement agreement, or plan in effect before the date of
enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 in any area which
is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant may be modified after
such enactment in any manner unless the modification insures
equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.
The contingency process contained in the Maricopa CO FIP was
required by a March 1, 1990 order of the 9th Circuit--before the
enactment of the CAAA on November 15, 1990. ACLIPI contended that the
FIP contingency process falls within the scope of the above language of
section 193 and that therefore EPA may not modify that process unless
the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions.
Having concluded that Maricopa's pre-amendment CO plan did not
contain contingency procedures that met EPA's 1982 guidance, the 9th
Circuit ordered EPA to promulgate a Federal plan that contained
contingency procedures in accordance with that guidance. Delaney, at
695. The FIP contingency process, promulgated in accordance with the
Court's order, consists of an intricate series of actions by EPA
potentially spanning a minimum of 14 to 16 months. The Federal process
potentially involves, among other things, various assessments and
findings, air quality modeling, review and delay of current highway
projects in Arizona, and the adoption of additional control measures.
The eventual length and scope of the process is dependent upon the
outcome of the assessments and findings called for in the process and
is therefore not predictable in advance. The FIP contingency process is
described in detail at 56 FR 5471-5472.
EPA does not believe that such a process constitutes a ``control
requirement'' within the meaning of section 193 of the Act. On its
face, the savings clause prohibits the modification only of existing
control requirements or specific control requirements required to be
adopted pursuant to an order. While EPA was required by the Court's
order in Delaney to promulgate a contingency plan in accordance with
the Agency's then existing guidance, the Court did not order EPA to
promulgate any specified control requirements in that plan. Indeed, the
inclusion of any specific control requirements by EPA would not have
been consistent with the terms and intent of EPA's 1982 guidance on
contingency procedures.
While ``control requirement'' is not defined in the Act, it is
generally viewed as a discrete regulation directed at a specific source
of pollution; e.g., an emission control requirement for a smoke stack
at a power plant. By contrast, a contingency process, as outlined by
EPA's 1982 guidance, is much broader and far-reaching than a control
requirement. Therefore, under a straightforward reading, the savings
clause is best viewed as an anti-backsliding provision by which
Congress intended to prevent the relaxation of actual, existing control
requirements on specific pollution sources or controls required to be
adopted for specific pollution sources while states are proceeding with
their new planning obligations under the 1990 Amendments.
Beyond the plain language of section 193, however, EPA's
interpretation of section 193 is consistent with the structure of the
1990 Amendments as they relate to the new planning requirements for
nonattainment areas and the failure of those areas to attain the NAAQS.
These requirements are discussed in previous sections of this notice.
As shown above, the eternal retention of the FIP contingency process
(or its equivalent) in the applicable plan for Phoenix would forever
overlay its outdated, inconsistent planning scenario on the new
statutory scheme.
For these reasons, EPA has concluded that both the plain language
of section 193 and the new statutory scheme support EPA's
interpretation that the FIP contingency process is not subject to the
restrictions concerning equivalent emission reductions in section 193.
V. EPA Evaluation of SIP Submittal
A. Enhanced Remote Sensing Program
EPA has evaluated Arizona's enhanced remote sensing program and
concluded that it meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA. The program is administered by the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) as part of Arizona's I/M program which has
been approved into the CO and ozone SIP. ARS section 49-542; 60 FR
22518. Arizona law confers the legal authority on ADOT to enforce the
program's requirements through vehicle registration suspension. ARS
section 49-542.01.C. The program is adequately funded through an
emissions inspection fund. ARS section 49-544.
EPA has also concluded that the enhanced remote sensing program
meets the requirements of section 172(c)(9) and EPA's guidance on
contingency requirements for low moderate CO nonattainment areas. The
program is fully adopted and capable of implementation upon a finding
by EPA that the Phoenix area has failed to attain the CO NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date. Therefore, the program meets the section
172(c)(9) requirement that, when triggered, contingency measures must
take effect without further action by the State or the Administrator.
B. Traffic Diversion Measure
EPA has evaluated MAG's traffic diversion measure and concluded
that it meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. ARS
section 28-642 authorizes ADOT to place and maintain traffic control
devices on all state highways for the purpose of traffic regulation. As
discussed in section III.B. of this notice, ADOT has indicated in its
1992 resolution that it has both the funding and personnel to implement
the measure once it is triggered by an EPA finding.
The implementation commitment in the ADOT resolution is in
enforceable form and therefore legally binds the Department to initiate
the traffic diversion measure within 60 days of an EPA finding.
However, the measure's ability to achieve emission reductions is
entirely dependent on the voluntary actions of motorists, and there is
no credible means of determining how many of them will heed the signs'
exhortations. Therefore, while MAG has estimated that the measure will
reduce CO emissions in the Phoenix area by .8 tpd, EPA is assuming, for
the purposes of its proposed section 172(c)(9) approval, only that the
measure will result in some, albeit unquantifiable, emission reduction
benefit.
With respect to the requirements of section 172(c)(9) and EPA's
guidance on contingency measures for low moderate CO areas, EPA has
concluded that the traffic diversion measure is acceptable. ADOT has
indicated in its 1992 resolution that it can implement the measure
within 60 days of an EPA finding and has committed to do so. EPA has
stated in its 1992 TSD that states must show that their contingency
measures can be implemented with minimal further action (other than
rulemaking) and that full implementation of the measures within 60 days
after EPA notification is sufficient to meet the section 172(c)(9)
requirements.
EPA believes that the traffic diversion measure, when triggered as
a contingency measure, will serve to strengthen the SIP. Although EPA
cannot now find that the measure will produce any specific amount of
emission reduction, the measure, taken in conjunction with the enhanced
remote sensing program and other
[[Page 15750]]
emission reductions occurring in the area, as described below, will
result in reductions more than adequate to offset one year of VMT
growth as suggested by EPA's guidance.
C. Additional Post-1995 Emission Reductions
As has been shown above, CO emission reductions of 6.5 tpd are
expected to result from the implementation of the enhanced remote
sensing program. Moreover, EPA believes that some additional but
unknown reductions will be achieved through implementation of the
traffic diversion measure. The State has provided to EPA data
indicating that emissions increases of 17 tpd from VMT growth are
expected to occur in 1996 and 1997, the period during which the SIP
would be revised if the area is found to have failed to attain the CO
standard by December 31, 1995.
The State has also provided information documenting that emission
reductions of 32 tpd are expected to be achieved in 1996 and 1997
through continued implementation of Arizona's I/M program beyond those
reductions achieved through 1995 from the I/M program. The 6.5 tpd
reductions from the enhanced remote sensing program and the additional
benefits from the traffic diversion measure, if triggered as
contingency measures, in conjunction with these additional I/M
reductions, are more than sufficient to offset the projected emissions
associated with VMT growth during the 2 year SIP revision
period.10
\10\ Additional information on VMT growth and emission
reductions from the I/M program after 1995 is provided in the TSD
for this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As set forth in section II.B. of this notice, EPA suggested in its
1992 TSD that contingency measures for these areas achieve emission
reductions offsetting one year's VMT growth while the SIP is being
revised. In establishing this suggested benchmark, EPA intended that,
following a finding of nonattainment, the status quo, as represented by
the emissions level in the attainment deadline year, be maintained
during this period. EPA believes that this result can be achieved by
considering reductions from the section 172(c)(9) measures in
combination with new reductions scheduled to occur in the area during
the SIP revision period, as long as these offsetting reductions are
from measures approved into the SIP and are in excess of reductions
occurring in the attainment deadline year. The emission reductions from
the enhanced remote sensing program, the traffic diversion measure, and
the additional reductions from the I/M program in 1996 and 1997 more
than meet this test.
For the above reasons, EPA is proposing to approve the State's
enhanced remote sensing program and the MAG traffic diversion measure
as meeting the requirements of section 172(c)(9).
VI. Withdrawal of Federal Contingency Process
Based on the proposed approval of the State's 172(c)(9) contingency
measures, EPA is proposing to withdraw the Federal contingency process
for the Phoenix CO nonattainment area. Specifically, the Agency is
proposing to delete the phrase ``After December 31, 1991 for the
Maricopa CO nonattainment area or'' from the contingency provisions at
56 FR 5470, column 2 (February 11, 1991). This deletion will leave the
Federal contingency process in place for the Pima County CO
nonattainment area. EPA also proposes to withdraw the list of highway
projects potentially subject to delay that was proposed on June 28,
1993 during the partial implementation of the FIP contingency process
at that time. 58 FR 34547.
EPA is proposing these actions because, with its final approval of
the State's section 172(c)(9) measures, the Federal process will become
unnecessary for attainment and maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the
Phoenix area. To leave the Federal process in place would complicate
air quality planning within Maricopa County and would be unnecessarily
redundant. In addition, giving preference to the State's measures is
consistent with the Clean Air Act's intent that states have primary
responsibility for the control of air pollution within their borders.
See CAA sections 101(a)(3) and 107(a).
VII. Summary of EPA Actions
EPA is today proposing to approve into the Arizona SIP for the
Phoenix CO nonattainment area the State's enhanced remote sensing
program and the MAG traffic diversion measure as meeting the
requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. EPA is also proposing to
withdraw the Federal contingency process promulgated pursuant to
section 110(c) of the Act and published on February 11, 1991 (56 FR
5458). Finally, EPA is withdrawing the list of highway projects subject
to delay proposed on June 28, 1993 (58 FR 34547) as part of the
implementation of the Federal contingency process in 1993.
Nothing in this proposed action should be construed as permitting
or allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for a revision
to the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in
light of specific technical, economic and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
VIII. Regulatory Process
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small business, small not-for-profit enterprises and
government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under sections 110 and 301 and subchapter I, part D
of the Clean Air Act, do not create any new requirements, but simply
approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Similarly,
withdrawal of the FIP contingency process does not impose any new
requirements. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval and FIP
withdrawal does not impose any new requirements, it does not have a
significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the
nature of the Federal/state relationship under the Act, preparation of
a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into
the economic reasonableness of state action. The Act forbids EPA to
base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v.
U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory
action from Executive Order 12866 review.
Unfunded Mandates
Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), 2 U.S.C. Secs. 1501-1571,
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must undertake various actions
in association with proposed or final rules that include a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
the private sector, or to State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate.
Through submission of these SIP revisions, the State and any
affected local or tribal governments have elected to adopt the program
provided for under sections 110 and 182 of the CAA. These rules may
bind State, local, and tribal
[[Page 15751]]
governments to perform certain actions and also require the private
sector to perform certain duties. To the extent that the rules being
approved today will impose any mandate upon the State, local, or tribal
governments either as the owner or operator of a source or as a
regulator, or would impose any mandate upon the private sector, EPA's
action will impose no new requirements; such sources are already
subject to these requirements under State law. Similarly, EPA's
withdrawal of the FIP contingency process will not impose any new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
EPA has also determined that this action does not include a mandate
that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to State,
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private sector.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: April 3, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-8807 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8796 Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; KS, and Independence, KS
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15741-15743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8796]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15742]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ACE-4]
Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; KS, and Independence, KS
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend the Class E airspace area at
Abilene Municipal Airport, Abilene, KS, and Independence Municipal
Airport, Independence, KS. The development of new Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAP) has made the proposal necessary. The new
procedure at Abilene, KS, will be based upon the Global Positioning
System (GPS), and the new procedure at Independence, KS, will be a
standard Instrument Landing System (ILS). The intended effect of this
proposal is to provide additional controlled airspace for aircraft
executing the SIAPs at the above airports.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager,
Operations Branch, ACE-530, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No.
96-ACE-4, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, MO 64106.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel for the Central Region at the same address between 9:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the office of the Manager, Operations Branch, Air Traffic
Division, at the address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, Operations Branch, ACE-530C,
Federal Aviation Administration, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 426-3408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-
ACE-4.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the Rules Docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-230,
800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202)
267-3484. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs
should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2, which
describes the procedures.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to Part 71 if the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) to provide additional controlled
airspace for new Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) procedures at the
Abilene Municipal Airport, Abilene, KS, and Independence Municipal
Airport, Independence, KS. The additional airspace would segregate
aircraft operating under VFR conditions from aircraft operating under
IFR procedures. The area would be depicted on appropriate aeronautical
charts thereby enabling pilots to circumnavigate the area or otherwise
comply with IFR procedures. Class E airspace designations for airspace
areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the
earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated
August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation (1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend Part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ACE KS E5 Abilene, KS
Abilene Municipal Airport, KS.
(lat. 38 deg.54'15'' N., long 95 deg.14'09'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Abilene Municipal Airport and within 2.6
miles each side of the 180 deg. bearing from the Abilene Municipal
Airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 7 miles south of the
airport.
* * * * *
ACE KS E5 Independence, KS
Independence Municipal Airport, KS
(lat. 37 deg.09'26'' N., long. 95 deg.46'53'' W.)
[[Page 15743]]
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Independence Municipal Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Kansas City, MO, on March 21, 1996.
Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 96-8796 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8795 Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Topeka, KS; Kingman, KS; Hutchinson, KS; and Wahoo, NE
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15740-15741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8795]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ACE-3]
Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Topeka, KS; Kingman, KS;
Hutchinson, KS; and Wahoo, NE
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend the Class E airspace area at
Philip Billard Municipal Airport, Topeka, KS; Kingman Municipal
Airport, Kingman, KS; Hutchinson Municipal Airport, Hutchinson, KS; and
Wahoo Municipal Airport, Wahoo, NE. The development of new Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) based on the Global Positioning
System (GPS) has made the proposal necessary. The intended effect of
this proposal is to provide additional controlled airspace for aircraft
executing the SIAP at the above listed airports.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 24, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager,
Operations Branch, ACE-530, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No.
96-ACE-3, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, MO 64106.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel for the Central Region at the same address between 9:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the office of the Manager, Operations Branch, Air Traffic
Division, at the address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, Operations Branch, ACE-530C,
Federal Aviation Administration, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone number (816) 426-3408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and
[[Page 15741]]
be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters
wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice
must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on
which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket
No. 96-ACE-3.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to
the commenter. All communications received on or before the closing
date for comments will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in
light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available
for examination in the Rules Docket both before and after the closing
date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-230,
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202)
267-3484. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs
should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which
describes the procedures.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to Part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) to provide additional controlled
airspace for a new Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) procedure at the
Philip Billard Municipal Airport, Topeka, KS; Kingman Municipal
Airport, Kingman, KS; Hutchinson Municipal Airport, Hutchinson, KS; and
Wahoo Municipal Airport, Wahoo, KS. The additional airspace would
segregate aircraft operating under VFR conditions from aircraft
operating under IFR procedures. The area would be depicted on
appropriate aeronautical charts thereby enabling pilots to
circumnavigate the area or otherwise comply with IFR procedures. Class
E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be
published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation (1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend Part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 24 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ACE KS E5 Topeka, Philip Billard Airport, KS
Topeka, Philip Billard Municipal Airport, KS
(Lat. 39 deg.04'08'' N., long. 95 deg.37'21'' W.)
Topeka VORTAC
(Lat. 39 deg.08'14'' N., long. 95 deg.32'57'' W.)
BILOY LOM/NDB
(Lat. 39 deg.07'13'' N., long. 95 deg.41'14'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Philip Billard Municipal Airport, and
within 1.8 miles each side of the 039 deg. radial of the Topeka
VORTAC extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 7 miles northeast of
the VORTAC, and within 4 miles southwest and 7 miles northeast of
the Philip Billard Municipal Airport ILS localizer course extending
from 15 miles southeast of the airport to 12 miles northwest of
BILOY LOM/NDB.
* * * * *
ACE KS E5 Kingman, KS
Kingman Municipal Airport, KS
(Lat 37 deg.40'00'' N., long. 98 deg.07'22'' W.)
Hutchinson VORTAC
(Lat. 37 deg.59'49'' N., long. 97 deg.56'03'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Kingman Municipal Airport, and within
2.2 miles each side of the 204 deg. radial of Hutchinson VORTAC
extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 11.2 miles north of the
airport.
* * * * *
ACE KS E5 Hutchinson, KS
Hutchinson Municipal Airport, KS
(Lat. 38 deg.03'56'' N., long. 97 deg.51'38'' W.)
Hutchinson VORTAC
(Lat. 37 deg.59'49'' N., long. 97 deg.56'03'' W.)
SALTT LOM
(Lat. 38 deg.07'25'' N., long. 97 deg.55'36'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Hutchinson Municipal Airport, and within
4 miles each side of the Hutchinson ILS localizer northwest course
extending to 16 miles northwest of the SALTT LOM, and within 4 miles
each side of the ILS localizer back course extending from the 6.6-
mile radius to 7.4 miles southwest of the airport, and within 4
miles each side of the 042 deg. radial of the Hutchinson VORTAC
extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 7.4 miles northeast of the
airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 222 deg. radial of
Hutchinson VORTAC extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 11.2 miles
southwest of the airport.
* * * * *
ACE NE E5 Wahoo, NE
Wahoo Municipal Airport, NE
(Lat. 41 deg.14'25'' N., long 96 deg.35'41'' W.)
Wahoo NOB
(Lat. 41 deg.14'21'' N., long. 96 deg.35'54'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of the Wahoo Municipal Airport, and within
2.6 miles each side of the 032 deg. bearing from the Wahoo NDB
extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 7.4 miles northeast of the
airport, excluding that portion which lies within the Fremont, NE
Class E airspace.
* * * * *
Issued in Kansas City, MO, on March 15, 1996.
Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 96-8795 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8782 Home Energy Rating System Guidelines
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15735-15738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8782]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15736]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 437
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
[Docket No. EE-RM-95-202]
RIN 1904-AA74
Home Energy Rating System Guidelines
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of limited reopening of the comment
period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On July 25, 1995, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a
notice of proposed rulemaking to establish voluntary guidelines for
home energy rating systems that provide residential building energy
efficiency ratings and were developed in consultation with the Home
Energy Rating Systems Council. The purpose of this document is to
reopen the comment period for 30 days in order to solicit
recommendations from the Board of Directors of the Home Energy Rating
Systems Council, and comments from all interested persons, with respect
to new policy options and technical data that DOE is considering in
preparation for final guidelines. These options respond to comments
concerning three components of the guidelines: air infiltration levels
for the reference and the rated home; heating, air conditioning and hot
water equipment for the reference home; and the phased-in compliance
levels.
DATES: Written comments ([10] copies) on the issues presented in this
document must be received on or before May 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to: U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE-33, Docket No. EE-
RM-95-202, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, 202-
586-3012.
Public Reading Room: Supporting information used to develop this
notice and the written comments received are contained in the Public
Rulemaking File, Docket No. EE-RM-95-202. This Docket is available for
examination in DOE's Freedom of Information Reading Room. 1E-090,
Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C.
20585, 202-586-6020, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The supporting information used to develop
this notice is also available on the internet at URL#: http://
www.eren.doe.gov or from the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Clearinghouse at 1-800-DOE-EREC (1-800-363-3732).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John Reese or Robert Mackie, Buildings Division, EE-432, U. S.
Department of Energy, Room 1J-018, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-7819.
Diana Dean, Office of General Counsel, GC-12, U.S. Department of
Energy, Room 6B-231, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C.
20585, (202) 586-7440.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
This notice to reopen the comment period is part of an ongoing,
Congressionally mandated rulemaking to establish voluntary home energy
rating system guidelines that are required by section 271 of the
National Energy Conservation Policy Act (Act), as amended by the Energy
Policy Act of 1992. 42 U.S.C. 8236. The background for this rulemaking
is discussed in detail in the Supplementary Information section of the
notice of proposed rulemaking. 60 FR 37949 (July 25, 1995).
Since the close of the 60-day comment period on the notice of
proposed rulemaking, DOE has been reviewing the comments. As directed
by the Act, DOE has consulted with the Home Energy Rating Systems
(HERS) Council and sought its views on issues that emerged from the
comments. With respect to comments claiming that the proposed reference
home infiltration rate is too high and that the proposed reference home
heating, air conditioning and hot water equipment produced unexpected
rating anomalies, the Technical Committee of the HERS Council made
recommendations that are discussed in detail later in this notice. The
HERS Council Board did not take a position on these recommendations and
sent these issues back to the Technical Committee for further review.
Consistent with its obligation to promulgate final guidelines, DOE
has independently reviewed the HERS Technical Committee's
recommendations, and today makes available for public comment DOE's
technical evaluations. These evaluations are entitled ``Climate
Sensitive Air Change Rate Study'' and ``Analysis of Heating, Air
Conditioning, and Water Heating Equipment Adjustment Factors.'' They
have been added to the public file in DOE's Freedom of Information
Reading Room and may be obtained from the information contact for this
rulemaking or through the internet as described above. DOE is now
considering whether to modify the proposed guidelines accordingly.
In addition, adverse comments on the advisability of DOE's proposed
distinction between ``basic compliance'' and ``full compliance'' for
the two years following promulgation of the guidelines have prompted
DOE to consider an alternative approach to phasing in compliance that
was not discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking. Later in this
notice, DOE's tentative approach to resolving these issues is set forth
for public comment.
DOE requests that the HERS Council Board respond to this notice by
filing comments that include recommendations regarding the policy
options DOE is considering. DOE also would welcome the comments of
other interested members of the public.
II. Discussion of New Policy Options
A. Infiltration
DOE originally proposed guidelines assuming a level of 0.67 air
changes per hour (ACH) for the reference home to which the subject
rated home is compared. The 0.67 ACH was based on the Council of
American Building Official's Model Energy Code (MEC), 1994 amendments.
Although one comment endorsed the proposed level, most comments
were critical. There were two major concerns. One was that the proposed
0.67 ACH results in a reference home that is too energy inefficient
when compared to newly constructed houses that typically have
infiltration rates below 0.50 ACH. Another concern was that a single
national air change rate was not valid for all climate conditions.
Some of the critics suggested substituting a 0.50 ACH level
provided for in the 1995 MEC. Others favored reliance on the
infiltration and ventilation consensus standards of the American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE): ASHRAE Standard 119-1988 establishes minimum air leakage
levels and provides a method for establishing a normalized leakage
area, producing a consistent measure of building tightness; ASHRAE
Standard 136-1993 establishes a calculation method for effective air
change and provides weather factors that, when applied to a normalized
leakage area, produce an effective air change rate for various
locations across the country; and
[[Page 15737]]
ASHRAE Standard 62-1989 sets minimum standards for ventilation.
The HERS Council Technical Committee supported use of the ASHRAE
standards. They suggested that the guidelines should provide a base
level value for the normalized leakage area of 0.57 to be adjusted for
weather using the ASHRAE factors. The 0.57 normalized leakage area base
level increases the reference home's energy efficiency (in comparison
to the level under the proposed guidelines), yielding a level
appropriate for most regions when adjusted for weather conditions. For
the vast majority of the sites, the reference home would be between
0.57 ACH and 0.40 ACH. Furthermore, with a 0.57 normalized leakage, the
Technical Committee believed that no weather adjusted air change rates
would fall below the 0.35 ACH minimum ventilation rate set by ASHRAE
Standard 62.
The suggestion to use the single point set by the Model Energy Code
overlooked an important shortcoming. This approach, is not sensitive to
the variation in air change rates due to climatic variations. DOE has
decided that, with two minor modifications, the Technical Committee's
recommendation to use ASHRAE standards has sufficient merit to be
considered for inclusion in the final guidelines. The first
modification is to incorporate in the guidelines the minimum 0.35 ACH
for the reference house. This is necessary because two of the 213 sites
nationwide examined by the Technical Committee are in fact slightly
below the 0.35 level. The second modification is a conforming change to
the treatment of the rated house. That change would involve adjustment
of the ACH using the weather factors in ASHRAE Standard 136-1993.
Addition of this approach to the proposed guidelines may provide a
nationally recognized method for setting air change rates sensitive to
different climate conditions and consistent with recommended minimum
ventilation rates.
DOE also solicits comment on establishing a minimum allowable air
change rate. DOE is now considering as a policy option for the final
guidelines setting 0.35 ACH as the minimum allowable air change rate on
which energy savings may be calculated for the rated home. The 0.35 ACH
coincides with the rate currently specified by ASHRAE Standard 62 for
minimum ventilation. Lowering the level of the air change rate any
further should not result in a higher HERS rating.
B. Heating, Air Conditioning, and Hot Water Equipment
The proposed guidelines provided for a computerized comparison of
the rated home to a reference home using the same energy source as the
rated home. Consistent with the recommendations of the HERS Council
Board, the proposed guidelines further provide for estimated energy
consumption at the home for the rated and reference homes.
After the comment period ended, the HERS Technical Committee
identified some anomalous rating results that the foregoing approach
produced when it was assumed that an identical energy efficiency
improvement (e.g., a new air conditioning system) was made to two rated
homes. These two rated homes differ only in the fuel used for heating,
air conditioning, and hot water. Improvements to fossil fuel homes
tended to rate higher than electric homes in climates with large
heating loads. The relationship reversed for climates with large
cooling loads.
The problem occurs because the end use loads of the reference and
rated homes are divided by the seasonal performance coefficients of the
heating, cooling, and hot water equipment to arrive at the consumption.
The impact of other efficiency changes is then based on energy
consumption. Consequently, the same improvements have different impacts
in homes of different fuels.
To achieve an equal treatment of efficiency improvements, the HERS
Technical Committee recommended that an adjustment factor be used. This
factor would adjust the consumption of the reference and rated homes
for the purposes of the rating point score. It normalizes load so that
efficiency improvements can be measured equally regardless of fuel
type. This is achieved by setting one profile of equipment as the basis
from which equipment utilizing other fuels is specified. The base fuel
could be any fuel. The Technical Committee selected a profile of
electric equipment as the basis because it is widely available for
heating, cooling, and hot water purposes. Fossil fuel cooling systems,
for example, are much less common.
The HERS Council had originally developed a table of efficiencies
for heating, cooling, and hot water equipment and included them in
their guidelines. This information was incorporated in section 437.103,
Tables 2 and 4, of the proposed guidelines and served as the basis for
efficiency of equipment in the reference home. Rather than using those
tables as the basis for developing the adjustment factor, the Technical
Committee reduced the tables by combining classes and sizes of
equipment. Because Table 2 did not include a minimum efficiency level
for biomass heating or gas cooling, the Technical Committee used
professional judgement to set levels for these technologies.
DOE has reviewed the HERS Council Technical Committee's
recommendations and believes they may have merit. However, reducing,
the information in Tables 2 and 4 to the extent recommended
oversimplifies the range of equipment options. Therefore, additional
equipment options from Tables 2 and 4 are presented below with the
adjustment factors and the accompanying equation. Table 2A presents
factors for gas cooling and biomass heating. DOE is particularly
interested in comments on these two values for which no standards
exist.
Table 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustment
Type Units Rating factor \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heating equipment:
Gas or Oil Warm Air Furnace.................. AFUE 0.78 0.39
Gas Boiler (water)........................... AFUE .80 .40
Gas Boiler (steam)........................... AFUE .75 .37
Oil Boiler (water or steam).................. AFUE .80 .40
Electric Air Source Heat Pump................ HSPF 6.80 1.00
Cooling equipment:
Electric Central Air Conditioner............. SEER 10.00 1.00
Heat Pump.................................... SEER 10.00 1.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15738]]
1. The adjustment factor is created by dividing the seasonal
performance coefficient of the alternative fuel device (eg. natural
gas, fuel oil, biomass, etc.) by the seasonal performance coefficient
of the equivalent electric device. The seasonal performance
coefficients for electric heating and cooling devices have units of
Btu/W. To convert HSPF and SEER to seasonal performance coefficients
they must be divided by 3.413 Btu/W, yielding seasonal performance
coefficients of 1.99 and 2.93 for the standard HSPF of 6.80 and SEER of
10.0, respectively. For water heaters, EF is used for all fuel types.
EF and AFUE are already unitless seasonal performance coefficients, so
they do not require any modification.
Gas Cooling...................................... N/A \2\ 0.75 0.26
Biomass Heating.................................. N/A .70 .35
2. No standard efficiencies exist for these technologies. The HERS
Technical Committee recommended these levels for consideration.
Table 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water heating Rated storage capacity (gallons) and adjustment factor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 gallon 40 gallon 50 gallon 60 gallon
Type -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EF AF EF AF EF AF EF AF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas............................................. 0.56 0.61 0.54 0.60 0.53 0.60 0.51 0.59
Oil............................................. .53 .58 .53 .59 .50 .57 .48 .55
Electric........................................ .91 1.00 .90 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.87 1.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EF = Energy Factor. AF = Adjustment Factor.
The adjustment factors in the Tables 2, 2A and 4 are used in the
equation:
ER=((EH x EUH + EC x EUC + EW x
EUW) + EM)
Where:
ER=Adjusted energy consumption for point calculation.
EH = Rated home estimated energy purchased for heating.
EC = Rated home estimated energy purchased for cooling.
EW = Rated home estimated energy purchased for water heating.
EUH,C,W = Equipment utilization factors from Tables 2, 2A & 4
The point score is then determined using the following equation:
Point score = 100-((ER/EC)/.05)
Where--
ER=Estimated purchased energy consumption for heating, cooling, and
water heating of rated home (Btu).
EC=Estimated purchased energy consumption for heating, cooling, and
water heating of reference home (Btu).
DOE has performed an analysis of the HERS Technical Committee
recommendations. A copy of that analysis has been placed in the public
rulemaking file and is available upon request or through the internet.
The analysis shows that the reduction in consumption by the same
efficiency improvements, in homes of different fuels, can vary by 3% to
4%. This difference can benefit electric homes or fossil fuel homes.
The adjustment factor is shown to eliminate this variation.
On the basis of this analysis, DOE is considering adopting the HERS
Technical Committee recommendations with the modifications described
above. Interested members of the public, including the HERS Council
Board, are invited to comment on the analysis as well as the general
suitability of the recommendations.
C. Phased-in Compliance Period
The proposed guidelines allow for phased-in compliance over a two
year period. HERS providers would have one year to come into ``basic
compliance'' by meeting a specific set of guideline provisions, and two
years to come into ``full accreditation'' by meeting all the guideline
provisions.
This provision generated a wide range of comments. Some advised the
total elimination of the section. One argued for an additional one year
grace period for meeting the ``basic compliance'' level. The two level
approach was criticized by those who felt that allowing an intermediate
level would undermine the value of ``full accreditation.''
DOE thinks that accreditation is a legitimate subject to address in
the guidelines and that failure to include suitable non-binding
guidance would irresponsibly leave a crucial implementation subject
uncovered. The comments revealed that nearly all HERS providers would
have to make adjustments and lending institutions have indicated that
they are willing to deal with applicants on an individual basis during
an interim period before full compliance is required. Therefore, DOE is
considering modifying the proposed guidelines by eliminating the
``basic compliance'' level and allowing two years for development of
accrediting procedures and for HERS providers to meet all components
and become accredited under the guidelines. DOE invites, particularly
financial institutions, to comment on this possible policy.
Issued in Washington, D.C. on April 3, 1996.
Christine A. Ervin,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 96-8782 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8756 Wireless Telecommunications Services; Commercial Mobile Radio Service
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15753-15754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8756]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[CC Docket No. 94-54, FCC 96-126]
Wireless Telecommunications Services; Commercial Mobile Radio
Service
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Order terminates the Commission's inquiry into the
imposition of equal access requirements on commercial mobile radio
services (CMRS) providers. In light of recent amendments to the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the Commission now finds that
it no longer has the authority to require CMRS providers to offer equal
access to common carriers for the provision of telephone toll services,
and although the Commission is authorized in certain circumstances to
prescribe regulations to afford subscribers unblocked access to the
provider of telephone toll services of the subscribers' choice, the
record does not establish a need for such a prescription at this time.
The Order terminates further inquiry into these two aspects of the
instant proceeding. The Order does not affect the status of the
Commission's inquiry into related issues in this or other proceedings,
including CMRS resale, roaming, and interconnection.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Steinberg, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Policy Division (202) 418-1310.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Order in CC Docket
No. 94-54, FCC 96-126, adopted March 21, 1996, and released March 22,
1996. The complete text of this Order is available for inspection and
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room
239), 1919 M Street NW., Washington, DC, and also may be purchased from
the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service,
at
[[Page 15754]]
(202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037.
Synopsis of the Order
1. The Commission terminates its inquiry into the imposition of
equal access requirements on CMRS providers, which was initiated in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry (NPRM/NOI), 59 FR
39664, July 13, 1994. The NPRM/NOI tentatively concluded that cellular
providers should be required to provide equal access to interexchange
carriers.
2. The recent enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
changed the legal landscape under which the Commission may consider
interexchange access requirements for CMRS providers. As a result, the
Commission now determines that it no longer has the authority to
require CMRS providers to offer equal access to common carriers for the
provision of telephone toll services. The Commission further finds
that, although it has the authority to require CMRS providers to afford
subscribers unblocked access to the telephone toll services provider of
their choice if it determines that subscribers are denied such access
and such denial is contrary to the public interest, convenience, and
necessity, the record compiled in this proceeding does not establish a
need at this time for the Commission to initiate an inquiry into the
imposition of an unblocked access rule.
3. Thus, the Commission terminates its examination of these issues
in this docket. The intended effect of this action is to provide
certainty that CMRS providers are not required to offer equal access to
interexchange carriers. This Order does not affect the status of the
Commission's inquiry into related issues in this or other proceedings.
Ordering Clause
4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the above-referenced rulemaking
IS TERMINATED to the extent indicated herein. This action is authorized
under Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 309, 332, and 403 of the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 309, 332,
and 403.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20
Commercial mobile radio service.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-8756 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8754 Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA Groupe AEROSPATIALE TBM 700 Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15738-15740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8754]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-CE-67-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA Groupe AEROSPATIALE TBM 700
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD) that would apply to certain SOCATA Groupe AEROSPATIALE (Socata)
TBM 700 airplanes. The proposed action would require installing four
rivets on the right side of the rudder and drilling drainage holes at
the areas of the elevators and rudder. Reports of water accumulating in
the areas of the elevators and rudder and a report of a bonding defect
between the
[[Page 15739]]
skin and rudder rear spar on the affected airplanes prompted the
proposed action. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended
to prevent the wing skin and the rear spar from becoming unbonded or
water accumulating in either the elevators or rudder, which could
result in loss of control of the airplane.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-CE-67-AD, Room 1558, 601 E.
12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments may be inspected at
this location between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
holidays excepted.
Service information that applies to the proposed AD may be obtained
from the SOCATA Groupe AEROSPATIALE, Socata Product Support, Aeroport
Tarbes-Ossun-Lourdes, B P 930, 65009 Tarbes Cedex, France; telephone
62.41.74.26; facsimile 62.41.74.32; or the Product Support Manager,
U.S. AEROSPATIALE, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75053;
telephone (214) 641-3614; facsimile (214) 641-3527. This information
also may be examined at the Rules Docket at the address below. Send
comments on the proposal in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-CE-67-AD, Room 1558, 601 E.
12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments may be inspected at
this location between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
holidays excepted.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William J. Timberlake, Program
Officer, Brussels Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Europe, Africa,
and Middle East Office, c/o American Embassy, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium;
telephone (32 2) 513.38.30; facsimile (32 2) 230.68.99; or Mr. Mike
Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 1201
Walnut Street, suite 900, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone (816)
426-6934; facsimile (816) 426-2169.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned
with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. 95-CE-67-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-CE-67-AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
Discussion
The Direction Gonorale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the
airworthiness authority for France, recently notified the FAA that an
unsafe condition may exist on certain Socata TBM 700 airplanes. The
DGAC reports that water may accumulate in the areas of the elevators
and rudder, and that a bonding defect between the skin and rudder rear
spar was found on a TBM 700 airplane on the assembly line. These
conditions, if not detected and corrected, could result in loss of
control of the airplane.
Socata has issued the following service bulletins (SB):
--SB 70-028, dated September 1993, which specifies procedures for
drilling drainage holes in the elevator and rudder areas on Socata TBM
700 airplanes; and
--SB 70-027, dated September 1993, which specifies procedures for
installing four rivets on the right side of the rudder on Socata TBM
700 airplanes.
The DGAC classified these service bulletins as mandatory and issued
DGAC AD 93-178(B) and DGAC AD 93- 179(B), both dated October 27, 1993,
in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in
France.
This airplane model is manufactured in France and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed
of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of
the DGAC, reviewed all available information including the service
information referenced above, and determined that AD action is
necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for
operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop in other Socata TBM 700 airplanes of the same type
design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would require
installing four rivets on the right side of the rudder and drilling
drainage holes at the specified areas of the elevators and rudder.
Accomplishment of the proposed installation would be in accordance with
Socata SB 70-027 and Socata SB 70-028, both dated September 1993.
The FAA estimates that 31 airplanes in the U.S. registry would be
affected by the proposed rivet installation and 35 airplanes would be
affected by the proposed drainage hole drillings, that it would take 2
workhours to install the rivets and 2 workhours to drill the drainage
holes, and that the average labor cost is $60 per hour. No cost is
attributed to parts that would be necessary to accomplish the proposed
actions since these parts are available through common operator stock
and an approximate cost cannot be traced. Based on these figures, the
total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to
be $3,720 or $120 per airplane for the rivet installation and $4,200 or
$120 per airplane for the drainage hole drilling. Since parts are not
sold through the manufacturer, the FAA has no method of determining the
number of parts already distributed, and thus bases this cost impact
upon the assumption that no owner/operator of the affected airplanes
has accomplished the proposed actions.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of
[[Page 15740]]
power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined
that this proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation
prepared for this action has been placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of
it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location
provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD) to read as follows:
Socata Groupe Aerospatiale: Docket No. 95-CE-67-AD.
Applicability: TBM 700 airplanes (serial numbers 1 through 19,
21, 22, 25 through 34, 38, 39, 46, 49, 50, 52, 53, 57, 59 through
63, 67, 68, 70 through 78, 80, and 82 through 85), certificated in
any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it. Compliance: Required within the next 100 hours time-in-
service after the effective date of this AD, unless already
accomplished.
To prevent the wing skin and the rear spar from becoming
unbonded or water accumulating in either the elevators or rudder,
which could result in loss of control of the airplane, accomplish
the following:
(a) For any TBM 700 airplane with a serial number in the
following range: 1 through 19, 21, 22, 25 through 34, 38, 39, 46,
49, 50, 52, 53, 57, 59, 61 through 63, 67, 68, and 71 through 75,
install four rivets on the right side of the rudder in accordance
with the DESCRIPTION section of Socata Service Bulletin (SB) 70-027,
dated September 1993.
(b) For any TBM 700 airplane with a serial number in the
following range: 2 through 19, 21, 22, 24 through 34, 38, 39, 46,
49, 50, 52, 53, 57, 59 through 63, 67, 68, 70 through 78, 80, and 82
through 85, drill drainage holes in the area of the elevators and
rudder in accordance with the DESCRIPTION section of Socata SB 70-
028, dated September 1993.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an equivalent level of safety may be
approved by the Manager, Brussels Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, Europe, Africa, and Middle East Office, c/o American
Embassy, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium. The request shall be forwarded
through an appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add
comments and then send it to the Manager, Brussels ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Brussels ACO.
(e) All persons affected by this directive may obtain copies of
the document referred to herein upon request to the SOCATA Groupe
AEROSPATIALE, Socata Product Support, Aeroport Tarbes-Ossun-Lourdes,
B P 930, 65009 Tarbes Cedex, France; or the Product Support Manager,
U.S. AEROSPATIALE, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas 75053; or
may examine this document at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the
Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 2, 1996.
James E. Jackson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-8754 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8751 Testing and Evaluation by Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories and Use of Equivalent Testing and Evaluation Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8751]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
30 CFR Parts 6, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 33, and 35
RIN 1219-AA87
Testing and Evaluation by Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratories and Use of Equivalent Testing and Evaluation Requirements
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of rescheduled public hearing and close
of record.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) has
rescheduled the public hearing on its proposed regulations for testing
and evaluation of products by nationally recognized testing
laboratories (NRTL) and the use of equivalent testing and evaluation
requirements. The purpose of the hearing is to receive relevant
comments on the proposed changes to MSHA's regulations for the approval
of products for use in underground mines and to respond to questions
from the public about these proposed changes.
DATES: The hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 30, 1996, in
Washington, PA beginning at 9:00 a.m. The public record will close on
May 31, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held at the Meadowlands Holiday Inn,
Conference Center Suite, 340 Race Track Road, Washington, Pennsylvania
15301. For hotel reservations call Loretta at 412-222-6200.
Send requests to make oral presentations to the Mine Safety and
Health Administration; Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances;
4015 Wilson Boulevard, Room 631; Arlington, VA 22203. Requests to make
oral presentations also can be faxed or called in to the MSHA, Office
of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 703-235-1910, fax: 703-235-
5551.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia W. Silvey, Director; Office
of Standards, Regulations, and Variances; 703-235-1910.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On November 30, 1994, MSHA published a proposed rule (59 FR 61376)
to revise its existing standards for testing and evaluating products
for approval for use in underground mines. The comment period closed on
February 21, 1995.
The proposal would require manufacturers of certain products to use
a private sector laboratory recognized by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) as a Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory (NRTL) to perform the necessary testing and evaluation for
MSHA approvals. This proposed rule would revise MSHA's testing and
evaluation responsibilities and allow the Agency to expand its post-
approval product audit program and pursue the evaluation of new safer
technology as applied to underground mining products.
MSHA specifically solicits additional suggestions and comments on
these issues at the public hearing, as well as comments on any other
aspects of the proposed rule.
II. Conduct of Hearing
The hearing will be conducted in an informal manner by a panel of
MSHA officials. The order of appearance of persons making presentations
will be determined by the Agency and, immediately before the hearing,
any unallotted time will be made available to persons making late
requests. Although formal rules of evidence will not apply, the
presiding official may exercise discretion in excluding irrelevant or
unduly repetitious material and questions.
The hearing will begin with an opening statement from MSHA followed
by an opportunity for members of the public to make oral presentations.
During these presentations, the hearing panel will be available to
answer relevant questions. At the discretion of the presiding official,
speakers may be limited to a maximum of 20 minutes for their
presentations. Time will be made available at the end of the hearings
for rebuttal statements.
Verbatim transcripts of the proceedings will be taken and made a
part of the rulemaking record. Copies of the hearing transcript will be
made available for review by the public.
MSHA also will accept additional written comments and other
appropriate data from any interested party, including those not
presenting oral statements. Written comments and data submitted to MSHA
will be included in the rulemaking record. To allow for the submission
of any post-hearing comments, the record will remain open until May 31,
1996.
Dated: March 29, 1996.
J. Davitt McAteer,
Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 96-8751 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-43-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8747 Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision; Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District; San Diego County Air Pollution Control District; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15752-15753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8747]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 102-14-0004b; FRL-5441-4]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
California State Implementation Plan Revision; Mojave Desert Air
Quality Management District; San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) which control oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
from gas turbines, fuel-burning equipment, and glass manufacturing
plants. The intended effect of proposing approval of these rules is to
regulate emissions of NOx in accordance with the requirements of
the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). In the Rules
section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP
revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no
adverse comments. A detailed rationale for this approval is set forth
in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in
response to this proposed action, no further activity is contemplated
in relation to this action. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this
document. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by
May 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to:
Daniel A. Meer, Rulemaking Section (A-5-3), Air and Toxics Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Copies of the rules and EPA's evaluation report of each rule are
available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX office during normal
business hours. Copies of the submitted rules are also available for
inspection at the following locations:
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, 15428 Civic Drive, Suite
200, Victorville, CA 92392.
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive,
San Diego, CA 92123-1096.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1999
Tuolumne Street, Suite 200, Fresno, CA 93721.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae Wang, Rulemaking Section (A-5-3),
Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, Telephone: (415)
744-1200.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document concerns Mojave Desert Air
Quality Management District Rule 1159, Stationary Gas Turbines; San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District Rule 68, Fuel-Burning
Equipment--Oxides of Nitrogen; and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control
[[Page 15753]]
District Rule 4354, Glass Melting Furnaces. These rules were submitted
to EPA by the California Air Resources Board on March 31, 1995, October
19, 1994, and September 28, 1994, respectively. For further
information, please see the information provided in the direct final
action which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: March 6, 1996.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-8747 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-W
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8718 Specialty Crops; Import Regulations; Removal of Medjhool Dates From Import Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15734-15735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8718]
========================================================================
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. 69 / Tuesday, April 9, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 15734]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 999
[Docket No. FV96-999-1PR]
Specialty Crops; Import Regulations; Removal of Medjhool Dates
From Import Requirements
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposal invites comments on removing the Medjhool
variety of dates from all import requirements established under the
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. Currently, whenever
grade, size, quality, or maturity requirements are in effect for dates
under a domestic marketing order, imported dates must meet the same or
comparable requirements. A marketing order is in effect for California
dates and specifies quality requirements for four varieties of dates.
However, all varieties of dates are currently subject to import
requirements. The Department of Agriculture (Department) has received
requests from representatives of an importer of Israeli dates and the
Embassy of Israel to remove Medjhool dates from import requirements.
The Medjhool date is a unique variety of date, commanding a premium
price, and is believed to not be in direct competition with the
varieties covered under the marketing order. Thus, the Department is
issuing this proposed rule to solicit public comment on removing
Medjhool dates from import requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. Comments must be sent in triplicate to the
Docket Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, room 2525-S,
P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, Fax # (202) 720-5698. All
comments should reference the docket number and the date and page
number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made available
for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular
business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maureen Pello, California Marketing
Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, F&V, AMS, USDA,
2202 Monterey Street, suite 102B, Fresno, California 93721; telephone:
(209) 487-5901, Fax # (209) 487-5906; or Mark Kreaggor, Marketing
Specialist, Marketing Order Administration Branch, F&V, AMS, USDA, room
2522-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456: telephone: (202)
720-2431, Fax # (202) 720-5698.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal is issued under section 8e of
the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C.
601-674), hereinafter referred to as the ``Act.'' Section 8e provides
that whenever certain specified commodities, including dates (other
than dates for processing), are regulated under a Federal marketing
order, imports of those commodities must meet the same or comparable
grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements as those in effect for
the domestically produced commodities.
The Department is issuing this rule in accordance with Executive
Order 12866.
This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
This proposal will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or
policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this
rule.
There are no administrative proceedings which must be exhausted
prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of import regulations
issued under section 8e of the Act.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small
entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that
they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf.
Import regulations issued under section 8e of the Act are based on
regulations established under Federal marketing orders for fresh
fruits, vegetables, and specialty crops, like dates. Thus, import
regulations also have a small entity orientation and impact both small
and large business entities in a manner comparable to rules issued
under such marketing orders.
There are approximately 35 importers of dates in the United States.
Three of those are importers of Medjhool dates and would be affected by
this rule. Small agricultural service firms, which include importers of
dates, have been defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR
121.601) as those having annual receipts of less than $5,000,000. The
majority of date importers may be classified as small entities.
This proposal invites comments on removing the Medjhool variety of
dates from all import requirements established under section 8e of the
Act. The Department is initiating this action based on requests
received from representatives of importers of Israeli dates and the
Embassy of Israel as well as its own review of the current situation
with respect to domestic date production and date imports.
As previously mentioned, section 8e of the Act requires that
whenever grade, size, quality, or maturity requirements are in effect
for dates under a domestic marketing order, imported dates (other than
dates for processing) must meet the same or comparable requirements. A
marketing order has been in effect for California dates since 1955 (7
CFR Part 987). The marketing order initially specified quality
requirements for three varieties of California dates--Deglet Noor,
Zahidi, and Khadrawy. In 1962, the order was amended to add the Halawy
variety of dates.
Also in 1962, section 8e of the Act was amended to cover dates
(other than dates for processing). Imported dates for processing are
not covered by section 8e and are not subject to grade, size, quality,
and maturity import requirements. At the time the import regulation was
initiated, it was determined that all varieties of imported
[[Page 15735]]
packaged dates and dates for packaging and dates in retail packages
would compete with dates produced domestically. Thus, since that time,
imported packaged dates and dates for packaging for sale in the retail
market have been required to meet quality requirements comparable to
those specified under the California date marketing order and the
import regulation currently applies to all varieties of dates.
The Department recently received requests from representatives of
an importer of Israeli dates and the Embassy of Israel to remove the
Medjhool variety of dates from the import regulation. The
representatives of the Israeli importer expressed concerns that
domestic Medjhool dates are not subject to quality requirements while
all imported dates are subject to specific requirements.
The Medjhool date is a unique variety--a much larger date than
other varieties and is thus easily distinguishable. Given this unique
characteristic, the Medjhool date commands a premium price and is
believed to not be in direct competition with the four varieties of
dates covered under the marketing order.
In looking at the domestic market, Medjhool dates were not produced
in significant quantities in the United States when the marketing order
was promulgated in 1955. Since that time, plantings of Medjhool dates
have increased to account for over 15 percent of the bearing acreage of
dates in California. In comparing the production of the Medjhool
variety of dates with the four varieties covered under the marketing
order, Medjhool dates now comprise about 20 percent (or 9 million
pounds) of the total production (about 45 million pounds). With the
increase in Medjhool production in recent years, the domestic date
industry has considered amending the marketing order to cover Medjhool
dates. However, at this time, no formal action has been taken and
domestic Medjhools remain unregulated.
In looking at data regarding imported dates, in the 1960's when the
date import regulation was initiated, few if any Medjhool dates were
imported into the United States. At that time most of the imported
dates came from Iraq and Iran and were of the Sayir variety. Sayir
dates and other varieties imported into this country are similar in
appearance to the Deglet Noor, Zahidi, Halawy and Khadrawy varieties
regulated under the marketing order. During the past five years (1990-
1994), about 13 million pounds of dates were imported into this country
annually, mostly coming from Pakistan (over 65 percent). Medjhools
account for a relatively small percentage of imported dates, with most
of the imported Medjhools coming from Mexico and a small amount coming
from Israel. Mexican and Israeli dates account for about 3 percent and
4 percent, respectively, of total U.S. date imports. Of the total date
import inspections from Mexico over the last 5 years, about 54 percent
were of the Medjhool variety. About 1 percent of the date import
inspections from Israel during this same period were Medjhools.
In response to these requests, the Department is issuing this
proposed rule to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment
on removing Medjhool dates from import requirements. All other
varieties of imported dates would continue to be subject to import
requirements. Such other varieties are not as easily distinguishable as
Medjhools and are believed to be in direct competition with the
varieties regulated under the marketing order.
Thus, it is proposed that section 999.1 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), which specifies the import regulation for dates, be
amended to exclude Medjhool dates.
To exclude dates of the Medjhool variety from the terms of the date
import regulations, a new definition for dates is added to paragraph
(a). The new definition defines ``dates'' as all varieties of dates,
except dates of the Medjhool variety.
In addition, minor changes in the current definitions for the terms
``Fruit and Vegetable Division'', ``USDA inspector'', and
``Importation'' are proposed to be made to reflect changes in the names
of Federal agencies referred to in the definitions.
The definition of ``Fruit and Vegetable Division'' refers to the
``Consumer and Marketing Service''. That agency is now called the
``Agricultural Marketing Service''. The definition of ``USDA
inspector'' refers to inspectors of the ``Processed Products
Standardization and Inspection Branch''. The name of the Branch is now
the ``Processed Products Branch''. Finally, the definition of
``Importation'' references the ``United States Bureau of Customs''.
This agency is now called the ``United States Customs Service''.
In accordance with section 8e of the Act, the United States Trade
Representative has concurred with issuance of this proposed rule.
This rule would relax requirements currently in effect for date
importers and would not impose any additional costs on affected
importers. Thus, the Administrator of the AMS has determined that this
action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
The information collection requirements under the date import
regulation have been previously approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) and have been assigned OMB number 0581-0077.
A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to
respond to this proposal. All written comments timely received will be
considered before a final determination is made on this matter.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 999
Dates, Filberts, Food grades and standards, Imports, Nuts, Prunes,
Raisins, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Walnuts.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 999 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 999 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
PART 999--SPECIALTY CROPS; IMPORT REGULATIONS
2. In Sec. 999.1, paragraphs (a) (1) through (10) are redesignated
as paragraphs (a) (2) through (11), a new paragraph (a) (1) is added,
and new paragraphs (a) (8), (9), and (11) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 999.1 Regulation governing the importation of dates.
(a) Definitions. (1) Dates means all varieties of dates, except
dates of the Medjhool variety.
* * * * *
(8) Fruit and Vegetable Division means the Fruit and Vegetable
Division of the Agricultural Marketing Service, United States
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250.
(9) USDA inspector means an inspector of the Processed Products
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division or any duly authorized employee of
the USDA.
* * * * *
(11) Importation means release from the custody of the United
States Customs Service.
* * * * *
Dated: April 2, 1996.
Eric M. Forman,
Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-8718 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8706 Whaling Provisions; Consolidation and Revision of Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15754-15757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8706]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 230
[Docket No. 960312069-6096-01; I.D. 022796F
RIN 0648-AI81
Whaling Provisions; Consolidation and Revision of Regulations
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule that would revise and update
regulations pertaining to aboriginal subsistence whaling. The
regulations would be revised to remove outdated provisions, codify
current practice, incorporate current term usage, and reorganize the
remaining provisions to make the whaling regulations more concise,
better organized and, therefore, easier for the public to use. In
addition, NMFS proposes to revise the regulations to broaden the
current mechanism for regulating International Whaling Commission (IWC)
authorized whaling by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) and
other Native American groups.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 24, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Environmental Assessment (EA) for this
proposed rule are available from, and comments should be sent to:
Michael Payne, Fisheries Biologist, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. Comments
regarding the collection-of-information requirements contained in this
proposed rule should be sent to Michael Payne at the above address and
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (Attention: NOAA Desk
Officer).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Kevin Chu (508) 548-5123.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In March 1995, President Clinton issued a
directive to Federal agencies regarding their responsibilities under
his Regulatory Reinvention Initiative. This initiative is part of the
National Performance Review and calls for immediate, comprehensive
regulatory reform. The President directed all agencies to undertake an
exhaustive review of all their regulations, with an emphasis on
eliminating or modifying those that are obsolete, duplicative, or
otherwise in need of reform. This proposed rule is intended to carry
out the President's directive with respect to the regulations
implementing the Whaling Convention Act of 1949 (16 U.S.C. 916 et
seq.).
The revisions of 50 CFR part 230 proposed in this rule update the
whaling regulations consistent with current authorities and usage of
terms, eliminate duplicative or unnecessary text, and reorganize the
regulations to make the regulations easier for the public to use and to
reduce the volume and publication costs of the regulations.
The current regulations require the Department of Commerce to
monitor all aboriginal whaling, to collect all information directly, to
declare when quotas are filled and seasons are closed, and to enforce
directly the obligations of the IWC. The proposed rule would replace
this requirement with what is the current practice, i.e., joint
monitoring and enforcement of harvests authorized by the IWC, through a
cooperative agreement between NOAA and a Native American whaling
organization.
Government monitoring, and especially enforcement, has not been
feasible or desirable in the remote areas in which whaling takes place.
Compliance with the IWC obligations through self-organized Native
American organizations has worked better in practice, both from the
point of view of the U.S. Government and of the members of the AEWC,
the only group currently allowed by the IWC to whale in the United
States. Self-organized Native American whaling organizations can gather
information more readily, because they are community-based. Compliance
is obtained through peer pressure, as well as through fines and, on
occasion, the revoking of licenses. Moreover, the costs of putting
Government agents in each whaling village are prohibitive. Implementing
the regulations currently codified in part 230, in which Government
oversight is required at all stages of whaling, would, therefore,
either be unreliable or excessively expensive.
The current part 230 allows only Alaska Natives to engage in
whaling. The Makah Tribe of northwest Washington State also has a long
tradition of whaling. It has recently expressed an interest in resuming
this tradition and has asked the U.S. Government to seek a quota of
gray whales for ceremonial and subsistence purposes from the IWC. Gray
whales are not listed as threatened or endangered
[[Page 15755]]
under the Endangered Species Act. This proposed rule would allow a
mechanism for a cooperative agreement with the Makah Tribe for
monitoring and enforcing any IWC-authorized whaling. This mechanism
would be similar to the successful practice with the AEWC.
Classification
NMFS prepared an EA for this proposed action that discusses the
impact on the environment of this rule. The EA concludes that the
proposed revision of the whaling regulations will have no impact on the
status of any endangered species, as these revisions have no affect on
the quotas for aboriginal subsistence whaling authorized by the IWC. A
copy of the EA is available (see ADDRESSES).
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
the purposes of E.O. 12866.
The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the
Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted,
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Current regulations allow whaling only for subsistence
and cultural use; the proposed rule would not change that provision.
Only two Native American groups have expressed an interest in whaling--
the AEWC and the Makah Tribe. The proposed rule would broaden, rather
than restrict, the opportunities for Native American groups to renew
whaling traditions if the IWC grants the U.S. request for a quota. As a
result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared.
This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject
to the Paperwork Reduction Act. This collection-of-information
requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. Whaling captains
would be required to report whaling activities to the relevant Native
American whaling organization, or to NMFS. Information on all whales
struck or landed in the course of aboriginal subsistence whaling is
requested to monitor compliance with IWC-authorized quotas and to
supply required or requested information to the IWC. Information on
landings of dead whales (``stinkers'') found floating at sea or washed
up on shore is also requested to have a record of all whales brought to
shore and to ensure that whales killed under the IWC quotas are not
claimed to have been found dead. The public reporting burden for
completing reports required by whaling captains is estimated at 0.5
hours per response. The reporting burden for the Native American
whaling organizations to report the whaling activities to NMFS is
estimated at 5 hours per response. 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 these burden
estimates or any other aspects of the data requirements, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).
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.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA) determined
that these proposed regulatory changes will not affect any endangered
or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
The AA determined that whaling activities conducted under this rule
would have no adverse effects on marine mammals, beyond what is
authorized by the IWC.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 230
Fisheries, Indians, Marine mammals, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: April 2, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 230 is
proposed to be revised to read as follows:
PART 230--WHALING PROVISIONS
Sec.
230.1 Purpose and scope.
230.2 Definitions.
230.3 General prohibitions.
230.4 Aboriginal subsistence whaling.
230.5 Licenses for aboriginal subsistence whaling.
230.6 Quotas and other restrictions.
230.7 Salvage of stinkers.
230.8 Reporting by whaling captains.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 916 et seq.
Sec. 230.1 Purpose and scope.
The purpose of the regulations in this part is to implement the
Whaling Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 916 et seq.) by prohibiting whaling
except for aboriginal subsistence whaling allowed by the International
Whaling Commission. Provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of
1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) also pertain to human interactions with
whales. Rules elsewhere in this chapter govern such topics as
scientific research permits, and incidental take and harassment of
marine mammals.
Sec. 230.2 Definitions.
Aboriginal subsistence whaling means whaling authorized by
paragraph 13 of the Schedule annexed to and constituting a part of the
Convention.
Assistant Administrator means the Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Authorized officer means:
(1) Any commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast
Guard;
(2) Any special agent or enforcement officer of the National Marine
Fisheries Service;
(3) Any officer designated by the head of a Federal or state agency
that has entered into an agreement with the Secretary of Commerce or
the Commandant of the Coast Guard to enforce the provisions of the
Whaling Convention Act; or
(4) Any Coast Guard personnel accompanying and acting under the
direction of any person described in paragraph (1) of this definition.
Calf means any whale less than 1 year old.
Commission means the International Whaling Commission established
by article III of the Convention.
Convention means the International Convention for the Regulation of
Whaling signed at Washington on December 2, 1946.
Cooperative agreement means a written agreement between the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and a Native American
whaling organization for the cooperative management of aboriginal
subsistence whaling operations.
Landing means bringing a whale or any parts thereof onto the ice,
or land in the course of whaling operations.
Native American whaling organization means an entity recognized by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as representing and
governing Native American whalers for the purposes of cooperative
management of aboriginal subsistence whaling.
Regulations of the Commission means the regulations in the Schedule
annexed to and constituting a part of the Convention, as modified,
revised, or amended by the Commission from time to time.
[[Page 15756]]
Stinker means a dead, unclaimed whale found upon a beach, stranded
in shallow water, or floating at sea.
Strike means hitting a whale with a harpoon, lance, or explosive
device.
Wasteful manner means a method of whaling that is not likely to
result in the landing of a struck whale or that does not include all
reasonable efforts to retrieve the whale.
Whale products means any unprocessed part of a whale and blubber,
meat, bones, whale oil, sperm oil, spermaceti, meal, and baleen.
Whaling means the scouting for, hunting, striking, killing,
flensing, or landing of a whale, and the processing of whales or whale
products.
Whaling captain or captain means any person who is authorized by a
Native American whaling organization to be in charge of a vessel and
whaling crew.
Whaling crew means those persons under the control of a captain.
Whaling village means any U.S. village recognized by the Commission
as having a cultural and/or subsistence need for whaling.
Sec. 230.3 General prohibitions.
(a) No person shall engage in whaling in a manner that violates the
Convention, any regulation of the Commission, or this part.
(b) No person shall engage in whaling without first having obtained
a license or scientific research permit issued by the Assistant
Administrator.
(c) No person shall ship, transport, purchase, sell, offer for
sale, import, export, or possess any whale or whale products taken or
processed in violation of the Convention, any regulation of the
Commission, or this part, except as specified in
Sec. 230.5(f).
(d) No person shall fail to make, keep, submit, or furnish any
record or report required of him/her by the Convention, any regulation
of the Commission, or this part.
(e) No person shall refuse to permit any authorized officer to
enforce the Convention, any regulation of the Commission, or this part.
Sec. 230.4 Aboriginal subsistence whaling.
(a) No person shall engage in aboriginal subsistence whaling,
except a whaling captain licensed pursuant to Sec. 230.5 or a member of
a whaling crew under the control of a licensed captain.
(b) No whaling captain shall engage in whaling that is not in
accordance with the regulations of the Commission, this part, and the
relevant cooperative agreement.
(c) No whaling captain shall engage in whaling for any calf or any
whale accompanied by a calf.
(d) No whaling captain shall engage in whaling without an adequate
crew or without adequate supplies and equipment.
(e) No person may receive money for participation in aboriginal
subsistence whaling.
(f) No person may sell or offer for sale whale products from whales
taken in an aboriginal subsistence hunt, except that authentic articles
of Native handicrafts may be sold or offered for sale.
(g) No whaling captain shall continue to whale after:
(1) The quota set for his/her village by the relevant Native
American whaling organization is reached;
(2) The license under which he/she is whaling is suspended as
provided in Sec. 230.5(b); or
(3) The whaling season for that species has been closed pursuant to
Sec. 230.6.
(h) No whaling captain shall claim domicile in more than one
whaling village.
(i) No person may salvage a stinker without complying with the
provisions of Sec. 230.7.
(j) No whaling captain shall engage in whaling with a harpoon,
lance, or explosive dart that does not bear a permanent distinctive
mark identifying the captain as the owner thereof.
(k) No whaling captain shall engage in whaling in a wasteful
manner.
Sec. 230.5 Licenses for aboriginal subsistence whaling.
(a) A license is hereby issued to whaling captains identified by
the relevant Native American whaling organization.
(b) The Assistant Administrator may suspend the license of any
whaling captain who fails to comply with the regulations in this part.
Sec. 230.6 Quotas and other restrictions.
(a) Quotas for aboriginal subsistence whaling shall be set in
accordance with the regulations of the Commission. Quotas shall be
allocated to each whaling village or captain by the appropriate Native
American whaling organization. The Assistant Administrator shall
publish in the Federal Register, at least annually, aboriginal
subsistence whaling quotas and any other limitations on aboriginal
subsistence whaling deriving from regulations of the Commission. These
quotas and restrictions shall also be incorporated in the relevant
cooperative agreements.
(b) The relevant Native American whaling organization shall monitor
the whale hunt and keep tally of the number of whales landed and
struck. When a quota is reached, the organization shall declare the
whaling season closed, and there shall be no further whaling under that
quota during the calendar year. If the organization fails to close the
whaling season after the quota has been reached, the Assistant
Administrator may close it by filing a notice in the Federal Register.
Sec. 230.7 Salvage of stinkers.
(a) Any person salvaging a stinker shall submit to the Assistant
Administrator or his/her representative an oral or written report
describing the circumstances of the salvage within 12 hours of such
salvage. He/she shall provide promptly to the Assistant Administrator
or his/her representative each harpoon, lance, or explosive dart found
in or attached to the stinker. The device shall be returned to the
owner thereof promptly, unless it is retained as evidence of a possible
violation.
(b) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a stinker has been
struck by the captain whose mark appears on the harpoon, lance, or
explosive dart found in or attached thereto, and, if no strike has been
reported by such captain, such strike shall be deemed to have occurred
at the time of recovery of the device.
Sec. 230.8 Reporting by whaling captains.
(a) The relevant Native American whaling organization shall require
each whaling captain licensed pursuant to Sec. 230.5 to provide a
written statement of his/her name and village of domicile and a
description of the distinctive marking to be placed on each harpoon,
lance, and explosive dart.
(b) Each whaling captain shall provide to the relevant Native
American whaling organization an oral or written report of whaling
activities including but not limited to the striking, attempted
striking, or landing of a whale and, where possible, specimens from
landed whales. The Assistant Administrator is authorized to provide
technological assistance to facilitate prompt reporting and collection
of specimens from landed whales, including but not limited to ovaries,
ear plugs, and baleen plates. The report shall include at least the
following information:
(1) The number, dates, and locations of each strike, attempted
strike, or landing;
(2) The length (taken as the straight-line measurement from the tip
of the upper jaw to the notch between the tail flukes) and the sex of
the whales landed;
[[Page 15757]]
(3) The length and sex of a fetus, if present in a landed whale;
and
(4) An explanation of circumstances associated with the striking or
attempted striking of any whale not landed.
(c) If the relevant Native American whaling organization fails to
provide the National Marine Fisheries Service the required reports, the
Assistant Administrator may require the reports to be submitted by the
whaling captains directly to the National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-8706 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8441 Approval of Volatile Organic Compound Regulations for Oklahoma
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8441]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[OK-12-1-7079b; FRL-5438-5]
Approval of Volatile Organic Compound Regulations for Oklahoma
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Oklahoma for the purpose of
removing equivalent test method and alternative standard language from
the Oklahoma volatile organic compound regulations. In the final rules
section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving the State's SIP
revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and
anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval
is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this proposed rule, no further activity is
contemplated in relation to this rule. If the EPA receives adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn, and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period
on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by
May 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr.
Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section, at the EPA Regional
Office listed below. Copies of the documents relevant to this action
are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following locations. Interested persons wanting to examine these
documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at
least twenty-four hours before the visiting day.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Multimedia Planning &
Permitting Division (6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas
75202-2733.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Program, 4545
North Lincoln Blvd., Suite 250, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105-3483.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James F. Davis, Planning Section
(6PD-L), Multimedia Planning & Permitting Division, USEPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7584.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct
final action of the same title which is located in the final rules
section of this Federal Register.
Dated: February 8, 1996.
Jane N. Saginaw,
Regional Administrator (6A).
[FR Doc. 96-8441 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8439 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15743-15744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8439]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15744]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IN52-1-6978b; FRL-5452-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USEPA proposes to approve Indiana's August 8, 1995,
request for rule changes specific to Richmond Power and Light's (RPL's)
Whitewater Generating Station located in Wayne County in Richmond,
Indiana. In the final rules section of this Federal Register, the USEPA
is approving this action as a direct final rule without prior proposal
because USEPA views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates
no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth
in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in
response to that direct final rule, no further activity is contemplated
in relation to this proposed rule. If USEPA receives adverse comments,
the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments
received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. USEPA will not institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do
so at this time.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before May
9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to: J. Elmer Bortzer,
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Copies of the State submittal and USEPA's analysis of it are
available for inspection at: Regulation Development Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Pohlman, Regulation Development
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,
(312) 886-3299.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule published in the rules section of this Federal Register.
Dated: March 22, 1996.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-8439 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8437 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Wisconsin; Lithographic Printing SIP Revision
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8437]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[WI61-01-7144b; FRL-5426-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Wisconsin;
Lithographic Printing SIP Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve a revision to the Wisconsin State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone that was submitted on May 12, 1995,
and supplemented on June 14, 1995 and November 14, 1995. This revision
consists of a volatile organic compound (VOC) regulation which
establishes reasonably available control technology (RACT) for
lithographic printing facilities. This regulation was submitted to
address, in part, the requirement of section 182(b)(2)(C) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) that States revise their SIPs to establish RACT
regulations for major sources of VOCs for which the USEPA has not
issued a control technology guidelines (CTG) document. In addition,
emission reductions resulting from this rule are being used by the
State to fulfill, in part, the requirement of section 182(b)(1) of the
Act that States submit a plan that provides for a 15 percent reduction
in VOC emissions by 1996.
In the final rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is
approving this action as a direct final without prior proposal because
EPA views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse
comments. If no adverse comments are received in response to that
direct final rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation to
this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final
rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this
time.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received by May 9,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), EPA,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the Direct
Final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal
Register. Copies of the request and the EPA's analysis are available
for inspection at the following address: (Please telephone Kathleen
D'Agostino at (312) 886-1767 before visiting the Region 5 office.) EPA,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590.
Authority: 42 U.S. C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: January 29, 1996.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-8437 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8434 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois: Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8434]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IL133-1-7125b; FRL-5435-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Illinois: Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The USEPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision request submitted by the State of Illinois on June 26,
1995, as a formal submittal of the 1992 motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance program enhancements developed and implemented, in part, as
a response to the 1989 Federal Implementation Plan agreement between
Illinois, Wisconsin, and USEPA. In the final rules section of this
Federal Register, the USEPA is approving this action as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because USEPA views this as a
noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed
rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no
adverse comments are received in response to that direct final rule, no
further activity is contemplated in relation to this proposed rule. If
USEPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be
withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. USEPA will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before May
9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to:
J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR18-J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Copies of the State submittal and USEPA's analysis of it are
available for inspection at:
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR18-J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco Acevedo, Regulation
Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6061.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule published in the rules section of this Federal Register.
Dated: February 15, 1996.
David A. Ullrich,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-8434 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8433 Clean Air Act Approval and Promulgation of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and General Permitting Provisions Implementation Plan for Arizona State Pinal County Air Quality Control District
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15751-15752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8433]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15752]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[AZ 063-0001b; FRL-5452-3]
Clean Air Act Approval and Promulgation of Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and General Permitting Provisions
Implementation Plan for Arizona State Pinal County Air Quality Control
District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of portions of a requested State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Arizona
for the purpose of meeting requirements of the Clean Air Act, as
amended in 1990 (CAA or Act) with regard to general permitting programs
and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) in areas of Pinal
County that are in attainment of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). The requested revision was submitted by the State to
satisfy certain Federal requirements for an approvable SIP.
EPA is taking this action to approve the portions of Pinal's rules
identified below into the SIP for the purpose of meeting the PSD and
preconstruction permitting requirements of 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164
and 51.166, under the authority granted by 40 CFR 51.105. Approval of
Pinal's rules for the purposes of meeting the nonattainment
preconstruction permitting requirements of 40 CFR 51.165 will take
place under a separate action. This action does not in any way imply
that Pinal's nonattainment permitting provisions meet the requirements
of sections 171, 172, 173, 181, 182, 187, or 189 of the CAA. Failure on
Pinal's part to submit rules which meet the requirements of 40 CFR
51.165 may trigger sanctions as provided for under section 179 of the
Clean Air Act.
In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is
promulgating approval of Pinal's PSD and general permitting rules as a
direct final rule without prior proposal because EPA views this
submittal as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for this approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this proposed
rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this
rulemaking. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by
May 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to:
Jessica Gaylord, New Source Section (A-5-1), Air and Toxics Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105.
Copies of the County's submittal, EPA's Technical Support Document,
and other supporting information used in developing the proposed
approval are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX office
during normal business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Gaylord (telephone: 415-744-
1290), or Steve Ringer (telephone: 415-744-1260), New Source Section,
Air & Toxics Division (A-5-1), EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct
final rule of the same title which is located in the Rules section of
this Federal Register.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: March 4, 1996.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-8433 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8431 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Approval of Source-Specific VOC and NOINFX RACT and Synthetic Minor Permit Conditions, and 1990 Baseyear Emissions for One Source
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15744-15745]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8431]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[PA 52-2-7155b, 55-2-7137b, PA 58-1-7138b, PA 64-1-7139b, PA 66-2-
7140b, PA 071-4008b, PA 079-4009b; FRL-5443-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Approval of Source-Specific VOC and NOX RACT and
Synthetic Minor Permit Conditions, and 1990 Baseyear Emissions for One
Source
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the purpose
of establishing VOC and NOX RACT for twenty sources, federally
enforceable conditions on one source to make it a synthetic minor
source, and approving the 1990 emissions for one source in the
Philadelphia 1990 baseyear emission inventory. This action affects a
total of 21 sources. In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule and the accompanying technical support document. If no adverse
comments are received in response to this proposed rule, no further
activity is contemplated in relation to this rule. If EPA receives
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
[[Page 15745]]
based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this
action should do so at this time. If adverse comments are received that
do not pertain to all documents subject to this rulemaking action,
those documents not affected by the adverse comments will be finalized
in the manner described here. Only those documents that receive adverse
comments will be withdrawn in the manner described here.
DATES: Comments must be received in writing by May 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to
Marcia L. Spink, Associate Director, Air Programs, Mailcode 3AT00, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107. Copies of the documents relevant to
this action are available for public inspection during normal business
hours at the Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19107; and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia H. Stahl, (215) 597-9337, at
the EPA Region III office or via e-mail at stahl.cynthia@epamail.
epa.gov. While information may be requested via e-mail, comments must
be submitted in writing to the above Region III address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information, pertaining to this
action (VOC and NOX RACT approval, synthetic minor approval, and
approval of 1990 emissions for one source in the Philadelphia 1990
baseyear emissions inventory) affecting 21 sources in Pennsylvania,
provided in the Direct Final action of the same title which is located
in the Rules and Regulations Section of this Federal Register.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: February 15, 1996.
Stanley L. Laskowski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 96-8431 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8402 Recreation Programs
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8402]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 8000
[WO-340-1220-00-24 1A]
RIN 1004-AC51
Recreation Programs
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is requesting comments on
the removal of 43 CFR Part 8000--Recreation Programs regarding
recreation programs on public lands in its entirety. The BLM proposes
to remove 43 CFR Part 8000--Recreation Programs because it contains no
substantive material that is not repeated in subsequent sections of 43
CFR. The BLM will provide the public with any necessary policy and
practices for the administration of recreation program through
procedural guidance.
DATES: Comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking must be received
by May 9, 1996. Comments received or postmarked after this date may not
be considered in the preparation of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Regulatory Management Team (420),
Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street, NW, Room 401LS, Washington,
DC 20240.
Comments may also be sent via internet to: !WO[email protected].
Please include ``attn: AC51'', your name, and return address in your
internet message.
Comments may be hand-delivered to the Bureau of Land Management
Administrative Record, Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW, Washington, DC.
Comments will be available for public review at the L Street
address during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday
through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edna Taylor, (202) 452-5068.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM proposes to remove 43 CFR Part
8000--Recreation Programs as part of its effort to eliminate
unnecessary and inappropriate material in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Dated: March 29, 1996.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 96-8402 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8400 Recreation Management
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8400]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
43 CFR Part 8300
[WO-340-1220-00-24 1A]
RIN 1004-AC50
Recreation Management
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Department of Interior.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is requesting comments on
the removal of 43 CFR Part 8300-Procedures regarding recreation
management on public lands in its entirety. The BLM proposes to remove
43 CFR Part 8300-Procedures because it contains no substantive material
that is not repeated in subsequent sections of 43 CFR.
DATES: Comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking must be received
by May 9, 1996. Comments received or postmarked after this date may not
be considered in the preparation of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Regulatory Management Team (420),
Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street, NW, Room 401LS, Washington,
DC 20240.
Comments may also be sent via internet to: !WO[email protected].
Please include ``attn: AC50'', your name, and return address in your
internet message.
Comments may be hand-delivered to the Bureau of Land Management
Administrative Record, Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW, Washington, DC.
Comments will be available for public review at the L Street
address during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday
through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edna Taylor, (202) 452-5068.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM proposes to remove 43 CFR Part 8300-
Procedures as part of its effort to eliminate unnecessary and
inappropriate material in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 96-8400 Filed 4-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.