issue-1996-04-30•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-30
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-30
issue-1996-04-30Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-30Proposed 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. 96-10726 Regulations Governing United States Treasury Certificates of Indebtedness, Treasury Notes, and Treasury BondsState and Local Government Series
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 84 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19002-19003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10726]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Fiscal Service
31 CFR Part 344
[Department of the Treasury Circular, Public Debt Series No. 3-72]
Regulations Governing United States Treasury Certificates of
Indebtedness, Treasury Notes, and Treasury Bonds--State and Local
Government Series
AGENCY: Bureau of the Public Debt, Fiscal Service, Department of the
Treasury.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury is issuing this Advance Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking to advise market participants in State and Local
Government Series (SLGS) securities transactions of its intention to
issue regulations designed to make the SLGS securities program more
attractive and flexible to investors while still achieving policy and
cost objectives of the Department. Many of the changes under
consideration have been requested by market participants and state and
local governments. We invite comments, advice and recommendations from
interested parties regarding the changes under consideration as well as
any additional changes not specifically covered by this notice.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 30, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking have
been made available for downloading from the Bureau of the Public Debt
home page at the following address: http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/
bureaus/pubdebt/pubdebt.hmtl Comments should be sent to: Division of
Special Investments, Bureau of the Public Debt, Department of the
Treasury, 200 3rd St., P.O. Box 396, Parkersburg, WV 26101-0396.
[[Page 19003]]
Comments received will be available for public inspection and copying
at the Division of Special Investments and at the Treasury Department
Library, FOIA Collection, Room 5030, Main Treasury Building, 1500
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20220. Persons wishing to
visit the library should call 202-622-0990 for an appointment. Comments
may also be sent through the Internet to Fred Pyatt, Director, or
Howard Stevens, Supervisory Program Analyst, Division of Special
Investments at [email protected] or [email protected]. When
sending comments by Internet, please provide your full name and mailing
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Pyatt, Director, or Howard
Stevens, Supervisory Program Analyst, Division of Special Investments,
at 304-480-7752.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt, desires
to make the SLGS securities program more attractive and flexible for
State and local government issuers of debt obligations that are subject
to the arbitrage and rebate rules of the Internal Revenue Code. It is
the Department's intent to do so in a manner consistent with tax policy
objectives and in a manner that is cost effective.
In recent years, market participants have advised the Department
that aspects of the existing SLGS securities regulations impose burdens
that are not needed or cost-effective. Changes in the Internal Revenue
Code since the inception of the SLGS securities program, specifically
changes in the arbitrage and rebate restrictions under Section 148,
make it possible to eliminate certain requirements that are now
contained in the SLGS securities regulations. Section 148 restricts the
use of proceeds of tax-exempt State and local bonds to acquire higher
yielding investments. For example, Section 148(a) provides generally
that interest on a State or local bond is tax-exempt only if the issuer
invests bond proceeds at a yield that is not materially higher than the
yield on the bond issue. Section 148(f) provides that interest on a
State or local bond is tax-exempt only if the issuer rebates to the
Federal government certain arbitrage earnings derived from investing
gross proceeds at a yield exceeding the yield on the bond issue.
II. Set Forth Below Are Possible Changes in the SLGS Program That
the Department is Studying
1. Eliminate the ``all or nothing'' certification which requires
all yield restricted investments be invested either all in SLGS
securities or all in open market Treasury securities.
2. Allow subscriptions for time deposit and special zero interest
SLGS securities in increments of less than $100 above the $1,000
minimum investment and permit partial redemptions in multiples of less
than $100.
3. Reduce the minimum maturity for zero interest time deposit and
special zero interest certificates of indebtedness.
4. Reduce the time between the date of subscription and the date of
issue for time deposit and special zero interest SLGS securities.
5. Make SLGS securities pricing more consistent with open market
Treasury securities pricing by reducing the 1/8 of 1% (12.5 basis
points) differential that now exists between SLGS securities prices and
the then current estimated Treasury borrowing rate for a security of
comparable maturity.
6. Permit SLGS securities to be purchased with funds subject to
rebate as well as yield restriction by removing from the current SLGS
securities regulations certifications which limit or prohibit
investment. Certain of the limitations would be incorporated into the
Internal Revenue Service regulations.
7. Revise the demand deposit program. Revisions being considered
include adjusting the rate formula and eliminating certifications that
are duplicative of current tax regulations or could be better
administered through the tax regulations.
8. Change the formula for determining the redemption value of SLGS
securities to one where the remaining interest and principal payments
are discounted by the Treasury borrowing rate for the remaining term to
maturity of the security being redeemed. This would result in a premium
in cases where the Treasury borrowing rate is lower than the stated
interest rate of the SLGS security.
9. Zero interest time deposit SLGS securities could be redeemed
early at par.
10. Permit the purchase of SLGS securities with the proceeds of
previously redeemed SLGS securities or open market Treasury securities.
These proposed changes to the SLGS securities program could be
omitted, modified or additions made in light of any comments received
or as a result of any internal Department decisions.
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking is being issued to
secure the benefit of public comment. After receipt and consideration
of responses to this advance notice of proposed rulemaking, the
Department may issue a notice of proposed rulemaking or it may only
issue a final rule amending 31 CFR Part 344. However, because any
proposed or final rule will relate to matters of public contract and
procedures for United States securities, as well as the borrowing power
and fiscal authority of the United States, the notice, public comment
and delayed effective date provisions of the Administrative Procedure
Act are inapplicable pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).
List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 344
Bonds, Government securities, Securities.
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3102, et seq., Pub. L. 99-514, 100 Stat.
2654, Sec. 1301(d).
Dated: April 25, 1996.
Gerald Murphy,
Fiscal Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-10726 Filed 4-26-96; 10:23 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-39-W
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10675 Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; New York, NY
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 84 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19001-19002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10675]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-AEA-03]
Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; New York, NY
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend the Class E airspace area at New
York, NY. The development of a new Standard Instrument Approach
Procedure (SIAP) at Lincoln Park Airport, Lincoln Park, NJ, based on
the Global Positioning System has made this proposal necessary.
Additional controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface (AGL) is needed to accommodate this SIAP and for instrument
flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 30, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager,
System Management Branch, AEA-530, Docket No. 96-AEA-03, F.A.A. Eastern
Region, Federal Building #111, John F. Kennedy Int'l Airport, Jamaica,
NY 11430.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, AEA-7, F.A.A. Eastern Region, Federal Building #111,
John F. Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, New York 11430.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the System Management Branch, AEA-530, F.A.A. Eastern Region,
Federal Building #111, John F. Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica,
NY 11430.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Francis T. Jordan, Jr., Airspace Specialist, System Management
Branch
[[Page 19002]]
AEA-530, F.A.A. Eastern Region, Federal Building #100, John F. Kennedy
International Airport, Jamaica, NY 11430; telephone: (718) 553-4521.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-
AEA-03.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the Rules Docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
the FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, AEA-7, F.A.A. Eastern Region, Federal Building #100, John F.
Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, NY 11430. Communications must
identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being
placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should also request a copy of
Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to amend the Class E airspace
area at New York, NY. A GPS RWY 19 SIAP has been develop for the
Lincoln Park Airport, Lincoln Park, NJ. Additional controlled airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is needed to
accommodate this SIAP and for IFR operations at the airport. Class E
airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet
or more above the surface are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation--(1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that would only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is proposed to be amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
AEA NY E5 New York, NY
Lincoln Park Airport, Lincoln Park, NJ
(Lat. 40 deg.56'51'' N, long. 74 deg.18'52'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Lincoln Park Airport, Lincoln Park, NJ.
* * * * *
Issued in Jamaica, New York, on April 15, 1996.
John S. Walker,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Eastern Region.
[FR Doc. 96-10675 Filed 4-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10674 Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Martinsville, VA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 84 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19000-19001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10674]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-AEA-05]
Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Martinsville, VA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend the Class E airspace area at
Martinsville, VA. The development of a new Standard Instrument Approach
Procedure (SIAP) at Blue Ridge Airport based on the Global Positioning
System has made this proposal necessary. Additional controlled airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface (AGL) is needed to
accommodate this SIAP and for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations
at the airport.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager,
System Management Branch, AEA-530, Docket No. 96-AEA-05 F.A.A. Eastern
Region, Federal Building #111, John F. Kennedy Int'l Airport Jamaica,
NY 11430
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, AEA-7, F.A.A. Eastern Region, Federal Building #111,
John F. Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, New York 11430
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the System Management Branch,
[[Page 19001]]
AEA-530, F.A.A. Eastern Region, Federal Building #111, John F. Kennedy
International Airport, Jamaica, NY 11430.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Francis T. Jordan, Jr., Airspace Specialist, System Management
Branch, AEA-530 F.A.A. Eastern Region, Federal Building #111, John F.
Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, New York 11430, telephone:
(718)553-4521.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comment Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic environmental,
and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should
identify the airspace docket number and be submitted in triplicate to
the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge
receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those
comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following
statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-AEA-05.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments will
be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal
contained in this notice may be changed in light of comments received.
All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Rules
Docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report
summarizing each substantive public contact with the FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRMS
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, AEA-7, F.A.A. Eastern Region, Federal Building #111, John F.
Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, NY 11430. Communications must
identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being
placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should also request a copy of
Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to amend the Class E airspace
area at Martinsville, VA A GPS RWY 30 SIAP has been developed for the
Blue Ridge Airport. Additional controlled airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface is needed to accommodate this SIAP and
for IFR operations at the airport. Class E airspace designations for
airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface
are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated August 17,
1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in
this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation--(1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that would only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and
effective September 16, 1995, is proposed to be amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
AEA VA E5 Martinsville, VA [Revised]
Blue Ridge Airport, VA
(Lat. 36 deg.37'51'' N, long. 80 deg.01'06'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within 4 miles each side of the 300 deg. bearing from the Blue Ridge
Airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 11 miles northwest of
the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Jamaica, New York, on April 15, 1996.
John S. Walker,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Eastern Region.
[FR Doc. 96-10674 Filed 4-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10671 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Mitchellville, MD
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 84 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18999-19000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10671]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-AEA-04]
Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Mitchellville, MD
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would establish Class E Airspace at
Mitchellville, MD. A Very High Frequency Omni-Directional Range (VOR)
standard instrument approach procedure (SIAP) has been developed for
Runway (RWY) 36 at Freeway Airport, Mitchellville, MD. The intended
effect of this proposal is to provide adequate controlled airspace for
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations to the airport. The area would
be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 30, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposed rule in triplicate to:
Manager, System Management Branch, AEA-530, Docket No. 96-AEA-04 FAA
Eastern Region, Federal Building #111 John F. Kennedy Int'l Airport,
Jamaica, NY 11430.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, AEA-7, FAA Eastern Region, Federal Building #111, John
F. Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, NY 11430.
[[Page 19000]]
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the System Management Branch, AEA-530, FAA Eastern Region,
Federal Building #111, John F. Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica,
NY 11430.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Francis T. Jordan, Jr., Airspace Specialist, System Management
Branch, AEA-530, FAA Eastern Region, Federal Building #111, John F.
Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, NY 11430; telephone (718) 553-
4521.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-
AEA-04''. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the Rules Docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
the FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, AEA-7 FAA Eastern Region, Federal Building #111, John F.
Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, NY 11430. Communications must
identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being
placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should also request a copy
of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which describes the application
procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Mitchellville, MD.
A VOR/DME RWY 36 SIAP has been developed for Freeway Airport.
Additional controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface is needed to accommodate this SIAP and for IFR operations at
the airport. The area would be depicted on appropriate aeronautical
charts. Class E airspace designations for airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA
Order 7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation--(1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that would only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: (49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and
effective September 16, 1994, is proposed to be amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
AEA MD E5 Mitchellville, MD [New]
Freeway Airport, MD
(Lat. 38 deg.56'45'' N, long. 76 deg.46'19'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6-mile radius of Freeway Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Jamaica, New York, on April 12, 1996.
John S. Walker,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Eastern Region.
[FR Doc. 96-10671 Filed 4-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10667 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Accelerator Control Systems
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 84 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19020-19022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10667]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 95-093, Notice 02]
RIN 2127-AF76
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Accelerator Control
Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, NHTSA proposes to change the scope of the
Federal motor vehicle safety standard on accelerator control systems.
The current standard prohibits uncontrolled engine speed in the event
of a disconnection or severance of the accelerator control system at a
single point, and it also specifies return-to-idle times for the normal
operation of accelerator control systems. The agency has tentatively
decided that it not necessary to regulate the normal operation of
accelerator control systems. Vehicles with return-to-idle times too
great for safe driving would be unacceptable to prospective vehicle
buyers regardless of a regulation. The standard will continue to
require fail-safe performance of accelerator control systems in the
case of a single point disconnection or severance. This proposed action
is part of NHTSA's efforts to implement the President's Regulatory
Reinvention Initiative.
DATES: Comments are due June 14, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket number and notice number
cited at the beginning of this notice, and be submitted to: Docket
Section, room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590
(Docket hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.) It is requested that 10
copies of the comment be provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. Patrick
Boyd, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, NPS-21, telephone (202) 366-
6346, FAX (202) 366-4329.
For legal issues: Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-
20, (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366-3820.
Both may be reached at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590.
Comments should not be sent or FAXed to these persons, but should be
sent to the Docket Section.
[[Page 19021]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative
Pursuant to the President's March 4, 1995 directive, ``Regulatory
Reinvention Initiative,'' to the heads of departments and agencies,
NHTSA undertook a review of all its regulations and directives. During
the course of this review, the agency identified rules that it could
propose to eliminate as unnecessary or to amend to improve their
comprehensibility, application or appropriateness. As described below,
NHTSA has identified Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124
Accelerator control systems (49 CFR 571.124) as one rule that may
benefit from amendments.
Prior Request for Comments and Public Response
The agency published a request for comments (60 FR 62061) on
December 4, 1995 to initiate a discussion of the accelerator control
issues frequently raised by manufacturers in requests for
interpretation and other technical questions. The questions involved
two general areas. In one area of concern, manufacturers sought
assurance that the presence of locking engine controls to facilitate
the use on parked trucks of auxiliary equipment for dumping, mixing,
compacting, etc. would not be considered violations of the return-to-
idle timing requirements. Manufacturers had similar concerns over the
degree of repeatability of idle speed necessary for compliance with the
return-to-idle provisions. The document raised this area of discussion
because the agency wanted to clarify the language of the standard to
eliminate concern that the normal operation of accelerator controls
could be confused with instances of failure.
The second area of discussion involved the emerging technology of
electronic accelerator control systems. The agency had received
requests for interpretation expressing the belief that electronic
accelerator control systems were exempt from the fail-safe requirement
applied to mechanical accelerator controls, namely that the engine
return to idle in the event of a single point disconnection or
severance of the system. The document cited a 1988 interpretation
letter to Isuzu confirming that FMVSS No. 124 applies to both
electronic and mechanical accelerator controls, and it discussed the
possible need for language in the standard clarifying the fail-safe
requirement as it applies to electronic accelerator controls.
Most auto industry commenters voiced a preference for rescinding
the standard, and the American Trucking Associations (ATA) expressed
the belief that loss of engine control is not a safety problem for
medium and heavy trucks because they accelerate more slowly than cars.
The auto industry commenters suggested that market forces and
litigation pressure are sufficient to assure fail-safe accelerator
controls without Federal motor vehicle safety standards. But, they also
commented that, should the agency disagree about recision, a standard
specifying fail-safe performance in the least design-specific terms
would be preferable to the solution suggested in the notice. The
document had discussed clarifying the existing standard's language with
specific performance requirements for enumerated types of
disconnections and severances of mechanical and electronic accelerator
controls.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NHTSA tentatively agrees with the commenters that market forces are
likely to prevent the introduction of accelerator controls whose normal
mode of operation is a threat to safety. Consequently, NHTSA proposes
to eliminate section S5.3 of Standard No. 124 which contains return-to-
idle timing tests for the normal operation of accelerator controls. The
NHTSA standards compliance test program has revealed no non-
compliances with S5.3 for at least the past eight years. With the
elimination of this section, Standard No. 124 will be concerned solely
with fail-safe requirements for engine controls. The effort to define
idle speed tolerances and the normal operation of controls for
operating special equipment would no longer be necessary.
Two other amendments are necessary for consistency with the
proposed elimination of S5.3. The fail-safe performance requirements of
S5.1 and S5.2 cite S5.3 to establish response times for a return-to-
idle position in the event of a severance. Those citations would be
replaced by a fixed time limit of 3 seconds in order to establish that
a fail-safe response must be rapid. A time limit of 3 seconds is
consistent with the least restrictive limit under S5.3. The other
amendment would be a modification of the scope statement of S1 to
remove normal operation from the scope of the standard.
However, the market force argument cannot be made for the fail-safe
performance of accelerator controls. The normal operating
characteristics of a vehicle's accelerator control system is
immediately and constantly apparent to the buyer and user. An
unsatisfactory design will be met with criticism and rejection.
However, the vehicle owner has no way to evaluate the consequences of
severances of the control circuits on loss of engine control and little
motivation to do so. In fact, a comment from the Flxible Corporation, a
major bus manufacturer, indicates that engine manufacturers may be
hesitant to adequately inform even vehicle manufacturers about the
fail-safe performance of their electronic accelerator controls in the
mistaken belief that the devices are exempt from Standard No. 124.
Flxible's comment also cast some doubt on the adequacy of the fail-safe
design of some electronic accelerator controls by observing that
moisture from the steam cleaning of an engine with an electronic
accelerator control system caused runaway engine speed.
The agency is not persuaded by ATA's contention that loss of engine
control of a heavy commercial vehicle should be regarded less seriously
than the same failure of a light vehicle. It also does not believe that
the substitution of tort litigation for federal safety standards, as
suggested by some commenters, serves the public interest. Therefore,
the agency intends to hold a public technical meeting, as suggested by
most of the commenters, to hear ideas for achieving a fail-safe
performance standard for accelerator controls without design specific
language. The time and place of the meeting will be announced in a
future notice.
Proposed Effective Date
The proposed elimination of S5.3 from Standard No. 124 would not
compromise safety and would not add burdens to manufacturers. NHTSA has
tentatively determined that there is good cause shown that an effective
date earlier than 180 days after issuance is in the public interest.
Accordingly, the agency proposes that, if adopted in a final rule, the
amendments would have an effective date of 45 days after the
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' NHTSA has analyzed the impact of
this rulemaking action and determined that it is not ``significant''
under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures. NHTSA believes that these
[[Page 19022]]
proposed amendments, if made final, would not impose any additional
costs and would not yield any savings because this rule would not
change the design or equipment of vehicles. Since there would not be
any impacts, preparation of a full regulatory evaluation is not
warranted.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. It does not affect any costs associated with the manufacture
or sale of vehicles. Accordingly, an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis has not been prepared.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has also analyzed this proposed rule under the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined
that it would not have significant federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
Procedures for Filing Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
amendments proposed in this rulemaking action. It is requested but not
required that any comments be submitted in 10 copies.
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 concise fashion. Necessary attachments, however, may be
appended to those comments without regard to the 15-page limit.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, 3 copies of the complete submission including the
purportedly confidential business information should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA at the street address shown above, and 7
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
expunged should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in 49 CFR 512, the agency's confidential
business information regulation.
All comments received on or before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above for the proposal will be
considered, and will be available to the public for examination in the
docket at the above address both before and after the closing date. To
the extent possible, comments received too late for consideration in
regard to the final rule will be considered as suggestions for further
rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal will be available for
public inspection in the docket. NHTSA will continue file relevant
information in the docket after the closing date, and it is recommended
that interested persons continue to monitor the docket for new
material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle safety, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 571 as follows:
PART 571--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.124 would be amended by revising S1., S5.1 and S5.2
and removing S5.3 to read as follows:
Sec. 571.124 Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems.
S1. Scope. This standard establishes requirements for the return of
a vehicle's throttle to idle position in the event of a severance or
disconnection in the accelerator control system.
* * * * *
S5.1 There shall be at least two sources of energy capable of
returning the throttle to the idle position. In the event of failure of
one source of energy by a single severance or disconnection, the
throttle shall return to the idle position within 3 seconds from any
accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing
actuating force.
S5.2 The throttle shall return to the idle position from any
accelerator position or any speed of which the engine is capable
whenever any one component of the accelerator control system is
disconnected or severed at a single point. The return to idle shall
occur within 3 seconds measured either from the time of severance or
disconnection or from the first removal of the opposing actuating force
by the driver.
Issued on: April 25, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-10667 Filed 4-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10659 Special Local Regulations; City of Charleston, SC
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 84 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19003-19004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10659]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD07-94-017]
RIN 2115-AE48
Special Local Regulations; City of Charleston, SC
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of termination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rulemaking project was initiated to better serve the
boating public by providing advance notice of the regulated area
established for the Festival On The Fourth celebrations in Charleston
Harbor, and to avoid the reoccurring costs of publication related with
temporary regulations. Since the publishing of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, the sponsor of the Festival on the Fourth has down-sized
the event to such an extent that no federal regulations are required.
Therefore, the Coast Guard is terminating further rulemaking under
docket number [CGD07-94-017].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ENS M.J. DaPonte, project officer,
Coast Guard Group Charleston, SC at (803) 724-7621.
[[Page 19004]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of proposed rulemaking was
published in the Federal Register on August 19, 1994 (59 FR 42787),
inviting comments for a proposed rulemaking which would create a
regulated area on the Ashley River in Charleston, South Carolina for
the Festival on the Fourth celebration. The day long event included
personal watercraft demonstrations, aerial demonstration, ski jumping,
and kite skiing throughout the day.
The proposed rulemaking would have created a regulated area between
Brittle Bank Park and the main river channel. Entry into this regulated
area would have been prohibited to all non-participants annually on
July 4, from 11 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Daylight Time,
unless otherwise specified in the Seventh Coast Guard District Local
Notice to Mariners. Since the publication of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, the event has been down-sized to such an extent that no
federal regulatory action is needed. Therefore, this rulemaking is no
longer necessary, and the Coast Guard is terminating further rulemaking
under docket number [CGD07-94-017].
Dated: April 22, 1996.
P.J. Cardaci,
Captain U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 96-10659 Filed 4-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10625 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 Series Airplanes, Excluding Model A300-600 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 84 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18995-18997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10625]
========================================================================
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. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 18995]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-263-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 Series
Airplanes, Excluding Model A300-600 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the supersedure of an existing
airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Airbus Model A300
B2 and B4 series airplanes, that currently requires repetitive visual
inspections to detect cracks in the forward intermediate section skin
at frame 30A where it joins stringer 30, and repair, if necessary. This
action would add eddy current inspection(s) to detect cracks of the
outer skin of the fuselage, which would terminate the repetitive
detailed visual inspections. This action also would require repair of
any cracked area and modification of the structure at certain frames.
This proposal is prompted by in-service experience which has identified
fatigue cracks in this area. The actions specified by the proposed AD
are intended to prevent fatigue cracking, which could result in rapid
decompression of the airplane.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-263-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2797; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-263-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-263-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
On May 15, 1990, the FAA issued AD 90-11-09, amendment 39-6611 (55
FR 21185, May 23, 1990), applicable to certain Airbus Model A300 B2 and
B4 series airplanes, to require repetitive visual inspections to detect
cracks in the forward intermediate section skin at frame 30A where it
joins stringer 30, and repair, if necessary. That action was prompted
by in-service experience which identified fatigue cracks in this area.
The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent rapid decompression
of the airplane, as a result of the problems associated with fatigue
cracking.
In the preamble to that AD, the FAA indicated that the actions
required by that AD were considered ``interim action'' and that further
rulemaking action was being considered. The FAA now has determined that
further rulemaking action is indeed necessary, and this proposed AD
follows from that determination.
Explanation of New Service Information
Since the issuance of AD 90-11-09, Airbus has issued Service
Bulletin A300-53-283, Revision 2, dated March 17, 1994. The service
bulletin describes procedures for eddy current inspection(s) to detect
cracks of the outer skin of the fuselage at frames 28A and 30A above
stringer 30, which would eliminate the need for the repetitive detailed
visual inspections. The service bulletin also describes procedures for
repairing the cracked area with a filler and doubler installation. In
addition, the service bulletin permits further flight, under certain
conditions, with outer skin that is cracked within certain limits.
Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A300-53-285, Revision 1,
dated November 22, 1993, which describes procedures for modification of
the structure at frames 28A and 30A between stringers 27 and 30 (left-
and right-hand). The modification involves cutting the frames and
installing strips, fillers, couplings, sections, sheets, and angles at
the subject area. Accomplishment of the modification will eliminate
possible cracking in the outer skin of the fuselage at frames 28A and
30A, and would positively address the unsafe condition identified as
rapid
[[Page 18996]]
decompression of the airplane due to fatigue cracking.
The DGAC has approved these service bulletin and issued French
airworthiness directive 90-093-110(B)R1, dated September 30, 1990, in
order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in
France.
FAA's Conclusions
This airplane model is manufactured in France and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed
of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of
the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD
action is necessary for products of this type design that are
certificated for operation in the United States.
Explanation of Requirements of Proposed Rule
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered
in the United States, the proposed AD would supersede AD 90-11-09 to
continue to require repetitive detailed visual inspections to detect
cracks of the forward intermediate section skin of the fuselage at the
junction of frame 30A and stringer 30.
However, this proposal would add a requirement to accomplish eddy
current inspections to detect cracks of the outer skin of the fuselage
at frames 28A and 30A above stringer 30. This inspection action would
constitute terminating action for the repetitive detailed visual
inspections.
The proposed AD also would require repair of any cracked area, and
modification of the structure at frames 28A and 30A between stringer 27
and 30 (left- and right-hand).
The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with
the service bulletins described previously.
Differences Between Service Information and Proposed Rule
Operators should note that, unlike the procedures described in
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-283, this proposed AD would not permit
further flight with cracking detected in the outer skin within certain
limits under certain conditions. The FAA has determined that, due to
the safety implications and consequences associated with such cracking,
the subject outer skin that is found to be cracked must be repaired.
Operators should also note that the proposed AD would differ from
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-283 in that it would require the
initial eddy current inspection to be accomplished prior to the
accumulation of 14,100 total landings or 22,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first. (The service
bulletin recommends that the limited inspection be conducted prior to
the accumulation of 18,000 flight or 24,000 flight hours, whichever
occurs first.) In developing an appropriate compliance time for this
action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated
with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the susceptibility of
the outer skin of the fuselage to fatigue cracking, which could result
in rapid decompression of the airplane. The FAA has also received
reports of fatigue cracking on affected airplanes that had accumulated
as few as 14,100 total flight cycles. In consideration of these items,
the FAA finds that the initial eddy current inspection conducted at the
proposed compliance time stated previously will better ensure that any
detrimental effect associated with fatigue cracking will be identified
and corrected prior to the time that it could adversely affect the
outer skin of the fuselage.
Furthermore, the FAA has determined that long term continued
operational safety will be better assured by design changes to remove
the source of the problem, rather than by repetitive inspections. Long
term inspections may not be providing the degree of safety assurance
necessary for the transport airplane fleet. This, coupled with a better
understanding of the human factors associated with numerous continual
inspections has led the FAA to consider placing less emphasis on
inspections and more emphasis on design improvements. The proposed
modification requirement is in consonance with these conditions.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 24 Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 series
airplanes, excluding Model A300-600 series airplanes, of U.S. registry
would be affected by this proposed AD.
The detailed visual inspections that are currently required by AD
90-11-09 take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at
an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
cost impact on U.S. operators of the detailed visual inspections
currently required is estimated to be $1,440, or $60 per airplane, per
inspection cycle.
The eddy current inspection that is proposed in this new AD action
would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish, at an
average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
cost impact on U.S. operators of the proposed eddy current inspection
requirements of this AD is estimated to be $1,440, or $60 per airplane,
per inspection cycle.
The modification that is proposed in this new AD action would take
approximately 270 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average
labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost
approximately $7,200 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost
impact on U.S. operators of the proposed modification requirements of
this AD is estimated to be $561,600, or $23,400 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the current or proposed
requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish
those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
[[Page 18997]]
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-6611 (55 FR
21185, May 23, 1990), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD),
to read as follows:
Airbus Industrie: Docket 95-NM-263-AD. Supersedes AD 90-11-09,
Amendment 39-6611.
Applicability: Model A300 B2 and B4 series airplanes,
certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been otherwise
modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the
requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with
paragraph (f) of this AD. The request should include an assessment
of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the
unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition
has not been eliminated, the request should include specific
proposed actions to address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
Note 2: Airbus Model A300-600 series airplane are not subject to
this AD.
To prevent fatigue cracking, which could result in rapid
decompression of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) For airplanes on which Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT) 53/
90/01, dated April 12, 1990 has been accomplished: Prior to the
accumulation of 18,000 total landings or 24,000 total hours time-in-
service, whichever occurs first, or within 100 landings after June
11, 1990 (the effective date of AD 90-11-09, amendment 39-6611),
whichever occurs later, perform a detailed visual inspection to
detect cracks of the forward intermediate section skin of the
fuselage at the junction of frame 30A and stringer 30, in accordance
with Airbus All Operators Telex 53/90/01, dated April 12, 1990.
(1) If no cracks are detected, repeat the detailed visual
inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 landings
until the requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD are accomplished.
(2) If any crack is detected, prior to further flight, repair it
in accordance with the AOT. After any crack is repaired, prior to
the accumulation of 15,000 total landings or 20,000 total hours
time-in-service, whichever occurs first, repeat the detailed visual
inspection until the requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD are
accomplished.
(b) For all airplanes: Perform an eddy current inspection to
detect cracks of the outer skin of the fuselage at frames 28A and
30A above stringer 30, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin
A300-53-283, Revision 2, dated March 17, 1994, at the time specified
in either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
Accomplishment of the eddy current inspection terminates the
repetitive visual inspection requirements of paragraph (a) of this
AD.
(1) For airplanes on which the requirements of paragraph (a) of
this AD have been initiated: Perform the eddy current inspection
prior to the accumulation of 2,000 landings since the last
inspection performed in accordance with paragraph (a) of this AD, or
within 100 landings after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later.
(2) For airplanes other than those identified in paragraph
(b)(1) of this AD: Perform the eddy current inspection at the later
of the times specified in paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(ii):
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 14,100 total landings or 22,000
total flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs first; or
(ii) Within 100 landings after the effective date of this AD.
(c) If no crack is detected during the eddy current inspection
required by paragraph (b) of this AD, repeat the eddy current
inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 landings.
(d) If any crack is detected during any eddy current inspection
required by this AD, prior to further flight, repair it in
accordance with Airbus All Operators Telex 53/90/01, dated April 12,
1990, or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-283, Revision 2, dated
March 17, 1994. After accomplishing the repair, within 15,000
landings or 20,000 flight hours after repair, whichever occurs
first, modify the structure at frames 28A and 30A between stringers
27 and 30 (left- and right-hand), in accordance with Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-53-285, Revision 1, dated November 22, 1993.
Accomplishment of this reinforcement constitutes terminating action
for this AD.
(e) Except for airplanes on which the repair required by
paragraph (d) of this AD has been accomplished: Modify the structure
at frames 28A and 30A between stringers 27 and 30 (left- and right-
hand), in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-285,
Revision 1, dated November 22, 1993, at the later of the times
specified in paragraphs (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this AD. Accomplishment
of this modification constitutes terminating action for the eddy
current inspection requirements of paragraph (c) of this AD.
(1) Prior to the accumulation of 25,000 total landings or 40,000
total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
(2) Within 1,000 landings after the effective date of this AD.
(f) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(g) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 24, 1996.
S.R. Miller,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-10625 Filed 4-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10622 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100 and -200 Series Airplanes, and Model 747-100, -200, -300, and -SP Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 84 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18997-18999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10622]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-NM-36-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100 and -200 Series
Airplanes, and Model 747-100, -200, -300, and -SP Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 737 and 747
series airplanes. This proposal would require replacement of Waterman
hydraulic fuse assemblies with modified assemblies. This proposal is
prompted by reports of failure of hydraulic system A and the standby
system due to corrosion on the magnesium piston of the hydraulic fuse
and consequent failure of the fuse to close sufficiently to prevent the
loss of hydraulic fluid from the system. The actions specified by the
proposed AD are intended to prevent such failure of the fuse, which
could result in the failure of one or more hydraulic systems and
resultant reduced controllability of the airplane.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM-
[[Page 18998]]
36-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments
may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth W. Frey, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington;
telephone (206) 227-2673; fax (206) 227-1181.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 96-NM-36-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 96-NM-36-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The FAA received two reports indicating that the hydraulic system A
and the standby hydraulic system have failed on Model 737 series
airplanes during flight. During subsequent emergency landings, these
airplanes departed the end of the runway and sustained severe damage.
On one of these airplanes, both actuator attach lugs on the support
fittings of the No. 1 Krueger flap actuator were severed completely.
The actuator separated from the front spar, and the adjacent hydraulic
lines were severed. On another airplane, the No. 3 Krueger flap
actuator separated from the fitting, and the hydraulic lines to the
actuator were severed. Subsequently, the hydraulic fuse did not close
sufficiently to prevent the loss of hydraulic fluid from the system.
Results of a laboratory examination of the fuse indicated that
corrosion existed on the magnesium piston of the fuse, which
contributed to the failure of the fuse. Failure of the hydraulic fuse,
if not corrected, could result in the failure of one or more hydraulic
systems and, consequently, could result in reduced controllability of
the airplane.
Hydraulic fuses are installed to prevent failure of the hydraulic
system in the event of breakage of the hydraulic lines to leading edge
devices such as the actuators. These fuses also preserve the flight
control systems following a major failure such as an uncontained engine
failure, and minimize the fire hazard in the event of a hydraulic line
failure in the brake system. The FAA has determined that hydraulic
fuses having magnesium pistons are installed on Model 737-100 and -200
series airplanes as well as Model 747-100, -200, -300, and -SP series
airplanes. Therefore, the FAA finds that all of these airplane models
are subject to the unsafe condition identified in this proposal.
Explanation of Relevant Service Information
The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Service Letter 737-SL-29-
21, dated December 16, 1982 (for Model 737 series airplanes). This
service letter describes procedures for replacement of the existing
Waterman hydraulic fuse assemblies with modified assemblies having
pistons made from aluminum. Accomplishment of this replacement will
reduce the susceptibility of the piston to corrosion damage. The Boeing
service letter references Imperial Clevite, Inc., Service Bulletins
G838-80-4, G838-80-5, and G838-80-6, all dated April 15, 1982, as
additional sources of service information for accomplishment of the
replacement.
The FAA also has reviewed and approved Boeing Service Letter 747-
SL-32-19, dated January 16, 1980 (for Model 747 series airplanes). This
service letter describes procedures for an inspection of the existing
Waterman Type II hydraulic fuse assemblies for corrosion of the piston,
and replacement of Type II hydraulic fuse assemblies with improved Type
I fuse assemblies. Waterman Type II fuses require reverse flow to
reset, while Type I fuses have a manual reset lever. The improved fuses
are manufactured by Pneudraulics, Inc.
Explanation of Requirements of Proposed Rule
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would require replacement of Waterman hydraulic fuse
assemblies with modified assemblies. The actions would be required to
be accomplished in accordance with the service letters described
previously.
Affected operators of Model 737 series airplanes should note that,
although Boeing Service Letter 737-SL-29-21 recommends that subsequent
periodic tests of the modified fuses be accomplished, the FAA has not
included such a requirement in this proposed AD. The FAA has determined
that procedures required by operators' individual maintenance programs
will adequately address periodic inspections of the new fuse
assemblies.
The FAA is considering the issuance of a separate rulemaking action
to address fatigue and stress corrosion of the support fitting on the
Krueger flap actuator for Model 737-100 and -200 series airplanes. (The
Krueger flap actuator installed on Model 747 series airplanes has a
different part number from that installed on Model 737 series
airplanes.)
Cost Impact
There are approximately 1,145 Model 737 series airplanes and 727
Model 747 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide
fleet.
The FAA estimates that 421 Model 737 series airplanes of U.S.
registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take
approximately 16 work hours per airplane (8 fuses per airplane; 2 work
hours per fuse) to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts that are
modified by the vendor would be provided at no cost to operators. Based
on these figures, the cost impact of the
[[Page 18999]]
proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $404,160, or $960 per
airplane.
The FAA estimates that 208 Model 747 series airplanes of U.S.
registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take
approximately 48 work hours per airplane (24 fuses per airplane; 2 work
hours per fuse) to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts that are
modified by the vendor would be provided at no cost to operators. Based
on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators
is estimated to be $599,040, or $2,880 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements
of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions
in the future if this AD were not adopted.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Boeing: Docket 96-NM-36-AD.
Applicability: Model 737-100 and -200 series airplanes, as
identified in Boeing Service Letter 737-SL-29-21, dated December 16,
1982; and Model 747-100, -200, -300, and -SP series airplanes, as
identified in Boeing Service Letter 747-SL-32-19, dated January 16,
1980; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent failure of the hydraulic fuse, which could result in
the failure of one or more hydraulic systems and resultant reduced
controllability of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) For Model 737-100 and -200 series airplanes: Within 3,000
flight hours after the effective date of this AD, replace Waterman
hydraulic fuse assemblies, having Waterman part number (P/N) G838-8-
40, G838-8-60, or G838-8-160, with modified assemblies having P/N
G8381-8-40, G8381-8-60, or G8381-8-160, respectively; or with a
Pneudraulics fuse specified in Boeing Service Letter 737-SL-29-21,
dated December 16, 1982. Accomplish the replacement in accordance
with the service letter.
Note 2: The Boeing service letter references Imperial Clevite,
Inc., Service Bulletins G838-80-4, G838-80-5, and G838-80-6, all
dated April 15, 1982, as additional sources of service information
for accomplishment of the replacement.
(b) For Model 747-100, -200, -300, and -SP series airplanes:
Within 3,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
replace Waterman hydraulic fuse assemblies, having Waterman P/N
G905-120, with Pneudraulics assemblies having Pneudraulics P/N 6105,
in accordance with Boeing Service Letter 747-SL-32-19, dated January
16, 1980.
(c) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install
on any airplane Waterman hydraulic fuse assemblies having Waterman
P/N G838-8-40, G838-8-60, G838-8-160, or G905-120 on any airplane.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Seattle ACO.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 24, 1996.
S.R. Miller,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-10622 Filed 4-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10567 Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision; Ventura County Air Pollution Control District; Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Division; Placer County Air Pollution Control District
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 84 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 19004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10567]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA153-2-7274b; FRL-5459-4]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
California State Implementation Plan Revision; Ventura County Air
Pollution Control District; Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management Division; Placer County Air Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) which concern the control of oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) emissions from natural gas-fired central furnaces,
stationary internal combustion engines, and biomass boilers.
The intended effect of proposing approval of these rules is to
regulate emissions of NOx in accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). In the Final Rules
Section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving the state's SIP
revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no
adverse comments. A detailed rationale for this approval is set forth
in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in
response to this proposed rule, no further activity is contemplated in
relation to this rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by
May 30, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to:
Daniel A. Meer, Rulemaking Section (A-5-3), Air and Toxics Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Copies of the rules and EPA's evaluation report of each rule are
available for public inspection at EPA's Region 9 office during normal
business hours. Copies of the submitted rules are also available for
inspection at the following locations:
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Rule Development
Section, 669 County Square Drive, Ventura, CA 93003.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Rule
Development Section, 8411 Jackson Road, Sacramento, CA 95826.
Placer County Air Quality Management District, Rule Development, 11464
B. Avenue, Auburn, CA 95603.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy Colombo, Rulemaking Section (A-
5-3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, Telephone:
(415) 744-1202.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document concerns the following
district rules:
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD),
Rule 74.22, Natural Gas-Fired, Central Fan-Type Furnaces;
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
(SMAQMD), Rule 412, Stationary Internal Combustion Engines Located at
Major Stationary Sources; and
Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD),
Rule 233, Biomass Boilers.
The rules were submitted to EPA on February 11, 1994, June 16,
1995, and October 19, 1994, respectively, by the California Air
Resources Board. For further information, please see the information
provided in the Direct Final action which is located in the Rules
Section of this Federal Register.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: April 1, 1996.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-10567 Filed 4-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-W
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10564 Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, Placer County Air Pollution Control District, El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, and Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 84 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19004-19005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10564]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA-095-0006b; FRL-5455-1]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
California State Implementation Plan Revision, Placer County Air
Pollution Control District, El Dorado County Air Pollution Control
District, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Yolo-Solano
Air Quality Management District, and Mojave Desert Air Quality
Management District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) which concern the control of volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from organic solvent degreasing, surface
preparation and cleanup, motor vehicles and mobile equipment coating
operations, wood coating operations, and graphic arts.
The intended effect of proposing approval of these rules is to
regulate emissions of VOCs in accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). In the Final Rules
Section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving the state's SIP
revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and
anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for this approval
is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this proposed rule, no further activity is
contemplated
[[Page 19005]]
in relation to this rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by
May 30, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to:
Daniel A. Meer, Rulemaking Section (A-5-3), Air and Toxics Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Copies of the rule revisions and EPA's evaluation report of each
rule are available for public inspection at EPA's Region 9 office
during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rule revisions
are also available for inspection at the following locations:
Rulemaking Section (A-5-3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M'' Street
SW., Washington, D.C. 20460
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95812-2815
Placer County Air Pollution Control District, 11464 B Avenue, Auburn,
CA 95603
El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District, 2850 Fairlane Court,
Placerville, CA 95667
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square Drive,
Ventura, CA 93003
Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District, 1947 Galileo Court, Suite
103, Davis, CA 95616
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, 15428 Civic Drive, Suite
200, Victorville, CA 92392-2383
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel A. Meer, Chief Rulemaking
Section (A-5-3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
Telephone: (415)744-1185.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document concerns Placer County Air
Pollution Control District Rules 216, Organic Solvent Degreasing, and
El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District Rule 235, Surface
Preparation and Cleanup, submitted to EPA on October 13, 1995 by the
California Air Resources Board; Placer County Air Pollution Control
District Rule 236, Wood Products Coatings, submitted to EPA by the
California Air Resources Board on May 24, 1995; El Dorado County Air
Pollution Control District Rule 225, Organic Solvent Cleaning, and Rule
230, Automotive Refinishing, Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management
District Rule 2.13, Organic Solvents, and Mojave Desert Air Quality
Management District Rule 1104, Organic Solvent Cleaning, submitted to
EPA by the California Air Resources Board on November 30, 1994; Ventura
County Air Pollution Control District Rule 74.18, and Yolo-Solano Rule
2.26, Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations, submitted
to EPA by the California Air Resources Board on February 24, 1995;
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Rule 74.30, Wood Products
Coatings, and Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District Rule 1117,
Graphic Arts, submitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board on
July 13, 1994; and Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District Rule
1114, Wood Products Coatings, submitted to EPA by the California Air
Resources Board on March 31, 1995. For further information, please see
the information provided in the Direct Final action which is located in
the Rules Section of this Federal Register.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: March 26, 1996.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-10564 Filed 4-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-W
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10381 National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 84 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19005-19013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10381]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 59
[AD-FRL-5463-6]
RIN 2060-AE35
National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Automobile Refinish Coatings
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes standards to reduce emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) from the use of automobile refinish coatings.
The proposed standards are in the first phase of implementation of the
portion of the Clean Air Act (Act) that requires the Administrator to
control VOC emissions from certain categories of consumer and
commercial products.
Exposure to ozone is associated with a wide variety of human health
effects, agricultural crop loss, and damage to forests and ecosystems.
As required by section 183(e) of the Act, the Administrator conducted a
study to determine the potential of consumer and commercial products to
contribute to ozone levels that violate the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. Because the automobile refinish
coatings category is a significant source of VOC emissions, the EPA is
proposing standards to reduce emissions from this source.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before July 1, 1996.
Public Hearing. A public hearing will be held, if requested. If
anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by May
21, 1996, a public hearing will be held on May 30, 1996, beginning at
9:00 a.m.
Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral
testimony must contact Ms. Marguerite Thweatt at the EPA by May 21,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate) to:
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention:
Docket No. A-95-18, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street,
SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Public Hearing. Persons interested in attending the hearing should
notify Ms. Marguerite Thweatt, (919) 541-5607, to verify that a hearing
will occur and for notification of the location of the meeting.
Request to Speak at Hearing. To present oral testimony contact Ms.
Thweatt at the following address: Organic Chemicals Group (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5607, FAX number (919) 541-3470.
Docket. Docket No. A-95-18, containing supporting information used
in developing the proposed standards, is available for public
inspection and copying between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
Waterside Mall, Room M-1500, 1st Floor, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
DC 20460, telephone (202) 260-7548, FAX (202) 260-4400. The proposed
regulatory text and other materials related to this rulemaking are
available for review in the docket. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
Background Information Document. The background information
document (BID) supporting the proposed standards may be obtained from
the docket or
[[Page 19006]]
from the U.S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2777. Please refer to
``Automobile Refinish Coatings--Background Information for Proposed
Standards,'' EPA-453/D-95-005a.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the
proposed standards, contact Mr. Mark Morris at (919) 541-5416, Organic
Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulatory text of the proposed rule is
not included in this Federal Register notice, but is available in
Docket No. A-95-18 (see ADDRESSES for information about the docket).
The proposed regulatory language is also available on one of the EPA's
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) electronic bulletin boards. The TTN
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air
pollution control. The service is free, except for the cost of a phone
call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for up to a 14,400 bits per second (bps)
modem. If more information on the TTN is needed, call the help desk at
(919) 541-5384.
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Background
A. Clean Air Act Requirements
B. Legislative Authority
C. Regulatory Background
D. Supporting Documentation for the Proposed Standards
II. Summary of Proposed Standards
A. Applicability of the Standards
B. Regulated Entities
C. Standards
D. Compliance Requirements
E. Labeling Requirements
F. Reporting
G. Variance
H. Test Methods
III. Summary of Impacts
A. Environmental Impacts
B. Energy Impacts
C. Cost and Economic Impacts
D. Cost-Effectiveness
IV. Rationale
A. Applicability
B. Selection of BAC
C. Selection of Regulatory Format
D. Labeling Requirements
E. Selection of Reporting Requirements
F. Variance
G. Test Methods
H. Solicitation of Comments
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
B. Executive Order 12866
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
I. Background
A. Clean Air Act Requirements
Exposure to ground-level ozone is associated with a wide variety of
human health effects, agricultural crop loss, and damage to forests and
ecosystems. The most thoroughly studied health effects of exposure to
ozone at elevated levels during periods of moderate to strenuous
exercise are the impairment of normal functioning of the lungs,
symptomatic effects, and reduction in the ability to engage in
activities that require various levels of physical exertion. Typical
symptoms associated with acute (1 to 3 hour) exposure to ozone at
levels of 0.12 ppm or higher under heavy exercise or 0.16 ppm or higher
under moderate exercise include cough, chest pain, nausea, shortness of
breath, and throat irritation.
Ground-level ozone, which is a major component of ``smog,'' is
formed in the atmosphere by reactions of VOC and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) in the presence of sunlight. In order to reduce ground-level
ozone levels, emissions of VOC and NOX must be reduced.
Section 183(e) of the Act requires the Administrator to study and
report to Congress on emissions of VOC into the ambient air from
consumer and commercial products and their potential to contribute to
ozone nonattainment levels. In addition, section 183(e) requires the
Administrator to list those categories of consumer and commercial
products that account for at least 80 percent of the VOC emissions, on
a reactivity-adjusted basis, in ozone nonattainment areas and establish
priorities for their regulation. The list is to be divided into four
groups, with one group regulated every 2 years until all four groups
are regulated.
The EPA submitted the Report to Congress on March 15, 1995, and on
this same date established the priority list for future regulation of
the consumer and commercial products that account for 80 percent of VOC
emissions, on a reactivity-adjusted basis, in nonattainment areas
(published on March 23, 1995, at 56 FR 15264). Automobile refinish
coatings are in the first group of products to be regulated by March
1997. This listing and prioritization are not final Agency actions, and
EPA requests comment on the placement of automobile refinish coatings
on the list and the priority assigned to these coatings. Further
details about the study and the listing are available in the March 23,
1995, Federal Register.
B. Legislative Authority
Section 183(e) of the Act gives the EPA the authority to establish
national standards to reduce VOC emissions from automobile refinish
coatings. According to the Act, regulations developed under this
section shall require best available controls (BAC). Best available
controls are defined in section 183(e)(1)(A) as follows:
The term ``best available controls'' means the degree of
emissions reduction that the Administrator determines, on the basis
of technological and economic feasibility, health, environmental,
and energy impacts, is achievable through the application of the
most effective equipment, measures, processes, methods, systems, or
techniques, including chemical reformulation, product or feedstock
substitution, repackaging, and directions for use, consumption,
storage, or disposal.
Section IV.B describes the EPA's determination of BAC for the proposed
regulation.
The EPA could satisfy the requirements of section 183(e) by issuing
Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) instead of a national rule for
automobile refinish coatings.
Section 183(e)(3)(C) states:
For any consumer or commercial product the Administrator may
issue control techniques guidelines under this Act in lieu of
regulations required under subparagraph (A) if the administrator
determines that such guidance will be substantially as effective as
regulations in reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds
which contribute to ozone levels in areas which violate the national
ambient air quality standard for ozone.
In many cases, CTG's can be effective regulatory approaches to reduce
emissions of VOC in nonattainment areas--with the advantage of not
imposing control costs on attainment areas, where VOC emissions
reductions may be less beneficial. On the other hand, rules based on
CTG's may impose requirements and costs in nonattainment areas that are
beyond those of a national rule. For example, State automobile refinish
rules require recordkeeping by body shops, while the national rule does
not.
The EPA can also use other systems of regulation. According to
section 183(e)(4), EPA can consider ``any system or systems of
regulation as the Administrator deems appropriate, including
requirements for registration and labeling, self-monitoring and
reporting, prohibitions, limitations, or economic incentives (including
marketable permits and auctions of emissions rights) concerning the
manufacture, processing, distribution, use, consumption or disposal of
the
[[Page 19007]]
product.'' The EPA solicits comments on alternative approaches to
regulation in section IV.H.
C. Regulatory Background
Automobile refinish coatings are included under the definition of
consumer and commercial products since the definition under section
183(e) of the Act specifically includes paints, coatings, and solvents.
Section 183(e) of the Act requires that the first group of consumer and
commercial products (i.e., those with highest priority for regulation)
be regulated within 2 years after publication of the regulatory
schedule. As mentioned previously, automobile refinish coatings are in
the first group of consumer and commercial products to be regulated.
The regulation is required by March 1997. The criteria which contribute
to the prioritization of automobile refinish coatings in the first
group of consumer and commercial products to be regulated include the
availability of alternatives, the cost-effectiveness of controls, and
the VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment areas. Further details about
the criteria used to prioritize consumer and commercial product
categories for regulation are available in the Report to Congress.
Automobile refinish coating regulations are in place or under
development in a number of States. For the companies that market
automobile refinish coatings nationwide, trying to fulfill the
differing requirements of State rules has created administrative,
technical, and marketing problems. A Federal rule is expected to
provide some degree of consistency, predictability, and administrative
ease for the industry.
In addition, State representatives have recommended that the EPA
develop and implement nationwide Federal control measures to enhance
enforceability and conserve State resources.
D. Supporting Documentation for the Proposed Standards
The automobile refinish coating background information document
(BID) (EPA publication number EPA-453/D-95-005a) contains supporting
documentation for this proposal. It contains a product category
description, an industry profile, a discussion of control measures and
their associated costs, and a description of the expected emissions
reductions. Other supporting information for this proposed regulation
includes existing State regulations, meeting summaries, and the report
to Congress on consumer and commercial products. This information is
contained in the docket and is available to the public as described
above.
II. Summary of Proposed Standards
The proposed standards are summarized below. The rationale for the
regulatory decisions made in developing these standards is provided in
section IV.
A. Applicability of the Standards
The provisions of this proposed rule apply to automobile refinish
coatings that are manufactured or imported for sale or distribution in
the United States.
The proposed standards do not apply to the following automobile
refinish coatings:
(1) Coatings manufactured exclusively for sale outside the United
States;
(2) Coatings manufactured or imported before the compliance date of
the rule;
(3) Coatings manufactured for use by original equipment
manufacturers for assembly-line coating operations; and
(4) Coatings supplied in nonrefillable aerosol containers.
B. Regulated Entities
Regulated entities are defined under section 183(e) to include
manufacturers, processors, wholesale distributors, and importers. This
proposed rule limits the VOC contents of coatings manufactured or
imported for use in this country. Since the distribution of coatings
has no effect on whether compliant coatings are used, distributors are
not regulated entities under this proposed rule.
C. Standards
Coatings subject to this proposed rule shall comply with the VOC
content standards listed in table 1. If a coating is marketed under
more than one of the listed coating categories, the coating shall
comply with the lowest applicable VOC content standard.
Table 1.--VOC Content Standards for Automobile Refinish Coatings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coating Category VOC Contenta (grams/liter)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretreatment Wash Primer.................. 780
Primer/Primer Surfacer.................... 575
Primer Sealer............................. 550
Single/2 Stage Topcoats................... 600
Topcoats of 3 or more stages.............. 625
Specialty Coatingsb....................... 840
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aVOC content means the amount of VOC in a coating that has been prepared
for application according to the manufacturer's mixing instructions,
excluding water and exempt compounds.
bSpecialty coatings include adhesion promoters, anti-glare/safety
coatings, bright metal trim repair coatings, elastomeric materials,
impact-resistant coatings, rubberized asphaltic underbody coatings,
uniform finish blenders, and weld-through primers.
D. Compliance Requirements
The compliance date of the rule is 4 months after the promulgation
date of the rule.
E. Labeling Requirements
Containers of all subject coatings must bear labels or lids that
include the date of manufacture of the contents or a code indicating
the date of manufacture.
F. Reporting
Manufacturers and importers of coatings subject to the proposed
standards must file an initial report. The initial report must be
submitted by the compliance date or within 180 days after becoming
subject to the rule, whichever is later. The initial report must
include the following information:
(1) The name and mailing address of the manufacturer or importer.
(2) In cases where codes are used to represent the date of
manufacture, the manufacturer or importer shall submit an explanation
of each date code to the Administrator. An explanation of any new date
codes shall be filed with the Administrator no later than 30 days after
it is first introduced into commerce.
G. Variance
The proposed rule allows manufacturers and importers of automobile
refinish coatings to submit a written application to the Administrator
requesting a variance if, for reasons beyond their reasonable control,
they cannot comply with the requirements of the proposed rule. The
application must include the following information:
(1) The specific grounds for which the variance is sought;
(2) The proposed date(s) by which compliance with the provisions of
the rule will be achieved; and
(3) A compliance report reasonably detailing the method(s) by which
compliance will be achieved.
Upon receipt of the variance application, the Administrator will
hold a public hearing to determine whether, under what conditions, and
to what extent, a variance from the requirements of the proposed rule
is necessary and will be permitted.
The Administrator may grant a variance if the following criteria
are met:
(1) By complying with the proposed rule, the applicant would bear
unreasonable economic hardship;
(2) The public benefit of avoiding hardship to the applicant
outweighs the public interest in any increased emissions or air
contaminants that would result from issuing the variance; and
[[Page 19008]]
(3) The proposed compliance schedule can be reasonably implemented,
and compliance will be achieved as expeditiously as possible.
The approved variance order will designate a final compliance date
and a condition that specifies increments of progress necessary to
assure timely compliance. A variance shall end immediately upon the
failure (of the party to whom the variance was granted) to comply with
any term or condition of the variance.
H. Test Methods
For purposes of determining compliance with this rule, the VOC
content of each coating product manufactured or imported must be
determined using EPA's Reference Method 24--``Determination of Volatile
Matter Content, Water Content, Density, Volume Solids, and Weight
Solids of Surface Coatings,'' found in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
Analysis of waterborne coating VOC content determined by Reference
Method 24 must be adjusted as described in section 4.4 of Reference
Method 24.
The Administrator may approve, on a case-by-case basis, alternative
methods of determining the VOC content of coatings if they are
demonstrated to the Administrator's satisfaction to provide results
equivalent to those obtained using Reference Method 24.
III. Summary of Impacts
A. Environmental Impacts
This section will discuss the incremental increase or decrease in
air pollution, water pollution, and solid waste generation that would
result from implementing the proposed standards.
1. Air Pollution Impacts
The proposed standards would reduce nationwide emissions of VOC
from the use of automobile refinish coatings by an estimated 32,500 Mg
(35,800 tons) in 1996. These reductions are compared to 1995 baseline
emissions estimates. Since many regulated VOC species are also on the
list of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) in section 112 of the Act, the
proposed rule is expected to reduce some HAP emissions from the use of
automobile refinish coatings.
2. Water and Solid Waste
There are no adverse solid waste impacts anticipated from
compliance with this rule. It is not expected that the disposal of
coatings as solid waste will increase as a result of this rule. In
fact, because the compliant (higher solids) coatings are more
concentrated, fewer containers will require disposal when the same
volume of solids is applied.
In cases where conversion from solventborne to waterborne coatings
is the method used to achieve compliance, an increase in wastewater
discharge may occur if waste waterborne coatings are discharged to
publicly owned treatment works.
B. Energy Impacts
There are no adverse energy impacts anticipated from compliance
with this rule. Compliant coatings will not require different
application equipment and no add-on controls are required.
C. Cost and Economic Impacts
The total cost of this rule includes coating manufacturer process
modification costs, and costs for training coating manufacturer
representatives, distributors, and body shop personnel. The EPA
believes that coatings that meet the VOC content limits of this
proposed rule do not have longer drying times than conventional
coatings; therefore, the EPA has not included costs for lost
productivity in this rule. The EPA requests comments and data regarding
the drying times of coatings compliant with this proposed rule, and any
information that indicates that there may be costs due to losses in
productivity. The annual cost of this rule is 4.5 million dollars, or
about $140 per megagram of VOC emissions reductions.
If the manufacturer and distributor costs are completely passed on
as a coating price increase, the price of coatings is estimated to
increase less than 10 cents per gallon (less than 0.2 percent). If the
total cost of the rule is passed on as an increase in the price of a
refinish job, the price is estimated to increase less than 30 cents per
job (less than 0.05 percent).
D. Cost-Effectiveness
The EPA often compares the relative cost of different measures for
controlling a pollutant by calculating the ``cost-effectiveness'' of
the measures. Using EPA's traditional calculation methodology, the
cost-effectiveness of a regulation that applies nationwide is based on
a comparison of national costs and nationwide emission reductions. This
comparison is expressed as the cost per megagram (or ton) of emissions
reduced. Using cost and emission reduction figures presented earlier in
this section of the preamble, the nationwide cost-effectiveness of the
proposed regulation is $140/Mg ($130/ton).
Alternative ways to calculate a measure of the ``cost-
effectiveness'' of the regulation have been suggested by others. One
alternative would be to calculate cost-effectiveness on the basis of
the nationwide cost of the regulation ($4.5 million for the proposed
regulation) and the VOC reduction achieved in ozone nonattainment
areas. The stated rationale for this approach is that cost-
effectiveness measures should be designed in a way that best represents
the objective of the regulatory action. In this case, for example, a
major objective, though not the only objective, of these regulations is
the control of ozone formation in nonattainment areas. By establishing
nationwide standards, the cost of achieving emission reductions in
ozone nonattainment areas during the ozone seasons requires nationwide
expenditures during all seasons of the year, including expenditures
year-round in areas currently in attainment with the current standard.
These nationwide emission reductions--including emission reductions
outside of nonattainment areas and out of the ozone season--may or may
not contribute to efforts to limit ozone in nonattainment areas,
depending on whether they participate in ozone transport from one area
to another. One example of the application of this method is presented
in a December 21, 1993, draft Regulatory Impact Analysis developed by
the EPA's Office of Mobile Sources (OMS) in which control of emissions
from refueling of light duty vehicles (i.e., onboard refueling vapor
recovery, or ORVR) could viably be applied either nationwide or in
nonattainment areas alone. In this example, regional regulation
represented an important alternative to national regulation. The OMS
calculated cost-effectiveness using (1) nationwide costs and nationwide
emission reductions, as well as (2) nationwide costs and the emission
reductions achieved in nonattainment areas.
Emissions from automobile refinish coatings used in nonattainment
areas have been estimated. On a nonattainment area basis, the cost-
effectiveness of the proposed automobile refinish coatings rule would
be $300/Mg ($280/ton). A similar calculation could be done to account
for the seasonality of ozone formation.
While such an approach offers a measure of the cost of emission
reductions in nonattainment areas, EPA sees significant drawbacks to
this approach. First, cost-effectiveness figures would no longer
provide a consistent basis for comparison of the relative cost of
different control measures or regulations considered at different
points in time. Because the number and location of nonattainment areas
changes frequently, the initial
[[Page 19009]]
calculation of the cost-effectiveness of a rule would depend upon when
it was issued. The EPA believes it is important that cost-effectiveness
be calculated in a consistent manner that allows for valid comparisons.
Also, introducing new methodology would tend to make new control
measures appear superficially to be less cost-effective than measures
utilized in the past, simply because of a change in well-established
terminology.
Second, this alternative approach attributes all costs of the rule
to emission reductions achieved in nonattainment areas and no cost to
emission reductions achieved in attainment areas. By not including
emission reductions in attainment areas, the methodology assumes that
emission reductions in areas which attain the NAAQS for ozone have no
value. In fact, attainment areas often contribute to pollution problems
in nonattainment areas through the transport of emissions downwind.
Also, emission reductions in attainment areas help to maintain clean
air as the economy grows and new pollution sources come into existence.
Furthermore, measures to reduce emissions of VOC often reduce emissions
of toxic air pollutants.
Another alternative that has been suggested would be to calculate
not only the emission reductions but also the cost if the requirements
applied only in ozone nonattainment areas, perhaps through issuance of
a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG). The EPA has not estimated the
cost of using a CTG to regulate only those products sold for use in
ozone nonattainment areas.
The EPA is planning to review internally the generic question of
the alternative approach to measuring costs against emission
reductions. The results of this review are not available for
incorporation into this rulemaking. Therefore, the EPA requests
comments on the traditional and alternative methods discussed above to
characterize the cost-effectiveness of this and other Section 183(e)
regulations.
V. Rationale
The following sections explain the rationale for selecting the
proposed standards.
A. Applicability
This proposed rule applies to automobile refinish coatings that are
manufactured or imported for sale or distribution in the United States.
Coatings that are currently used for automobile refinishing are also
used outside the automobile refinish industry. In fact, some of these
coatings are not labeled specifically as automobile refinish coatings,
but are labeled generally as primers, basecoats, etc. This proposed
rule applies only to those coatings that are marketed as automobile
refinish coatings. Therefore, coating manufacturers define which of
their coatings are automobile refinish coatings by the way they market
them. All coatings marketed as automobile refinish coatings are subject
to this proposed rule; all other coatings are not.
Automobile refinish coatings were determined to be a significant
source of VOC emissions in nonattainment areas and were designated for
regulation under the authority of section 183(e) of the Act. The
proposed standards do not apply to some types of coatings. There are
exemptions for exported coatings, coatings manufactured or imported
before the compliance date, coatings that are sold in nonrefillable
aerosol containers, and coatings that are manufactured for use by
original equipment manufacturers (OEM's) for assembly-line coating
operations.
The purpose of section 183(e) of the Act is to control VOC
emissions that contribute to ozone nonattainment in the United States.
Because exported coatings do not contribute to VOC emissions in the
United States, and because EPA has no legal or factual basis to impose
VOC control measures outside the United States, coatings manufactured
for the explicit purpose of export, and which are in fact exported, are
exempt from the requirements of the proposed rule.
An exemption for coatings sold in nonrefillable aerosol containers
is included in the proposed rule because the EPA is developing a
separate VOC regulation for these coatings under section 183(e)
authority.
Coatings that are manufactured for use by OEM's for assembly-line
coating operations are exempt from this proposed rule because such
coatings are significantly different than refinish coatings; OEM's are
covered by standards promulgated under section 111 of the Act, and will
be covered by standards promulgated under section 112 of the Act.
Each coating manufacturer produces coating components, such as
hardeners, reducers, additives, etc., necessary for the preparation of
a ``ready-to-spray'' coating. Some coating manufacturers also produce
components for use in the coatings of other manufacturers; some
companies do not produce coatings at all, but produce only coating
components for use in the coatings of other manufacturers. Although
preparing a coating using only the components and suggested mixing
ratio of one manufacturer may yield a compliant coating, preparing a
coating with the components of several manufacturers may not. To be
effective, this proposed rule may need to apply to all coating
components; that is, if a coating component manufacturer suggests that
a coating component may be used for automobile refinishing, and if its
suggested use would result in the preparation of a noncompliant
coating, then the coating component manufacturer would be out of
compliance with the rule. Until recently the EPA was not aware of the
extent to which coating users combined the components of multiple
manufacturers. As a result, the EPA has not sufficiently examined how
to enforce this proposed rule if its applicability were expanded to
include all automobile refinish coating components, or the impacts that
the rule would have on the manufacturers who would become affected by
the rule if its applicability were expanded. The EPA has, therefore,
limited applicability to coating manufacturers in this proposed rule,
but is soliciting comments on whether to expand the applicability.
Based on information received during the comment period, the EPA may
expand the applicability in the promulgated rule.
The EPA is aware that the VOC content standards of this proposed
rule would likely prohibit the manufacture or import of lacquer
coatings. Lacquers are no longer used on new vehicles, and are mainly
used by antique car restorers; therefore, the demand for lacquers is
small and is likely to decrease. Although other coatings are compatible
with lacquers and may be used to refinish an existing lacquer finish,
some colors available in lacquer are not available in other coatings.
Since the production of lacquer topcoats is small and not likely to
increase, and since they may be necessary to fill a niche in automobile
refinishing, the EPA is considering exempting lacquer topcoats from the
proposed rule. Although lacquer topcoat use is not likely to increase,
an exemption would not prevent it. Therefore, the EPA is also
considering whether to include lacquer topcoats in the specialty
coating category (described in section IV.B.) and limit their
production to a small percentage of total automobile refinish coating
production. The EPA solicits comments on these issues in section IV.H.;
based on information received during the public comment period, the EPA
may, in the promulgated rule, either exempt lacquer topcoats, or
[[Page 19010]]
categorize them as specialty coatings and limit their production.
B. Selection of BAC
The primary factors considered in determining best available
controls (BAC) were technological and economic feasibility, and
environmental impacts. Other impacts, such as nonair environmental
impacts (solid waste and water) and energy impacts, are expected to be
minimal. Health impacts are expected to parallel environmental impacts
in terms of directional benefit (i.e., as environment improves, health
improves). The EPA relied on existing State and local automobile
refinish rules, coating product information, and input from the
automobile refinish industry to determine the availability and
technological and economic feasibility of coatings.
The BAC selection process involves both the selection of coating
categories and the determination of VOC content limits for those
categories. These components are linked in a determination of what
degree of emissions reduction represents BAC. Decisions to subdivide a
given category into more specific ``subcategories'' can be a direct
consequence of the VOC content levels under consideration. For example,
pretreatment wash primers etch bare metal surfaces to provide adhesion
of the coating to the metal. According to coating product information
there are no pretreatment wash primers that have VOC content levels as
low as other primers. Therefore, a subcategory was created for this
primer, along with a VOC content level different from the general
primer category. Similarly, a subcategory was created for topcoats of
three (or more) stages because coating information indicates that there
are no such coatings with VOC content levels as low as those of other
topcoats.
``Specialty coatings'' that serve specific functions and that
either do not belong in other coating categories or are not available
at the VOC content limits of those categories are included in a
separate category. This category includes coatings that are designed
for a specific use, and coatings of other categories that are modified
by changing the components of the coating. In this proposed rule, all
coatings that the EPA considers specialty coatings are defined. It may
not be possible to determine all of the specialty coatings that may be
needed in the future as new OEM coatings are developed; therefore, an
open-ended definition of specialty coatings is desirable. However, such
a definition could be abused by simply renaming existing coatings as
specialty coatings. Even with a closed definition, the specialty
coating category may have undesirable effects. For example, an
elastomeric coating is a specialty coating. Some flexible topcoats,
which are considered elastomeric coatings, are prepared simply by
adding a flexible hardener in place of the normal hardener. In this
case, the specialty coating category would allow topcoats to be used
that exceed the VOC content standard for topcoats.
Limiting the production of specialty coatings to a small percentage
of total automobile refinish coating production may be effective in
minimizing the problems associated with this category. However, as
mentioned above, some specialty coatings are just modifications of
other coatings, and it is unclear what the EPA would be limiting.
Limiting specialty coating production to a percentage of total
production would adversely affect manufacturers that are mainly in the
specialty coating business. The EPA is considering limiting the
production of specialty coatings, and is soliciting comments on how to
determine such limits and how they can be made enforceable. Based on
information received during the public comment period, the EPA may
include specialty coating production limits in the promulgated rule.
The process of determining BAC began with the examination of State
and local automobile refinish rules. The EPA focused on existing
coating categories and their associated VOC standards in State and
local rules to determine which categories and VOC content limits might
constitute the degree of emissions reduction that represents BAC.
Specifically, California rules were analyzed because California has
been regulating automobile refinish coatings for several years and
generally has the most stringent VOC standards in the country.
The VOC limits of California rules are typically met with
waterborne coatings. Coating manufacturers have stated that they would
need to modify their production facilities to supply the entire country
with waterborne coatings. Such modifications reportedly include the
replacement of carbon steel equipment with corrosion-resistant
materials. Although not usually necessary in the relatively dry climate
of California, in some geographic areas of the country waterborne
coatings would likely require forced drying with supplemental heating
equipment (such as heated spray booths or infrared heating lamps)
because of their longer drying times.
In geographic areas without existing automobile refinish rules,
solventborne coatings are typically used that have relatively high VOC
content levels; these coatings are sometimes referred to as
``conventional'' coatings. Conventional coatings are typically fast-
drying and, therefore, do not need to be force-dried. There is not a
continuous spectrum of coating VOC content levels; coatings with the
lowest VOC content levels (such as waterborne coatings) were developed
to comply with State and local rules. Conventional coatings (that have
the highest VOC content levels) were developed to satisfy the demand
for fast-drying coatings that are easy to use. However, between these
extremes there exist coatings that have VOC content levels that are
lower than those of conventional coatings, that are not significantly
harder to use or slower to dry than conventional coatings, and that do
not require the forced drying or extensive coating manufacturer process
modifications of the coatings with the lowest VOC content levels. The
VOC content limits that are being proposed as BAC in this proposed rule
are based on such ``medium-solids'' coatings.
The EPA considered proposing a VOC content standard of 550 grams
per liter for primers and primer surfacers. Coating product information
indicates that coatings at this level are available. However, primers
at this level are not tintable according to the information available
to the EPA. Tintable primers are available with a VOC content of 575
grams per liter. When tintable primers are used, less topcoat needs to
be applied because the tint of the primer assists in achieving the
final color desired. Since less topcoat is used when tintable primers
are used, and since the VOC content of topcoats are generally higher
than 550 grams per liter, VOC emissions reductions are expected to be
equal or greater when tintable primers are used. The EPA is therefore
proposing a 575 grams per liter standard for primers and primer
surfacers. Comments on the proposed standard for primers and primer
surfacers are solicited in section IV.H.
Since most of the nation uses conventional coatings, these coatings
provide a reference point from which to assess technological and
economic feasibility. The emissions reductions and cost impacts of
regulatory alternatives considered by the EPA are given in table 2.
[[Page 19011]]
Table 2.--Impacts of Regulatory Alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions Capital Annual Cost Incremental cost
Regulatory alternative reductions * costs 10 costs 10 effectiveness $/ effectiveness $/
Mg/yr \6\ $ \6\ $ Mg Mg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAC................................... 32,500 32 5 140 ................
Beyond BAC............................ 36,800 240 34 930 6900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Baseline emissions are 88,500 Mg/yr.
As previously mentioned, medium-solids coatings do not need to be
force-dried, and the process modifications of coating manufacturing
facilities necessary to produce such coatings nationwide are less
extensive than those needed to produce waterborne coatings. The capital
cost associated with the use of medium-solids coatings is about 4.5
million dollars; about 60% of the cost is for the training of coating
manufacturer and distributor representatives and shop personnel in the
use of lower-VOC coatings. The cost effectiveness of using medium-
solids coatings is about $140 per megagram; the incremental emissions
reductions that would be achieved by going beyond (or lower than) the
VOC content limits of medium-solids coatings would cost about $6900 per
megagram. Most of this cost (60%) is from the purchase by body shops of
additional heating equipment necessary to speed the drying of the
coatings to avoid losses in productivity. Because of these high
incremental costs, the EPA selected the VOC content limits in Table 1
as BAC.
C. Selection of Regulatory Format
In contrast to traditionally regulated stationary sources that emit
VOC at a specific fixed location (e.g., a manufacturing plant), VOC
from automobile refinish coatings are emitted wherever the products are
used. For this reason, regulating at the manufacturer and importer
level is the most efficient and least burdensome method of regulating
the VOC content of coatings, and would ultimately impact the VOC
content of automobile refinish coatings at the distributor and end user
level.
The framework EPA chose to implement BAC is VOC content standards.
Coatings manufactured or imported on or after the effective date must
comply with the VOC content standards. The EPA will continue to gather
data with which to evaluate the potential for further emissions
reductions or alternate frameworks for implementing BAC such as
economic incentive-type approaches.
D. Labeling Requirements
The proposed regulation requires that containers for all subject
coatings display on the label or lid the date of manufacture or a code
indicating the date of manufacture. This information allows enforcement
personnel to determine whether a coating was manufactured before or
after the compliance date.
E. Selection of Reporting Requirements
The EPA evaluated what reported information would be sufficient to
ensure compliance with VOC standards within the proposed rule. The
reporting requirements proposed are necessary to allow determination of
compliance, and the EPA believes they do not represent an undue burden
on manufacturers or importers of automobile refinish coatings.
Compliance with this rule will be determined by periodic random testing
(EPA Reference Method 24, described below). Therefore, beyond the
initial report, which serves to identify all manufacturers and
importers of automobile refinish coatings, there are no reporting
provisions in this rule (except for reports explaining any new date
codes and for variances).
F. Variance
The proposed rule includes a variance provision whereby
manufacturers and importers of subject automobile refinish coatings may
apply to the Administrator for a temporary variance from compliance
with the standards. A variance will be granted if the applicant
demonstrates that compliance would result in economic hardship, and
that granting the variance would better serve the public interest than
would requiring continuous compliance under the conditions of economic
hardship. The EPA intends for this provision to allow manufacturers and
importers some flexibility in responding to unforeseen circumstances
that may cause additional, unanticipated compliance burden. The EPA
recognizes that certain interruptions in the availability of raw
materials and or manufacturing processes may affect the manufacturer's
or importer's ability to continuously comply with the standards. In
particular, the EPA anticipates that this variance provision will help
to mitigate impacts to small manufacturers. Small manufacturers are
likely to have fewer research and development resources, and,
therefore, will benefit from the allowed variance.
G. Test Methods
Under the proposed provisions, compliance with the VOC content
standards is based on the EPA's Reference Method 24. This test method
represents the EPA's approved protocol for determining the VOC content
of coatings and is EPA's standard test method for determining the VOC
content of coatings.
Standard language allowing use of alternative methods of
determining VOC content subject to the Administrator's approval is also
included in the proposed rule.
H. Solicitation of Comments
The Administrator welcomes comments from interested persons on any
aspect of the proposed rule, and on any statement in the preamble or
the referenced supporting documents. The proposed rule was developed on
the basis of information available to the EPA. The Administrator is
specifically requesting factual information that may support either the
approach taken in the proposed standards or an alternate approach.
The EPA is requesting specific comments and data on several aspects
of the proposed rule: (1) Alternative approaches to regulation; (2)
expanding the applicability of the rule to include all automobile
refinish coating components; (3) limiting production of lacquer
topcoats, or exempting lacquer topcoats from the rule; (4) determining
and enforcing specialty coating production limits; and (5) the
technical and economic feasibility of VOC content levels that are
higher or lower than the 575 grams/liter standard for primers and
primer surfacers.
The EPA anticipates promulgating this rule on an expedited
schedule. This will benefit States for which VOC reductions from
automobile refinish coating are critical to their 15 percent rate-of-
progress plans, and help minimize the patchwork of individual State
automobile refinish coating rules across the country.
[[Page 19012]]
Comments submitted to the Administrator should contain specific
proposals and supporting data to allow the EPA to fully evaluate the
comments. Recommended changes to any of the VOC content standards
presented in this proposal should include sufficient information for
the EPA to evaluate the technological and economic feasibility
associated with such changes. Applicable dates and addresses for the
submission of comments are included at the beginning of this preamble.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held, if requested, to provide opportunity
for interested persons to make oral presentations regarding the
proposed regulation in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Act.
Persons wishing to make oral presentation on the proposed regulation
for automobile refinish coatings should contact the EPA at the address
given in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Oral presentations
will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the public may file a
written statement before, during, or within 30 days after the hearing.
Written statements should be addressed to the Air Docket Section at the
address given in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble and should
refer to Docket No. A-95-18.
A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written statements will be
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours at
the EPA's Air Docket Section in Washington, DC (see ADDRESSES section
of the preamble).
B. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, the Agency must determine whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive
Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that
is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of the Executive Order, the OMB has notified
the EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action''
within the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA submitted this
action to the OMB for review. Any written comments from the OMB to the
EPA and any written EPA response to those comments will be included in
Docket No. A-95-18, listed at the beginning of this notice under
ADDRESSES.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. __) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE
Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2136); 401 M Street, S.W.; Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202)
260-2740.
Pursuant to Section 183(e) of the Act, the proposed rule regulates
VOC emissions from automobile refinish coatings. The only information
collection requirements of the proposed rule are for labeling and
reporting. To determine whether a coating is manufactured before or
after the compliance date of the rule, the date of manufacture, or code
representing the date, must appear on the coating container. Coating
manufacturers currently include this information on coating containers.
The proposed rule requires all coating manufacturers to submit an
initial report containing their name and mailing address, and an
explanation of coating date codes, if codes are used to represent the
date of coating manufacture. Reporting beyond the initial report is
required only for the explanation of any new date codes used by coating
manufacturers, and for requests for variances. The information to be
reported is not of a sensitive nature.
The EPA estimated the cost and hour burden of the information
collection requirements of the proposed rule. Burden means the total
time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
The initial report must be submitted by all coating manufacturers.
Averaged over a 3 year period, EPA estimates that the initial report
will require 8 hours to complete, and will be submitted by 10
respondents annually. Beyond the initial report, EPA estimates that 3
respondents per year will spend 2 hours each reporting the explanations
of any new date codes used. The total annual cost of the reporting
requirements of the proposed rule is $3,200.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information,
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the
Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2136); 401 M St., S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20460; and
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503,
marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in
any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning
the ICR between 30 and 60 days after April 30, 1996, a comment to OMB
is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by May 30,
1996. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires EPA
to consider potential impacts of proposed regulations on small business
``entities.'' A regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) is required if
preliminary analysis indicates ``a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.''
[[Page 19013]]
Shops in the autobody refinish industry are classified as small by
the U.S. Small Business Administration if the entity that owns the shop
has total sales of less than $3.5 million. Most individual shops are
small by this criterion if the owning entity has no other sales from
other shops. Therefore, an RFA was performed and is contained in the
docket for this proposed rule. Information on the size of manufacturers
and distributors impacted by this rule is not available, but some small
entities among manufacturers and distributors may also be affected.
Several industry trade associations, including the Automotive
Service Association (ASA) that represents body shops, and the
Automotive Service Industry Association (ASIA) that represents coating
distributors, have submitted comments and provided information during
the development of the national rule. Most of the members of these
associations are small businesses. The main concerns of these
associations deal with recordkeeping and VOC content limits. Some
members of ASA are already subject to State rules that contain VOC
content limits and recordkeeping at the body shop. The drying times of
some coatings compliant with State rules are significantly longer than
those of conventional coatings, which can result in losses in body shop
productivity. Some shops report that the recordkeeping required under
some rules is burdensome and time consuming.
The proposed national rule applies to automobile refinish coating
manufacturers and importers only, not to body shops or any other users
of the coatings. After the national rule is effective, only compliant
coatings will be available for purchase by coating users in this
country. Since the purpose of most State recordkeeping requirements is
to demonstrate that body shops are using compliant coatings, some
States may decide to remove such requirements from their rules after
the national rule is effective.
Coatings compliant with the proposed rule do not take significantly
longer to dry than conventional coatings; therefore, small shops will
be able to apply compliant coatings without purchasing additional
equipment.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded
Mandates Act'') (signed into law on March 22, 1995) requires that the
Agency prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed
or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
Section 203 requires the Agency to establish a plan for obtaining input
from and informing, educating, and advising any small governments that
may be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Agency must
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
before promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must
be prepared. The Agency must select from those alternatives the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Agency explains why
this alternative is not selected or the selection of this alternative
is inconsistent with law.
Because the proposed rule is estimated to result in expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of less than
$100 million in any one year, the Agency has not prepared a budgetary
impact statement or specifically addressed the selection of the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative. Because
small governments will not be significantly or uniquely affected by
this rule, the Agency is not required to develop a plan with regard to
small governments.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 59
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Automobile
refinish coatings, Consumer and commercial products, Ozone, Volatile
organic compound.
Dated: April 19, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-10381 Filed 4-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-10172 Telecommunications Act of 1996
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 84 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19013-19020]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10172]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[CS Docket No. 96-85, FCC 96-154]
Telecommunications Act of 1996
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission has adopted an Order and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking regarding implementation of the Cable Act reform provisions
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (``1996 Act''). The Order segment
of this action may be found elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM'') solicits
comment on several issues arising from the enactment of the 1996 Act.
This NPRM solicits comment regarding possible revisions to the interim
final rules established in the companion Order and requests comment on
other issues critical to the 1996 Act's implementation. The intended
effect of this action is to develop rules that fully implement the
mandates of the 1996 Act with regard to cable television.
DATES: Comments filed in response to this NPRM must be filed by May 28,
1996. Reply Comments are due June 28, 1996. Written comments by the
public on the proposed and/or modified information collections are due
on or before May 28, 1996. Written comments must be submitted by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified
information collections on or before July 1, 1996.
ADDRESSES: An original and six copies of comments and reply comments
should be sent to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, 1919 M Street, NW., Room 222, Washington, DC 20554, with a
copy to Nancy Stevenson of the Cable Services Bureau, 2033 M Street,
NW., Room 408A, Washington, DC 20554. Parties should also file one copy
of any documents filed in this docket with the Commission's copy
contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street,
NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037. Comments and reply comments will
be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the
FCC Reference Center, 1919 M Street, NW., Room 239, Washington, DC
20554.
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
comments on the information collections contained herein should be
submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications Commission, Room
234, 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20054, or via the Internet to
[email protected], and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB,
725-17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Power, Paul Glenchur, or Nancy
Stevenson, Cable Services Bureau, (202) 416-0800. For additional
information concerning the information collections contained in this
NPRM contact Dorothy Conway at 202-418-0217, or via the Internet at
[email protected].
[[Page 19014]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of a Commission Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in CS Docket No. 96-85, FCC-154, adopted April 5,
1996 and released April 9, 1996. The complete text of this document is
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Center, 1919 M St., NW., Washington, DC, and also may
be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Services, Inc. at (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW.,
Suite 140, Washington, DC 20017.
This NPRM contains either proposed or modified information
collections. The Commission has obtained Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') approval, under the emergency processing provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (5 CFR 1320.13), of the information
collections contained herein. OMB approval is effective no later than
the date that the summary for the NPRM appears in the Federal Register.
The OMB control number for information collections contained in this
rulemaking is 3060-0706. Emergency OMB approval for the information
collections expires July 31, 1996. The Commission, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens and to obtain regular OMB
approval of the information collections, invites the general public and
OMB to comment on the information collections contained herein, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Public and agency
comments are due at the same time as other comments on this Order and
NPRM; OMB notification of action is due 60 days after publication of
the NPRM in the Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) Whether
the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the
information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on the
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
OMB Approval Number: 3060-0549.
Title: FCC Form 329 Cable Programming Service Rate Complaint Form,
76.950 Complaints regarding cable programming service rates and 76.1402
CPST rate complaints.
Form No.: FCC Form 329.
Type of Review: Revision of existing collection.
Respondents: State, local and tribal governments; individuals.
Number of Respondents: 1,600.
Estimated Time Per Response: 45 minutes.
Total Annual Burden: 1,200 hours.
Estimated costs per respondent: $1,600. $1 per response for postage
and stationery costs.
Needs and Uses: FCC Form 329 will be used by local franchise
authorities to file cable programming service tier rate complaints,
upon receipt of more than one subscriber complaint about such rates.
OMB Approval Number: 3060-0652.
Title: 76.309 Customer service obligations and 76.964 Notice to
subscribers.
Type of Review: Revision of existing collection.
Respondents: Businesses and other for profit entities.
Number of Respondents: 12,000.
Estimated Time Per Response: 2.91 hours.
Total Annual Burden: 34,917 hours.
Estimated costs per respondent: None.
Needs and Uses: This information collection accounts for the
notifications requirements found in 76.309 and 76.964. Cable operators
are no longer required to provide prior notice to subscribers of any
rate change that is the result of a regulatory fee, franchise fee, tax
assessment, or charge of any kind imposed by any Federal agency, State,
or franchise authority. Eliminating this requirement reduces annual
notification burdens imposed on operators by 30 minutes per operator,
for an aggregate reduction of 6,000 hours. 12,000 systems x .30
minutes=6,000.
OMB Approval Number: 3060-0551.
Title: 76.1002 Specific unfair practices prohibited.
Type of Review: Revision of existing collection.
Respondents: Businesses and other for profit entities.
Number of Respondents: 52 (26 proceedings x 2 parties).
Estimated Time Per Response: Each proceeding has an average burden
of 25 hours. 50% of respondents undergo a burden of 1 hour to instead
coordinate information with outside legal assistance.
Total Annual Burden: 676 hours. (26 x 25 hours) + (26 x 1 hour).
Estimated costs for respondents: 50% of respondents will use
outside legal assistance paid at $150 per hour. 26 x 25 hours per
proceeding x $150 per hour=$97,500.
Needs and Uses: The information is used by the Commission to
determine on a case-by-case basis whether particular exclusive
contracts for cable television programming are in compliance with the
statutory public interest standard of Section 628(c)(2)(D) of the
Communications Act of 1934.
OMB Approval Number: 3060-0552.
Title: 76.1003 Adjudicatory proceedings.
Type of Review: Revision of existing collection.
Respondents: Businesses and other for profit.
Number of Respondents: 24 (12 proceedings x 2 parties).
Estimated Time Per Response: Each proceeding has an average burden
of 20 hours. 50% of respondents undergo a burden of 1 hour to instead
coordinate information with outside legal assistance.
Total Annual Burden: 252 hours. (12 x 20)+(12 x 1).
Estimated costs per respondent: 50% of respondents will use outside
legal assistance paid at $150 hour. 12 x 20 hours per proceeding x $150
per hour=$36,000.
Needs and Uses: Information contained in the proceedings is used by
the Commission to resolve disputes alleging unfair methods of
competition and deceptive practices where the purpose or effect of
which is to hinder significantly or to prevent any multichannel video
programming distributor from providing satellite cable programming or
satellite broadcast programming to consumers.
OMB Approval Number: 3060-0706.
Title: 76.1401 Effective competition and local exchange carriers,
76.1403 Small cable operators, and 76.1404 Use of cable facilities by
local exchange carriers.
Type of Review: New collection.
Respondents: Businesses and other for profit entities; state, local
and tribal governments.
Number of Respondents: 300 petitions for determination of effective
competition; 400 requests for certification of small cable operator
status; 50 contract submissions.
Estimated Time Per Response: Petitions for determination of
effective competition have an average burden of 20 hours. However, 75%
of respondents (225) will undergo a burden of 1 hour instead to
coordinate information with outside legal assistance. Requests for
certification of small cable operator status have an average burden of
2 hours. However, 25% of respondents (100) will undergo a burden of 1
hour instead to coordinate information with outside legal assistance.
LFAs will then undergo an average burden of 3 hours to review each
request. Sending copies of contracts pertaining to use of cable
facilities by local exchange carriers
[[Page 19015]]
along with explanations of how such contract is reasonably limited in
scope and duration has an average burden of 1 hour.
Total Annual Burden: 3,675 hours. (75 x 20 hours)+(225 x 1
hour)+(300 x 2 hours)+(400 x 3 hours)+(100 x 1 hour)+(50 x 1 hour).
Estimated costs for respondents: $705,750. Outside legal assistance
used to file petitions for determination of effective competition and
requests for certification of small operator status will be paid at
$150 per hour. 225 petitions x 20 hours x $150 per hour=$675,000. 300
petitions x $1 for postage and stationery=$300. 100 requests for
certification x 2 hours x $150 per hour=$30,000. 400 requests for
certification x $1 for postage and stationery=$400. 50 contract
submissions x $1 for postage and stationery=$50.
Needs and Uses: Information collected in petitions for
determination of effective competition will be used by the Commission
to make such determinations for operators. Information collected in
requests for certification of small operator status will be used by
franchise authorities to make such determinations of small operator
status. Information collected in contract submissions will be used by
the Commission to determine whether the local exchange carrier's use of
the transmission facilities is limited in scope and duration.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. In this NPRM, we propose final rules implementing certain
provisions of the 1996 Act. We seek to adopt clear rules streamlining
our processes, establishing certainty for cable operators, Local
Franchise Authorities (``LFAs'') and subscribers, and effectuating the
intent of Congress. A number of the issues discussed below are also the
subject of a related Order. In commenting on such issues, parties
should consider the discussion and treatment of them in the Order.
A. Effective Competition
1. Generally
2. The new test for effective competition requires that the LEC-
delivered programming be ``comparable'' to that of the cable operator.
The Conference Report to the 1996 Act, H.R. Rept. 104-458, states that
video programming services are comparable if they ``include access to
at least 12 channels of programming, at least some of which are
television broadcasting signals.'' We tentatively conclude that this
definition of comparable programming should be adopted. We note that
after defining ``comparable'' in this manner, the Conference Report
cites Section 76.905(g) of our rules which in fact has a slightly
different definition of comparable. The rule defines ``comparable'' as
meaning a minimum of 12 channels of programming, ``including at least
one channel of nonbroadcast service programming.'' Commenters should
consider this factor in addressing the meaning of ``comparable''
programming for purposes of the new test for effective competition.
3. In light of our tentative conclusion that ``comparable
programming'' requires access to broadcast channels, commenters should
address whether this could include satellite-delivered broadcast
channels (e.g., ``superstations''). In the same context, commenters
should address whether a multichannel multipoint distribution service
(``MMDS'') subscriber should be deemed a recipient of ``comparable
programming'' if the broadcast stations are received by way of an over-
the-air antenna located at the subscriber's residence, rather than as
part of the MMDS operator's microwave signals. Would it matter if the
antenna was provided by the subscriber as opposed to the MMDS operator?
We believe that a single definition of ``comparable programming''
should apply to both prongs of the effective competition test in which
that term is used. Commenters who disagree with this conclusion should
provide a justification for having a different definition of comparable
programming in different prongs of the effective competition test.
4. We tentatively conclude that the new test for effective
competition applies with equal force regardless of whether the LEC or
its affiliate is merely the video service provider, as opposed to the
licensee or owner of the facilities. We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion. Further, we seek comment as to whether the type of service
provided by, or over the facilities of, the LEC or its affiliate should
be relevant. For example, we seek comment as to whether satellite
master antenna television (``SMATV'') systems constitute direct-to-home
satellite services and hence do not fall within the class of video
providers that can be a source of effective competition under the new
test.
5. We seek comment on whether we should follow the standards
adopted in the companion Order for purposes of the permanent rule by
which cable operators may show that the competing MVPD is offering
service in the franchise area. We note that the new definition of
effective competition, unlike the other three effective competition
tests, does not include a percentage of homes passed or a specific
penetration rate. We seek comment as to whether Congress intended
effective competition to be found if a LEC's, or its affiliate's,
service was offered to subscribers in any portion of the franchise
area, or whether the competitor's service must be offered to some
larger portion of the franchise area to constitute effective
competition. In addressing this issue, commenters should consider what
level of competition provided by a LEC or its affiliate is sufficient
to have a restraining effect on cable rates. Commenters also should
address the likelihood that an incumbent cable operator's response to
the presence of a competitor may depend not just upon the current pass
rate of the competitor, but also on its potential pass rate. That is, a
LEC that offers service to 5% of the residents in a franchise area and
that, due to technical constraints, will never exceed this reach would
seem to pose less of a competitive threat than a LEC with a 5% pass
rate that eventually will be able to offer service throughout the
franchise area. We seek comment as to whether to take account of this
factor in implementing the new test for effective competition.
6. In the companion Order, we have adopted interim filing
procedures by which regulated operators may seek to establish the
presence of effective competition under the new statutory test. We
tentatively conclude that we should adopt these procedures as a final
rule and conform our existing procedures accordingly, such that all
tests for effective competition would be determined in a uniform
manner. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
2. Definition of ``Affiliate''
7. With respect to the definition of ``affiliate'' for purposes of
the new prong of the effective competition test, we note that the 1996
Act does not specifically alter the following definition of
``affiliate'' which remains applicable for purposes of cable regulation
under Title VI of the Communications Act, Sec. 602(2):
The term ``affiliate,'' when used in relation to any person, means
another person who owns or controls, is owned or controlled by, or is
under common ownership or control with, such person;
8. Although this definition remains unchanged, the following
definition of ``affiliate'' is now found in Title I as a result of the
enactment of the 1996 Act:
[[Page 19016]]
The term ``affiliate'' means a person that (directly or indirectly)
owns or controls, is owned or controlled by, or is under common
ownership or control with, another person. For purposes of this
paragraph, the term ``own'' means to own an equity interest (or the
equivalent thereof) of more than 10 percent.
9. As engrafted into Sec. 3 of the Communications Act, this
definition of ``affiliate'' now applies ``[f]or purposes of this
[Communications] Act, unless the context otherwise requires * * * .''
Commenters should address whether, for purposes of the new effective
competition test, ``the context * * * require[s]'' a definition of
``affiliate'' other than the one now contained in Title I.
10. We tentatively conclude that the Title I definition of
``affiliate'' should be adopted for purposes of the new effective
competition test. While we do not believe that Congress mandated the
use of this definition for purposes of Title VI, incorporating the
Title I definition for purposes of Title VI is not inconsistent with
Congressional intent and would create some uniformity throughout the
Commission's rules. We also tentatively conclude that both passive and
active ownership interests are attributable and seek comment
accordingly. We also seek comment on whether a beneficial interest in a
cable operator would be ``equivalent'' to an equity interest under this
proposed definition of ``affiliate'' and, if so, how ``beneficial
interest'' should be defined. Commenters should address whether the
affiliation standard has to be met by a single LEC or whether the
interests of more than one LEC can be aggregated.
B. CPST Rate Complaints
11. Here we propose to adopt the interim rules regarding the filing
of rate complaints by LFAs, adopted in the Companion Order, as final
rules and solicit comment accordingly.
12. In addition to addressing the interim procedures, parties
should comment on whether we should establish a deadline by which LFA
complaints must be filed. Although Section 301(b)(1)(C) permits the LFA
to file a CPST rate complaint with the Commission only if the LFA has
received subscriber complaints within 90 days of a CPST rate increase,
it specifies no deadline for the LFA complaint. Commenters should
propose possible deadlines, taking into account the steps that a LFA
may be required to undertake following the close of the 90-day window
on subscriber complaints in order to file its own complaint with the
Commission. Finally, because Section 301(b)(1)(C) alters the rate
complaint process, we propose eliminating the requirement contained in
Section 76.952 of our rules that operators must include the name,
mailing address, and telephone number of the Cable Services Bureau of
the Commission on monthly subscriber bills.
C. Small Cable Operators
1. National Subscriber Count
13. Here we propose specific rules to clarify implementation of
Section 301(c) which provides for greater deregulation of small cable
operators. We first must determine the method by which we will
establish the total number of cable subscribers in the United States,
since only operators serving fewer than 1% of all subscribers qualify
as small cable operators. We propose to establish such a number on an
annual basis and to have that number serve as the applicable threshold
until a new number is calculated the following year. While the number
of subscribers varies daily, we tentatively conclude that fixing a
number on an annual basis will produce certainty and reduce
administrative burdens for operators, LFAs, and the Commission.
Commenters should address these tentative conclusions and propose any
reasonable alternatives.
14. As noted, the method we select to count the total number of
subscribers should minimize administrative burdens as well as ensure a
subscriber count that is as accurate and reliable as is reasonably
possible. We are aware that industry groups, trade journals, and other
private concerns already attempt to track subscriber figures. We
tentatively conclude that using the most reliable of these figures, or
perhaps some average of these figures, would best further our goals. We
solicit comment on this tentative conclusion and on what data would be
the most reliable for this purpose.
2. Definition of ``Affiliate''
15. In addition, we seek comment on the proper definition of
``affiliate'' for purposes of the small operator provisions. We already
have discussed the separate definitions of ``affiliate'' contained in
Title I and Title VI. We note that the Title I definition of
``affiliate'' does not strictly apply to matters under Title VI, since
Title VI contains a separate definition of that term that, unlike the
Title I definition, does not set a percentage threshold as to what
constitutes ownership. We believe this gives us discretion to establish
a percentage ownership threshold other than 10% for purposes of Title
VI.
16. As for the precise threshold we should establish here, we note
that last year in applying the Title VI definition in the context of
our small system rules, we concluded that a 20% ownership interest,
active or passive, would be deemed affiliation. There we observed:
``Relaxing regulatory burdens should free up resources that affected
operators currently devote to complying with existing regulations and
should enhance those operators' ability to attract capital, thus
enabling them to achieve the goals of Congress * * *.'' We believe that
Congress had a similar intent when it crafted the small cable operator
provisions of the 1996 Act and, therefore, we tentatively conclude that
the affiliation standard applicable under our small system cost-of-
service rules also should be applied for present purposes. Under this
approach, an entity would be affiliated with a cable operator if the
entity held an ownership interest of 20% or more, either active or
passive, in the cable operator. De facto control also would constitute
affiliation. We seek comment on this proposed definition.
3. Definition of ``Gross Revenues''
17. Once a cable operator identifies its affiliates under whatever
rule we adopt, it will have to calculate the gross annual revenues of
those affiliates. We have defined ``gross revenues'' in other contexts,
such as determining eligibility for certain licenses for frequencies
devoted to personal communications services:
Gross revenues shall mean all income received by an entity, whether
earned or passive, before any deductions are made for costs of doing
business (e.g., cost of goods sold), as evidenced by audited quarterly
financial statements for the relevant period.
18. We tentatively conclude that this definition should be applied
under the small cable operator provisions of the 1996 Act, although we
do not intend to require that all entities produce audited financial
statements. If an entity maintains such statements as a matter of
course, they would seem to be the best record of its gross revenues.
However, we realize that some smaller business may not go to the
expense of having their financial statements audited; certainly they
should not be required to do so on the basis of legislation intended to
minimize burdens for smaller businesses. Therefore, we propose to adopt
the definition of ``gross revenues'' quoted above, as modified to
eliminate any requirement that the operator or its affiliates produce
audited
[[Page 19017]]
financial statements. Commenters should address the propriety of this
definition for establishing operator eligibility for small cable
operator treatment. We also seek comment as to how the revenues of
natural persons should be measured and verified under this rule.
19. The plain language of the statute appears to require an
operator with multiple affiliates to aggregate the gross annual
revenues of all of the affiliates and to compare this aggregate figure
to the $250 million threshold. We tentatively conclude that if the
gross revenues of all affiliates, when aggregated in this manner,
exceed $250 million, the operator does not qualify as small, even if no
single affiliate has revenues in excess of that amount. We also solicit
comment as to whether the statute should be read to exclude the
revenues of the operator itself for purposes of applying the $250
million threshold. Finally, we solicit comment on whether only
affiliates of the cable operator that are also cable operators should
be included when aggregating gross annual revenues with respect to the
$250 million threshold.
4. System and Franchise Area Subscribers
20. Rate regulation is reduced or eliminated for a small cable
operator ``in any franchise area in which that operator services 50,000
or fewer subscribers.'' Although a single cable system can serve more
than one franchise area, deregulation under this provision of the 1996
Act appears to be determined on a franchise area-by-franchise area
basis, without regard to the total number of system subscribers. Under
this analysis, a system serving well over 50,000 subscribers spread
over multiple franchise areas could qualify for deregulation throughout
the entire system as long as no individual franchise area contained
more than 50,000 subscribers. Likewise, a single system could be
subject to regulation in one franchise area but not in another because
its subscriber counts are over and under the 50,000 mark in the two
areas, respectively. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion that
system size is irrelevant for purposes of this provision.
21. In other contexts in which subscriber counts are important,
such as determining whether effective competition exists in a franchise
area, we have directed operators how to measure subscribership to take
account of various circumstances, such as in vacation areas that
experience seasonal shifts in population. However, in limited
circumstances we have allowed operators to count subscribers residing
in multiple dwelling units (``MDUs'') based on the equivalent billing
unit methodology. We seek comment on the proper methodology to be used
for purposes of the 50,000 subscriber limit under Section 301(c).
5. BST and CPST deregulation
22. The 1996 Act plainly eliminates CPST rate regulation for
systems that qualify under the revenue and subscriber criteria. For
qualifying systems that do not offer a CPST, the statute eliminates BST
regulation if that tier ``was the only service tier subject to
regulation as of December 31, 1994 * * *.'' With respect to qualifying
systems that had only a single tier subject to regulation as of that
date, we seek comment as to whether Congress intended the BST to be
deregulated even if the operator has created a CPST since then or
creates a CPST hereafter. In other words, can a qualifying system with
both a BST and a CPST be exempt from rate regulation on both tiers, as
long as it had only a single tier as of December 31, 1994? Assume, for
example, that as of December 31, 1994 an operator had only a single
regulated tier, consisting of all of the channels that an operator is
required to carry on its BST plus a large number of additional
channels. Thereafter, the operator creates a CPST and migrates from the
BST to the new CPST some or all of the channels that are not mandatory
BST channels, including all of the most popular satellite-delivered
cable networks. Arguably, the system's resulting BST would be exempt
from regulation on the grounds that the BST ``was the only service tier
subject to regulation as of December 31, 1994 * * *.'' It is also
arguable, however, that the resulting BST should be subject to
regulation because the fundamental nature of the original BST was
significantly altered after December 31, 1994.
23. We tentatively conclude that the scope of deregulation depends
solely upon the number of tiers that were subject to regulation as of
December 31, 1994. Under this construction of the statute, a system
currently offering two or more tiers would be deregulated on all tiers
if the BST was the only tier subject to regulation as of December 31,
1994, but would be deregulated only on its CPST(s) if it had more than
one tier subject to regulation as of December 31, 1994. We seek comment
on this construction of the statute.
6. Procedures
24. As for procedures, we seek to design a mechanism by which an
operator can obtain a prompt determination of small operator status
with a minimum of paperwork, while still giving LFAs and the Commission
the ability to verify, when necessary, the subscriber and revenue data
relied on by the operator in seeking such status. We understand that a
large number of operators entitled to deregulation under the 1996 Act
have subscriber and revenue figures that fall far below the statutory
thresholds. We tentatively conclude that the procedures we adopt in
this regard should be such that these systems can obtain a prompt
declaration of their deregulatory status without having to comply with
the rules that may be necessary for systems whose eligibility is not so
certain. Accordingly, we propose to adopt on a permanent basis the
interim procedures described above.
25. While designed to simplify the process in the case of operators
who clearly meet the statutory criteria, this process could be applied
to all operators, even though further scrutiny may be required for
operators that come closer to those statutory criteria. We seek comment
on this approach and invite commenters to propose other mechanisms that
would minimize the administrative burdens on operators and franchising
authorities, particularly in cases where there will be no dispute as to
the operator's eligibility for deregulation. We further seek comment as
to the procedures to be followed where a determination of the
operator's status will require further examination.
26. We also must determine the treatment of systems that qualify
for deregulation now, but later exceed the subscriber or revenue
thresholds. We tentatively conclude that the plain language of the
statute indicates that a deregulated system would become subject to
regulation upon exceeding the statutory thresholds. Under this
approach, would a system that qualifies for deregulation instantly lose
that status the moment its subscriber base exceeds 50,000 in the
franchise area, or at the moment its operator starts to serve more than
1% of subscribers nationwide? Is deregulated status lost immediately
upon the accumulation of annual revenues above $250 million? We
tentatively conclude that an instantaneous shift from complete
deregulation to full regulation may not be in the public interest
because it could be disruptive to consumers and operators. The addition
of subscribers by a system or operator would seem to indicate that the
company is responding to consumer demand. We would not want to
discourage such responsiveness on the part of cable operators.
[[Page 19018]]
Nevertheless, we tentatively conclude that the language of the 1996 Act
requires the transition into regulation to begin as soon as the system
no longer qualifies under the subscriber or revenue criteria. We seek
comment on these issues.
27. We note that last year the Commission adopted rules
streamlining cost-of-service rate regulation for any system serving
fewer than 15,000 subscribers, as long as the system is not owned by an
operator serving more than 400,000 subscribers. Once a system qualifies
under these criteria, it remains subject to the relaxed rules for so
long as the system serves fewer than 15,000 subscribers. When the
system exceeds 15,000 subscribers, it may maintain its current rates,
but it is then subject to our standard rate rules applicable to systems
generally, and therefore cannot seek an increase until such an increase
is permitted under our standard rate rules. We seek comment as to
whether this transition mechanism could be applied to systems when they
exceed the statutory criteria, or whether some other approach would be
more appropriate.
D. Definition of ``Affiliate'' in the Context of Open Video Systems and
Cable-Telco Buy Outs
28. We recently initiated a rulemaking to implement the provisions
of Section 302(a) of the 1996 Act establishing open video systems [61
FR 10496 (March 14, 1996)]. Open video systems represent a new medium
for the provision of video programming to subscribers. The 1996 Act
specifically authorizes a LEC to provide cable service over an open
video system within its own telephone service area. The 1996 Act also
provides that, to the extent permitted by Commission regulation, a
cable operator or any other person may provide video programming
through an open video system. As with other portions of the 1996 Act,
Section 302(a) requires that we define the term ``affiliate'' in order
to implement its provisions. Although Section 3 of the 1996 Act defines
``affiliate,'' Congress did not alter the separate definition of
``affiliate'' set forth in Title VI. Thus, we solicit comment regarding
the definition of ``affiliate'' in the context of the new statutory
provisions governing open video systems.
29. The cable-telco buy out provisions of Section 302 of 1996 Act
also refer to the ``affiliates'' of such entities. We request comment
regarding the definition of ``affiliate'' in this context as well.
E. Uniform Rate Requirement
30. As discussed above, Section 301(b)(2) of the 1996 Act amends
the pre-existing requirement that a cable operator maintain a uniform
rate structure throughout its franchise area by, among other things,
exempting from that requirement bulk discounts offered to multiple
dwelling units. We have amended the rule to comform with the exact
statutory language. Here we solicit comment on the meaning of several
terms in the statutory language.
31. We tentatively conclude that the bulk rate exception does not
permit a cable operator to offer discounted rates on an individual
basis to subscribers simply because they are residents of a multiple
dwelling unit, but rather requires a ``bulk discount[ ],'' to use the
language of the statute, that is negotiated by the property owner or
manager on behalf of all of the tenants. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion. We also seek comment as to whether the bulk
discounts permitted under Section 301(b)(2) include discounts offered
to MDU residents who are billed individually, or should only be
permitted where the discount is deducted from a bulk payment paid to
the cable operator by the property owner or manager on behalf of all of
its tenants.
32. We further seek comment as to the meaning of the term
``multiple dwelling units'' as used in Section 301(b)(2). The
Commission has a long-standing definition of ``multiple unit
dwellings'' that historically has been significant in determining
whether certain cable facilities fell within the private cable
exemption to the definition of a cable system. As noted above, prior to
the passage of the 1996 Act the definition of a cable system excluded
facilities serving subscribers ``in 1 or more multiple unit dwellings
under common ownership, control, or management, unless such facility or
facilities uses any public right of way * * *.'' In that context, we
defined a multiple unit dwelling to include a single building that
contains multiple residences, and to exclude developments consisting of
detached single-family residences, such as mobile home parks, planned
and resort communities, and military installations. Congress now has
expanded the private cable exemption to include all facilities located
wholly on private property, without regard to the nature or common
ownership of the property served. Thus, operators of private cable
systems (e.g., SMATV systems) now may serve mobile home parks and
planned developments without being subject to regulations applicable to
cable systems. Since Section 301(b)(2) clearly authorizes a cable
operator to deviate from its standard rate structure in order to
respond to competition at multiple dwelling units, commenters should
address whether we should interpret ``multiple dwelling units'' to
correspond to the expanded private cable exemption to the cable system
definition.
33. Substantively, we believe that allegations of predation should
be made and reviewed under principles of federal antitrust law as
applied and interpreted by the federal courts. Commenters should
address what standards should be applied to determine whether a
complainant has made out a prima facie case ``that there are reasonable
grounds to believe that the discounted price is predatory * * *.''
Because complaints in this connection are likely to involve some
measure of discovery, we propose the adoption of procedures set forth
in our rules for the adjudication of program access complaints.
Commenters should address whether that section, or some modified
version of procedures set forth in that section, should apply on a
permanent basis.
F. Technical Standards
34. The Commission has adopted technical standards that govern the
picture quality performance of cable television systems. The rules
generally have preemptive force in situations where there is any
conflict between the Commission's requirements and those that might be
imposed by state or local governments. Section 624(e) of the
Communications Act, as adopted in the 1992 Cable Act, provided that the
Commission should prescribe minimum technical standards.
35. Current Commission rules dictate specific technical standards
and provide for enforcement by LFAs. For example, the Commission's
rules provide that, upon request by a LFA, an operator must be prepared
to demonstrate compliance with the Commission's technical standards. In
addition, the rules provide that, in some instances, an operator may
negotiate with its LFA for standards less stringent than otherwise
prescribed by the Commission's rules. Section 76.607 of the
Commission's rules require an operator to establish a process for
receiving signal quality complaints, and subscriber complaints must be
referred to the franchising authority and the operator before being
referred to the Commission.
36. Here, we seek comment on the overall scope and meaning of new
Section 624(e) of the Communications
[[Page 19019]]
Act, as amended by Section 301(e) of the 1996 Act. For example, how
does this provision affect the Commission rules cited above? How does
the 1996 Act's amendments to Section 624(e) affect the scope of the
cable franchising, renewal or transfer process in the area of the
technical considerations allowed in those situations? Commenters should
bear in mind that the 1996 Act did not amend the franchising or the
renewal provisions of the Communications Act. Specifically, Section 626
of the Communications Act provides that, ``subject to Section 624'' an
operator's proposal for franchise renewal ``shall contain such material
as the franchising authority may require, including proposals for
upgrade of the cable system.'' In addition, Section 626 provides for
franchising authority consideration of the ``quality of the operator's
service, including signal quality'' during the course of a renewal
under Section 626. Section 621 provides, in part, that a franchising
authority awarding a franchise ``may require adequate assurance that
the cable operator has the * * * technical * * * qualifications to
provide cable service.''
G. Prior Year Losses
37. Section 301(k)(1) of the 1996 Act amends Section 623 of the
Communications Act by adding the following provision:
(n) Treatment of Prior Year Losses.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section or of section 612, losses associated with a
cable system (including losses associated with the grant or award of a
franchise) that were incurred prior to September 4, 1992, with respect
to a cable system that is owned and operated by the original franchisee
of such system shall not be disallowed, in whole or in part, in the
determination of whether the rates for any tier of service or any type
of equipment that is subject to regulation under this section are
lawful.
38. This amendment was effective upon enactment and ``shall be
applicable to any rate proposal filed on or after September 4, 1993,
upon which no final action has been taken by December 1, 1995.''
39. We note that this provision is similar to a rule change we
recently made in the Second Report and Order, First Order on
Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``Final
Cost Order''), found at 61 FR 9361 (March 8, 1996) and 61 FR 9411
(March 8, 1996). The Final Cost Order established final rules
applicable to operators that establish regulated rates in accordance
with our cost of service rules, one of the two general approaches we
have implemented with respect to rate regulation. The other, and
primary, method of rate regulation is the benchmark approach. The cost
of service rules, intended as a safety valve for operators unable to
generate reasonable revenues under the benchmark mechanism, involve a
detailed analysis of an operators investment, expenses, and revenues.
One of the issues in such an analysis is the extent to which an
operator should be permitted to recover ``start up losses'' incurred by
the system. Start up losses occur in the early years of operation when
rates are set more to attract customers than to fully cover the
significant capital and operating costs that an operator incurs before
and in the first years after initiating service. Prior to adoption of
the Final Cost Order, we presumptively limited the recovery of start up
losses to those losses incurred in the first two years of operation. We
eliminated this presumption in the Final Cost Order and now permit
operators to recover start up loses over whatever period of time such
losses were actually incurred.
40. We tentatively conclude that the statutory requirement of
Section 301 (k)(1) is applicable to an operator's cost-of-service
justification, but differs somewhat from the rule adopted in the Final
Cost Order. First, our rule permitting the recovery of start up losses
applies to all cable operators, while the recovery of prior year losses
under Section 301(k)(1) is limited to ``a cable system that is owned
and operated by the original franchisee of the system.'' Second, under
our existing rule, reasonable start up losses may be recovered
regardless of when they were incurred, while Section 301(k)(1) permits
the recovery only of losses incurred prior to September 4, 1992. Third,
while start up losses are those incurred in the early years of a
system's operation, Section 301(k)(1) contains no such limitation. We
seek comment on these tentative conclusions. Further, we seek comment
as to whether Congress intended to permit the recovery of prior year
losses attributable to imprudent or unreasonable expenditures.
H. Advanced Telecommunications Incentives
41. Subsection 706(a) of the 1996 Act requires the Commission to
``encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced
telecommunications capability to all Americans (including, in
particular, elementary and secondary schools and classrooms) by
utilizing, in a manner consistent with the public interest, convenience
and necessity, price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, measures
that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or
other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure
investment.'' We seek comment on how we can advance Congress' goal
within the context of our cable services regulation. The Commission has
solicited such information in other proceedings and reserves its right
to address the implementation of Subsection 706(a) in a consolidated
action.
I. Cable Operator Refusal To Carry Certain Programming
42. Here we solicit comment on the proper interpretation of the
term ``nudity'' as used in Sections 506 (a) and (b) of the 1996 Act. We
tentatively conclude that the term ``nudity'' should be interpreted in
accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Erznoznik v. City
of Jacksonville. In that decision, the Supreme Court found invalid a
city ordinance that prohibited showing films containing nudity at
drive-in theaters visible from public places. The Court found the
restriction overly broad because it was not directed against sexually
explicit nudity or otherwise limited. Accordingly, we tentatively
conclude that the term ``nudity'' as used in Sections 506 (a) and (b)
of the 1996 Act should be interpreted to mean nudity that is obscene or
indecent. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
J. Other Matters
43. We recognize that the cable reform subsections of the 1996 Act
that we address in this NPRM are broad in scope, and that there may be
additional issues regarding those subsections that we have not
specifically addressed in the NPRM. Commenters may submit proposals or
concerns regarding the implementation of these cable reform
subsections, including their impact on other parts of the 1996 Act that
are to be addressed in separate proceedings. We also seek proposals to
ease the burdens of regulation for interested parties.
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses
44. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
601-612, the Commission's Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with
respect to the NPRM is as follows:
45. Reason for action: The Commission is issuing this NPRM to seek
comment on various issues concerning implementation of the 1996 Act.
[[Page 19020]]
46. Objectives: To provide an opportunity for public comment and to
provide a record for a Commission decision on the issues discussed in
the NPRM.
47. Legal Basis: The NPRM is adopted pursuant to Section 301 of the
1996 Act; and sections 4(i), 602, 614, 617, 623, 624, 628, 632, of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 522, 534, 537,
543, 544, 548, 552, and 548.
48. Description, potential impact, and number of small entities
affected: Amending our rules will directly affect entities which are
small business entities, as defined in Section 601(3) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. The 1996 Act reduces or eliminates rate regulation for
many such entities.
49. Reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements:
None.
50. Federal rules which overlap, duplicate, or conflict with the
Commission's proposal: None.
51. Any significant alternatives minimizing the impact on small
entities and consistent with state objectives: The NPRM seeks to
minimize burdens on small entities in conformance with the 1996 Act.
52. Comments are solicited: Written comments are requested on this
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. These comments must be filed
in accordance with the same filing deadlines set for comments on the
other issues in this NPRM, but they must have a separate and distinct
heading designating them as responses to the Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis. The Secretary shall send a copy of the NPRM to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance
with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et
seq.
Procedural Provisions
53. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415
and Secs. 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419,
interested parties may file comments on or before May 28, 1996 and
reply comments on or before June 28, 1996. To file formally in this
proceeding, you must file an original and six copies of all comments,
reply comments, and supporting comments. Parties are also asked to
submit, if possible, draft rules that reflect their positions. If you
want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your comments, you
must file an original and eleven copies. Comments and reply comments
should be sent to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 222, Washington, D.C. 20554, with
a copy to Nancy Stevenson of the Cable Services Bureau, 2033 M Street,
N.W., Room 408A, Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties should also file one
copy of any documents filed in this docket with the Commission's copy
contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street,
N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037. Comments and reply comments
will be available for public inspection during regular business hours
in the FCC Reference Center, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 239, Washington,
D.C. 20554.
54. Parties are also asked to submit comments and reply comments on
diskette, where possible. Such diskette submissions would be in
addition to and not a substitute for the formal filing requirements
addressed above. Parties submitting diskettes should submit them to
Nancy Stevenson of the Cable Services Bureau, 2033 M Street, N.W., Room
408A, Washington, D.C. 20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch
diskette formatted in an IBM compatible form using MS DOS 5.0 and
WordPerfect 5.1 software. The diskette should be submitted in ``read
only'' mode. The diskette should be clearly labelled with the party's
name, proceeding, type of pleading (comment or reply comments) and date
of submission. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter.
55. Written comments by the public must be submitted by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified
information collections on or before 60 days after publication of the
Order and NPRM in the Federal Register. In addition to filing comments
with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information
collections contained herein should be submitted to Dorothy Conway,
Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20054, or via the Internet to [email protected], and to
Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725-17th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20503 or via the Internet to [email protected].
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Cable television.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-10172 Filed 4-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.