issue-1996-04-17•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-17
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-17
issue-1996-04-17Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-17Proposed 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. 96-9476 Pentaerythritol Stearates; Tolerance Exemption
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16747-16749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9476]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[OPP-300419; FRL-5355-7]
RIN 2070-AB18
Pentaerythritol Stearates; Tolerance Exemption
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes that residues of a mixture of chemicals
known as pentaerythritol stearates (CAS Reg. No. 85116-93-4), which
include pentaerythritol monostearate (CAS Reg. No. 78-23-9),
pentaerythritol distearate (CAS Reg. No. 13081-97-5), pentaerythritol
tristearate (CAS Reg. No. 28188-24-1), and pentaerythritol
tetrastearate (CAS Reg. No. 115-83-3) be exempted from the requirement
of a tolerance when used as an inert ingredient (emulsifier) at a
concentration of no more than 25 ppm in pesticide formulations applied
to growing crops and to raw agricultural commodities after harvest.
This proposed regulation was requested by Wacker Silicones Corporation.
DATES: Comments, identified by the docket control number [OPP-300419],
must be received on or before May 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person deliver comments to: Rm. 1128, Crystal
Mall, Building #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file
format. All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by
the docket number [OPP-300419]. No Confidential Business Information
(CBI) should be submitted through e-mail. Electronic comments on this
document may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Additional information on electronic submissions can be found in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION unit of this document.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that
does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public
record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly
by EPA without prior notice. All written comments will be available for
public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the Virginia address given above from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
For Further Information Contact: By mail: Amelia M. Acierto,
Registration Support Branch, Registration Division (7505W), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Office location, telephone number, and e-mail
address: 2800 Crystal Drive, North Tower, Arlington, VA, (703) 308-
8375; e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Wacker Silicones Corporation, 3301 Sutton
Road, Adrian Michigan 49221-9397 submitted pesticide petition (PP)
number 4E04378 to EPA requesting that the Administrator, pursuant to
section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C.
346a(e), propose to amend 40 CFR 180.1001(c) by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for a mixture of
chemicals known as pentaerythritol stearates (pentaerythritol
monostearate (CAS Reg. No. 78-23-9), pentaerythritol distearate (CAS
Reg. No. 13081-97-5), pentaerythritol tristearate (CAS Reg. No. 28188-
24-1), and pentaerythritol tetrastearate (CAS Reg. No. 115-83-3) when
used as an emulsifier in pesticide formulations applied to growing
crops or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest. Inert
ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as
defined in 40 CFR 153.125, and include, but are not limited to, the
following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal
efficacy of their own): solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons;
surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers
such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and
modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents;
propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and
emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply nontoxicity;
the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
[[Page 16748]]
The data submitted in the petition and other relevant material have
been evaluated. As part of the EPA policy statement on inert
ingredients published in the Federal Register of April 22, 1987 (52 FR
13305), the Agency established data requirements which will be used to
evaluate the risks posed by the presence of an inert ingredient in a
pesticide formulation. Exemptions from some or all of the requirements
may be granted if it can be determined that the inert ingredient will
present minimal or no risk. The Agency has decided that the data
normally required to support the proposed tolerance exemption for these
pentaerythritol stearates will not need to be submitted. The rationale
for this decision is described below:
1. An acute rat oral toxicity study with an acute oral LD50 of
>2000 mg/kg demonstrates that the mixture of pentaerythritol stearates
is practically non-toxic to mammals.
2. The degradation products of pentaerythritol stearates (mono-,
di-, tri-, and tetrastearates) include pentaerythritol and the
naturally occurring fatty acid stearic acid, the residues of which have
already been exempted from the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR
180.1001(c).
3. Human dietary exposure to pentaerythritol stearates resulting
from the proposed use is expected to be negligible. These chemicals are
also expected to have negligible environmental effects.
4. Pentaerythritol stearates are currently used in substances
approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use as components of
adhesives, paper and paperboard used in packaging, transporting or
holding food under title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Secs. 175.105, 176.170, and 176.210.
Based on the very low acute toxicity, the anticipated degradation
products, the structure and physico-chemical properties of
pentaerythritol stearates, the expected levels in the formulations and
worst case dietary exposure assumptions, the Agency has determined that
these inert ingredients will not pose a risk to human health or the
environment under the proposed conditions of use.
Based upon the above information, review of their use, and low
environmental exposure, the Agency believes that, when used in
accordance with good agricultural practice, these ingredients are
useful and a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.
Therefore, EPA proposes that the exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance be established as set forth below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, which contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after publication
of this document in the Federal Register that this proposal be referred
to an Advisory Committee in accordance with section 408(e) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed regulation. Comments must bear a notation indicating the
document control number [OPP-300419].
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [OPP-300419] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The public record is located in Rm. 1132 of the Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the address in ADDRESSES at the beginning of
this document.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this proposed rule
from the requirements of section 3 of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator has
determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Recording and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 29, 1996.
Peter Caulkins,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.1001 is amended in paragraph (c) in the table
therein by adding and alphabetically inserting the inert ingredient, to
read as follows:
Sec. 180.1001 Exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert ingredients Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Pentaerythritol stearates 25 ppm Emulsifier
mixture (CAS Reg. No. 85116-93-
4) which include
pentaerythritol monostearate
(CAS Reg. No. 78-23-9),
pentaerythritol distearate (CAS
Reg. No. 13081-97-5),
pentaerythritol tristearate
(CAS Reg. No. 28188-24-1), and
pentaerythritol tetrastearate
(CAS Reg. No. 115-83-3)
[[Page 16749]]
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-9476 Filed 4-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9474 Pesticide Tolerance for Diflubenzuron
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16745-16747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9474]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 0E3835/P648; FRL-5356-5]
RIN 2070-AB18
Pesticide Tolerance for Diflubenzuron
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish a tolerance for residues of the
insecticide diflubenzuron (N[[(4-chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6-
difluorobenzamide) in or on the raw agricultural commodity artichokes
at 6.0 parts per million (ppm). The proposed regulation to establish a
maximum permissible level for residues of the insecticide was requested
in a petition submitted by the Interregional Research Project No. 4
(IR-4).
DATES: Comments, identified by the document control number [PP 0E3835/
P648], must be received on or before May 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1132 CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
Comments and data may also be submitted to OPP by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file format.
All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the
docket number [PP 0E3835/P648]. Electronic comments on this proposed
rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Additional information on electronic submissions can be found in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). CBI should not be
submitted through e-mail. Information marked as CBI will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be submitted
for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. All written
comments will be available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the
Virginia address given above, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Hoyt L. Jamerson,
Registration Division (7505W), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St. SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Office location and telephone number: Sixth Floor, Crystal Station #1,
2800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, 703-308-8783, e-mail
address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Interregional Research Project No. 4
(IR-4), New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, P.O. Box 231,
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, has submitted pesticide
petition (PP 0E3835) to EPA on behalf of the Agricultural Experiment
Station of California. This petition requests that the Administrator,
pursuant to section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), amend 40 CFR 180.377 by establishing a
tolerance for residues of the insecticide diflubenzuron (N[[4-
chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]-2,6-difluorobenzamide) in or on the raw
agricultural commodity artichoke at 6.0 ppm.
The scientific data submitted in the petition and other relevant
material have been evaluated. The toxicological data considered in
support of the proposed tolerance include:
(1) A 1-year chronic feeding study with dogs administered 0, 2, 10,
50 or 250 mg/kg/day with a no-observed-effect level (NOEL) established
at 2 mg/kg/day. Statistically significant increases in methemoglobin
and sulfhemoglobin in male and female dogs were observed at dose levels
of 10 mg/kg/day and higher. Signs of hemolytic anemia, destruction of
erythrocytes and of compensatory regeneration of erythrocytes were
observed at dose levels of 50 mg/kg/day and higher.
(2) A 2-year feeding/carcinogencity study with rats fed diets
containing 0, 156, 625, 2,500, or 10,000 ppm (equivalent to 0, 7.8, 31,
125, or 500 mg/kg/day) with statistically significant increases in
methemoglobin and sulfhemoglobin observed at all treatment levels
tested. Signs of hemolytic anemia and increased spleen and liver
weights were observed in males and females at treatment levels of 2,500
ppm and 10,000 ppm. Histological signs of erythrocyte destruction and
compensatory regeneration were observed in males and females at dose
levels of 156 ppm and higher. A no-observed-effect level was not
established for this study, since effects were observed at the lowest
dose tested. There were no carcinogenic effects observed under the
conditions of this study.
(3) A 91-week carcinogenicity study with mice fed diets containing
0, 16, 80, 400, 2,000, or 10,000 ppm (equivalent to 0, 2.4, 12, 60,
300, or 1,500 mg/kg/day). Increases in methemoglobin and sulfhemoglobin
were consistently observed in male and female mice at dose levels of 80
ppm and higher. Signs of hemolytic anemia, erythrocyte destruction and
compensatory regeneration, and histopathological effects in the liver
were observed at dose levels of 80 ppm and higher. No evidence of
carcinogenicity was observed under the conditions of this study.
(4) A 2-generation reproduction study with rats fed diets
containing 0, 500, 5,000, or 50,000 ppm (equivalent to 0, 25, 250, or
2,500 mg/kg/day). No effects on reproductive performance were observed
in the parental adults. The NOEL for reproductive effects in the
progeny is 250 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight in the pups
from birth to 21 days postpartum.
(5) Developmental toxicity studies with rats and rabbits given
technical grade diflubenzuron by gavage at dose levels of 0 or 1,000
mg/kg/day with no maternal toxicity or toxicity to the developing fetus
observed under the conditions of the study.
(6) Mutagenicity studies using diflubenzuron as the test material
were negative. These studies included a Salmonella/mammalian microsome
[[Page 16746]]
plate incorporation assay with and without metabolic activation, an in
vitro chromosome damage assay using cultures of Chinese hamsters ovary
cells with and without metabolic activation, and an unsheduled DNA
synthesis assay using cultures of primary rat hepatocytes.
The qualitative nature of the residue is adequately understood in
plants based on data from citrus, mushroom, and soybean metabolism
studies. Para-chloroaniline (PCA) and 4-chlorophenylurea (CPU) are
metabolites of diflubenzuron that have been observed in mushrooms but
not in citrus and soybeans. Diflubenzuron is also known to be
metabolized to PCA and CPU in lactating goats, lactating cows, poultry,
and rats.
OPP's Health Effects Division Peer Review Committee has concluded
that there is no evidence of carcinogenicity for diflubenzuron per se
and has placed the chemical in Group E of EPA's classification system
for carcinogens. The Committee also classified PCA as a Group B2
carcinogen (a probable human carcinogen). The classification for PCA
was based on the results of National Toxicology Program studies in
which PCA was administered for 2 years by gavage to rats at doses of 0,
2, 6, or 18 mg/kg/day and to mice at doses of 0, 3, 10, or 30 mg/kg/
day. Treatment-related increased incidences of uncommon sarcomas
(fibrosarcomas, hemangiosarcomas and/or osteosarcomas) of the spleen
were observed in male rats, and increased incidences of liver adenomas
and carcinomas, and hemangiosarcomas in the spleen and/or liver were
observed in male mice.
The reference dose (RfD) for diflubenzuron is 0.02 mg/kg/day. The
RfD is based on the NOEL of 2.0 mg/kg/day from the 1-year chronic
feeding study in dogs and an uncertainty factor of 100. Available
information relating to anticipated residues and percent of crop
treated for established tolerances were used to calculate the
Anticipated Residue Contribution (ARC) from residues of diflubenzuron
in the human diet. The ARC from published tolerances is calculated at
0.00008 mg/kg/day, which utilizes less than 1 percent of the RfD for
the overall population. The ARC for children 1 to 6 years old, the
population subgroup most highly exposed, utilizes 1 percent of the RfD.
The Theoretical Maximum Residue Contribution from the proposed
tolerance for artichokes would utilize an additional 0.1 percent of the
RfD for the U.S. population and for children 1 to 6 years old. This
dietary risk assessment indicates that there is no appreciable risk
from the establishment of the proposed tolerance for artichokes.
A quantitative cancer risk assessment was performed for PCA and
CPU. Possible human exposure to PCA and CPU may occur as a result of
the ingestion of PCA and CPU formed in animals which have consumed
feeds containing diflubenzuron residues and from the metabolic
conversion of diflubenzuron to PCA and CPU in the human body. For the
purposes of this risk assessment, it was assumed that CPU has the same
carcinogenic potential and potency as PCA. Although there is strong
evidence supporting the carcinogenicty of PCA in rats and mice, the
assumption that CPU also may be carcinogenic is not based on direct
testing in animals, but rather on a comparison of the chemical
structures of CPU and PCA. An assumption of a 2 percent conversion of
diflubenzuron to PCA was used for the cancer risk assessment.
The upper-bound cancer risk from dietary exposure to residues of
PCA and CPU from existing uses of diflubenzuron is estimated at 1.3 x
10-6. The additional cancer risk from the proposed tolerance for
artichokes is estimated at 2 x 10-8. EPA concludes that the
potential cancer risk from residues of PCA and CPU resulting from
established tolerances and the proposed use on artichokes is
negligible.
An adequate analytical method, gas chromatography using an electron
capture detector, is available for enforcement purposes. The analytical
method for enforcing this tolerance has been published in the Pesticide
Analytical Manual, Vol. II (PAM-II). There is no reasonable expectation
that secondary residues will occur in milk, eggs, or meat and meat
byproducts of livestock and poultry: there are no livestock feed items
associated with artichokes.
There are presently no actions pending against the continued
registration of this chemical.
Based on the information and data considered, the Agency has
determined that the tolerance established by amending 40 CFR part 180
would protect the public health. Therefore, it is proposed that the
tolerance be established as set forth below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, which contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after publication
of this notice in the Federal Register that this rulemaking proposal be
referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance with section 408(e) of
the FFDCA.
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 0E3835/P648] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
opp-D[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the Virginia address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the
beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order (i.e.,
Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines ``significant'' as
those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially
affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities (also known as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user
fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
[[Page 16747]]
the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 3, 1996.
Susan Lewis,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.377, the table in paragraph (a) is amended by adding
alphabetically the entry for artichoke to read as follows:
Sec. 180.377 Diflubenzuron; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodities million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artichoke.................................................. 6.0
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-9474 Filed 4-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9472 Prosulfuron; Pesticide Tolerance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16742-16745]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9472]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 5F4469/P650; FRL-5357-5]
RIN 2070-AB18
Prosulfuron; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
[[Page 16743]]
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish time-limited tolerances for residues
of the herbicide prosulfuron, 1-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-triazin-2-yl)-3-[2-
(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)-phenylsulfonyl]-urea in or on the raw
agricultural commodities cereal grains group (except rice and wild
rice), grain at 0.01 part per million (ppm); cereal grains group
(except rice and wild rice), forage at 0.10 ppm; cereal grains group
(except rice and wild rice), fodder at 0.01 ppm, cereal grains group
(except rice and wild rice), straw at 0.02 ppm; and cereal grains group
(except rice and wild rice), hay at 0.20 part per million (ppm). The
Agency has not completed the regulatory assessment of our science
findings; therefore, the Agency is proposing these tolerances with an
expiration date.
DATES: Written comments, identified by the docket number [PP 5F4469/
P650] should be submitted to EPA by May 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information.'' CBI should not be submitted
through e-mail. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
comment that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in
the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed
publicly by EPA without prior notice. All written comments will be
available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the address given above,
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: opp-docket-epamail.epa.gov Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file format.
All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the
docket number [PP 5F4469/P650]. Electronic comments on this proposed
rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Additional information on electronic submissions can be found below in
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Robert J. Taylor, Product
Manager (PM) 25, Registration Division (7505C), Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office
location and telephone number: Rm. 245, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, 703-305-6800, e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA issued a notice of filing published in
the Federal Register of (60 FR 27505, May 24, 1995) which requested
tolerances for residues of the herbicide prosulfuron, 1-(4-methoxy-6-
methyl-triazin-2-yl)-3-[2-(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)-phenylsulfonyl]-urea
in or on the raw agricultural commodities cereal grains (except rice/
wild rice) group at 0.02 part per million (ppm), and cereal grains,
forage, fodder and straw (except rice/wild rice) group at 0.02 part per
million (ppm). The petitioner subsequently amended this petition by
submitting a revised section F which proposed tolerances in or on the
raw agricultural commodities cereal grains group (except rice and wild
rice), grain at 0.01 part per million (ppm); cereal grains group
(except rice and wild rice), forage at 0.10 ppm; cereal grains group
(except rice and wild rice), fodder at 0.01 ppm; cereal grains group
(except rice and wild rice), straw at 0.02 ppm; and cereal grains group
(except rice and wild rice), hay at 0.20 part per million (ppm). These
tolerances with an expiration date are required by EPA to allow the
petitioner, Ciba-Geigy Corp. to submit additional data concerning the
method trial, plant metabolism and ruminant metabolism data. The
petitioner has submitted a method trial and it has been validated by an
independent laboratory. Additional time is being required to complete
review of this method trial and allow additional time to complete and
submit the required plant and animal metabolism data and new
developmental rabbit study with an accompanying overview (discussion of
all the rabbit developmental data, yet to be submitted by the
registrant).
There were no comments or requests for referral to an advisory
committee received in response to the notice of filing.
The data submitted in the petition and other relevant material have
been evaluated. The toxicology data listed below were considered in
support of this tolerance.
1. Several acute toxicology studies placing technical grade
prosulfuron in Toxicity Category III, and an acute neurotoxicity study
in rats at dose levels of 0, 10, 250, 500, or 1,000 mg/kg with a NOEL
of 10 mg/kg based on reduced motor activity and body temperature in
males and impaired righting reflex in females. A 90 day neurotoxicity
study in rats demonstrated NOELs of >5,000 ppm in females and 10,000
ppm in males and 200 ppm for systemic toxicity.
2. A 1-year feeding study with dogs fed dosages of 0, 0.33, 1.95,
18.6 or 41.0 mg/kg/day (males) and 0, 0.31, 1.84, 20.2, or 48.8 mg/kg/
day (females). The NOEL was 1.84 mg/kg/day based on hematologic and
clinical chemistry effects and incidence of lipofuscin accumulation in
the liver at 18.6 mg/kg/day.
3. An 18-month carcinogenicity study in mice fed dosages of 0,
1.71, 81.4, 410 or 832 mg/kg/day (males), and 0, 2.11, 100, 508 or
1,062 mg/kg/day (females). There was no evidence of carcinogenic
effects up to 1,062 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested (HDT).
4. A 2-year chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study in rats fed
dosages of 0, 0.4, 7.9, 79.9 or 160.9 (males), and 0, 0.5, 9.2, 95.7 or
205.8 mg/kg/day (females). There was uncertain evidence of
carcinogenicity with slight increases in the incidence of mammary gland
adenocarcinomas in females at 95.7 and 205.8 mg/kg/day, slight increase
in incidence of benign testicular interstital cell tumors at 79.9 and
160.9 mg/kg/day (significant trend only). A systemic NOEL of 7.9 mg/kg/
day was based on decreased body weight and body weight gain,
hematopoietic effects (males), and possibly increased serum GGT and
decreased liver, kidney and adrenal weights (females) at 79.9 mg/kg/
day.
5. A multigeneration reproduction study with rats fed dosages of 0,
0.67, 13.3, 136 or 278 (males), and 0, 0.76, 15.3, 152 or 311 mg/kg/day
(females) with a reproductive and a systemic NOEL of 13.3 mg/kg/day
based on decreased mean body weights and body weight gain observed at
136 mg/kg/day for both pups (at 200 ppm beginning during lactation) and
parental animals.
6. A developmental toxicity study in rats at dose levels of 0, 5,
50, 200 and 400 mg/kg/day by gavage. The developmental NOEL was 200 mg/
kg/day based on a statistically significant elevation of combined
skeletal findings at 400 mg/kg/day, and maternal toxicity NOEL of 200
mg/kg/day, based on marginal effects on body weight gain at 400 mg/kg/
day.
7. A developmental toxicity study in rabbits at dose levels of 0,
1.0, 10 and 100 mg/kg/day by gavage with no
[[Page 16744]]
indications of developmental toxixicy at dose levels up to 100 mg/kg/
day. A new rabbit developmental study has received preliminary
evaluation. Based upon this evaluation, the maternal NOEL appears to be
20 mg/kg/day. The developmental NOEL can not be determined without a
complete evaluation of this study. However, it is unlikely that the
NOEL would be less than 20 mg/kg/day in this study. A data gap remains
for the rabbit developmental until this study, all other as yet
unsubmitted deveopmental studies (both rangefinding and definitive) and
an accompanying overview (discussion of all the rabbit developmental
data, yet to be submitted by the registrant) has been completely
evaluated and approved by the Agency.
8. Three acceptable mutagenicity studies were reviewed for
prosulfuron. These include assays with Salmonella typhimurium strains
TA1535 TA1537, TA98, and TA100 or E. coli WP2 uvrA exposed in either
the presence or absence of mammalian metabolic activation; unscheduled
DNA synthesis (UDS) in primary rat hepatocytes; and a structural
chromosomal aberration micronucleus test in mice. All these tests were
negative for mutagenicity.
The prosulfuron Reference Dose (RfD) was established at 0.02 mg/kg/
day based on a NOEL of 1.84 mg/kg bwt/day on the 1-year dog chronic
feeding study with an uncertainty factor of 100. The theoretical
maximum residue contribution (TMRC) for tolerances on the cereal grains
group, straw, forage and hay, and milk, meat and meat by-products
utilizes 1.5% of the RfD for the total U.S. population. The most highly
exposed subgroups, children (1 to 6) and non-nursing infants (less than
one year old), utilize 4.4% of the RfD.
The HED RfD/Peer Review Committee classified this chemical as a
Class D oncogen based on the conclusion that there was uncertain
evidence of carcinogenicity with slight increases in the incidence of
mammary gland adenocarcinomas in female rats at 95.7 and 205.8 mg/kg/
day, but significant only at 95.7 mg/ kg/day, a slight increase in
incidence of benign testicular interstital cell tumors in rats at 79.9
and 160.9 mg/kg/day, and no evidence of carcinogenicity in mice.
The committee also decided that prosulfuron was not associated with
any significant reproductive or develpmental toxicity under the
conditions of testing. However, this evaluation does not include
evaluation of the new rabbit developmental study (already at EPA) or
any other rabbit developmental studies that have been conducted but not
yet submitted by the registrant.
Data which are desirable include the submission of stability data
(storage and chemical), information on accuracy of the method used to
verify the certified limits, experimental details of all solubility
determinations, and additional plant and ruminant metabolism data.
Based on the information cited above, the Agency has determined
that when used in accordance with good agricultural practice, this
ingredient is useful and the tolerances will protect the public health.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish the tolerances as described
below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, which contains any of the
active ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after
publication of this notice in the Federal Register that this rulemaking
proposal be referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance with
section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed regulation. Comments must bear a notation indicating the
docket number [PP 5F4469/P650]. All written comments filed in response
to this petition will be available in the Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, at the Virginia address given above from 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday throught Friday, except legal holidays.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). EPA will not disclose
information so marked, except in accordance with procedures set forth
in 40 CFR part 2. A second copy of such comments, with the CBI deleted,
must also be submitted for inclusion in the public record. EPA may
publicly disclose without prior notice information not marked
confidential.
EPA has established a record for this proposed rule under docket
number [PP-5F4469/P650] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays.
The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
opp-docket-epamail.epa.gov
The official record for this proposed rule, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official proposed rule record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official proposed rule record is the
paper record maintained at the ``ADDRESSES'' listed at the beginning of
this document.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or food
additive regulations or establishing exemptions from tolerance
requirements do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. A certification statement to this effect was
published in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 3, 1996.
Susan Lewis,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a. and 371.
2. By revising Sec. 180.481 to read as follows:
Sec. 180.481 Prosulfuron; tolerances for residues.
Tolerances that expire on December 31, 1999 are being established
for residues of the herbicide prosulfuron 1-(4-methoxy-6-methyl-
triazin-2-yl)-3-[2-(3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)-phenylsulfonyl]-
[[Page 16745]]
urea in or on the following raw agricultural commodities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts
Commodity per
million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cereal grains group (except rice and wild rice), grain......... 0.01
Cereal grains group (except rice and wild rice), forage........ 0.10
Cereal grains group (except rice and wild rice), fodder........ 0.01
Cereal grains group (except rice and wild rice), straw......... 0.02
Cereal grains group (except rice and wild rice), hay........... 0.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-9472 Filed 4-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9471 Sodium Salt of Acifluorfen; Pesticide Tolerance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16740-16742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9471]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 0E3821/P649; FRL-5356-6]
RIN 2070-AB18
Sodium Salt of Acifluorfen; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
[[Page 16741]]
ACTION: Proposed Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish a tolerance for combined residues of
the herbicide sodium salt of acifluorfen (also referred to in this
document as acifluorfen) in or on the raw agricultural commodity
strawberry. The proposed regulation to establish a maximum permissible
level for residues of the herbicide was requested in a petition
submitted by the Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4).
DATES: Comments, identified by the document control number [PP 0E3821/
P649], must be received on or before May 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1132 CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
Comments and data may also be submitted to OPP by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file format.
All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the
docket number [PP 0E3821/P649]. Electronic comments on this proposed
rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
Additional information on electronic submissions can be found in the
``SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION'' section of this document.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). CBI should not be
submitted through e-mail. Information marked as CBI will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be submitted
for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. All written
comments will be available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the
Virginia address given above, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Hoyt L. Jamerson,
Registration Division (7505W), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St. SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Office location and telephone number: Sixth Floor, Crystal Station #1,
2800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, 703-308-8783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Interregional Research Project No. 4
(IR-4), New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, P.O. Box 231,
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, has submitted pesticide
petition (PP) 0E3821 to EPA on behalf of the Agricultural Experiment
Stations of Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida,
Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington. This petition requested
that the Administrator, pursuant to section 408(e) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a(e)) propose the establishment of
a tolerance for combined residues of the sodium salt of acifluorfen
(sodium 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acid)
and its metabolites (the corresponding acid, methyl ester and amino
analogues) in or on the raw agricultural commodity strawberry at 0.05
part per million (ppm).
The scientific data submitted in the petition and other relevant
material have been evaluated. The toxicological data considered in
support of the proposed tolerance include:
1. A 2-year feeding study in dogs fed diets containing 0, 50, 300,
or 1,800 ppm with a no-observed-effect-level (NOEL) of 50 ppm
(equivalent to 1.25 mg/kg/day). Blood coagulation was observed in test
animals at the 300 ppm dose level.
2. A 2-generation reproduction study in rats fed diets containing
0, 25, 500 or 2,500 ppm with no adverse effect on adult reproductive
performance observed under the conditions of the study. The NOEL was
established at 25 ppm (equivalent to 1.25 mg/kg of body weight/day)
based on decreased viability and increased incidence of kidney lesions
in high dose offspring.
3. A developmental toxicity study in rabbits given oral gavage
doses of 0, 3, 12, or 36 mg/kg/day with no developmental toxicity
observed at any of the dose levels tested.
4. A developmental toxicity study in rats given oral gavage doses
of 0, 20, 90, or 180 mg/kg/day with a NOEL for developmental toxicity
(reduced mean fetal weight) of 20 mg/kg/day. The NOEL for maternal
toxicity was established at 90 mg/kg/day based on reduced body weight
at the highest dose tested.
5. A 2-year carcinogenicity study in rats fed diets containing 0,
25, 150, 500, 2,500, or 5,000 ppm with a NOEL of 500 ppm (equivalent to
25 mg/kg/day). The lowest-observed-effect level was established at
2,500 ppm (equivalent to 125 mg/kg/day) based on increased liver enzyme
changes in male and female rats and renal changes (nephritis) in male
rats.
6. Acifluorfen produced positive results for gene mutation in a
mitotic recombination assay in yeast cells and a dominant lethal assay
in fruit fly. The chemical was negative in a structural chromosome
aberration test in bone marrow cells and an unscheduled DNA synthesis
test in rat hepatocytes.
7. A metabolism study in mice shows that acifluorfen is excreted
primarily as the parent compound within 4 days of ingestion.
8. An 18-month carcinogenicity study in B6C3F1 mice fed diets
containing 0, 625, 1,250, or 2,500 ppm with statistically significant
positive trends for liver tumors (adenomas, carcinomas, and adenomas/
carcinomas combined) and stomach tumors (papillomas) in both male and
in female mice. These tumor types were significantly increased at the
highest dose level tested (2,500 ppm) in male and female mice, and
liver tumors were also significantly increased at the lowest dose level
tested (625 ppm) in male mice.
9. A 2-year carcinogenicity study in CD-1 mice fed diets containing
0, 7.5, 45, or 270 ppm with a statistically significant increase in the
total number of liver tumors (primarily adenomas) in high dose (270
ppm) female mice. No significant increase in liver tumors were observed
in male mice at any feeding level tested. The highest dose tested (270
ppm) did not approximate a maximum tolerated dose in male and female
mice.
Based on a weight-of-evidence determination, OPP's Health Effects
Division, Carcinogenicity Peer Review Committee (CPRC) has classified
acifluorfen as Group B2 carcinogen (probable human carcinogen). This
decision, which is in accordance with proposed Agency guidelines
published in the Federal Register of November 23, 1984 (49 FR 46294),
was based primarily on evidence of an increased number of malignant, or
combined benign and malignant, liver tumors in multiple experiments
involving two different strains of mice. Acifluorfen also produced
uncommon stomach tumors in male and female B6C3F1 mice. Other
structurally related diethyl-ether pesticides have been shown to
[[Page 16742]]
produce liver tumors in mice. In addition, mutagenicity studies show
evidence of mutagenic activity, but not in mammalian cell systems.
The upper-bound carcinogenic risk from dietary exposure to
acifluorfen was calculated using a potency factor (Q*) of 0.107
(mg/kg/day)-1 and dietary exposure as estimated by the Anticipated
Residue Contribution (ARC) for existing tolerances and the proposed
tolerance for strawberry. The upper-bound carcinogenic risk from
established and proposed uses is calculated at 5.6 x 10-7. The
proposed use on strawberry accounts for 1.9 x 10-8 of the total
cancer risk, which is a negligible increase in risk.
The RfD for acifluorfen is established at 0.013 mg/kg of body
weight/day, based on a NOEL of 1.25 mg/kg body weight/day and an
uncertainty factor of 100. The NOEL is taken from the 2-generation rat
reproduction study in which decreased survival and increased incidence
of kidney lesions were observed in the offspring of rats fed higher
dose levels. The ARC for the overall U.S. population from established
tolerances and the proposed use on strawberry utilizes less than 1
percent of the RfD. In addition, less than 1 percent of the RfD is
utilized for all population subgroups for which EPA has dietary
consumption data. EPA generally has no cause for concern for exposures
below 100 percent of the RfD.
The nature of the residue is adequately understood for the purpose
of the proposed tolerance and an adequate analytical method, gas
chromatography, is available for enforcement purposes. An analytical
method for enforcing this tolerance has been published in the Pesticide
Analytical Manual (PAM), Vol. II. No secondary residues in meat, milk,
poultry, or eggs are expected since strawberry are not considered a
livestock feed commodity. There are presently no actions pending
against the continued registration of this chemical.
Based on the information and data considered, the Agency has
determined that the tolerance established by amending 40 CFR part 180
would protect the public health. Therefore, it is proposed that the
tolerance be established as set forth below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, which contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after publication
of this notice in the Federal Register that this rulemaking proposal be
referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance with section 408(e) of
the FFDCA.
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [PP 0E3821/P649] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
opp-D[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the Virginia address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the
beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order (i.e.,
Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines ``significant'' as
those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially
affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal
governments or communities (also known as ``economically
significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement, grants, user
fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the
principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 3, 1996.
Susan Lewis,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.383, the table is amended by adding alphabetically
the commodity strawberry, to read as follows:
Sec. 180.383 Sodium salt of acifluorfen; tolerances for residues.
* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts
Commodities per
million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Strawberry..................................................... 0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-9471 Filed 4-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9466 Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses; Public Review of a Notification of Intent To Certify Equipment
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16739-16740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9466]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 85
[FRL-5458-3]
Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year
Urban Buses; Public Review of a Notification of Intent To Certify
Equipment
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of agency receipt of a notification of intent to certify
equipment and initiation of 45 day public review and comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Detroit Diesel Corporation (DDC) has submitted to the Agency a
notification of intent to certify urban bus retrofit/rebuild equipment
pursuant to 40 CFR Part 85, Subpart O. The notification describes
equipment consisting of fuel injectors, cylinder kits, camshafts,
blower, turbocharger, cylinder heads , and associated gaskets, which
operators could use at the time of engine rebuild to upgrade certain
1988-90 model year DDC 6V92TA DDEC II engines to a 1991 model year
configuration. Pursuant to Sec. 85.1407(a)(7), today's Federal Register
document summarizes the notification, announces that the notification
is available for public review and comment, and initiates a 45-day
period during which comments can be submitted. The Agency will review
this notification of intent to certify, as well as any comments it
receives, to determine whether the equipment described in the
notification of intent to certify should be certified. If certified,
the equipment can be used by urban bus operators to reduce the
particulate matter of urban bus engines.
The notification of intent to certify, as well as other materials
specifically relevant to it, are contained in Category XII of Public
Docket A-93-42, entitled ``Certification of Urban Bus Retrofit/Rebuild
Equipment''. This docket is located at the address listed below.
Today's document initiates a 45-day period during which the Agency
will accept written comments relevant to whether or not the equipment
included in this notification of intent to certify should be certified.
Comments should be provided in writing to Public Docket A-93-42,
Category XII, at the address below, and an identical copy should be
submitted to Tom Stricker, also at the address below.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit separate copies of comments to each of the two
following addresses:
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Public Docket A-93-42
(Category XII), Room M-1500, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460.
2. Tom Stricker, Engine Programs and Compliance Division (6403J), 401
``M'' Street SW., Washington, DC 20460.
The DDC notification of intent to certify, as well as other
materials specifically relevant to it, are contained in the public
docket indicated above. Docket items may be inspected from 8:00 a.m.
until 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. As provided in 40 CFR Part 2, a
reasonable fee may be charged by the Agency for copying docket
materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Stricker, Engine Programs and
Compliance Division (6403J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street S.W., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone: (202) 233-9322.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On April 21, 1993, the Agency published final Retrofit/Rebuild
Requirements for 1993 and Earlier Model Year Urban Buses (58 FR 21359).
The retrofit/rebuild program is intended to reduce the ambient levels
of particulate matter (PM) in urban areas and is limited to 1993 and
earlier model year (MY) urban buses operating in metropolitan areas
with 1980 populations of 750,000 or more, whose engines are rebuilt or
replaced after January 1, 1995. Operators of the affected buses are
required to choose between two compliance options: Program 1 sets
particulate matter emissions requirements for each urban bus engine in
an operator's fleet which is rebuilt or replaced; Program 2 is a fleet
averaging program that establishes specific annual target levels for
average PM emissions from urban buses in an operator's fleet.
A key aspect of the program is the certification of retrofit/
rebuild equipment. To meet either of the two compliance options,
operators of the affected buses must use equipment which has been
certified by the Agency. Emissions requirements under either of the two
compliance options depend on the availability of retrofit/rebuild
equipment certified for each engine model. To be used for Program 1,
equipment must be certified as meeting a 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM standard or
as achieving at least a 25 percent reduction in PM. Equipment used for
Program 2 must be certified as providing some level of PM reduction
that would in turn be claimed by urban bus operators when calculating
their average fleet PM levels attained under the program. For Program
1, information on life cycle costs must be submitted in the
notification of intent to certify in order for certification of the
equipment to initiate (or trigger) program requirements. To trigger
program requirements, the certifier must guarantee that the equipment
will be available to all affected operators for a life cycle cost of
$7,940 or less at the 0.10 g/bhp-hr PM level, or for a life cycle cost
of $2,000 or less for 25 percent or greater reduction in PM. Both of
these values are based on 1992 dollars.
II. Notification of Intent To Certify
By a notification of intent to certify dated January 2, 1996, DDC
has applied for certification of equipment applicable to it's 6V92TA
model engines having electronically controlled fuel injection (Detroit
Diesel Electronic Control II--DDEC II) that were originally
manufactured between January 1, 1988 and December 31, 1990. The
notification of intent to certify states that the candidate equipment
will reduce PM emissions 25 percent or more, on petroleum-fueled diesel
engines that have been rebuilt to DDC specifications. Further, transit
pricing level has been
[[Page 16740]]
submitted with the notification, along with a guarantee that the
equipment will be offered to all affected operators for less than the
incremental life cycle cost ceiling. EPA notes that the program
requirement, applicable to operators choosing to comply with program 1,
to reduce PM levels by at least 25 percent when these engines are
rebuilt or replaced, has already been triggered by Englehard
Corporation with certification of their catalytic-converter muffler
(CCM).1 Nevertheless, EPA plans to review available information
and comments related to the cost of the DDC upgrade kit and, if
appropriate, to certify the DDC upgrade kit on the basis of being
available to all affected operators for less than the life-cycle cost
ceiling of $2,000 (1992 dollars). Any equipment certified as meeting
both the emission and cost requirements can be considered by EPA when
updating the post-rebuild PM levels used by transit operators choosing
to comply with program 2.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 60 FR 28402, May 31, 1995.
\2\ See 40 CFR Sec. 85.1403 (c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The candidate equipment upgrades older engines to a configuration
virtually identical to a later model year configuration. All components
of the candidate equipment are contained in two basic types of kits.
One of each basic type of kit is required for the rebuild of an engine.
Three combinations of the two basic types of kits are relevant to
certification--the specific combination to be used with a particular
engine depends upon engine rotation direction, orientation of the
engine block and, cam gear mounting technique. One basic type of kit
includes a gasket kit, cylinder kit, and fuel injectors. The other
basic type of kit includes camshafts, blower assembly, turbocharger,
and head assemblies. The components in the latter kit are
remanufactured components..
To determine particulate matter (PM) reduction of the candidate
equipment under the urban bus retrofit/rebuild program, DDC presents
exhaust emission data that were developed for the relevant engine
configuration in EPA's new engine certification program. EPA believes
use of existing new engine certification data is appropriate as
discussed in the preamble to the final rule for the urban bus program
at 58 FR 21378 (April 21, 1993). The data show a 31 percent reduction
in PM emissions between the baseline engine configuration and the
upgraded engine configuration. Consistent with the requirements
associated with new engine certification, the test data indicate that
the emissions of hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) for the candidate equipment are less than
applicable standards. Fuel consumption is increased approximately 5
percent with the candidate equipment installed. DDC presents smoke
emission measurements for the engine which indicate compliance with
applicable standards.
DDC states that the candidate equipment will be offered to all
affected operators for less than a life cycle cost of $2,000 (1992
dollars), and has submitted life cycle cost information. DDC presents
cost data indicating that the cost of a standard rebuild, if the parts
were purchased separately, is $6,966.27. The cost of the candidate
equipment is less than this amount, indicating that the candidate
equipment has a negative incremental purchase price. DDC presents data
showing that the fuel consumption increase results in a $1440 life-
cycle fuel penalty. DDC states there is no incremental installation
cost or maintenance cost compared to the currently available standard
rebuild.
Certification of the candidate DDC equipment would affect operators
as follows. EPA has previously certified equipment which triggered the
requirement to use equipment certified to reduce PM by at least 25
percent if these engines are rebuilt or replaced after December 1,
1995. Therefore, under Program 1, operators who rebuild or replace
1988-90 model year DDC 6V92TA DDEC II engines are currently required to
use equipment certified to provide at least a 25 percent reduction in
PM.3 If the candidate DDC kit is certified to reduce PM by at
least 25 percent, then its use under program 1 will meet this
requirement. This requirement will continue for the applicable engines
until such time that equipment is certified to trigger the 0.10 g/bhp-
hr emission standard for less than a life cycle cost of $7,940 (in 1992
dollars). If the Agency certifies the candidate DDC equipment, then
operators who choose to comply with Program 2 and install this
equipment, will use the PM emission level(s) established during the
certification review process, in their calculations for target or fleet
level as specified in the program regulations. DDC projects a post-
rebuild PM level of 0.23 g/bhp-hr with the equipment installed on model
year 1988 through 1990 6V92TA DDEC II engines. (This discussion
concerns the use of certified equipment to meet program requirements;
it does not apply to the use of components which are not part of a
certified package.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Englehard CCM certification triggered program
requirements for, among others, the 1988-90 model year DDC 6V92TA
DDEC II engine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At a minimum, EPA expects to evaluate this notification of intent
to certify, and other materials submitted as applicable, to determine
whether there is adequate demonstration of compliance with: (1) the
certification requirements of Sec. 85.1406, including whether the
testing accurately substantiates the claimed emission reduction or
emission levels; and, (2) the requirements of Sec. 85.1407 for a
notification of intent to certify, including whether the data provided
by DDC complies with the life cycle cost requirements.
The Agency requests that those commenting also consider these
regulatory requirements, plus provide comments on any experience or
knowledge concerning: (a) problems with installing, maintaining, and/or
using the candidate equipment on applicable engines; and, (b) whether
the equipment is compatible with affected vehicles.
The date of this notice initiates a 45-day period during which the
Agency will accept written comments relevant to whether or not the
equipment described in the DDC notification of intent to certify should
be certified pursuant to the urban bus retrofit/rebuild regulations.
Interested parties are encouraged to review the notification of intent
to certify and provide comment during the 45-day period. Please send
separate copies of your comments to each of the above two addresses.
The Agency will review this notification of intent to certify,
along with comments received from interested parties, and attempt to
resolve or clarify issues as necessary. During the review process, the
Agency may add additional documents to the docket as a result of the
review process. These documents will also be available for public
review and comment within the 45 day period.
Dated: April 3, 1996.
Mary D. Nichols,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-9466 Filed 4-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9464 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; The Commonwealth of KentuckyProposed Disapproval of the Request To Redesignate the Kentucky Portion of the Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky Moderate Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and the Associated Maintenance Plan
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16737-16739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9464]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 16738]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[KY81-1-6855; FRL-5459-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
The Commonwealth of Kentucky--Proposed Disapproval of the Request To
Redesignate the Kentucky Portion of the Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky
Moderate Ozone Nonattainment Area to Attainment and the Associated
Maintenance Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove the Commonwealth of Kentucky
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet's (Cabinet)
request to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati-Northern
Kentucky moderate ozone nonattainment area to attainment and the
associated maintenance plan as a revision to the state implementation
plan (SIP). The EPA determined that the area registered a violation of
the ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). As a result,
the Northern Kentucky area no longer meets the statutory criteria for
redesignation to attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
May 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Kay
Prince at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Programs
Branch, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
Copies of documents relative to this action are available for
public inspection during normal business hours at the following
locations. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24
hours before the visiting day. Reference file KY-81-1-6855. The Region
4 office may have additional background documents not available at the
other locations.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Programs Branch, 345
Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365. Kay Prince, (404) 347-
3555 extension 4221.
Division of Air Quality, Department for Environmental Protection,
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, 803 Schenkel
Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 (502) 573-3382.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay Prince at (404) 347-3555 extension
4221.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 11, 1994, the Cabinet submitted
a request to EPA to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati-
Northern Kentucky moderate interstate ozone nonattainment area from
nonattainment to attainment. On that date, the Cabinet also submitted a
maintenance plan for the area as a revision to the Kentucky SIP.
According to section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42
U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)(E), redesignation requests must meet five specific
criteria in order for EPA to redesignate an area from nonattainment to
attainment:
1. The Administrator determines that the area has attained the
ozone NAAQS;
2. The Administrator has fully approved the applicable
implementation plan for the area under section 110(k);
3. The Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality
is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting
from implementation of the applicable implementation plan and
applicable Federal air pollution control regulations and other
permanent and enforceable reductions;
4. The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the
area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and
5. The State containing such area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
The Northern Kentucky area appeared to have attained the NAAQS,
based on air quality data monitored from 1992 through 1994. The
Cabinet's November 11, 1994, request for redesignation and its
submittal of a maintenance plan SIP revision for the Northern Kentucky
area were evaluated by EPA and determined to have satisfied the five
criteria listed above. However, after review of the 1995 ambient air
quality data, EPA determined that the area registered a violation of
the ozone NAAQS. The ambient data has been quality assured according to
established procedures for validating such monitoring data. The Cabinet
does not contest that the area violated the NAAQS for ozone during the
1995 ozone season. As a result, the Northern Kentucky area no longer
meets the statutory criteria for redesignation to attainment of the
ozone NAAQS found in section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA.
The maintenance plan SIP revision is not approvable because its
demonstration is based on a level of ozone precursor emissions in the
ambient air thought to represent an inventory of emissions that would
provide for attainment and maintenance. That underlying basis of the
maintenance plan's demonstration is no longer valid due to the
violation of the NAAQS that occurred during the 1995 ozone season.
Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to disapprove the Commonwealth's November 11, 1994
redesignation request and maintenance plan SIP revision.
EPA is soliciting public comments on this notice and on issues
relevant to EPA's proposed action. Comments will be considered before
taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the person
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
The agency has reviewed this request for revision of the Federally-
approved SIP for conformance with the provisions of the CAA. The Agency
has determined that this action does not conform with the statute as
amended and should be disapproved.
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
Nothing in this action shall be construed as permitting or allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for a revision to
any state implementation plan. Each request for 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.
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 businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
EPA's denial of the State's redesignation request under section
107(d)(3)(E) does not affect any existing requirements applicable to
small
[[Page 16739]]
entities nor does it impose new requirements. The area retains its
current designation status and will continue to be subject to the same
statutory requirements. To the extent that the area must adopt
regulations, based on its nonattainment status, EPA will review the
effect of those actions on small entities at the time the state submits
those regulations. Therefore, I certify that denial of the
redesignation request will not affect a substantial number of small
entities.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and record keeping requirements,
Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: March 25, 1996.
Phyllis Harris,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-9464 Filed 4-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9446 Discussion of the Coast Guard's Course Approval Process
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 16749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9446]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
46 CFR Parts 10, 12, and 13
[CGD 96-021]
Discussion of the Coast Guard's Course Approval Process
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard plans to hold a public meeting to solicit
input from the maritime industry and from the general public concerning
the course approval process currently used by the Coast Guard to
evaluate maritime training offered in the United States.
DATES: The meeting will be held May 8, 1996, from 4:30 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Written comments must be submitted by July 24, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the New Orleans Airport Hilton,
901 Airline Highway, Kenner, Louisiana, 70062.
Written comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second
Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, or may be delivered to room 3406
at the same address between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Comments will become part of this docket [CGD
96-021] and will be available for inspection or copying at room 3406,
Coast Guard Headquarters, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
A copy of the current course approval guidelines may be obtained by
writing to Director, National Maritime Center (NMC-4B), 4200 Wilson
Blvd, Suite 510, Arlington, VA 22203-1804, or by calling (703) 235-
0014, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. Requests may also be submitted by facsimile at (703) 235-
1062.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Christine Meers, Chief, Marine Exam Administration Branch, National
Maritime Center (NMC-4B), 4200 Wilson Blvd, Suite 510, Arlington, VA
22203-1804, telephone (703) 235-0014.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Discussion
Federal Regulations 46 CFR Parts 10, 12 and 13 require or allow
applicants for merchant marine licenses and documents to successfully
complete approved courses, or in some cases to substitute coursework in
lieu of seatime or examinations when acquiring a licenses. In order to
ensure that mariners are properly trained in these courses, the Coast
Guard reviews and certifies the courses and the institutions as meeting
minimum requirements.
Current Process: Training institutions who want the Coast Guard to
certify that their courses meet Federal standards submit their courses
for approval to the Coast Guard via the nearest Regional Examination
Center (REC). If the application package is complete in accordance with
Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 5-95, it is forwarded
to the NMC for review. If the course meets the minimum standards set
forth in the regulations and NVIC 5-95, then certification is issued to
the institution for that course.
This certification notifies marines that the course will help them
to fulfill some of the Federal requirements for acquiring a Coast Guard
license and documentation. The certification also encourages training
institutions to provide courses which meet the minimum standards for
mariner licensing and documentation.
In order to improve the quality of the public service that we
provide, we are holding this meeting to solicit the views and comments
of the maritime training community, mariners, and the affected public.
We intend to identify any perceived problems with our current system,
and to discuss ways that we could revise our policies (e.g. NIV 5-95 or
specific course guidelines). The meeting will be held as an open forum
and we strongly encourage members of the maritime community and general
public to actively participate and provide their insight and knowledge,
so that we can continue to provide high-quality service to the public.
Attendance is open to the public. Members of the public are
encouraged to make oral presentations during the meeting. Written
material may be submitted before, during, or after the meeting. Persons
unable to attend the public meeting are encouraged to submit written
comments on or before July 24, 1996.
Those needing the assistance of sign language interpretation at the
meeting should notify the person listed above under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT as soon as possible so that arrangements may be
made to provide the necessary assistance.
Dated: April 10, 1996.
Norman W. Lemley,
Director, National Maritime Center.
[FR Doc. 96-9446 Filed 4-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9437 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Oregon Slough, OR
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16736-16737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9437]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD13-96-004]
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Oregon Slough, OR
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: At the request of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad,
the Coast Guard is proposing a change to the regulations governing the
operation of the railroad swingspan bridge across Oregon Slough,
Portland,
[[Page 16737]]
Oregon. The proposed change would increase the advance notice required
for opening of the swingspan from one half hour to one hour so that
sufficient time is available for the bridge operator to travel to the
bridge during periods of heavy traffic congestion on area roads and
highways.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Commander (oan), Thirteenth
Coast Guard District, 915 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98174-
1067. The comments and other materials referenced in this notice will
be available for inspection and copying at 915 Second Avenue, Room
3410, Seattle, Washington. Normal office hours are between 7:45 a.m.
and 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. Comments
may also be hand-delivered to this address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John E. Mikesell, Chief, Plans and Programs Section, Aids to Navigation
and Waterways Management Branch, (Telephone: (206) 220-7270).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments.
Persons submitting comments should include their names and addresses,
identify this rulemaking (CGD13-95-011) and the specific section of
this proposal to which each comment applies, and give the reason for
each comment. Please submit two copies of all comments and attachments
in unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. Persons wanting acknowledgment of
receipt of comments should enclose stamped, self-addressed postcards or
envelopes.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. It may change this proposal in view of the comments.
The Coast Guard plans no public hearing. Persons may request a
public hearing by writing to the Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District at the address under ADDRESSES. The request should include the
reasons why a hearing would be beneficial. If it determines that the
opportunity for oral presentations will aid this rulemaking, the Coast
Guard will hold a public hearing at a time and place announced by a
later notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
The proposed change would allow the operator more time to arrive at
the drawbridge. The operating regulations currently in effect require
only one half hour notice for requesting openings. However, even when
land traffic conditions on roads in the vicinity of the bridge are at
their best, one half hour barely provides the operator enough time to
travel to the bridge and commence operations. Land traffic volumes near
the bridge have increased in the Portland area since the current
regulations went into effect. A one hour notice period would allow the
operator sufficient travel time to arrive at the bridge and open it in
a timely fashion. The bridge averages 1-2 openings per day in months of
frequent use and in other months considerably fewer openings. Vessels
which require openings of the swingspan include tugs, fishing vessels,
and sailboats.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would amend 33 CFR 117.887 to state that the draw
shall open on signal if at least one hour notice is given.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
potential cost and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It has
been exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget under
that order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and
procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;
February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this
proposed rule to be so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation under
paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is
unnecessary. This expectation is based on the fact that the current
notice period would only be increased by one half hour under the
proposed amendment.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal will have a significant
effect on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small entities''
include independently owned and operated small businesses that are not
dominant in their field and that otherwise qualify as ``small business
concerns'' under section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposal, if
adopted, will not have a significant impact on a significant number of
small entities.
Collection of Information
This proposal contains no collection of information requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposal under the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the proposed rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this
proposal and concluded that, under section 2.B.2. of Commandant
Instruction M16475.B, this proposal is categorically excluded from
further environmental documentation. A ``Categorical Exclusion
Determination'' is available in the docket for inspection or copying.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
Proposed Regulations
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend part 117 of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 117 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g);
Sec. 117.225 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106
Stat. 5039.
2. Section 117.887 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 117.887 Oregon Slough (North Portland Harbor).
The draw of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Bridge, mile
3.2 at Portland, Oregon, shall open on signal if at least one hour
notice is given.
Dated: April 2, 1996.
J.W. Lockwood,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 13th Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 96-9437 Filed 4-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9436 Regattas and Marine Parades
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16732-16736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9436]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD 95-054]
RIN 2115-AF17
Regattas and Marine Parades
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In keeping with the National Performance Review and the
President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, the Coast Guard examined
its program for permitting regattas and other marine events. This
proposal would more precisely identify which events require a permit,
which events require only notice to the Coast Guard, and which events
require neither. These changes are proposed to maintain safety of life
during events, while dramatically reducing the burden imposed on the
public.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA/3406) (CGD 95-054), U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, or may
be delivered to room 3406 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 3
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is (202) 267-1477. Comments on collection-of-information
requirements must be mailed also to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
The Executive Secretary maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments will become part of this docket and will be
available for inspection or copying at room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Carlton Perry, Auxiliary, Boating, and Consumer Affairs Division,
(202) 267-0979. A copy of this notice may be obtained by calling the
Coast Guard Customer Infoline at 1-800-368-5647 or, in Washington, DC,
267-0780.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments.
Persons submitting
[[Page 16733]]
comments should include their names and addresses, identify this
rulemaking (CGD 95-054) and the specific section of this proposal to
which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment.
Please submit two copies of all comments and attachments in an unbound
format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and
electronic filing. Persons wanting acknowledgment of receipt of
comments should enclose stamped, self-addressed postcards or envelopes.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. It may change this proposal after review of the
comments.
The Coast Guard plans no public hearing. Persons may request a
public hearing by writing to the Marine Safety Council at the address
under ADDRESSES. The request should include the reasons why a hearing
would be beneficial. If it determines that the opportunity for oral
presentations will aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard will hold a
public hearing at a time and place announced by a later notice in the
Federal Register.
Regulatory History
On December 26, 1995, the Coast Guard published a notice
withdrawing a rule entitled ``Regattas and Marine Parades'' (60 FR
66772) (CGD 87-087). That rulemaking, CGD 87-087, had focused only on
determining how far in advance of an event an application should be
submitted and how far in advance of the event a permit should be
issued. In keeping with the National Performance Review, CGD 87-087 has
been replaced with the present rulemaking (CGD 95-054), which addresses
a broader range of issues, including whether permitting could be
reduced or eliminated altogether.
Accordingly, on December 26, 1995, the Coast Guard also published
an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (CGD 95-054) (ANPRM) entitled
``Regattas and Marine Parades; Permit Application Procedures'' in the
Federal Register (60 FR 66773). The ANPRM requested comments on how the
existing program could be improved and to what extent permitting should
be required. Most of the comments received responded to the question of
how much time before the scheduled date of an event must an application
for a permit be submitted.
Background and Purpose
The Coast Guard is authorized, in its discretion, to issue
regulations to promote safety of life on navigable waters during
regattas and marine parades (33 U.S.C. 1233). Though not required by
Congress to do so, the Coast Guard chose to exercise this discretionary
authority by implementing a permitting system for regattas or marine
parades and, in certain instances, issuing temporary local regulations
in conjunction with those permits. Under the current regulations (33
CFR part 100), the sponsors of an organized water event of limited
duration which is conducted according to a prearranged schedule must
submit an application for a regatta or marine parade permit. The
District Commander then decides whether the event will introduce extra
or unusual hazards to the safety of life on navigable waters and, if it
will, requires a permit. The Coast Guard issued approximately 3,100
permits in 1995. Only about three permit applications were denied. For
any event not found to require a permit, the application was so noted
and returned to the applicant.
In keeping with the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative,
the Coast Guard is engaged in a comprehensive review of its regulations
to eliminate overly burdensome, unnecessary, and obsolete requirements.
On review of the regatta and marine parade regulations in 33 CFR part
100, the Coast Guard identified several areas for improving customer
service and efficiency.
The Coast Guard believes it can better serve the public by focusing
more precisely on traditional Coast Guard tools to protect our
waterways, enforce our laws, ensure the safety of our ports and
waterways, search for and rescue persons in distress, and maintain
maritime aids to navigation. By focusing more precisely on its unique
capabilities and using the tools with which it is most familiar, the
Coast Guard believes it will improve its ability to promote the safety
of life during marine events, without imposing the burden of extensive
paperwork and administrative responsibilities that result from
permitting requirements.
Under the law, the Coast Guard is authorized to issue the
regulations it deems necessary to promote safety of life during
regattas and marine parades. The law neither mentions nor mandates
permits as the necessary or appropriate procedure to be used.
Permitting has become costly and time consuming for applicants and the
Coast Guard. Based on its past experience with near universal permit
approval, the Coast Guard does not believe continuing the use of this
tool is consistent with either the President's Regulatory Reinvention
Initiative or other National Performance Review recommendations.
Moreover, it is not necessary to achieve the statutory purpose.
Instead, the Coast Guard believes it can more effectively promote its
primary role in regattas (i.e., protecting the safety of life) by
exercising its authority to control navigation under the Ports and
Waterway Safety Act (33 U.S.C. 1221-1232), by issuing temporary
regulations, or, when practicable, by deploying its own vessels and
aircraft to enforce the law, rather than by issuing permits which in
themselves do not ensure safety.
The permit program has grown large, vague, and unwieldy. The
existing regulations are not clear as to which events require a permit.
By their terms, the existing regulations apply to ``organized water
events of limited duration which are conducted according to a
prearranged schedule.'' In application, however, they have been applied
to a broad array of water-related activities, including fireworks
displays and swimming events, which seem to be outside the traditional
concept of a regatta or marine parade. The Coast Guard is concerned
that the categories of events being issued permits may have grown
beyond the scope envisioned by Congress when it focused the statute on
``regattas and marine parades.'' The result is that some sponsors incur
the costs and burdens of preparing and submitting an application only
to find out later that one is not required.
Moreover, with the enactment of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. et seq.), the Coast Guard's role in marine events
has shifted away from its sole statutory obligation of protecting
safety of life. Instead, the act of issuing permits has had the legal
effect of making these essentially private events subject to time
consuming analysis designed to ensure that the Coast Guard complies
with the NEPA requirements applicable to major Federal actions. Before
the Coast Guard issues a requested permit, which it almost always does,
it must assess the environmental impact of the proposed event and
prepare the appropriate documentation. Compliance with NEPA can delay
approval of a permit for up to 120 days or more.
If the Coast Guard is not issuing a permit, there is no major
Federal action triggering the Coast Guard's obligation to meet the
requirements of NEPA. Notwithstanding the fact that the Coast Guard
would no longer have duties under NEPA, environmental requirements
would still be appropriately addressed. First, event sponsors and
participants are still required to comply with all applicable
environmental laws, apart from the Coast Guard's approval of a permit.
The
[[Page 16734]]
fact is that while eliminating the need for a permit means that there
would be no Federal pre-event review of the environmental effect of a
regatta, assessments under NEPA require only that a Federal decision-
maker be informed of the environmental consequences, but do not mandate
that a particular result be chosen. Therefore, removing this step from
the process is not expected to have any adverse environmental effect.
Indeed, the minimal number of regatta permits that the Coast Guard has
denied, on any grounds, supports this expectation. Nevertheless, the
Coast Guard is conducting an environmental analysis of this proposal,
as discussed later in this preamble.
Because the Coast Guard's review of its regatta permit program
indicates that virtually all applications for permits are approved
(some after consultation with the Coast Guard), the Coast Guard
believes most events are conducted in a safe and responsible manner,
not because a permit was issued but, rather, because sponsors of these
events are inherently law abiding people who routinely consult with the
Coast Guard to ensure their events are conducted safely. Requiring a
long and complex process, leading to additional Federal evaluations and
paperwork, for even small events is not warranted. Instead, the Coast
Guard believes it can fulfill its statutory mandate with a much simpler
process that both reduces the burden on the public and allows the Coast
Guard to do what it does best. It is therefore proposing a much simpler
method for regulating these events.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The objective of this proposal is to promote safety of life during
marine events, while eliminating unnecessarily burdensome regulations.
This proposal would amend 33 CFR part 100 as necessary to accomplish
the following:
(1) Continue with permitting only when it is needed to advance the
statutory purpose of promoting safety of life during marine events. The
Coast Guard receives and reviews more than 3,000 permit applications in
a typical year and approves all but about 3 of them. Obviously, this is
a great burden on the legal and environmental resources of the Coast
Guard, as well as the public. This rulemaking would remove the need for
unnecessary applications and provide a clearer guide, to District
Commanders and the few remaining applicants, as to what major events
threaten safety of life to the extent that they require the review and
preparation inherent in issuing a permit. This rulemaking should
require substantially fewer permits each year, very possibly fewer than
20 per year nationwide. As necessary, factors relating to the
permitting procedure; such as information required to be submitted and
minimum time needed to process a permit, would be adjusted to
adequately handle this more precisely defined category.
(2) Identify a second category of events that are not large enough
to raise a clear question regarding their safety, but indicate the need
for the Coast Guard to be informed. The sponsor of an event in this
category need only give the Coast Guard advance notice of the event in
writing. In response, the Coast Guard may decide whether any of its
operational resources should be allocated to protect the safety of life
and property at the event, whether it should issue general regulations
or Captain of the Port orders under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act,
or whether it should disseminate information to waterway users by such
means as local or broadcast Notices to Mariners.
(3) Identify a third category of events that are of such a nature
or minimal size that the risk of the event leading to a loss of life is
truly minimal, thereby obviating the need for the Coast Guard to take
any action. Neither a permit nor notice to the Coast Guard would be
required.
Subparts A and B. The proposal would divide part 100 into subpart A
(general) consisting of Secs. 100.01 through 100.50 and subpart B
(special local regulations issued by District Commanders) consisting of
Sec. 100.100 to the end of the part.
Proposed Sec. 100.15. This section is new and would specify that
all marine events must be conducted in a safe and lawful manner.
Proposed Secs. 100.17 and 18. These new sections would replace
existing Secs. 100.15 and 100.20 on permitting procedure. Section
100.17 would require that the Coast Guard be notified in writing of all
events involving over 50 participating vessels. If, after reviewing the
information submitted for the notice under Sec. 100.17, the District
Commander determines that a permit is required, the additional
information in Sec. 100.18 concerning safety measures and potential
environmental impact must be submitted. The vast majority of events
would fall into the notice-only category, with only about 20 a year
nationwide expected to fall into the permit category.
Proposed Sec. 100.19. This new section would provide a procedure
for appeals of decisions by the District Commander on permitting under
Sec. 100.18.
Proposed Sec. 100.50. This section on penalties refers to the
statute (33 U.S.C. 1236). The penalties that may be assessed for
violating a provision of this part or a regulation or order issued
under this part have been statutorily increased from $250/$500 to
$2,500/$5,000.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposal is not a significant regulatory action under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that
order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and
procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;
February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this
proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under
paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is
unnecessary.
For events no longer required to have a permit, this proposal would
eliminate the cost of preparing and submitting an application. Even for
events that just require written notice to the Coast Guard, the only
cost incurred in submitting the readily available information called
for would be the cost of postage. For the few events that would require
a permit, there would be an increase in the amount of information that
must be included in the application. However, this additional
information would allow the Coast Guard to conduct the necessary NEPA
analysis in a more timely manner. Because of the drastic decrease in
the number of permits, the additional information required for a permit
would still lead to a markedly reduced burden on most sponsors. This
information concerns the potential impact of the event on the
environment and is needed to assist the Coast Guard in analyzing those
impacts and evidencing compliance with environmental laws. The cost of
compiling this information would vary greatly depending on the nature
and location of the event.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal, if adopted, will have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. ``Small entities'' may include (1) small businesses and not-
for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and
are not dominant in their fields and (2) government jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
[[Page 16735]]
As this proposal would affect entities large and small, the
assessment under the ``Regulatory Evaluation'' section of this preamble
applies to small entities as well.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this proposal, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. If, however, you think that
your business or organization qualifies as a small entity and that this
proposal will have a significant economic impact on your business or
organization, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why
you think it qualifies and in what way and to what degree this proposal
will economically affect it.
Collection of Information
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews each proposed rule that
contains a collection-of-information requirement to determine whether
the practical value of the information is worth the burden imposed by
its collection. Collection-of-information requirements include
reporting, recordkeeping, notification, and other, similar
requirements.
This proposal would reduce the number of respondents (sponsors of
events) required to provide information to the Coast Guard from about
3,100 a year to less than 1,500 a year. This reduction would result
from the proposed requirement limiting written notice only to events
involving more than 50 participating vessels (proposed Sec. 100.17(a)).
For the 1,500 respondents required to give notice, the collection-of-
information burden would remain about the same as under the existing
permit application requirements in Sec. 100.15(c). Of these, only about
20 would be required to provide the additional information in proposed
Sec. 100.18.
This proposal contains new collection-of-information requirements
in Secs. 100.17, 100.18, and 100.19. The following particulars apply to
the increase in the OMB-approved burden that would result from
collection of additional environmental information by the 20 or so
applicants for a permit under proposed Sec. 100.18:
DOT No: 2115.
OMB Control No.: 2115-0017.
Administration: U.S. Coast Guard.
Title: Regattas and Marine Parades.
Need for Information: To comply with various environmental laws.
Proposed Use of Information: To assist in the preparation of
environmental documentation required before the Coast Guard may issue a
permit.
Frequency of Response: Once of each event requiring a permit.
Burden Estimate: The burden would be in preparing and submitting
the additional environmental information required, the impact of which
would vary with the event.
Respondents: Sponsors of events. Approximately 20 per year
nationwide.
Form(s): None required. Existing Form CG-4423 (Application for
Approval of Marine Event) would no longer be used.
Average Burden Hours Per Respondent: This would vary depending
under the potential environmental impact of the event.
The Coast Guard has submitted the requirements to OMB for review
under section 3504(g) of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Persons
submitting comments on the requirements should submit their comments
both to OMB and to the Coast Guard where indicated under ADDRESSES.
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposal under the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that
this proposal does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard is preparing an Environmental Assessment of this
proposal. It will be announced by notice of availability in the Federal
Register and made available in the rulemaking docket for inspection or
copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. If the environmental
assessment indicates that the proposal could have a significant impact
on the environment, certain measures may be incorporated into the final
rule to mitigate any potentially adverse environmental effect.
The Coast Guard is specifically interested in receiving specific
data and comments regarding any anticipated impact that this rule and
the accompanying reduction in Coast Guard's obligations under NEPA may
have on environmentally sensitive areas including, but not limited to,
those areas having natural, historical, or cultural significance.
Anecdotal observations are not solicited. However, the Coast Guard
specifically requests documented example and suggestions as to what
actions can or should be taken to mitigate any anticipated adverse
impact.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR chapter I, subchapter G, as follows:
PART 100--[AMENDED]
1. The heading to subchapter G is revised to read as follows:
SUBCHAPTER G--MARINE EVENTS
2. The authority citation for part 100 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; 49 CFR 1.46.
3. The heading for part 100 is revised to read as follows:
PART 100--MARINE EVENTS
4. Before Sec. 100.01, add a subpart heading to read as follows:
Subpart A--General
5. Sections 100.01 and 100.05 are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 100.01 Purpose.
This part prescribes the requirements for holding a marine event in
the navigable waters of the United States.
Sec. 100.05 Definitions.
As used in this part--
District Commander means the Commander of the Coast Guard district
in which the marine event will be held.
Marine event or event means an organized event of limited duration
held on the water according to a prearranged schedule.
Regatta or marine parade means a marine event.
State authority means an official or agency of a State having power
under the laws of the State to regulate marine events on waters over
which the State has jurisdiction.
6. Section 100.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 100.15 General requirements for events.
No marine event may be conducted in such a manner that its
participants violate the navigational rules that apply in the location
where the event is held.
7. Sections 100.17, 100.18, and 100.19 are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 100.17 Notice of event.
(a) The sponsor of a marine event shall notify the Coast Guard of
the event if it involves more than 50 participating vessels.
(b) The notice must be in writing and contain the following
information:
[[Page 16736]]
(1) The name of the sponsor of the event.
(2) Name, address, and telephone number of the person in charge of
the event.
(3) The date and time the event is scheduled to begin and end.
(4) The nature of the event (for example, marine parade, powerboat
race, or sailboat race).
(5) The location of the event as shown on a chart or drawing.
(6) The number of watercraft expected, including watercraft of
spectators.
(7) An explanation of why the event is not likely to endanger human
life and what steps will be taken to ensure that result.
(c) The notice must be submitted to the District Commander at least
120 days before the event is scheduled to begin.
(d) If, after reviewing the notice, the District Commander
determines that the event is likely to result in the loss of human life
unless special precautions are taken, that officer may prohibit the
sponsor from conducting the event unless that officer first grants the
sponsor a permit.
Sec. 100.18 Additional information required.
(a) When a permit is required under Sec. 100.17(d), the sponsor of
the event shall submit the following additional information to the
District Commander at least 120 days before the event is scheduled to
begin:
(1) A detailed plan of how the sponsor plans to conduct the event
without loss of life.
(2) A statement of whether the event will be held in or near the
critical habitat of any endangered or threatened species and, if so,
what steps will be taken to avoid adverse impacts on any member of the
species.
(3) A statement of whether the event will be held in or near an
area designated as environmentally sensitive by a Federal, State, or
local environmental agency and, if so, what adverse impacts it will
have on the area and what steps will be taken to avoid or mitigate the
impacts.
(4) Evidence of coordination and consultation about the event with
all Federal, State, or local environmental agencies to identify
critical habitats and environmentally sensitive areas, to identify
whether any agency indicated the event will have an adverse impact on
the environment, and to identify any steps an agency recommended to
avoid or reduce the adverse impact.
(5) A statement that the event will be conducted in compliance with
all requirements under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.), the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1321), and the Noise Control Act (42 U.S.C.
4901 et seq.).
(6) A statement of whether the event is to be located on or near
any sites or properties of historic or archaeological importance or
significance to Native Americans.
(7) If the State in which the event will be held has an approved
coastal zone management plan, a determination from the event's sponsor
that the event is consistent with the enforceable policies of that
plan, as well as evidence showing that the State has either concurred,
or been asked to concur, in that determination.
(8) A statement of the consideration of the potential adverse
effects of the event on critical habitats, environmentally sensitive
areas, historic and archaeological sites, sites of importance to Native
Americans, and the manner in which the event has been planned to avoid
or reduce those adverse effects.
(9) Any other information deemed necessary by the District
Commander, such as information to assist the Coast Guard in preparing
required environmental documents on the event, including, when
appropriate, an agreement to implement any mitigation measures
suggested by an agency of the Federal, State, or local government
charged with protecting natural resources.
(b) After review of the information submitted, the District
Commander issues a permit to the sponsor or notifies the sponsor of the
reasons why the event, as planned, does not qualify for a permit. If,
after consultation with the Coast Guard, the sponsor modifies the event
to qualify for a permit, the District Commander issues a permit to the
sponsor. Otherwise, the District Commander notifies the sponsor that
the request for a permit is denied.
Sec. 100.19 Appeals.
Any person adversely affected by a determination of a District
Commander under Sec. 100.18(b) may submit a petition to Chief, Office
of Navigation Safety and Waterway Services, Commandant (G-N), U.S.
Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-
0001 within 7 days of the date of the determination. After considering
all relevant material presented, the Coast Guard notifies the
petitioner of the decision. The decision by the Commandant (G-N) is
final agency action.
Secs. 100.25 and 100.30 [Removed]
8. Sections 100.25 and 100.30 are removed.
9. Section 100.35 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 100.35 Special local regulations.
(a) The District Commander may issue regulations to promote safety
of life on the navigable waters immediately before, during, and
immediately after a marine event.
(b) The regulations may establish an area within which vessels are
excluded, their entry is limited, or their movement is restricted.
(c) The District Commander may provide notice of the regulations by
means of broadcast or local notices to mariners.
10. Section 100.50 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 100.50 Penalties.
For violating a provision of this part or a regulation or order
issued under this part, the person or organization is subject to
penalties under 33 U.S.C. 1236.
11. Before Sec. 100.101, add a new subpart B heading and
Sec. 100.100 to read as follows:
Subpart B--Special Local Regulations
Sec. 100.100 Purpose of subpart.
(a) This subpart prescribes regulations for particular recurring
marine events.
(b) Geographical coordinates used in this subpart are not intended
for plotting on maps and charts referenced to the North American Datum
of 1983 (NAD 83), unless the coordinates are labeled NAD 83.
Coordinates without an NAD 83 reference may be plotted on maps or
charts with an NAD 83 reference only after application of the
appropriate corrections published on the map or chart.
Dated: April 11, 1996.
Rudy K. Peschel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Navigation Safety and
Waterway Services.
[FR Doc. 96-9436 Filed 4-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9429 Ohio Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16731-16732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9429]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 935
[OH-236-FOR]
Ohio Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public
hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSM is announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Ohio
abandoned mine land reclamation plan (hereinafter the ``Ohio plan'')
under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA),
30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq., as amended. The proposed amendment consists of
changes to provisions of the Ohio plan pertaining to the acid mine
drainage set-aside program, water quality improvement, project
eligibility, and remining incentives. The amendment is intended to
revise the Ohio plan to be consistent with SMCRA, as amended.
DATES: Written comments must be received by 4:00 p.m., [E.S.T.], May
17, 1996. If requested, a public hearing on the proposed amendment will
be held on May 13, 1996. Requests to speak at the hearing must be
received by 4:00 p.m., [E.S.T.], on May 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and requests to speak at the hearing should
be mailed or hand delivered to George Rieger, Field Branch Chief, at
the address listed below.
Any disabled individual who has need for a special accommodation to
attend a public hearing should contact the individual listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Copies of the Ohio plan, the proposed amendment, a listing of any
scheduled public hearings, and all written comments received in
response to this document will be available for public review at the
addresses listed below during normal business hours, Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays. Each requester may receive one free copy of
the proposed amendment by contacting OSM's Appalachian Regional
Coordinating Center.
George Rieger, Field Branch Chief, Appalachian Regional Coordinating
Center
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 3 Parkway Center,
Pittsburgh, PA 15220, Telephone: (412) 937-2153
Ohio Division of Mines and Reclamation, 1855 Fountain Square Court,
Columbus, Ohio, 43224, Telephone: (614) 265-1076
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
George Rieger, Field Branch Chief, Appalachian Regional Coordinating
Center, Telephone: (412) 937-2153.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Ohio Plan
On August 10, 1982, the Secretary of the Interior approved the Ohio
plan. Background information on the Ohio plan, including the
Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions
of approval can be found in the April 15, 1994, Federal Register (59 FR
17930). Subsequent actions concerning the conditions of approval and
program amendments can be found at 30 CFR 935.25.
II. Description of the Proposed Amendment
By letter dated March 19, 1996, (Administrative Record No. OH-2163)
Ohio submitted a proposed amendment to its program pursuant to SMCRA at
its own initiative. The provisions of the Ohio plan that it proposes to
amend are: acid mine drainage set-aside program, water quality
improvement, project eligibility, and remining incentives.
Specifically, Ohio proposes the following changes. At section 4.1,
subsection G is added to (1) provide for the reclamation of areas
causing acid mine drainage (AMD) such that: AMD problems are eliminated
as a component of a high priority reclamation project; AMD areas
causing a ``general welfare'' impact to the public will be eligible for
abatement; and AMD areas impacting watersheds will be abated in
accordance with AMD set-aside criteria; and (2) encourage the remining
of areas causing AMD within certain areas through the funding of AMD
remediation projects and studies necessary to authorize mining
activities on certain previously mined areas.
At section 4.5, the requirement that research and demonstration
projects be submitted to OSM independent of work plan submissions is
deleted. At section 4.5.3, the project selection process is revised to
include AMD projects under certain conditions, such as the AMD set-
aside, AMD associated with other high priority projects, AMD associated
with general welfare, and AMD associated with remining operations.
III. Public Comment Procedures
In accordance with the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM is
seeking comments on whether the proposed amendment satisfies the
applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If the amendment
is deemed adequate, it will become part of the Ohio plan.
Written Comments
Written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues
proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of the
commenter's recommendations. Comments received after the time indicated
under DATES or at locations other than the Appalachian Regional
Coordinating Center will not necessarily be considered in the final
rulemaking or included in the Administrative Record.
Public Hearing
Persons wishing to speak at the public hearing should contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4:00 p.m.,
[E.S.T.] on May 2, 1996. The location and time of the hearing will be
arranged with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests
an opportunity to speak at the
[[Page 16732]]
public hearing, the hearing will not be held.
Filing of a written statement at the time of the hearing is
requested as it will greatly assist the transcriber. Submission of
written statements in advance of the hearing will allow OSM officials
to prepare adequate responses and appropriate questions.
The public hearing will continue on the specified date until all
persons scheduled to speak have been heard. Persons in the audience who
have not been scheduled to speak, and who wish to do so, will be heard
following those who have been scheduled. The hearing will end after all
persons scheduled to speak and persons present in the audience who wish
to speak have been heard.
Any disabled individual who has need for a special accommodation to
attend a public hearing should contact the individual listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Public Meeting
If only one person requests an opportunity to speak at a hearing, a
public meeting, rather than a public hearing, may be held. Persons
wishing to meet with OSM representatives to discuss the proposed
amendment may request a meeting by contacting the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings will be open to the
public and, if possible, notices of meetings will be posted at the
locations listed under ADDRESSES. A written summary of each meeting
will be made a part of the Administrative Record.
IV. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12866
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review).
Executive Order 12778
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 2 of Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform) and has
determined that, to the extent allowed by law, this rule meets the
applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section.
However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of
State and Tribal abandoned mine land reclamations plan and revisions
since each plan is drafted and promulgated by a specific State or
Tribe, not by OSM. Decisions on proposed abandoned mine land
reclamation plans submitted by a State or Tribe must be based solely on
a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with Title IV of
SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1231-1243) and whether the other requirements of 30
CFR Parts 884 and 888 have been met.
National Environmental Policy Act
No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since
section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency
decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In
making the determination as to whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and
assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 935
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: April 4, 1996.
Allen D. Klein,
Regional Director, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 96-9429 Filed 4-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9368 Procedures for Transition to New National Driver Register
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16729-16731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9368]
========================================================================
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. 75 / Wednesday, April 17, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 16729]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
23 CFR Parts 1325 and 1327
[Docket No. 84-02; Notice 10]
RIN 2127-AG21
Procedures for Transition to New National Driver Register
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to remove the agency's regulation on
procedures for transition to the new National Driver Register (NDR). It
also proposes to amend portions of the agency's regulation on
participating in the NDR Problem Driver Pointer System (PDPS). These
portions pertain to the steps that States were to follow to notify the
NDR of their interest in participating in the NDR under PDPS. All
States have already notified the NDR of their interest in participating
in the NDR under PDPS, and it is expected that the transition from the
old NDR to the new PDPS will be completed no later than November 4,
1996. These provisions will be obsolete at that time. Consistent with
President Clinton's regulatory reform initiative, NHTSA proposes to
remove these provisions when the transition to the new NDR has been
completed.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should refer to the docket number and the
number of this notice and be submitted to (preferably in ten copies) to
the Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. (Docket
hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William Holden, Chief, National
Driver Register (NTS-24), 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20590; telephone (202) 366-4800 or Ms. Heidi L. Coleman, Assistant
Chief Counsel for General Law (NCC-30), 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590; telephone (202) 366-1834.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Driver Register (NDR) functions
as a central, computerized index of State reports on drivers whose
driving privileges have been denied, cancelled, suspended or revoked,
for cause, or who have been convicted of certain serious traffic
violations. It was designed to address the problem that arises when
traffic law violators, after losing their license in one State, attempt
to obtain a license in another State.
States participate by sending records of covered licensing actions
and convictions to the NDR, and by querying the NDR before they issue
licenses to applicants. In this way, States can avoid issuing licenses
to persons whose driving records contain violations or licensing
actions that should keep them off the road.
Originally established by law in 1960 (Pub.L. 86-660), the NDR was
made a part of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (Pub.L. 89-564) and has
been operated since that time by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA).
The NDR Act of 1982 (Pub.L. 97-364) called for the establishment of
an improved NDR. The new NDR system (the Problem Driver Pointer System,
or PDPS) differs from the old NDR system in that it no longer maintains
full substantive records on adverse actions taken against problem
drivers. Instead, it maintains only identification data on problem
drivers and ``points'' to the State of record where the substantive
adverse action data can be obtained. In addition, the new PDPS is fully
automated and enables State driver licensing officials to determine
virtually instantly whether another State has taken an adverse action
or convicted a driver license applicant of a serious traffic offense.
Part 1325--Transition Procedures
On July 11, 1985 (50 FR 28191), NHTSA established a regulation on
the Procedures for the Transition from the Old to the New NDR System
(23 CFR Part 1325). The regulation established procedures for the
orderly transition from the NDR system established in Pub.L. 86-660 as
amended, to the NDR system established in Pub.L. 97-364. The regulation
provided that its purpose was to ensure that participating States
understood their rights and obligations during the transition period,
which was to last until such time as all States that are participating
in the NDR are doing so under the PDPS.
Part 1327--Procedures for Participating
On August 20, 1991 (56 FR 41394), NHTSA established a regulation on
the Procedures for Participating in and Receiving Data from the NDR
PDPS (23 CFR Part 1327). The regulation established procedures for
States to participate in the NDR PDPS, and for other authorized parties
to receive information from the NDR. It also established procedures for
States to notify NHTSA of their intention to be bound by the
requirements of the PDPS NDR system and for States to notify NHTSA in
the event it becomes necessary to withdraw from participation.
The procedures provide that only States that have been certified as
``participating States'' may participate in the NDR after the
transition period ends (no later than April 30, 1995). They provide,
however, that States that have not been certified as ``participating
States'' by April 30, 1995, that wish to continue participating in the
NDR, may request an extension of time.
Current Status on Notification and NDR Participation
In accordance with Part 1327, all 50 States and the District of
Columbia have notified NHTSA of their intention to be bound by the
requirements of the PDPS NDR system.
As of the date of the publication of this notice of proposed
rulemaking, 38 States have completed their transition to PDPS. The
remaining States have requested and been granted extensions of time. It
is expected that all States will have converted their NDR operations
from the old system to the new system no later than November 4, 1996.
At that time, the transition from the old NDR system to the new NDR
PDPS will be complete. Part 1325 of 23 CFR will then no longer be
necessary and section 1327.4 of 23 CFR will require modification. NHTSA
proposes to make these changes.
[[Page 16730]]
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
This proposed rule would not have any preemptive or retroactive
effect. It imposes no requirements on the States, but rather simply
proposes to revise and eliminate outdated or burdensome provisions in
the agency's regulations. The enabling legislation does not establish a
procedure for judicial review of final rules promulgated under its
provisions. There is no requirement that individuals submit a petition
for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before they may
file suit in court.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The agency has determined that this proposed action is not a
significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order
12866 or significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation
Regulatory Policies and Procedures. This proposed rule would not impose
any additional burden on the public. It is technical in nature and
would not change the requirements of the program. It is anticipated
that there would be no economic impact as a result of this rulemaking.
Accordingly, a full regulatory evaluation is not required.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354,
5 U.S.C. 601-612), NHTSA has evaluated the effects of this proposed
action on small entities. Based on the evaluation, the agency certifies
that this proposed action would not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, the preparation of a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is unnecessary.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not contain a collection of information
requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this proposed action for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
has determined that it would not have any significant impact on the
quality of the human environment.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)
This proposed action has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has
been determined that this proposed action does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism
assessment. Accordingly, the preparation of a Federalism Assessment is
not warranted.
Comments to the Docket
NHTSA is providing a 45-day comment period for interested parties
to present data, views, and arguments on the proposed action. The
agency invites comments on the issues raised in this notice and any
other issues commenters believe are relevant to this action. All
comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21). This
limitation is intended to encourage commenters to detail their primary
arguments in a concise fashion. Necessary attachments may be appended
to these submissions without regard to the 15-page limit.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to the final rule, if one is issued,
will be considered as suggestions for further rulemaking action. The
agency will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it
becomes available after the closing date and it is recommended that
interested persons continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified of receipt of their comments
by the docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope with their comments. Upon receipt of the comments, the docket
supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects
23 CFR Part 1325
Highway safety, Intergovernmental relations.
23 CFR Part 1237
Highway safety, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Under the authority of 49 CFR Part 1.50, the Administrator of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration proposes to amend title
23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter III, as follows:
PART 1325--[REMOVED]
Part 1325 is removed.
PART 1327--PROCEDURES FOR PARTICIPATING IN AND RECEIVING
INFORMATION FROM THE NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER PROBLEM DRIVER
POINTER SYSTEM
1. The authority citation for part 1327 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub.L. 97-364, 96 Stat. 1740, as amended (49 U.S.C.
30301, et seq.); delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 1327.4 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1327.4 Certification, termination and reinstatement procedures.
(a) Certification requirement. Only States that have been certified
by NHTSA as participating States under PDPS may participate in the NDR.
NHTSA will remove all records on file and will not accept any inquiries
or reports from a State that has not been certified as a participating
State.
(b) Termination or cancellation. (1) If a State finds it necessary
to discontinue participation, the chief driver licensing official of
the participating State shall notify NHTSA in writing, providing the
reason for terminating its participation.
(2) The effective date of termination will be no less than 30 days
after notification of termination.
(3) NHTSA will notify any participating State that changes its
operations such that it no longer meets statutory and regulatory
requirements, that its certification to participate in the NDR will be
withdrawn if it does not come back into compliance within 30 days from
the date of notification.
(4) If a participating State does not come back into compliance
with statutory and regulatory requirements within the 30-day period,
NHTSA will send a letter to the chief driver licensing official
cancelling its certification to participate in the NDR.
(5) NHTSA will remove all records on file and will not accept any
inquiries or reports from a State whose participation in the NDR has
been terminated or cancelled.
(6) To be reinstated as a participating State after being
terminated or cancelled, the chief driver licensing official shall
follow the notification procedures in subparagraphs (c) (1) and (3) of
this section and must be re-certified by NHTSA as a participating State
under PDPS, upon a determination by NHTSA that the State complies with
the statutory and regulatory
[[Page 16731]]
requirements for participation, in accordance with paragraphs (c) (2)
and (4) of this section.
(c) Reinstatement. (1) The chief driver licensing official of a
State that wishes to be reinstated as a participating State in the NDR
under the PDPS, shall send a letter to NHTSA certifying that the State
wishes to be reinstated as a participating State and that it intends to
be bound by the requirements of section 205 of the NDR Act of 1982 and
Sec. 1327.5 of this part. It shall also describe the changes necessary
to meet the statutory and regulatory requirements of PDPS.
(2) Within 20 days after receipt of the State's notification, NHTSA
will acknowledge receipt of the State's certification to be reinstated.
(3) The chief driver licensing official of a State that has
notified NHTSA of its intention to be reinstated as a participating
State will, at such time as it has completed all changes necessary to
meet the statutory and regulatory requirements of PDPS, certify this
fact to the agency.
(4) Upon receipt, review and approval of certification from the
State, NHTSA will recertify the State as a participating State under
PDPS.
Issued on: April 10, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-9368 Filed 4-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.