issue-1996-05-08•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-08
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-08
issue-1996-05-08Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-08Proposed 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. 96-11496 Special Condition: Sikorsky Model S76C, High Intensity Radiated Fields
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20760-20762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11496]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 29
[Docket No. 96-ASW-2; Notice No. SC-96-2-SW]
Special Condition: Sikorsky Model S76C, High Intensity Radiated
Fields
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed special condition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes a special condition for the Sikorsky
Model S76C helicopter. This helicopter will have a novel or unusual
design feature associated with the installation of electronic systems
that perform critical functions. The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
the protection of electronic systems that perform critical functions
from the effects of external high intensity radiated fields (HIRF).
This notice contains the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the applicable airworthiness
standards.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 7, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal may be mailed in duplicate to the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attn: Rules Docket No. 96-ASW-2, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0007,
or delivered in duplicate to the Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas. Comments must be marked Docket
No. 96-ASW-2. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays,
except Federal holidays, between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Robert McCallister, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations Group,
Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0110; telephone (817) 222-5121.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of this
proposed special condition by submitting such written data, views, or
arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the
regulatory docket number and be submitted in duplicate to the address
specified above. All communications received on or before the closing
date for comments will be considered before taking action on this
proposal. The special condition proposed in this notice may be changed
in light of comments received. All comments received will be available
in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before
and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this
rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Persons wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this
notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. 96-ASW-2.'' The postcard will be date and time stamped and returned
to the commenter.
Background
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Stratford, Connecticut, applied for
an amendment to the Type Certificate for Model S76C helicopter on
August 15, 1990. The amendment will allow installation of Turbomeca
Arriel Model 2S1 engines with FADEC control and 30 second/2 minute
ratings as alternate engines for the Sikorsky Model S76C helicopter.
This is a 12 (14 including crew) passenger, twin engine, 11,700 pound
transport category helicopter.
Type Certificate Basis
The type certification basis is 14 Code of Federal Regulations part
29, February 1, 1965, and Amendments 29-1 through 29-11; in addition,
portions of Amendment 29-12, specifically, Secs. 29.67, 29.71, 29.75,
29.141, 29.173, 29.175, 29.931, 29.1189(a)(2), 29.1555(c)(2),
29.1557(c); Amendment 29-13, specifically Sec. 29.965; Amendment 29-24,
specifically Sec. 29.1325; Amendment 29-30 specifically Sec. 29.811;
Amendment 29-34, specifically Secs. 29.67(a)(1)(i), 29.923(a), (b) (1)
& (3), 29.1143(f), 29.1305(a) (24) & (25), 29.1521 (i) & (j) and
29.1549(e); and Amendment 36-14 of 14 CFR part 36, Appendix H.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
these helicopters because of a novel or unusual design feature, special
conditions are prescribed under the provisions of Sec. 21.16 to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established in the
regulations.
Special conditions, as appropriate, are issued in accordance with
Federal Aviation Administration Sec. 11.49 after public notice, as
required by Secs. 11.28 and 11.29(b), and become part of the type
certification basis in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration
21.101(b)(2).
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the
other model under the provisions of Sec. 21.101(a)(1).
Discussion
The Sikorsky Model S76C helicopter, at the time of the application
for amendment to U.S. Type Certificate
[[Page 20761]]
H1NE, was identified as incorporating one and possibly more electrical,
electronic, or combination of electrical and electronic (electrical/
electronic) systems that will perform functions critical to the
continued safe flight and landing of the helicopters. A Full Authority
Digital Engine Control (FADEC) is an example of an electronic device
that performs the critical functions of engine control. The control of
the engines is critical to the continued safe flight and landing of the
helicopter during visual flight rules (VFR) and instrument flight rules
(IFR) operations.
If it is determined that this helicopter currently or at a future
date incorporates other electrical/electronic systems performing
critical functions, those systems also will be required to comply with
the requirements of this special condition.
Recent advances in technology have prompted the design of aircraft
that include advanced electrical and electronic systems that perform
functions required for continued safe flight and landing. However,
these advanced systems respond to the transient effects of induced
electrical current and voltage caused by the HIRF incident on the
external surface of the helicopters. These induced transient currents
and voltages can degrade the performance of the electrical/electronic
systems by damaging the components or by upsetting the systems'
functions.
Futhermore, the electromagnetic environment has undergone a
transformation not envisioned by the current application of
Sec. 29.1309(a). Higher energy levels radiate from operational
transmitters currently used for radar, radio, and television; the
number of transmitters has increased significantly.
Existing aircraft certification requirements are inappropriate in
view of these technological advances. In addition, the FAA has received
reports of some significant safety incidents and accidents involving
military aircraft equipped with advanced electrical/electronic systems
when they were exposed to electromagnetic radiation.
The combined effects of technological advances in helicopter design
and the changing environment have resulted in an increased level of
vulnerability of the electrical and electronic systems required for the
continued safe flight and landing of the helicopters. Effective
measures to protect these helicopters against the adverse effects of
exposure to HIRF will be provided by the design and installation of
these systems. The following primary factors contributed to the current
conditions: (1) increased use of sensitive electronics that perform
critical functions, (2) reduced electromagnetic shielding afforded
helicopter systems by advanced technology airframe materials, (3)
adverse service experience of military aircraft using these
technologies, and (4) an increase in the number and power of radio
frequency emitters and the expected increase in the future.
The FAA recognizes the need for aircraft certification standards to
keep pace with technological developments and a changing environment
and, in 1986, initiated a high priority program to (1) determine and
define electromagnetic energy levels; (2) develop guidance material for
design, test, and analysis; and (3) prescribe and promulgate regulatory
standards. The FAA participated with industry and airworthiness
authorities of other countries to develop internationally recognized
standards for certification.
The FAA and airworthiness authorities of other countries have
identified a level of HIRF environment that a helicopter could be
exposed to during IFR operations. While the HIRF requirements are being
finalized, the FAA is adopting a special condition for the
certification of aircraft that employ electrical/electronic systems
that perform critical functions. The accepted maximum energy levels
that civilian helicopter system installations must withstand for safe
operation are based on surveys and analysis of existing radio frequency
emitters. This special condition will require the helicopters'
electrical/electronic systems and associated wiring be protected from
these energy levels. These external threat levels are believed to
represent the worst-case exposure for a helicopter operating under IFR.
The HIRF environment specified in this proposed special condition
is based on many critical assumptions. With the exception of takeoff
and landing at an airport, one of these assumptions is the aircraft
would be not less than 500 feet above ground level (AGL). Helicopters
operating under visual flight rules (VFR) routinely operate at less
than 500 feet AGL and perform takeoffs and landings at locations other
than controlled airports. Therefore, it would be expected that the HIRF
environment experienced by a helicopter operating VFR may exceed the
defined environment by 100 percent or more.
This special condition will require the systems that perform
critical functions, as installed in the aircraft, to meet certain
standards based on either a defined HIRF environment or a fixed value
using laboratory tests.
The applicant may demonstrate that the operation and operational
capability of the installed electrical/electronic systems that perform
critical functions are not adversely affected when the aircraft is
exposed to the defined HIRF environment. The FAA has determined that
the environment defined in Table 1 is acceptable for critical functions
in helicopters operating at or above 500 feet AGL. For critical
functions of helicopters operating at less than 500 feet AGL,
additional factors must be considered.
The applicant may also demonstrate by a laboratory test that the
electrical/electronic systems that perform critical functions can
withstand a peak electromagnetic field strength in a frequency range of
10 KHZ to 18 GHZ. If a laboratory test is used to show
compliance with the defined HIRF environment, no credit will be given
for signal attenuation due to installation. A level of 100 v/m and
other considerations, such as an alternate technology backup that is
immune to HIRF, are appropriate for critical functions during IFR
operations. A level of 200 v/m and further considerations, such as an
alternate technology backup that is immune to HIRF, are more
appropriate for critical functions during VFR operations.
Applicants must perform a preliminary hazard analysis to identify
electrical/electronic systems that perform critical functions. The term
``critical'' means those functions whose failure would contribute to or
cause a failure condition that would prevent the continued safe flight
and landing of the helicopters. The systems identified by the hazard
analysis as performing critical functions are required to have HIRF
protection.
A system may perform both critical and noncritical functions.
Primary electronic flight systems and their associated components
perform critical functions such as attitude, altitude, and airspeed
indications. HIRF requirements would apply only to the systems that
perform critical functions.
Compliance with HIRF requirements will be demonstrated by tests,
analysis, models, similarity with existing systems, or a combination of
these methods. The two basic options of either testing the rotorcraft
to the defined environment or laboratory testing may not be combined.
The laboratory test allows some frequency areas to be under tested and
requires other areas to have some safety margin when compared to the
defined environment. The areas required to have some safety margin are
those that have been, by past testing, shown to exhibit
[[Page 20762]]
greater susceptibility to adverse effects from HIRF; and laboratory
tests, in general, do not accurately represent the aircraft
installation. Service experience alone will not be acceptable since
such experience in normal flight operations may not include an exposure
to HIRF. Reliance on a system with similar design features for
redundancy, as a means of protection against the effects of external
HIRF, is generally insufficient because all elements of a redundant
system are likely to be concurrently exposed to the radiated fields.
The modulation that represents the signal most likely to disrupt
the operation of the system under test, based on its design
characteristics, should be selected. For example, flight control
systems may be susceptible to 3 HZ square wave modulation while
the video signals for electronic display systems may be susceptible to
400 HZ sinusoidal modulation. If the worst-case modulation is
unknown or cannot be determined, default modulations may be used.
Suggested default values are a 1 KHZ sine wave with 80 percent
depth of modulation in the frequency range from 10 KHZ to 500
MHZ and 1 KHZ square wave with greater than 90 percent depth
of modulation from MHZ to 18 GHZ. For frequencies where the
unmodulated signal would cause deviations from normal operation,
several different modulating signals with various waveforms and
frequencies should be applied.
Acceptable system performance would be attained by demonstrating
that the critical function components of the system under consideration
continue to perform their intended function during and after exposure
to required electromagnetic fields. Deviations from system
specifications may be acceptable but must be independently assessed by
the FAA on a case-by-case basis.
Table 1.--Field Strength Volts/meter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency Peak Average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-100 KHZ................ 50 50
100-500................... 60 60
500-2000.................. 70 70
2-30 MHZ.................. 200 200
30-100.................... 30 30
100-200................... 150 33
200-400................... 70 70
400-700................... 4020 935
700-1000.................. 1700 170
1-2 GHZ................... 5000 990
2-4....................... 6680 840
4-6....................... 6850 310
6-8....................... 3600 670
8-12...................... 3500 1270
12-18..................... 3500 360
18-40..................... 2100 750
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable
initially to the Sikorsky Model S76C helicopter. Should Sikorsky apply
at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another
model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the
special conditions would apply to that model as well, under the
provisions of Sec. 21.101(a)(1).
Conclusion
This action affects only certain unusual or novel design features
on one model of helicopter. It is not a rule of general applicability
and affects only the manufacturer who applied to the FAA for approval
of these features on the affected helicopters.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 21 and 29
Aircraft, Air transportation, Aviation safety, Rotorcraft, Safety.
The authority citation for this special condition is as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7572; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40105, 40113,
44701, 44702, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.
The Proposed Special Condition
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the
following special condition as a part of the type certification basis
for the Sikorsky Model S76C helicopter.
Protection for Electrical and Electronic Systems From High Intensity
Radiated Fields
Each system that performs critical functions must be designed and
installed to ensure that the operation and operational capabilities of
these critical functions are not adversely affected when the
helicopters are exposed to high intensity radiated fields external to
the helicopters.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 26, 1996.
Larry M. Kelly,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 96-11496 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11486 Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (OWBPA)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11486]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
29 CFR Chapter XIV
Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (OWBPA)
AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
ACTION: Fifth Meeting of Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EEOC announces the dates of the fifth meeting of the
``Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Regulatory Guidance on
Unsupervised Waivers of Rights and Claims under the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act'' (the Committee). A Notice of Intent to form the
Committee was published in the Federal Register on August 31, 1995, 60
F.R. 45388, and a Notice of Establishment of the Committee was
published in the Federal Register on October 20, 1995, 60 F.R. 54207.
DATES: The fifth meeting will be held on June 18-19, 1996, beginning at
10:00 a.m. on June 18. It is anticipated that the meeting will last for
two days. The session of June 19, 1996 will commence at 9:00 a.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the EEOC Headquarters, 1801 L
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph N. Cleary, Paul E. Boymel, or John K. Light, ADEA Division,
Office of Legal Counsel, EEOC, 1801 L Street, NW., Washington, DC
20507, (202) 663-4692.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All Committee meetings, including the
meeting of June 18-19, will be open to the public. Any member of the
public may submit written comments for the Committee's consideration,
and may be permitted to speak at the meeting if time permits. In
addition, all Committee documents and minutes will be available for
public inspection in EEOC's Library (6th floor of the EEOC
Headquarters).
Persons who need assistance to review the comments will be provided
with appropriate aids such as readers or print magnifiers. To schedule
an appointment call (202) 663-4630 (voice), (202) 663-4630 (TDD).
Copies of this notice are available in the following alternate formats:
large print, braille, electronic file on computer disk, and audio tape.
Copies may be obtained from the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity
by calling (202) 663-4395 (voice), (202) 663-4399 (TDD).
PURPOSE OF MEETING/SUMMARY OF AGENDA: At the meeting, the Committee
will continue to discuss the unsupervised waiver legal issues that will
be considered by the Committee in drafting a recommended notice of
proposed rulemaking for EEOC approval.
Dated: May 1, 1996.
Frances M. Hart,
Executive Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-11486 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6570-06-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11476 Reduced Certification Reporting Requirements for New Nonroad Engines
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20779-20780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11476]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 89 and 90
[FRL-5502-6]
Reduced Certification Reporting Requirements for New Nonroad
Engines
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's action proposes to revise certification requirements
for new nonroad spark-ignition engines at or below 19 kilowatts (60 FR
34582), and new nonroad compression-ignition engines at or above 37
kilowatts (59 FR 31306), by reducing the reporting burden associated
with the application for certification.
In the final rule section of today's Federal Register, EPA is
issuing these revisions as a direct final rule without prior proposal
because EPA views the action as noncontroversial and anticipates no
adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the revisions is set forth
in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in
response to that direct final rule, no further activity is contemplated
in relation to this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse public
comment on any of the specific issues identified in the direct final
rule, EPA will publish one action withdrawing the provisions of the
final action corresponding to that specific issue, and all adverse
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested on commenting on this
action should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 7, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if
possible) to: EPA Air and Radiation Docket, Attention Docket No. A-95-
57, room M-1500 (mail code 6102), 401 M St., S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460. The docket may be inspected at this location from 8:30 a.m.
until 5:30 p.m. weekdays. The docket may also be reached by telephone
at (202) 260-7548. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may
be charged by EPA for photocopying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel Horne, (313) 741-7803.
[[Page 20780]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the direct
final rule published in the rules section of today's Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 89 and 90
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Confidential business information, Environmental protection, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Nonroad source pollution,
Reporting requirements.
Dated: May 2, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-11476 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11460 Agricultural Marketing Service
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20754-20756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11460]
========================================================================
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. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 20754]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 911 and 944
[Docket No. FV96-911-2PR]
Limes Grown in Florida and Imported Limes; Change in Regulatory
Period
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposal invites comments on proposed changes to the
regulatory period currently prescribed under the lime marketing order
and the lime import regulations. The marketing order regulates the
handling of limes grown in Florida and is administered locally by the
Florida Lime Administrative Committee (committee). This rule would
modify language in both the domestic and import regulations to change
the regulatory period to January 1 through May 31, from its current
continuous, year round, implementation. This proposed rule is in
response to changes in the market, rising costs of production and the
cost of replanting in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew. By reducing
the regulatory period and its associated costs, this rule should
decrease industry expenses. The changes in import requirements are
necessary under section 8e of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act
of 1937.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 7, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. Comments must be sent in triplicate to the
Docket Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, room 2525-S,
P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, FAX Number (202) 720-5698.
All comments should reference the docket number and the date and page
number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be available for
public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular
business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aleck Jonas, Southeast Marketing Field
Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, F&V, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box
2276, Winter Haven, Florida 33883; telephone: (941) 299-4770; or
Britthany Beadle, Marketing Order Administration Branch, F&V, AMS,
USDA, room 2522-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456:
telephone: (202) 720-3923.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal is issued under Marketing
Agreement and Marketing Order No. 911 (7 CFR part 911), as amended,
regulating the handling of limes, hereinafter referred to as the
``order.'' This order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter
referred to as the ``Act.''
This proposed rule is also issued under section 8e of the Act,
which provides that whenever certain specified commodities, including
limes, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of these
commodities into the United States are prohibited unless they meet the
same or comparable grade, size, quality, or maturity requirements as
those in effect for the domestically produced commodities.
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this rule in
conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule is not intended to have
retroactive effect. This proposal will not preempt any State or local
laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted
therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the
petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the petition.
The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any
district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her
principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review the
Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not
later than 20 days after date of the entry of the ruling.
There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted
prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of import regulations
issued under section 8e of the Act.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has
considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that
they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility. Import regulations issued under
the Act are based on those established under Federal marketing orders.
There are approximately 10 handlers subject to regulation under the
order and about 30 producers of Florida limes. There are approximately
35 importers of limes. Small agricultural service firms, which include
lime handlers and importers, have been defined by the Small Business
Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as those whose annual receipts are less
than $5,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those
whose annual receipts are less than $500,000. A majority of these
handlers, producers, and importers may be classified as small entities.
This proposed rule invites comments on a change to the regulatory
period currently prescribed under the Florida lime marketing order.
This rule would modify language in the order's rules and regulations to
change the regulatory period from its current continuous, year round,
implementation to January 1 through May 31. This change was recommended
by the committee on a vote of 6 supporting and 4 against.
Section 911.48 of the lime marketing order provides authority to
issue regulations establishing specific pack,
[[Page 20755]]
container, grade and size requirements. These requirements are
specified under Secs. 911.311, 911.329 and 911.344. Section 911.51
requires inspection and certification that these requirements are met.
Currently, there is no regulatory period stated in the order, and the
regulations are applied on a continuous year-round basis.
There is general agreement in the industry for the need to reduce
costs and increase grower returns under the current market conditions.
The committee made this recommendation to decrease industry expenses by
reducing the regulatory period and its associated costs. Prior to
Hurricane Andrew, there were approximately 6,500 producing acres of
limes in the production area. Currently, there are approximately 1,500
acres of producing lime trees in the production area. Growers are
expending approximately $2,500 per acre to plant new groves and replant
lost ones. They are also spending approximately $1,500 per acre per
year to maintaining new groves of young trees which will not produce
fruit for several years, thus, giving no return for investment. During
the 1991-1992 season prior to Hurricane Andrew, assessments were
collected on 1,682,677 bushels. In the 1993-1994 and the 1994-1995
seasons after the storm, assessments were collected on 228,455 bushels
and 283,977 bushels respectively. Lost income from reduced volume and
the costs of replanting and maintaining groves, with no immediate
monetary return, has caused the industry to seek cost saving measures.
Historically, the June 1 through December 31 time period is a time
when fruit is plentiful, prices are low, and the overall quality of the
crop is good for both domestic and imported supplies. The committee
maintains that under these abundant and good quality fruit conditions,
competition and market demand will keep quality standards high.
Conversely, during the time period, January 1 through May 31, past
seasons have shown that for both domestic and imported fruit, skins are
thicker, the juice content is lower and supplies of fruit are limited.
Because the temptation to ship poor quality is greater under these high
demand and low supply conditions, the committee believes regulations
are necessary to prevent poor quality fruit from entering and damaging
the lime market. Therefore, the committee believes that for the period
June 1 through December 31, pack, container, grade and size regulations
can be ended. Competition under good quality and high supply conditions
should protect the consumer from poor quality fruit entering the market
during the proposed deregulated period. The application of regulations
from January 1 through May 31, will insure uniform quality throughout
the year.
Growers, handlers and importers should benefit from the reduced
costs of no regulations, such as no inspection fees during the
deregulated period. Committee expenses should also be reduced by
requiring fewer meetings and less compliance monitoring. Reporting
requirements are not affected by this change and will continue to be
collected year-round.
One alternative to the proposed rule was to leave the regulations
in place year-round. This alternative was rejected by the committee
because the need to take some action was considered necessary under the
current market conditions. It was argued that when these regulations
were put in place, the quality of both the domestic and imported lime
supply varied greatly. Over the years, improved agricultural practices
have produced a consistent high quality lime supply. This is
particularly true during the June through December time period. The
majority of committee members believe that the regulations are
unnecessary when there is such a large supply of high quality fruit.
Another alternative raised was to terminate the marketing order.
Although seriously considered, committee members rejected the idea
under arguments that during the January through May time period when
supplies are reduced and juice content of all limes is lower, poor
quality fruit could enter the market. Consumer dissatisfaction with
poor quality limes could lead to product rejection and substitution
with lemons, causing a lost market share. This proposed rule represents
a compromise of the two alternatives presented. The committee believes
that this change will provide the consumer with quality fruit
throughout the year, while reducing industry costs.
Section 8e of the Act provides that when certain domestically
produced commodities, including limes, are regulated under a Federal
marketing order, imports of that commodity must meet the same or
comparable grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements. Since this
rule would change the regulatory period under the domestic handling
regulations, a corresponding change to the import regulations must also
be considered.
Minimum grade and size requirements for limes imported into the
United States are currently in effect under Sec. 944.209 (7 CFR
944.209). This proposed rule would modify language in the import
regulations to change the regulatory period from its current
continuous, year round, implementation to January 1 through May 31.
This rule would result in relaxed import requirements because the lime
import regulations would not be in effect during the months of June
through December. This could result in reduced costs to importers.
Mexico is the largest importer of limes into the United States.
During the 1994-95 season, Mexico imported 6,075,685 bushels into the
United States, while all other import sources shipped a combined total
of 201,053 bushels during the same time period. The majority of Mexican
imports enter the United States between June 1 and December 31, the
proposed deregulated period covered in this rule.
In accordance with section 8e of the Act, the United States Trade
Representative has concurred with the issuance of this proposed rule,
as it pertains to limes imported into the United States.
Based on available information, the Administrator of the AMS has
determined that this action would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to
respond to this proposal. All written comments timely received will be
considered before a final determination is made on this matter.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 911
Limes, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
7 CFR Part 944
Avocados, Food grades and standards, Grapefruit, Grapes, Imports,
Kiwifruit, Limes, Olives, Oranges.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR parts 911 and 944
are proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 911 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
PART 911--LIMES GROWN IN FLORIDA
Sec. 911.311 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 911.311, paragraph (a), introductory text, is amended by
removing the words ``No handler'' and adding in its place the words
``From January 1 through May 31 of each season, no handler''.
[[Page 20756]]
Sec. 911.329 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 911.329, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the words
``No handler'' and adding in its place the words ``From January 1
through May 31 of each season, no handler''.
Sec. 911.344 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 911.344, paragraph (a), is introductory text, is amended
by removing the words ``No handler'' and adding in its place the words
``From January 1 through May 31 of each season, no handler''
PART 944--FRUITS, IMPORT REGULATIONS
5. In Sec. 944.209, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 944.209 Lime Import Regulation 10.
(a) Applicability to imports. Pursuant to section 8e of the act and
Part 944-Fruits; Import Regulations, the importation into the United
States from January 1 through May 31 of any limes is prohibited unless
such limes meet the minimum grade and size requirements specified in
Sec. 911.344 Florida Lime Regulation 43.
* * * * *
Dated: May 2, 1996.
Robert C. Keeney,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-11460 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11459 Fresh Prunes Grown in Washington and Oregon: Proposed Handling Requirement Revision; Fruits; Import Regulations; Proposed Fresh Prune Import Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20756-20759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11459]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Parts 924 and 944
[Docket No. FV95-924-1PR]
Fresh Prunes Grown in Washington and Oregon: Proposed Handling
Requirement Revision; Fruits; Import Regulations; Proposed Fresh Prune
Import Requirements
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would change the effective period of the
handling regulations in effect for shipments of fresh prunes grown in
specified counties of Washington and in Umatilla County, Oregon under
Marketing Order No. 924 to coincide with the domestic shipping season.
This proposed rule would also establish grade, size, and quality
requirements for prune variety plums (fresh prunes) imported into the
United States. The proposed import requirements would be issued
pursuant to the authority in section 8e of the amended Agricultural
Marketing Agreement Act of 1937.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 7, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. Comments should be sent in triplicate to the
Docket Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, room 2525-S, PO
Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456 or by FAX at (202) 720-5698. All
comments should reference the docket number and the date and page
number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be available for
public inspection in the office of the Docket Clerk during regular
business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Britthany E. Beadle, Marketing Order
Administration Branch, AMS, USDA, PO Box 96456, room 2526-S,
Washington, DC 20090-6456; telephone: (202) 720-5127; or Teresa
Hutchinson, Northwest Marketing Field Office, AMS, USDA, 1220 SW Third
Avenue, room 369, Portland, Oregon 97204; telephone: (503) 326-2725.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule is issued under Marketing
Order No. 924 (7 CFR part 924), as amended, regulating the handling of
fresh prunes grown in specified counties of Washington and in Umatilla
County, Oregon, hereinafter referred to as the order. The order is
effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the Act.
This proposed rule is also issued under section 8e of the Act,
which provides that whenever certain specified commodities, including
plums or fresh prunes, are regulated under a Federal marketing order,
imports of these commodities into the United States are prohibited
unless they meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, or
maturity requirements as those in effect for the domestically produced
commodities. The Secretary has determined that the minimum grade,
quality, and size requirements for fresh prunes imported into the
United States should be the same as those established for fresh prunes
grown in Washington and Umatilla County, Oregon, under Marketing Order
No. 924.
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this proposed
rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive
effect. This proposed rule will not preempt any State or local laws,
regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted
therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the
petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the petition.
The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any
district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her
principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review the
Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not
later than 20 days after date of the entry of the ruling.
There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted
prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of import regulations
issued under section 8e of the Act.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has
considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that
they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility. Import regulations issued under
the Act are based on those established under Federal marketing orders.
There are approximately 5 handlers subject to regulation under the
order and about 350 producers of Washington-Oregon fresh prunes. There
are no known importers of fresh prunes. Small agricultural service
firms, which include fresh prune handlers and importers, have been
defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as those
whose annual receipts are less than $5,000,000, and small agricultural
producers are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than
$500,000. A majority of these handlers and producers may be classified
as small entities.
Most of the prune variety plums (fresh prunes) grown in the United
States are produced in certain counties in Washington and in Umatilla
County, Oregon. Such fresh prunes are regulated under the order which
establishes
[[Page 20757]]
minimum grade, size, and quality requirements for fresh prunes. There
is no other Federal marketing order regulating plums or fresh prunes.
The Washington and Oregon fresh prune industry ships throughout the
United States. Between 1990 and 1994, shipments of fresh prunes from
Washington and Oregon ranged from 8.4 to 22.6 million pounds.
The grade, size, and quality of fresh prunes grown in Washington
and Oregon are regulated under the order. These handling requirements
do not change substantially from season to season, and they have been
issued on a continuing basis subject to amendment, modification, or
suspension as may be determined by the Secretary. Currently, the
handling regulations under the order are effective throughout the
entire year. This proposed rule would change the effective dates of the
handling regulations to July 15 through September 30 each year, so that
the regulatory period more closely coincides with the marketing season
for fresh prunes grown in Washington and Oregon. This proposed period
includes additional time after the last day of harvest when some lots
of fruit may be kept in cold storage prior to shipment.
Fresh prunes offered for importation into the United States would
be regulated based on the requirements under the order and during the
same period of time when Washington and Oregon fresh prunes are
regulated. However, fresh prunes are not, at this time, being imported
into the United States.
This rule proposes that, from July 15 through September 30 each
year, fresh prunes imported into the United States be required to meet
the same minimum grade, size, and quality requirements as those for
fresh prunes under the order.
This proposed rule would add a new Sec. 944.700 under 7 CFR part
944--Fruits; Import Regulations to require that fresh prunes imported
into the United States, except for the Brooks and President varieties,
meet modified requirements of the U.S. No. 1 grade as set forth in the
United States Standards for Grades of Fresh Plums and Prunes (7 CFR
51.1520 through 51.1538), and a minimum size requirement of 1\1/4\
inches in diameter. The modifications to the U.S. No. 1 standard would
be as follows: (1) At least two-thirds of the surface must be purplish
in color; and (2) there cannot be more than 15 percent total defects in
any lot. These defects, by count, cannot exceed the following
tolerances: (a) A maximum of 10 percent of the defects may not meet
color requirements; (b) a maximum of 10 percent of the defects may not
meet the minimum diameter requirements; and (c) a maximum of 10 percent
of the defects may be in the remaining grade requirements (misshapen
and dirty fresh prunes). However, not more than 5 percent of the
remaining grade requirements may constitute serious damage, including a
maximum of 1 percent for decay.
This proposed rule would also establish the period of time for the
regulation of imported fresh prunes. From July 15 through September 30
of each year, fresh prunes imported into the United States would be
subject to the minimum grade, size and quality requirements effective
under the order. This is the same period that such requirements are
proposed to be in effect for fresh prunes under the order. Imports
arriving before the domestic commodity's shipping season begins or
after the domestic commodity's shipping season ends would not be
subject to the proposed import requirements.
Importers would be responsible for arranging for the required
inspection and certification prior to importation. Importation is
defined to mean release from custody of the United States Customs
Service. Such inspection services are available on a fee-for-service
basis. This action could therefore result in increased costs associated
with importing fresh prunes. The additional costs should be offset,
however, by the benefits accrued by ensuring that only acceptable
quality fruit is present in the U.S. marketplace. Such quality
assurance promotes buyer satisfaction and increased sales.
This proposed rule would also authorize limited quantity exemptions
from the import requirements specified herein. Individual shipments of
Stanley and Merton variety fresh prunes of less than 500 pounds, and
individual shipments of other fresh prune varieties of less than 350
pounds, would be excluded from the proposed import requirements.
Additionally, fresh prunes imported for consumption by charitable
institutions, distribution by relief agencies, or commercial processing
into products would be exempt from the proposed import requirements.
The marketing order provides similar exemptions.
To ensure that fresh prunes imported exempt from the grade, size
and quality requirements are utilized in exempt outlets, this rule
proposes that such fresh prunes be subject to the safeguard procedures
for imported fruit established in Sec. 944.350 (61 FR 13051, March 26,
1996).
Under these procedures, an importer wishing to import fresh prunes
covered herein for exempt uses would complete in triplicate, prior to
importation, an ``Importer's Exempt Commodity Form.'' One copy would be
held by the importer or customs broker. The second copy would be sent
to the Marketing Order Administration Branch (MOAB) of the Fruit and
Vegetable Division, AMS, within 2 days of the entry of the shipment.
The third copy would accompany the exempt lot to the receiver.
The form could be obtained from the MOAB by calling (202) 720-6585
or sending a fax to (202) 720-5698. The form would be completed at the
time the commodity enters the United States. Information called for on
the ``Importer's Exempt Commodity Form'' would include:
(1) The commodity and the variety (if known) being imported,
(2) The date and place of inspection, if used to enter failing
product or culls as exempt (including a copy of the inspection
certficate),
(3) Identifying marks or numbers on the containers,
(4) Identifying numbers on the railroad car, truck or other
transportation vehicle transporting product to the receiver,
(5) The name and address of the importer,
(6) The place and date of entry,
(7) The quantity imported (in pounds),
(8) The name and address of the intended receiver (e.g., processor,
charity, or other exempt receiver),
(9) The intended use of the exempt commodity,
(10) The U.S. Customs Service entry number and harmonized tariff
code number, and
(11) Such other information as may be necessary to ensure
compliance with this regulation.
The third copy of the form would accompany the exempt lot to its
intended destination. The exempt receiver would certify that the lot
has been received and it will be utilized in an exempt outlet. After
the certification is signed by the receiver, the form would be returned
to MOAB by the receiver, within 2 days of receipt of the lot.
Lots that are exempt from the grade, size, and quality requirements
of the fresh prune import regulation would not be subject to the
inspection and certification requirements in such regulation. An
imported lot intended for non-exempt uses, or any portion of such a
lot, that fails established grade, size, and quality requirements,
could be exported, disposed of in an exempt outlet following the
procedure described above, or otherwise
[[Page 20758]]
destroyed, under the supervision of the Federal or Federal-State
Inspection Service with the costs of certifying the disposal of such
fruit borne by the importer.
This proposed rule would also amend paragraph (a) of Sec. 944.400
(7 CFR part 944). That paragraph designates the Federal or Federal-
State Inspection Service of the Fruit and Vegetable Division,
Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture as the
organization to perform inspection and certification of imported fresh
fruits specified in section 8e of the Act. That paragraph also
specifies procedures to be followed for obtaining the required
inspections. This proposed rule would designate the Federal or Federal-
State Inspection Service and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada as the
organizations authorized to inspect and certify foreign produced fresh
prunes as meeting import requirements issued pursuant to section 8e.
Paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of Sec. 944.400, specifying additional
procedures for obtaining inspection and certification of imported
fruits listed in the section, would remain unchanged. These procedures
are followed by importers to obtain inspection and certification of
those fresh fruits specified in section 8e which are offered for
importation into the United States.
The information collection requirements contained in this proposed
rule have been previously approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35), and have been assigned OMB number 0581-0167.
In accordance with section 8e of the Act, the United States Trade
Representative has concurred with the issuance of this proposed rule.
Based on the above, the Administrator of the AMS has determined
that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
A 30-day period is provided to allow interested persons to comment
on this proposal. All written comments received within the comment
period will be considered before a final determination is made on this
matter.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 924
Marketing agreements, Plums, Prunes, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
7 CFR Part 944
Avocados, Food grades and standards, Grapefruit, Grapes, Imports,
Kiwifruit, Limes, Olives, Oranges.
For the reasons set forth above, 7 CFR parts 924 and 944 are
proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR parts 924 and 944 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
PART 924--FRESH PRUNES GROWN IN DESIGNATED COUNTIES IN WASHINGTON
AND IN UMATILLA COUNTY, OREGON
2. In Sec. 924.319, the introductory text of paragraph (a) is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 924.319 Prune Regulation 19.
(a) During the period beginning July 15 and ending September 30, no
handler shall handle any lot of prunes, except prunes of the Brooks
variety, unless:
* * * * *
PART 944--FRUITS; IMPORT REGULATIONS
3. In Sec. 944.350, the section heading and paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 944.350 Safeguard procedures for avocados, grapefruit, kiwifruit,
limes, olives, oranges, prune variety plums (fresh prunes), and tables
grapes, exempt from grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements.
(a) * * *
(1) Avocados, grapefruit, kiwifruit, limes, olives, oranges, and
prune variety plums (fresh prunes) for consumption by charitable
institutions or distribution by relief agencies;
(2) Avocados, grapefruit, kiwifruit, limes, oranges, prune variety
plums (fresh prunes), and table grapes for processing;
* * * * *
4. Section 944.400 is amended by revising the section heading and
the introductory text of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 944.400 Designated inspection services and procedure for
obtaining inspection and certification of imported avocados,
grapefruit, kiwifruit, limes, oranges, prune variety plums (fresh
prunes), and table grapes regulated under section 8e of the
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended.
(a) The Federal or Federal-State Inspection Service, Fruit and
Vegetable Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, United States
Department of Agriculture is hereby designated as the governmental
inspection service for the purpose of certifying the grade, size,
quality, and maturity of avocados, grapefruit, limes, nectarines,
oranges, prune variety plums (fresh prunes), and table grapes that are
imported into the United States. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is
also designated as a governmental inspection service for the purpose of
certifying grade, size, quality and maturity of prune variety plums
(fresh prunes) only. Inspection by the Federal or Federal-State
Inspection Service or the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, with
appropriate evidence thereof in the form of an official inspection
certificate, issued by the respective services, applicable to the
particular shipment of the specified fruit, is required on all imports.
Inspection and certification by the Federal or Federal-State Inspection
Service will be available upon application in accordance with the
Regulations Governing Inspection, Certification and Standards for Fresh
Fruits, Vegetables, and Other Products (7 CFR part 51) but, since
inspectors are not located in the immediate vicinity of some of the
small ports of entry, such as those in southern California, importers
of avocados, grapefruit, limes, nectarines, oranges, prune variety
plums (fresh prunes), and table grapes should make arrangements for
inspection through the applicable one of the following offices, at
least the specified number of the days prior to the time when the fruit
will be imported:
* * * * *
5. A new Sec. 944.700 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 944.700 Fresh prune import regulation.
(a) Pursuant to section 8e of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement
Act of 1937, as amended, the importation into the United States of any
fresh prunes, other than the Brooks variety, during the period July 15
through September 30 of each year is prohibited unless such fresh
prunes meet the following requirements:
(1) Such fresh prunes grade at least U.S. No. 1, except that at
least two-thirds of the surface of the fresh prune is required to be
purplish in color, and such fresh prunes measure not less than 1\1/4\
inches in diameter as measured by a rigid ring: Provided, That the
following tolerances, by count, of the fresh prunes in any lot shall
apply in lieu of the tolerance for defects provided in the United
States Standards for Grades of Fresh Plums and Prunes (7 CFR 51.1520
through 51.1538): A total of not more than 15 percent for defects,
including therein not more than the following percentage for the defect
listed:
(i) 10 percent for fresh prunes which fail to meet the color
requirement;
[[Page 20759]]
(ii) 10 percent for fresh prunes which fail to meet the minimum
diameter requirement;
(iii) 10 percent for fresh prunes which fail to meet the remaining
requirements of the grade: Provided, That not more than one-half of
this amount, or 5 percent, shall be allowed for defects causing serious
damage, including in the latter amount not more than 1 percent for
decay.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) The importation of any individual shipment which, in the
aggregate, does not exceed 500 pounds net weight, of fresh prunes of
the Stanley or Merton varieties, or 350 pounds net weight, of fresh
prunes of any variety other than the Stanley or Merton varieties, is
exempt from the requirements specified in this section.
(c) The grade, size and quality requirements of this section shall
not be applicable to fresh prunes imported for consumption by
charitable institutions, distribution by relief agencies, or commercial
processing into products, but such prunes shall be subject to the
safeguard provisions in Sec. 944.350.
(d) The term U.S. No. 1 shall have the same meaning as when used in
the United States Standards for Grades of Fresh Plums and Prunes (7 CFR
51.1520 through 51.1538); the term ``purplish color'' shall have the
same meaning as when used in the Washington State Department of
Agriculture Standards for Italian Prunes (April 28, 1978), and the
Oregon State Department of Agriculture Standards for Italian Prunes
(October 5, 1977); the term ``diameter'' means the greatest dimension
measured at right angles to a line from the stem to the blossom end of
the fruit.
(e) The term Prunes means all varieties of plums, classified
botanically as Prunus domestica, except those of the President variety.
(f) The term importation means release from custody of the United
States Customs Service.
(g) Inspection and certification service is required for imports
and will be available in accordance with the regulation designating
inspection services and procedure for obtaining inspection and
certification (7 CFR 944.400).
(h) Any lot or portion thereof which fails to meet the import
requirements, and is not being imported for purposes of consumption by
charitable institutions, distribution by relief agencies, or commercial
processing into products, prior to or after reconditioning may be
exported or disposed of under the supervision of the Federal or
Federal-State Inspection Service with the costs of certifying the
disposal of such fresh prunes borne by the importer.
(i) It is determined that fresh prunes imported into the United
States shall meet the same minimum grade, size and quality requirements
as those established for fresh prunes under Marketing Order No. 924 (7
CFR part 924).
Dated: May 2, 1996.
Eric M. Forman,
Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-11459 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11458 Fluid Milk Promotion Order; Invitation To Submit Comments on Proposed Amendments to the Order
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20759-20760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11458]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 1160
[DA-96-07]
Fluid Milk Promotion Order; Invitation To Submit Comments on
Proposed Amendments to the Order
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document invites written comments on a proposal to amend
the Fluid Milk Promotion Order to modify the term of the chairperson of
the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board. The proposal was
submitted by the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board which
contends the action is necessary to enable it to operate more
effectively.
DATES: Comments are due no later than May 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments (two copies) should be filed with the USDA/AMS/
Dairy Division, Promotion and Research Staff, Room 2734, South
Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene E. Krueger, Head, Promotion and
Research Staff, USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Room 2734, South Building,
P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, (202) 720-6909.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601-612) requires the Agency to examine the impact of a proposed rule
on small entities. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Agricultural
Marketing Service has certified that this rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed amendment would modify the term of the chairperson of the
National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board and would not have an
economic effect on any entity engaged in the dairy industry.
The Department is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with
Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have a retroactive
effect. This proposed rule would not preempt any state or local laws,
regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable conflict
with this rule.
The Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990, as amended, authorizes the
Fluid Milk Promotion Order. The Act provides that administrative
proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court.
Under section 1999K of the Act, any person subject to a Fluid Milk
Promotion Order may file with the Secretary a petition stating that the
order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in
connection with the order is not in accordance with the law and request
a modification of the order or to be exempted from the order. A person
subject to an order is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the
petition. After a hearing, the Secretary would rule on the petition.
The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any
district in which the person is an inhabitant, or has his principal
place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling of
the petition, provided a complaint is filed not later than 20 days
after the date of the entry of the ruling.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter
35), the forms and reporting and recordkeeping requirements that are
included in the Fluid Milk Promotion Order have been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and were assigned OMB No. 0581-
0093, except for Board members' nominee information sheets that were
assigned OMB No. 0505-0001.
Statement of Consideration
Section 1160.209(a) of the Fluid Milk Promotion Order currently
provides that the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board meet at
least once a year and elect from among its members a chairperson to
serve a term of one year and not more than two consecutive terms. The
proposed amendment would modify, from one year to a fiscal period, the
term of the chairperson and provide that such chairperson may serve not
more than two consecutive fiscal periods.
Currently, a term of office for the chairperson of the National
Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board is based on an annual period,
which expires on July 27, 1996, rather than a fiscal period. The
[[Page 20760]]
Board contends that the proposed amendment will provide continuity
between fiscal periods and the terms of office of the chairperson. The
Board indicates that this will allow the Board to operate more
effectively.
A 7-day comment period is deemed appropriate to permit
implementation of this amendment, if adopted, before the annual meeting
of the Board that is tentatively scheduled for the beginning of July
1996.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1160
Milk, Fluid milk products, Promotion.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that 7
CFR part 1160, is amended as follows:
PART 1160--FLUID MILK PROMOTION ORDER
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 1160 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6401-6417.
2. Section 1160.209(a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1160.209 Duties of the Board.
The Board shall have the following duties:
(a) To meet not less than annually, and to organize and select from
among its members a chairperson, who may serve for a term of a fiscal
period pursuant to Sec. 1160.113, and not more than two consecutive
terms, and to select such other officers as may be necessary;
* * * * *
Dated: May 2, 1996.
Lon Hatamiya,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-11458 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11442 Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Model G-1159 (G-II), G-1159A (G-III), and G-1159B (G-IIB) Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20764-20766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11442]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-NM-90-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Model G-1159 (G-II), G-1159A
(G-III), and G-1159B (G-IIB) 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 all Gulfstream Model G-1159 (G-
II), G-1159A (G-III), and G-1159B (G-IIB) series airplanes. This
proposal would require inspections to detect cracking and/or corrosion
at various locations of the wings, and modification of cracked and/or
corroded parts. This proposal is prompted by a report indicating that
cracks, caused by stress corrosion, were found at various locations at
buttock line (BL) 0 to BL 19 of the lower wing plank. The actions
specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent such stress
corrosion cracking, which could result in structural failure of the
wing under certain load conditions.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM-90-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 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Operations
Department, P.O. Box 2206, M/S D-10, Savannah, Georgia 31402-2206. This
information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, Campus
Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2-160, College Park, Georgia.
[[Page 20765]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Flanagan, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, Campus Building,
1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2-160, College Park, Georgia 30337-2748;
telephone (404) 305-7363; fax (404) 305-7348.
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-90-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-90-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The FAA has received a report indicating that cracks were found on
certain Gulfstream Model G-1159 (G-II), G-1159A (G-III), and G-1159B
(G-IIB) series airplanes in the forward and aft flanges of the fail-
safe splice channels at the forward and aft splice locations at buttock
line (BL) 0 to BL 19 of the lower wing planks. In the same location,
cracks have also been found in the vicinity of the internal stiffener
run-outs in the fail-safe tee angles of the wing plank, and in the
connecting angles in the forward wing plank at BL 6. Investigation has
revealed that this cracking is caused by stress corrosion. Stress
corrosion cracking at BL 0 to BL 19 of the lower wing planks, if not
detected and corrected in a timely manner, could result in structural
failure of the wing under certain load conditions.
Explanation of Relevant Service Information
The FAA has reviewed and approved the following Gulfstream customer
bulletins, all of which are dated August 4, 1994:
Gulfstream II Customer Bulletin No. 412,
Gulfstream IIB Customer Bulletin No. 413, and
Gulfstream III Customer Bulletin No. 128.
These customer bulletins describe procedures for radiographic
inspections to detect cracking and/or corrosion of the lower wing plank
at buttock line (BL) 0 to BL 19 and between the stack-ups at the BL 0
to BL 6 ribs. These customer bulletins also describe procedures for
non-destructive test (NDT) inspections to detect cracking and/or
corrosion on the connecting angles from BL 6 to BL 19 ribs; the No. 1
and No. 2 fail-safe tees 1 and 2 at the BL 6 to BL 19 ribs; the wing
plank splice channels at the BL 6 to BL 19 ribs; and the butterfly
splice plates.
The FAA has also reviewed and approved the following Gulfstream
service changes, all of which are dated February 15, 1996:
Gulfstream II Aircraft Service Change No. 490;
Gulfstream IIB Aircraft Service Change No. 491; and
Gulfstream III Aircraft Service Change No. 301.
These aircraft service changes describe procedures for modification
of cracked and/or corroded parts of the wings. This modification
involves removal of all corrosion from the lower wing planks (forward,
mid, and aft) and replacement or repair of the fail-safe channels (BL
6-19) of the lower mid plank and tee clips (BL 6) of the lower forward
plank.
Explanation of the Requirements of the 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 radiographic and NDT inspections to detect
cracking and/or corrosion at various location of the wings, and
modification of cracked and/or corroded parts of the wings. The actions
would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the customer
bulletins and aircraft service changes described previously.
Corrosion and cracking at BL 0 to BL 19 in the lower wing planks is
normally addressed by requiring repetitive inspections of the planks at
18 month intervals that are based on calculations derived from the
service history of the components involved; repetitive inspections of
the lower wing planks will maintain the level of risk for undetected
stress corrosion cracking at acceptable levels. The maintenance program
for Model G-1159 (G-II), G-1159A (G-III), and G-1159B (G-IIB) series
airplanes has been recently revised to extend the interval from 18
months to 72 months for the removal of the fasteners at BL 0 to BL 19.
The FAA has determined that the one-time inspection of the subject
lower wing planks that would be required by this AD, coupled with the
repetitive inspections that currently are a part of the maintenance
program, is adequate to provide a level of reliability and safety
equivalent to that required by the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR).
This combination of inspections will ensure that any corrosion and/or
cracking is detected on the lower wing planks and modified before such
conditions could affect the operational safety of the airplane.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 445 Model G-1159 (G-II), G-1159A (G-III),
and G-1159B (G-IIB) series airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 345 airplanes of U.S. registry
would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately
100 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and
that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these
figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is
estimated to be $2,070,000, or $6,000 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this
proposed AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions
in the future if this AD were not adopted. However, the FAA has been
advised that 304 U.S.-registered airplanes have been inspected in
accordance with the requirements of this AD. Therefore, the future
economic cost impact of this proposed AD on U.S. operators would be
only $246,000.
[[Page 20766]]
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:
Gulfstream: Docket 96-NM-90-AD
Applicability: All Model G-1159 (G-II), G-1159A (G-III), and G-
1159B (G-IIB) 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 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 (c) 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 stress corrosion cracking at BL 0 to 19 of the lower
wing planks, which could result in structural failure of the wing
under certain load conditions, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 9 months after the effective date of this AD, perform
radiographic and non-destructive test (NDT) inspections to detect
cracking and/or corrosion at various locations of the wings as
specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Gulfstream GIII
Customer Bulletin No. 128, dated August 4, 1994; Gulfstream IIB
Customer Bulletin No. 413, dated August 4, 1994; or Gulfstream II
Customer Bulletin No. 412, dated August 4, 1994; as applicable.
Note 2: Inspections accomplished prior to the effective date of
this AD in accordance with the following applicable Gulfstream
documents, are considered acceptable for compliance with paragraph
(a) of this AD.
GII Maintenance Manual Interim Revision 48-3, dated
April 27, 1992;
GII Maintenance Manual Interim Revision 15-3, dated
April 27, 1992; or
GII Maintenance Manual Interim Revision 32-3, dated
April 27, 1992
(b) If any crack and/or corrosion is found during any inspection
required by paragraph (a) of this AD, prior to further flight,
modify the cracked and/or corroded parts of the wings as specified
in the Modification Instructions of Gulfstream III Aircraft Service
Change No. 301; Gulfstream IIB Aircraft Service Change No. 491; or
Gulfstream II Aircraft Service Change No. 490; all dated February
15, 1996; as applicable.
Note 3: Modifications accomplished prior to the effective date
of this AD in accordance with the following applicable Gulfstream
documents, are considered acceptable for compliance with paragraph
(b) of this AD.
Gulfstream III Aircraft Service Change No. 244 (not
dated), as revised by Gulfstream III Aircraft Service Change No. 244
AM 1, dated March 30, 1992;
Gulfstream IIB Aircraft Service Change No. 447, dated
March 16, 1992, as revised by Gulfstream IIB Aircraft Service Change
No. 447 AM 1, dated March 30, 1992; or
Gulfstream II Aircraft Service Change No. 439 (not
dated), as revised by Gulfstream II Aircraft Service Change No. 439
AM 1, dated March 30, 1992
(c) 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, Atlanta Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Small 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, Atlanta ACO.
Note 4: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Atlanta ACO.
(d) 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 May 2, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-11442 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11441 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20762-20764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11441]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-241-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 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 Airbus Model A310 series
airplanes. This proposal would require repetitive inspections to detect
discrepancies of the slat universal joint and steady bearing
assemblies, and replacement of any discrepant assembly with a new, like
assembly. The proposal also would require replacement of all slat
universal joint and steady bearing assemblies with improved assemblies,
which would terminate the repetitive inspections. This proposal is
prompted by reports of broken or missing inner races on the slat
universal joint and steady bearing assemblies of the slat transmission
system. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to
prevent cracking of the inner race, which could cause it to break off
and, consequently, allow the slat universal joint and steady bearing
assemblies to become worn; this situation could result in failure of
the shaft of the slat transmission system, and subsequent uncommanded
movement of the associated slat.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-241-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: Charles Huber, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
[[Page 20763]]
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2589; 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-241-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-241-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the
airworthiness authority for France, recently notified the FAA that an
unsafe condition may exist on certain Airbus Model A310 series
airplanes. The DGAC advises that it has received reports that, during
maintenance inspections, the inner races were found to be broken or
missing on the slat universal joint and steady bearing assemblies of
the slat transmission system. The existing design can cause these inner
races to be susceptible to cracking. If the inner race cracks, it could
break off, and the slat universal joint and steady bearing assemblies
consequently could become worn. This condition, if not corrected, could
result in failure of the shaft of the slat transmission system, and
subsequent uncommanded movement of the associated slat.
Explanation of Relevant Service Information
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A310-27-2040, Revision 2, dated
January 5, 1995. The service bulletin describes procedures for
repetitive visual inspections to detect discrepancies of the slat
universal joint and steady bearing assemblies, and replacement of any
discrepancy assembly with a new, like assembly.
The DGAC classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued
French airworthiness directive (CN) 95-074-179(B), dated April 26,
1995, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes
in France.
In addition, Lucas Liebherr has issued Service Bulletin 523-27-
M523-1, dated April 25, 1986, which describes procedures for
replacement of all slat universal joint and steady bearing assemblies
with new improved assemblies. Accomplishment of the replacement will
eliminate the need for the repetitive inspections. The replacement will
improve the reliability of the universal joint assemblies.
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 the Proposed Requirements of the Rule
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, the
proposed AD would require repetitive visual inspections to detect
discrepancies of the slat universal joint and steady bearing
assemblies, and replacement of any discrepany assembly with a new, like
assembly. The proposed AD also would require replacement of all slat
universal joint and steady bearing assemblies with new assemblies,
which would constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspection
requirements. The actions would be required to be accomplished in
accordance with the service bulletins described previously.
Differences Between the Proposal and the Related French AD
This proposed rule would differ from the parallel French
airworthiness directive (CN) 95-074-179(B), in that it would mandate
the accomplishment of the terminating action for the repetitive
inspections. The French airworthiness directive provides that action as
optional.
Mandating the terminating action is based on the FAA's
determination 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 requirement to accomplish the
terminating action is in consonance with these considerations.
Cost Impact
The FAA estimates that 26 Airbus Model A310 series airplanes of
U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
It would take approximately 5 work hours per airplane to accomplish
the proposed inspection, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed inspection on
U.S. operators is estimated to be $7,800, or $300 per airplane, per
inspection.
It would take approximately 9 work hours per airplane to accomplish
the proposed replacement, at an average labor rate of $60 per work
hour. Required parts would cost approximately $48,108 per airplane.
Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed replacement on
U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,264,848, or $48,648 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in
the future if this AD were not adopted.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects
[[Page 20764]]
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), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Airbus Industrie: Docket 95-NM-241-AD
Applicability: Model A310 series airplanes, on which Airbus
Modification 6022 or 6485 has not been installed; 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 (c) 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 shaft of the slat transmission system,
and subsequent uncommanded movement of the associated slat,
accomplish the following:
(a) Prior to the accumulation of 2,000 landings or 500 flight
hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later,
perform a visual inspection to detect discrepancies of the slat
universal joint and steady bearing assemblies, in accordance with
Airbus Service Bulletin A310-27-2040, Revision 2, dated January 5,
1995.
Note 2: Airbus Service Bulletin A310-27-2040 inadvertently
references Lucas/Liebherr Service Bulletin 551A-27-6010 as the
appropriate source for accomplishing the inspection. Lucas/Liebherr
Service Bulletin 551A-27-610 is the appropriate source of
information.
(1) If no discrepancy is found, repeat the inspection thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 2,000 landings.
(2) If any discrepancy is detected and the groove depth on the
shaft is greater than or equal to 1 mm (0.04 in.), prior to further
flight, replace the discrepant bearing assembly with a new, like
assembly, in accordance with the service bulletin. After
replacement, repeat the visual inspection thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 2,000 landings.
(3) If any discrepancy is detected and the groove depth on the
shaft is less than 1 mm (0.04 in.), prior to 50 landings after
accomplishing the initial inspection, replace the discrepant bearing
assembly with a new, like assembly, in accordance with the service
bulletin. After the replacement, repeat the visual inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 landings.
(b) Within 5 years after the effective date of this AD, replace
the slat universal joint and steady bearing assemblies with new
assemblies, in accordance with Lucas Liebherr Service Bulletin 523-
27-M523-1, dated April 25, 1986. Accomplishment of the replacement
constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection
requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.
(c) 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.
(d) 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 May 2, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-11441 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11417 Office of the Secretary; Fair Market Rents for the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments ProgramFiscal Year 1997
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20982-21041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11417]
[[Page 20981]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Housing and Urban Development
_______________________________________________________________________
24 CFR Part 888
Fair Market Rents for the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments
Program; Fiscal Year 1997; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 20982]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Part 888
[Docket No. FR-4063-N-01]
Office of the Secretary; Fair Market Rents for the Section 8
Housing Assistance Payments Program--Fiscal Year 1997
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 Fair Market Rents
(FMRs).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 8(c)(1) of the United States Housing Act of 1937
requires the Secretary to publish FMRs annually to be effective on
October 1 of each year. FMRs are used for the Section 8 Rental
Certificate Program (including space rentals by owners of manufactured
homes under that program); the Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room
Occupancy program; housing assisted under the Loan Management and
Property Disposition programs; payment standards for the Rental Voucher
program; and any other programs whose regulations specify their use.
Today's notice provides proposed FY 1997 FMRs for all areas.
DATES: Comments due date: July 1, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding
HUD's estimates of the FMRs as published in this Notice to the Office
of the General Counsel, Rules Docket Clerk, Room 10276, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC
20410. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title
and should contain the information specified in the ``Request for
Comments'' section. To ensure that the information is fully considered
by all of the reviewers, each commenter is requested to submit two
copies of its comments, one to the Rules Docket Clerk and the other to
the Economic and Market Analysis Staff in the appropriate HUD Field
Office. A copy of each communication submitted will be available for
public inspection and copying during regular business hours (7:30 a.m.-
5:30 p.m. Eastern Time) at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerald Benoit, Operations Division,
Office of Rental Assistance, telephone (202) 708-0477. For technical
information on the development of schedules for specific areas or the
method used for the rent calculations, contact Alan Fox, Economic and
Market Analysis Division, Office of Economic Affairs, telephone (202)
708-0590. Hearing- or speech-impaired persons may use the
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TTY) by contacting the Federal
Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. (Other than the ``800''
TDD number, telephone numbers are not toll free.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 8 of the United States Housing Act
of 1937 (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1437f) authorizes housing assistance to
aid lower income families in renting decent, safe, and sanitary
housing. Assistance payments are limited by FMRs established by HUD for
different areas. In general, the FMR for an area is the amount that
would be needed to pay the gross rent (shelter rent plus utilities) of
privately owned, decent, safe, and sanitary rental housing of a modest
(non-luxury) nature with suitable amenities.
Publication of FMRs
Section 8(c) of the Act requires the Secretary of HUD to publish
FMRs periodically, but not less frequently than annually. The
Department's regulations provide that HUD will develop FMRs by
publishing proposed FMRs for public comment and after evaluating the
public comments, publish the final FMRs (see 24 CFR 888.115). The
proposed FY 1997 FMR schedules at the end of this document list the FMR
levels for the Rental Certificate program (Schedule B), and for the
areas where the manufactured home space FMRs have had modifications
approved (Schedule D).
Method Used To Develop FMRs
FMR Standard: FMRs are gross rent estimates; they include shelter
rent and the cost of utilities, except telephone. HUD sets FMRs to
assure that a sufficient supply of rental housing is available to
program participants. To accomplish this objective, FMRs must be both
high enough to permit a selection of units and neighborhoods and low
enough to serve as many families as possible. The level at which FMRs
are set is expressed as a percentile point within the rent distribution
of standard quality rental housing units. The current definition used
is the 40th percentile rent, the dollar amount below which 40 percent
of the standard quality rental housing units rent. The 40th percentile
rent is drawn from the distribution of rents of units which are
occupied by recent movers (renter households who moved into their unit
within the past 15 months). Newly built units less than two years old
are excluded, and adjustments have been made to correct for the below
market rents of public housing units included in the data base.
Data Sources: HUD used the most accurate and current data available
to develop the FMR estimates. The sources of survey data used for the
base-year estimates are:
(1) the 1990 Census, which provides statistically reliable rent
data for all FMR areas;
(2) the Bureau of the Census' American Housing Surveys (AHSs),
which are used to develop between-Census revisions for the largest
metropolitan areas and which have accuracy comparable to the decennial
Census; and
(3) Random Digit Dialing (RDD) telephone surveys of individual FMR
areas, which are based on a sampling procedure that uses computers to
select statistically random samples of rental housing.
The base-year FMRs are updated using trending factors based on
Consumer Price Index (CPI) data for rents and utilities or HUD regional
rent change factors developed from RDD surveys. Annual average CPI data
are available individually for 102 metropolitan FMR areas. RDD regional
rent change factors are developed annually for the metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan parts of each of the 10 HUD regions. The RDD factors
are used to update the base year estimates for all FMR areas that do
not have their own local CPI survey.
State Minimum FMRs: Starting with the FY 1996 FMRs, HUD implemented
a new minimum FMR policy in response to numerous public concerns that
FMRs in rural area were too low to operate the program successfully. As
a result, FMRs are established at the higher of the local FMR or the
Statewide average of nonmetropolitan counties, subject to a ceiling
rent cap. The State minimum also affects a small number of metropolitan
areas whose rents would otherwise fall below the State minimum.
FY 1997 FMRs: This document proposes revised FMRs that reflect
estimated 40th percentile rent levels trended to April 1, 1997. FMRs
have been calculated separately for each bedroom size category. For
most FMR areas, the bedroom size ratios are based on 1990 Census data
for that area. Exceptions have been made for areas with local bedroom
size rent intervals below an acceptable range. For those areas the
bedroom size intervals selected were the minimums determined after
outliers had been excluded from the distribution of bedroom ratios for
all metropolitan areas. Higher ratios continue to be used
[[Page 20983]]
for three-bedroom and larger size units than would result from using
the actual market relationships. This is done to assist the largest,
most difficult to house families in finding program-eligible units.
RDD Surveys: RDD surveys are used to obtain statistically-reliable
FMR estimates for selected FMR areas. This survey technique involves
drawing random samples of renter units occupied by recent movers. RDD
surveys exclude public housing units, units built in the past two
years, seasonal units, non-cash rental units, and those owned by
relatives. A HUD analysis has shown that the slight downward RDD survey
bias caused by including some rental units that are in substandard
condition is almost exactly offset by the slight upward bias that
results from surveying only units with telephones.
On average, about 8,000 telephone numbers need to be contacted to
achieve the target survey sample level of at least 400 eligible
responses. RDD surveys have a high degree of statistical accuracy;
there is a 95 percent likelihood that the recent mover rent estimates
developed using this approach are within 3 to 4 percent of the actual
rent value. Virtually all of the estimates will be within 5 percent of
the actual value.
Today's notice proposes reduced FMRs based on RDD surveys for 7
areas. They are the Aguadilla, Arecibo, Ponce, and the nonmetropolitan
areas of PR, plus the Danbury, CT, Portland, ME, and Portsmouth-
Rochester, NH-ME FMR areas.
AHS Areas: AHSs cover the largest metropolitan areas on a four-year
cycle, encompassing nearly half of the nation's rental housing stock.
The 40th percentile rents for these areas are calculated from the
distributions of two-bedroom units occupied by recent movers. Public
housing units, newly constructed units and units that fail a housing
quality test are excluded from the rental housing distributions before
the FMRs are calculated. The proposed FY 1997 FMRs incorporate the
results of the 1994 AHSs. Based on the 1994 survey results, the FMRs
for the Orange County, CA and Riverside-San Bernardino, CA FMR areas
are being proposed with decreases. No changes were necessary for 5
other AHS areas. The FMRs for Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY, Dallas, TX,
Fort Worth-Arlington, TX, Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI, and San Diego, CA,
were updated in the normal manner.
FMR Area Definition Change
At the request of the Rural Housing and Community Development
Service (RHS), HUD has reevaluated the Lafayette Louisiana FMR area
definition and has decided to use the full OMB metropolitan area
definition. This publication, therefore, proposes the revised
definition, consisting of Acadia, Lafayette, St. Landry, and St. Martin
Parishes. HUD accepts the RHS position that there is significant
commuting among these four Parishes and that they should be treated as
a single housing market area for FMR purposes.
The proposed FY 1997 FMRs for the Lafayette FMR area, therefore,
are based on an RDD survey of the four-Parish area conducted by HUD in
1995 and updated to the as-of date of this year's FMR estimates. As a
result of combining the four Parishes into one FMR area, the proposed
FMRs for Lafayette and St. Martin Parishes are $21 lower and those for
Acadia and St. Landry Parishes are $37 higher than last year's levels.
HUD invites public comments on the appropriateness of the revised FMR
area definition as well as the accuracy of the proposed FMRs.
Manufactured Home Space FMRs
Manufactured home space FMRs are 30 percent of the applicable
Section 8 Rental Certificate program FMR for a two-bedroom unit. HUD
accepts public comments requesting modifications of these FMRs where
they are thought to be inadequate to run the program. In order to be
accepted as a basis for revising the FMRs, such comments must contain
statistically valid survey data that show the 40th percentile space
rent (excluding the cost of utilities) for the entire FMR area. This
program uses the same FMR area definitions as the Section 8 Rental
Certificate program. Manufactured home space FMR revisions are
published as final FMRs in Schedule D. Once approved, the revised
manufactured home space FMRs establish new base year estimates that are
updated annually using the same data used to update the Rental
Certificate program FMRs.
Puerto Rico FMRs
RDD surveys were conducted for all Puerto Rico FMR areas during
1995. For three of them, Aguadilla, Arecibo, and Ponce, not enough
sample cases were obtained in 1995 to be usable with sufficient
confidence for FMR purposes. In early 1996, HUD resumed and completed
the RDD surveys of these three areas, and re-evaluated the 1995
nonmetropolitan survey results, and this Federal Register notice
includes proposed reductions for all of them. This notice also corrects
an erroneous statement in the February 21, 1996 Federal Register notice
regarding Aguadilla and the nonmetropolitan areas that their RDD
surveys had been completed. The FMRs for the nonmetropolitan areas of
Puerto Rico are being proposed for reduction, using data from the 1995
RDD survey. As stated in previous Federal Register notices on this
subject, the Puerto Rico surveys used an augmented questionnaire which
included many questions regarding housing quality, and the survey was
administered in Spanish. This completes HUD's RDD-based review of FMRs
throughout Puerto Rico.
Technical Correction--Santa Rosa, CA
In the February 21, 1996, Federal Register publication (61 FR
6690), the FMRs for the zero-bedroom, 3-bedroom, and 4-bedroom sizes
for the Santa Rosa, CA PMSA were in error. The corrected FY 1996 FMRs
are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bedroom
----------------------------------
0 1 2 3 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Rosa, CA PMSA.................. $512 581 753 1047 1236
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMRs for Federal Disaster Areas
Under the authority granted in 24 CFR part 899, the Secretary finds
good cause to waive the regulatory requirements that govern requests
for geographic area FMR exceptions for areas that are declared disaster
areas by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) during FY 1996.
HUD is prepared to grant disaster-related exceptions up to 10 percent
above the applicable FMRs. HUD field offices are authorized to approve
such exceptions for: (1) Single-county FMR areas and for individual
county parts of multi-county FMR areas that qualify as disaster areas
under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act; if (2) the PHA certifies that damage to the rental housing stock
as a result of the disaster is so substantial that it has increased the
prevailing rent levels in the affected area. Such exceptions must be
requested in writing by the responsible PHAs. Once approved by HUD,
they will remain in effect until superseded by the publication of the
final FY 1999 FMRs.
Request for Comments
HUD seeks public comments on FMR levels for specific areas.
Comments on
[[Page 20984]]
FMR levels must include sufficient information (including local data
and a full description of the rental housing survey methodology used)
to justify any proposed changes. Changes may be proposed in all or any
one or more of the bedroom-size categories on the schedule.
Recommendations and supporting data must reflect the rent levels that
exist within the entire FMR area.
HUD recommends use of professionally-conducted Random Digit Dialing
(RDD) telephone surveys to test the accuracy of FMRs for areas where
there is a sufficient number of Section 8 units to justify the survey
cost of $10,000-$12,000. Areas with 500 or more program units usually
meet this criterion, and areas with fewer units may meet it if actual
two-bedroom FMR rents are significantly different from the FMRs
proposed by HUD. In addition, HUD has developed a version of the RDD
survey methodology for smaller, nonmetropolitan PHAs. This methodology
is designed to be simple enough to be done by the PHA itself, rather
than by professional survey organizations, at a cost of $5,000 or less.
PHAs in nonmetropolitan areas may, in certain circumstances, do
surveys of groups of counties. All grouped county surveys must be
approved in advance by HUD. PHAs are cautioned that the resultant FMRs
will not be identical for the counties surveyed; each individual FMR
area will have a separate FMR based on its relationship to the combined
rent of the cluster of FMR areas.
PHAs that plan to use the RDD survey technique may obtain a copy of
the appropriate survey guide by calling HUD USER on 1-800-245-2691.
Larger PHAs should request ``Random Digit Dialing Surveys; A Guide to
Assist Larger Public Housing Agencies in Preparing Fair Market Rent
Comments.'' Smaller PHAs should obtain ``Rental Housing Surveys; A
Guide to Assist Smaller Public Housing Agencies in Preparing Fair
Market Rent Comments.''
HUD prefers, but does not mandate, the use of RDD telephone
surveys, or the more traditional method described in the small PHA
survey guide along with the simplified RDD methodology. Other survey
methodologies are acceptable as long as the surveys submitted provide
statistically reliable, unbiased estimates of the 40th percentile gross
rent. Survey samples should preferably be randomly drawn from a
complete list of rental units for the FMR area. If this is not
feasible, the selected sample must be drawn so as to be statistically
representative of the entire rental housing stock of the FMR area. In
particular, surveys must include units of all rent levels and be
representative by structure type (including single-family, duplex and
other small rental properties), age of housing unit, and geographic
location. The decennial Census should be used as a starting point and
means of verification for determining whether the sample is
representative of the FMR area's rental housing stock.
Local rental housing surveys conducted with alternative methods
must include the same type of documentation required of the RDD-type
surveys. Specifically, PHA submissions must include:
--Identification of the 40th percentile gross rent (gross rent is rent
including the cost of utilities) and the actual distribution (or
distributions if more than one bedroom size is surveyed) of the
surveyed units rank-ordered by gross rent.
--An explanation of how the rental housing sample was drawn and a copy
of the survey questionnaire, transmittal letter, and any publicity
materials.
--An explanation of how the contract rents of the individual units
surveyed were converted to gross rents. (For RDD-type surveys HUD
requires use of the Section 8 utility allowance schedule.)
--An explanation of how the survey excluded units built within two
years prior to the survey date.
--The date the rent data were collected so that HUD can apply a
trending factor to update the estimate. If the survey has already been
trended to this date, the date the survey was conducted and a
description of the trending factor used.
--Copies of all survey sheets.
Since FMRs are based on standard quality units and units occupied
by recent movers, both of which are difficult to identify and survey,
HUD will accept surveys of all rental units and apply appropriate
adjustments.
Most surveys cover only one- and two-bedroom units, in which case
HUD will make the adjustments for other size units consistent with the
differentials established on the basis of the 1990 Census data for the
FMR area. When three- and four-bedroom units are surveyed separately to
determine FMRs for these unit size categories, the commenter should
multiply the 40th percentile survey rents by 1.087 and by 1.077,
respectively, to determine the FMRs. The use of these factors will
produce the same upward adjustments in the rent differentials as those
used in the HUD methodology.
Other Matters
A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment
as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-
4374) is unnecessary, since the Section 8 Rental Certificate program is
categorically excluded from the Department's National Environmental
Policy Act procedures under 24 CFR 50.20(d).
The undersigned, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 605(b)), hereby certifies that this Notice does not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
because FMRs do not change the rent from that which would be charged if
the unit were not in the Section 8 program.
The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under Executive
Order No. 12606, The Family, has determined that this Notice will not
have a significant impact on family formation, maintenance, or well-
being. The Notice amends Fair Market Rent schedules for various Section
8 assisted housing programs, and does not affect the amount of rent a
family receiving rental assistance pays, which is based on a percentage
of the family's income.
The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under section 6(a)
of Executive Order No. 12611, Federalism, has determined that this
Notice will not involve the preemption of State law by Federal statute
or regulation and does not have Federalism implications. The Fair
Market Rent schedules do not have any substantial direct impact on
States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibility among the
various levels of government.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program number is
14.156, Lower-Income Housing Assistance Program (section 8).
Accordingly, the Fair Market Rent Schedules, which will be codified
in 24 CFR Part 888, are amended as follows:
Dated: April 30, 1996.
Henry G. Cisneros,
Secretary.
Fair Market Rents for the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments
Program
Schedules B and D--General Explanatory Notes
1. Geographic Coverage
a. The FMRs shown in Schedule B incorporate the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) most current definitions of metropolitan
areas (with the exceptions discussed in paragraph b). HUD uses the OMB
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and Primary
[[Page 20985]]
Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) definitions for FMR areas because
they closely correspond to housing market area definitions. FMRs are
housing market-wide rent estimates that are intended to provide housing
opportunities throughout the geographic area in which rental housing
units are in direct competition.
b. The exceptions are counties deleted from seven large
metropolitan areas whose revised OMB definitions were determined by HUD
to be larger than the housing market areas. The FMRs for the following
counties (shown by the metropolitan area) are calculated separately and
are shown in Schedule B within their respective States under the
``Metropolitan FMR Areas'' listing:
Metropolitan Area and Counties Deleted
Atlanta, GA--Carroll, Pickens, and Walton Counties.
Chicago, IL--DeKalb, Grundy and Kendall Counties.
Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN--Brown County, Ohio; Gallatin, Grant and
Pendleton Counties in Kentucky; and Ohio County, Indiana.
Dallas, TX--Henderson County.
Flagstaff, AZ-UT--Kane County, UT
New Orleans, LA--St. James Parish.
Washington, DC--Berkeley and Jefferson Counties in West Virginia; and
Clarke, Culpeper, King George and Warren counties in Virginia.
c. FMRs also are established for nonmetropolitan counties and for
county equivalents in the United States, for nonmetropolitan parts of
counties in the New England states and for FMR areas in Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, and the Pacific Islands.
d. FMRs for the areas in Virginia shown in the table below were
established by combining the Census data for the nonmetropolitan
counties with the data for the independent cities that are located
within the county borders. Because of space limitations, the FMR
listing in Schedule B includes only the name of the nonmetropolitan
county. The complete definitions of these areas including the
independent cities are as follows:
Virginia Nonmetropolitan County FMR Area and Independent Cities
Included
------------------------------------------------------------------------
County Cities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny............................. Clifton Forge and Covington
Augusta............................... Staunton and Waynesboro
Carroll............................... Galax
Frederick............................. Winchester
Greensville........................... Emporia
Halifax............................... South Boston
Henry................................. Martinsville
Montgomery............................ Radford
Rockbridge............................ Buena Vista and Lexington
Rockingham............................ Harrisonburg
Southhampton.......................... Franklin
Wise.................................. Norton
------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. FMRs for Section 8 manufactured home spaces are 30 percent of
the two-bedroom Section 8 Rental Certificate program FMRs, with the
exception of the areas listed in Schedule D whose manufactured home
space FMRs have been revised on the basis of public comments. Once
approved, the revised manufactured home space FMRs establish new base-
year estimates that are updated annually using the same data used to
estimate the Rental Certificate program FMRs. The FMR area definitions
used for manufactured home spaces are the same as for the Section 8
Certificate program.
2. Arrangement of FMR Areas and Identification of Constituent Parts
a. The FMR areas in Schedule B are listed alphabetically by
metropolitan FMR area and by nonmetropolitan county within each State.
The exception FMRs for manufactured home spaces in Schedule D are
listed alphabetically by State.
b. The constituent counties (and New England towns and cities)
included in each metropolitan FMR area are listed immediately following
the listings of the FMR dollar amounts. All constituent parts of a
metropolitan FMR area that are in more than one State can be identified
by consulting the listings for each applicable State.
c. Two nonmetropolitan counties are listed alphabetically on each
line of the nonmetropolitan county listings.
d. The New England towns and cities included in a nonmetropolitan
part of a county are listed immediately following the county name.
e. The FMRs are listed by dollar amount on the first line beginning
with the FMR area name.
BILLING CODE 4210-32-P
[[Page 20986]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.025
[[Page 20987]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.026
[[Page 20988]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.027
[[Page 20989]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.028
[[Page 20990]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.029
[[Page 20991]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.030
[[Page 20992]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.031
[[Page 20993]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.032
[[Page 20994]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.033
[[Page 20995]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.034
[[Page 20996]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.035
[[Page 20997]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.036
[[Page 20998]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.037
[[Page 20999]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.038
[[Page 21000]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.039
[[Page 21001]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.040
[[Page 21002]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.041
[[Page 21003]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.042
[[Page 21004]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.043
[[Page 21005]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.044
[[Page 21006]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.045
[[Page 21007]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.046
[[Page 21008]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.047
[[Page 21009]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.048
[[Page 21010]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.049
[[Page 21011]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.050
[[Page 21012]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.051
[[Page 21013]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.052
[[Page 21014]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.053
[[Page 21015]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.054
[[Page 21016]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.055
[[Page 21017]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.056
[[Page 21018]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.057
[[Page 21019]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.058
[[Page 21020]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.059
[[Page 21021]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.060
[[Page 21022]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.061
[[Page 21023]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.062
[[Page 21024]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.063
[[Page 21025]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.064
[[Page 21026]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.065
[[Page 21027]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.066
[[Page 21028]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.067
[[Page 21029]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.068
[[Page 21030]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.069
[[Page 21031]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.070
[[Page 21032]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.071
[[Page 21033]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.072
[[Page 21034]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.073
[[Page 21035]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.074
[[Page 21036]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.075
[[Page 21037]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.076
[[Page 21038]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.077
[[Page 21039]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.078
[[Page 21040]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.079
[[Page 21041]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08MY96.080
[FR Doc. 96-11417 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-32-C
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11412 Bluefish Fishery; Proposed Removal of Regulations; Comment Period Extension
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11412]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 628
[Docket No. 960315079-6079-01; I.D. 031296D]
RIN 0648-AI16
Bluefish Fishery; Proposed Removal of Regulations; Comment Period
Extension
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS announces that it is extending the public comment period
for the proposed rule to withdraw approval of the Fishery Management
Plan (FMP) for the Bluefish Fishery and remove implementing
regulations. The end of the public comment period for the proposed
withdrawal of the FMP for the Bluefish Fishery is extended from May 13,
1996, to June 7, 1996.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 7, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed rule should be sent to Dr. Andrew
A. Rosenberg, Regional Director, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-3799.
Copies of the environmental assessment and regulatory impact review
are also available from the same address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myles Raizin, 508-281-9104.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
As a result of comments and a request received from the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) in a letter dated April 10,
1996, NMFS is extending the comment period for the proposed rule that
announced an initial determination by NMFS to withdraw approval of the
FMP for the Bluefish Fishery (March 28, 1996, 61 FR 13810). The ASMFC
advised NMFS that it needs additional time to consider the proposal to
withdraw the FMP for the Bluefish Fishery and that it can make
recommendations and provide meaningful comment only after its Bluefish
Management Board has met during the ASMFC's Spring 1996 meeting of May
28-31, 1996. Therefore, NMFS is extending the public comment period for
the proposed rule to June 7, 1996.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: May 2, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-11412 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11411 FUTA Taxation of Amounts Under Employee Benefits Plans; FICA Taxation of Amounts Under Employee Benefits Plans; Hearing
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20767-20768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11411]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
26 CFR Part 31
[EE-55-95; EE-142-87]
RIN 1545-AT99; 1545-AF97
FUTA Taxation of Amounts Under Employee Benefits Plans; FICA
Taxation of Amounts Under Employee Benefits Plans; Hearing
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of public hearing on proposed regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document provides notice of a public hearing on proposed
Income Tax Regulations relating to when amounts deferred under or paid
from certain nonqualified deferred compensation plans are taken into
account as ``wages'' for purposes of the employment taxes imposed by
the Federal Unemployment Tax Act and the Federal Insurance
Contributions Act.
DATES: The public hearing will be held on Monday, June 24, 1996,
beginning at 10:00 a.m. Requests to speak and outlines of oral comments
must be received by Monday, June 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be held in the Internal Revenue
Service Auditorium, Seventh Floor, 7400 Corridor, Internal Revenue
Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. Requests to
speak and outlines of oral comments should be submitted to the Internal
Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Attn:
CC:DOM:CORP:R [EE-55-95]; [EE-142-87] room 5228, Washington, DC 20044.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Slaughter of the Regulations
Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate), (202) 622-7190, (not a toll-
free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject of the public hearing is
proposed amendments to the Income Tax Regulations under sections 3306
and 3121 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. These proposed
regulations appeared in the Federal Register for Thursday, January 25,
1996 (61 FR 2194; 2214).
The rules of Sec. 601.601 (a)(3) of the ``Statement of Procedural
Rules'' (26 CFR part 601) shall apply with respect to the public
hearing. Persons who have submitted written comments within the time
prescribed in the notice of proposed rulemaking and who also desire to
present oral comments at the hearing on the proposed regulations should
submit not later than Monday, June 3, 1996, an outline of the oral
comments/testimony to be presented at the hearing and the time they
wish to devote to each subject.
Each speaker (or group of speakers representing a single entity)
will be limited to 10 minutes for an oral presentation exclusive of the
time consumed by the questions from the panel for the government and
answers to these questions.
Because of controlled access restrictions, attendees cannot be
admitted beyond the lobby of the Internal Revenue Building until 9:45
a.m.
An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be made after
outlines
[[Page 20768]]
are received from the persons testifying. Copies of the agenda will be
available free of charge at the hearing.
Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 96-11411 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11410 Loans to Plan Participants; Hearing
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20766-20767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11410]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[EE-106-82]
RIN 1545-AE45
Loans to Plan Participants; Hearing
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document provides notice of a public hearing on proposed
regulations relating to loans made from a qualified employer plan to
plan participants or beneficiaries.
DATES: The public hearing will be held on Friday, June 28, 1996,
beginning at 10 a.m. Requests to speak and outlines or oral comments
must be received by Friday, June 7, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be held in the Internal Revenue
Service Auditorium, Seventh Floor, 7400 Corridor, Internal Revenue
Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Requests to
speak and outlines of oral comments should be mailed to the Internal
Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Attn:
CC:DOM:CORP:R [EE 106-82], room 5226, Washington, DC 20044.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Vasquez of Regulations Unit,
Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate), (202) 622-6803 (not a toll-free
number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject of the public hearing is
proposed amendments to the Income Tax Regulations under section 72 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The proposed regulations appeared in
the Federal Register for Thursday, December 21, 1995 (60 FR 66233).
The rules of Sec. 601.601(a)(3) of the ``Statement of Procedural
Rules'' (26 CFR Part 601) shall apply with respect to the public
hearing. Persons who have submitted written comments within the
[[Page 20767]]
time prescribed in the notice of proposed rulemaking and who also
desire to present oral comments at the hearing on the proposed
regulations should submit not later than Friday, June 7, 1996, an
outline of the oral comments/testimony to be presented at the hearing
and the time they wish to devote to each subject.
Each speaker (or group of speakers representing a single entity)
will be limited to 10 minutes for an oral presentation exclusive of the
time consumed by the questions from the panel for the government and
answer thereto.
Because of controlled access restrictions, attenders cannot be
admitted beyond the lobby of the Internal Revenue Building until 9:45
a.m.
An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be made after
outlines are received from the persons testifying. Copies of the agenda
will be available free of charge at the hearing.
Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 96-11410 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11409 Income Taxes; Information and Backup Withholding; Hearing
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11409]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
26 CFR Parts 1, 32 and 35a
[IL-52-86]
RIN 1545-AL99
Income Taxes; Information and Backup Withholding; Hearing
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document provides notice of a public hearing on proposed
regulations relating, in part, to information reporting and backup
withholding under the Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983,
as well as, incorporate changes to the applicable tax law made by the
Interest and Dividend Tax Compliance Act of 1983, the Tax Reform Act of
1984, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
DATES: The public hearing will be held on Wednesday, July 24, 1996,
beginning at 10 a.m. Requests to speak and outlines of oral comments
must be received by Wednesday, July 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be held in the Auditorium of the
Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20044. Requests to speak and outlines of oral comments should be
mailed to the Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin
Station, Attn: CC:DOM:CORP:R [IL-52-86], Room 5228, Washington, DC
20044.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evangelista Lee of the Regulations
Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate), (202) 622-7190 (not a toll-
free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject of the public hearing is
proposed amendments to the Income Tax Regulations under sections 3406,
6041 through 6049, and 6050A of the Internal Revenue Code. The proposed
regulations appeared in the Federal Register on Monday, February 29,
1988 (53 FR 5991).
The rules of Sec. 601.601(a)(3) of the ``Statement of Procedural
Rules'' (26 CFR Part 601) shall apply with respect to the public
hearing. Persons who have submitted written comments within the time
prescribed in the notice of proposed rulemaking and who also desire to
present oral comments at the hearing on the proposed regulations should
submit not later than Wednesday, July 3, 1996, an outline of the oral
comments/testimony to be presented at the hearing and the time they
wish to devote to each subject.
Each speaker (or group of speakers representing a single entity)
will be limited to 10 minutes for an oral presentation exclusive of the
time consumed by the questions from the panel for the government and
answer thereto.
Because of controlled access restrictions, attenders cannot be
admitted beyond the lobby of the Internal Revenue Building until 9:45
a.m.
An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be made after
outlines are received from the persons testifying. Copies of the agenda
will be available free of charge at the hearing.
Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 96-11409 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11397 Voyageurs National Park, Aircraft OperationsDesignation of Areas
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11397]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 7
RIN 1024-AC23
Voyageurs National Park, Aircraft Operations--Designation of
Areas
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The proposed rule would amend the special regulations for
Voyageurs National Park by replacing the interim rule (60 FR 39257)
that was published on August 2, 1995, designating certain areas open to
aircraft use within the park. This rulemaking is necessary to comply
with NPS general regulations that require special regulatory
designation for areas in parks open to the operation or use by
aircraft. The intended effect of this rule is to increase safety,
protect resources and provide appropriate enjoyment to all park users.
The 1980 Master Plan for the park states that float planes and ski
planes will be allowed upon all lakes deemed safe by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation. It also stated this allowance would be
subject to the findings of a wilderness study. The 1992 wilderness
study. The 1992 wilderness study recommended that planes be allowed on
the four major lakes (Rainy, Kabetogama, Namakan and Sand Point), as
well as the following interior lakes: Locator, War Club, Quill, Loiten,
Shoepack, Little Trout and Mukooda. Each year the park receives an
increasing number of inquiries for permission to land float planes in
the park.
Public aircraft use on park waters occurred prior to the
designation of the park in 1971. This use is primarily related to
fishing, camping, transportation to resorts and summer dwellings and is
typical for the area. Float plane use is mainly associated with the
four major lakes with use of the interior lakes constituting less than
one percent of the park's use. Aircraft are currently prohibited from
using about 22 small interior lakes that have been determined to be too
small to use safely by the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Three other lakes that have been used periodically and are accessible
by hiking trails will not be opened to float plane use by this
regulation. The closing of these three interior lakes will allow the
park to manage the interior lakes on an equitable basis since other
motorized uses are prohibited.
DATES: Written Comments will be accepted through September 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to: Superintendent, Proposed
Regulation Comment, Voyageurs National Park, 3131 Highway 53,
International Falls, MN 56649-8904.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chief Ranger, Voyageurs National Park, 3131 Highway 53, International
Falls, MN 56649-8904. Telephone (218) 283-9821.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Extended Comment Period: Voyageurs National Park--Aircraft
Operations, Designation of Areas
This document announces a 120-day reopening of the comment period
for the proposed rule--Voyageurs National Park--Aircraft Operations,
Designation of Areas--that was published in the Federal Register on
January 31, 1996 (61 FR 3360). The initial comment period expired on
April 1, 1996. Comments received during the initial comment period
requested additional time to review the proposed regulation.
Accordingly, the comment period for the proposed rule is hereby
extended an additional 120 days.
Dated: April 25, 1996.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 96-11397 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11382 Radio Broadcasting Services; Castana, IA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11382]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-96; RM-8791]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Castana, IA
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition by Gene Zortman
proposing the allotment of Channel 298A to Castana, Iowa, as the
community's first local aural transmission service. Channel 298A can be
allotted to Castana in compliance with the Commission's minimum
distance separation requirements without the imposition of a site
restriction. The coordinates for Channel 298A at Castana are 42-04-24
and 95-54-36.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 20, 1996, and reply
comments on or before July 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Gene
Zortman, Chairman, Onawa Radio Committee, 1112 Emerald Street, Onawa,
Iowa 51040 (Petitioner).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-96, adopted April 10,
1996, and released April 29, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857-
3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
Andrew J. Rhodes,
Acting Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-11382 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11342 Avermectin BINF1, and its Delta-8,9-Isomer; Proposed Renewal of Time-Limited Tolerances
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20780-20781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11342]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 180, 185 and 186
[OPP-300423; FRL-5364-8]
RIN 2070-AC18
Avermectin B1, and its Delta-8,9-Isomer; Proposed Renewal of
Time-Limited Tolerances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to renew time-limited tolerances for
the residues of the insecticide avermectin B1 and its delta-8,9-
Isomer in or on certain raw agricultural commodities. This rule which
would renew the effective date for the time-limited tolerances of this
insecticide in or on these commodities was requested by Merck & Co.,
Inc., Merck Sharp and Dohme Research Laboratories.
DATES: Comments identified by the docket number, [OPP-300423], must be
received on or before June 7, 1996.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Public Docket, Rm.
1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). Information so marked will
not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures as set forth in
40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked
confidential will be included in the public docket by EPA without prior
notice. The public docket is available for public inspection in Rm.
1132 at the above address, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file format.
All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the
docket number [OPP-300423]. No CBI should be submitted through e-mail.
Electronic comments on this proposed rule may be filed online at many
Federal Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic
submissions can be found below in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: George T. LaRocca,
Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Office location and telephone number: Rm. 202, CM #2, 1900 Jefferson
Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 305-5419; e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Agency issued a conditional registration
for avermectin B1 for use on cotton on May 22, 1989 with an
expiration date of March 31, 1992 (see the Federal Register of August
27, 1989 (54 FR 35059)). This conditional registration was subsequently
amended on July 25, 1989 to include citrus (see the Federal Register of
August 2, 1989 (54 FR 31836)) and on April 1, 1992 the expiration date
for conditional registration was extended to April 30, 1995. On May 1,
1995 the expiration date for conditional registration was again
extended to November 15, 1996. The registrations were made conditional
since certain data were lacking and required by the Agency to allow it
to evaluate the effects of avermectin B1 on fish and aquatic
organisms. See the Federal Register of August 23, 1989 (54 FR 35059)
and August 3, 1994 (59 FR 39505) for the status of specific data
requirements. Because of the lack of these data the tolerances on
cotton and citrus were made temporary until the conditions of
registration were fulfilled.
The Agency's evaluation of the risk reduction measures to assess
aquatic hazard and exposure from use of this pesticide on cotton and
citrus will not be completed in time to establish a permanent tolerance
prior to the expiration date (April 30, 1996) for the time-limited
tolerances. The Agency therefore proposes that to be consistent with
the extensions issued for the conditional registration (November 15,
1996) the time-limited tolerances for cotton and citrus, meat, meat by-
products, milk and processed food/feed commodities be renewed until
November 15, 1997. The Agency has determined that renewing the
tolerances will protect the public health. Therefore tolerances on
cotton, citrus and other affected commodities are proposed to be
renewed as set forth below.
The data submitted in support of these tolerances and other
relevant material have been reviewed. The toxicological and metabolism
data and analytical methods for enforcement purposes considered in
support of these tolerances are discussed in detail in related
documents published in the Federal Register of May 31, 1989 (54 FR
23209--cottonseed) and August 2, 1989 (54 FR 31836--citrus).
Residues remaining in or on the above raw agricultural commodity
after expiration of these tolerances will not be considered actionable
if the pesticide is legally applied during the term and in accordance
with the provisions of the conditional registrations.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, which contains the ingredient
listed herein, may request within 30 days after the publication of this
document in the Federal Register that this rulemaking proposal be
referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance with section 408(e) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed rule. Comments must bear a notation indicating the document
control number, [OPP-300423]. All written comments filed in response to
this proposed rule will be available in the Public Response and Program
Resources Branch at the above address from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except legal holidays.
A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket
number [OPP-300423] (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to
[[Page 20781]]
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public
record is located in Room 1132 of the Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, CM #2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the address in ADDRESSES at the beginning of
this document.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this document from
the requirement of review pursuant to Executive Order 12866. In
addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty, or contain
any ``unfunded mandates'' as described in Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), or require prior
consultation as specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093,
October 28, 1993), entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership, or special considerations as required by Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 185
Food additives, Pesticides and pest.
40 CFR Part 186
Animal feeds, Pesticides and pest.
Dated: April 26, 1996.
Peter Caulkins,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. In Sec. 180.449, by revising paragraph (a), to read as follows:
Sec. 180.449 Avermectin B1 and its deltal-8,9-isomer; tolerances
for residues.
(a) Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the
insecticide avermectin B1 (a mixture of avermectins containing
greater that or equal to 80% avermectin B1a (5-0-dimethyl
avermcetin A1a) and less than or equal to 20% avermectin B1b
(5-0-demethyl-25-de(1-methylpropyl)-25-(1-methylethyl) avermectin
A1a)) and it delta-8,9-isomer in or on the following commodities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million Expiration Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat........................ 0.015 November 15, 1997
Cattle, meat...................... 0.02 November 15, 1997
Cattle, mybp...................... 0.02 November 15, 1997
Citrus, whole fruit............... 0.02 November 15, 1997
Cottonseed........................ 0.005 November 15, 1997
Hops, dried....................... 0.5 December 31, 1996
Milk.............................. 0.005 November 15, 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
PART 185--[AMENDED]
2. In Part 185:
a. The authority citation for Part 185 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 348
b. Section 185.300 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 185.300 Avermectin B1 and its delta-8,9 isomer; tolerances
for residues.
Tolerances to expire on November 15, 1997 are established for the
combined residues of theinsecticide avermectin B1 (a mixture of
avermectins containing greater that or equal to 80% avermectin
B1a(5-0-dimethyl avermcetin A1a) and less than or equal to
20% avermectin B1b(5-0-demethyl-25-de(1-methylpropyl)-25-(1-
methylethyl)avermectin A1a)) and it delta-8,9-isomer in or on the
following commodity:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citrus Oil................................................. 0.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 186--[AMENDED]
3. In part 186:
a. The authority citation for part 186 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 348.
b. In Sec. 186.300 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 186.300 Avermectin B1 and its delta-8,9-isomer; tolerances
for residues.
(a) Tolerances to expire on November 15, 1997 are established for
the combined residues of the insecticide avermectin B1 (a mixture
of avermectins containing greater that or equal to 80% avermectin
B1a (5-0-dimethyl avermcetin A1a) and less than or equal to
20% avermectin B1b (5-0-demethyl-25-de(1-methylpropyl)-25-(1-
methylethyl) avermectin A1a)) and it delta-8,9-isomer in or on the
following commodity:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts per
Commodity million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dried Citrus pulp.......................................... 0.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-11342 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11341 Fluorine Compounds; Pesticide Tolerance and Feed Additive Regulation
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20781-20785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11341]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 180 and 186
[PP 9F3739 FAP 1H5604/P654; FRL-5362-6]
RIN 2070-AC18
Fluorine Compounds; Pesticide Tolerance and Feed Additive
Regulation
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish a pesticide tolerance for residues
of the insecticidal fluorine compounds cryolite and/or synthetic
cryolite (sodium aluminum fluoride) in or on
[[Page 20782]]
the raw agricultural commodity potatoes at 2.0 parts per million (ppm)
and a feed additive regulation for the animal feed commodity, potato
waste resulting from the processing of treated potatoes at 22.0 ppm.
The proposed tolerance and regulation to establish maximum permissible
levels for residues of the pesticide in or on the commodities were
requested in petitions submitted by Attochem North America, Inc.
DATES: Comments, identified by the docket control number [PP 9F3739 and
FAP 1H5604/P654], must be received on or before June 7, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments by mail to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Public Docket, Rm.
1132, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII file
format. All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by
the docket number (PP 9F3739 and FAP 1H5604/P654). No Confidential
Business Information (CBI) should be submitted through e-mail.
Electronic comments on this proposed rule may be filed online at many
Federal Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic
submissions can be found below in this document.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance
with procedures as set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment
that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public
record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the
public docket by EPA without prior notice. The public docket is
available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at the above address, from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Robert A. Forrest, Product
Manager (PM) 14, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Office location, telephone number, and e-mail address: Rm.
219, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, (703) 305-
6600, e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA issued a notice, published in the
Federal Register of May 5, 1993 (58 FR 26687), which announced the
establishment of a 3-year time-limited tolerance for residues of the
insecticidal fluorine compounds cryolite and synthetic cryolite (sodium
aluminum fluoride) on potatoes and the establishment of a 3-year time-
limited feed additive regulation for residues of these compounds in
processed potato waste (wet or dry).
These regulations were established for a period extending to May 6,
1996, to cover residues existing from the conditional registration of
the insecticidal compounds on potatoes extending to September 30, 1995.
The Agency limited the period of time the conditional registration and
the regulations were to be in effect because of the lack of a chronic
dog feeding study and a two-generation rat reproduction study. These
two studies have been received and have been found to be acceptable.
Pesticide petition 9F3739 requests that the Administrator, pursuant
to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a(d), amend 40 CFR 180 by establishing a tolerance for
residues of the insecticidal fluorine compounds in or on the raw
agricultural commodity potatoes at 2.0 ppm with no time limitations.
Food additive petition 1H5604 requests that the Administrator, pursuant
to section 409(b) of the FFDCA (21 U.S.C. 348), amend 40 CFR part 186
by establishing a feed additive regulation for residues of the
insecticidal compounds in or on the processed animal feed commodity
processed potato waste (wet or dry) at 22.0 ppm with no time
limitations.
To meet the current definition, the commodity, ``processed potato
waste (wet or dry)'' is corrected to read as follows: potatoes, waste
from processing.
I. Background Information
Fluoride has been identified as the residue of toxicological
concern in cryolite and synthetic cryolite and the available data show
that these compounds which are approximately 52.8% fluoride, act as
free fluoride. Fluoride is ubiquitous and may be present at low levels
in air, soils and in foodstuffs that have not been treated with
cryolite and/or synthetic cryolite as well as in drinking water. The
atmospheric levels of fluoride and incidental dietary exposures to
fluoride as a toothpaste additive or as a dental treatment contribute
relatively little to the average level of dietary fluoride exposure and
are not further considered in the exposure estimate.
Data submitted in support of the subject petition show background
levels of fluoride in untreated potatoes ranged from 0.14 ppm to 0.31
ppm and are consistent with the ranges reported in the open literature.
Levels of fluoride found in the treated potatoes ranged from 0.18 ppm
to 0.94 ppm. The residue analytical method used for enforcing the
subject tolerance and regulation cannot distinguish between the
naturally occurring fluoride and the fluoride resulting from use of
cryolite and/or synthetic cryolite.
Fluoride levels in public drinking water are regulated under the
Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA has established a Maximum Concentration
Limit (MCL) at 4.0 mg/L [0.114 mg/kg/day] to protect against crippling
skeletal fluorosis (51 FR 11396, April 2, 1986). The MCL established on
April 2, 1986, finalizes interim regulations set in November 14, 1985
(50 FR 47142), and proposed in the Federal Register of May 14, 1985 (50
FR 20164). In addition, these FR notices established a Secondary
Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) at 2.0 mg/L [0.057 mg/kg/day] for
cosmetic effects (objectionable dental fluorosis) which are not
considered to be adverse health effects by the Surgeon General.
The EPA Office of Drinking Water issued a Drinking Water Criteria
Document on Fluoride (October 21, 1985) which presents summaries of
experimental and clinical data on the health effects of fluoride in
animals and humans. In general, the health effects of fluoride include
dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis.
At the request of the EPA, the U.S. Surgeon General examined the
nondental health aspects associated with fluoride in drinking water.
The Surgeon General concluded that he did not consider changes in
bone density to be an adverse health effect and that adverse effects
(arthralgias) are not likely to occur at human dose levels below 20
mg F/day (10 mg F/L for an adult consuming 2 L water/day [0.29 mg/
kg/day]). The ad hoc committee concluded that four times the optimal
fluoride concentration (approximately 4 mg F/L [0.114 mg/kg/day]) in
drinking water should provide an adequate margin of safety for
preventing adverse health effects which were not documented to occur
in the U.S. population below 8 mg F/L [0.23 mg/kg/day]. (Water
Criteria Document p. IX-21).
[[Page 20783]]
II. Toxicological Data
The scientific data submitted in the petitions and other relevant
material have been evaluated. The toxicological data considered in
support of the proposed tolerance and regulation include:
1. A 2-year rat bioassay conducted by the National Toxicology
Program (NTP) using sodium fluoride as the test material at dose levels
of 0, 25, 100, and 175 ppm, in water, representing 0, 1.3, 5.2 and 8.6
mg/kg/day in males and 0, 1.3, 5.5 and 9.5 mg/kg/day in females.
Osteosarcoma of the bone was only observed in one male in the 100
ppm group and in three males in the 175 ppm group. NTP considers this
to be equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity in male F344/N rats. The
NOEL is less than 25 ppm (1.3 mg/kg/day). The LOEL is 25 ppm (1.3 mg/
kg/day) based on mottling of teeth, dentine incisor dysplasia,
increased serum, urine and bone fluoride levels in males and females
and incisor odontoblast and incisor ameloblast degeneration in males.
There was ``equivocal evidence'' of carcinogenic activity in male rats
and ``no evidence'' of carcinogenic activity in female rats.
The NTP study utilizing sodium fluoride as the test material in
lieu of cryolite or synthetic cryolite satisfies the guideline study
requirement for both the rodent chronic feeding study and the rat
carcinogenicity study. Fluoride has been identified as the residue of
toxicological concern in cryolite and synthetic cryolite and the
available data show that these compounds act as free fluoride.
2. A 2-year mouse bioassay conducted by the NTP utilizing sodium
fluoride as the test material at dose levels of 0, 25, 100, and 175
ppm, in water, representing 0, 2.4, 9.6 and 16.7 mg/kg/day in males and
0, 2.8, 11.3 and 18.8 mg/kg/day in females.
The NOEL is less than 25 ppm (2.4 mg/kg/day). The LOEL is 25 ppm
(2.4 mg/kg/day) based on attrition of the teeth in males, discoloration
and mottling of the teeth in males and females and increased bone
fluoride in both sexes. There was ``no evidence'' of carcinogenic
activity in male and female mice.
This study utilizing sodium fluoride in lieu of cryolite or
synthetic cryolite as the test material satisfies the guideline study
requirement for a mouse carcinogenicity study for the reason described
above under item one.
3. A 1-year chronic dog feeding study conducted with cryolite at
dose levels of 0, 3,000, 10,000 and 30,000 ppm, representing 0, 95, 366
and 1,137 mg/kg/day in males and 0, 105, 387 and 1139 mg/kg/day in
females (in terms of fluoride the doses are 0, 51, 198, and 614 mg F/
kg/day for males and 0, 57, 209 and 615 mg F/kg/day for females).
The NOEL (in terms of cryolite) is less than 3,000 ppm (95 mg/kg/
day in males and 105 mg/kg/day in females). The LOEL is 3,000 ppm (95
mg/kg/day) based on increases in emesis, nucleated cells in males,
renal lesions and a decrease in urine specific gravity in females.
4. A two-generation reproduction study conducted with cryolite in
the diet of rats at dose levels of 0, 200, 600, and 1,800 ppm
(representing 0, 14, 42, and 128 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 16, 49, and
149 mg/kg/day for females, respectively, during premating).
The systemic toxicity NOEL was not determined. The LOEL for
systemic toxicity was 200 ppm (15 mg/kg/day) based on dental fluorosis.
The NOEL and LOEL for reproductive toxicity were 600 and 1,800 ppm,
respectively (46 and 138 mg/kg/day) based on decreased pup body
weights.
5. A developmental toxicity study conducted with cryolite in rats
at dose levels of 0, 750, 1,500, and 3,000 mg/kg/day (gavage). The NOEL
for both developmental and maternal toxicity is 3,000 mg/kg/day. At
this dose level, the only observation was whitening of the teeth of
dams.
6. A developmental toxicity study conducted in female mice with
cryolite at dose levels of 0, 30, 100 and 300 mg/kg/day (gavage).
The NOEL for maternal toxicity is 30 mg/kg/day and the LOEL is 100
mg/kg/day based on the occurrence of dark red contents of the stomach.
Fetuses at 300 mg/kg/day exhibited bent ribs and bent limb bones.
The NOEL for developmental toxicity is 100 mg/kg/day. The LOEL is 300
mg/kg/day based on an increase in bent ribs and bent limbs.
7. A range-finding developmental toxicity study conducted in female
rabbits with cryolite at dose levels of 0, 10, 30, 100, 300 and 1,000
mg/kg/day (gavage).
The NOEL for maternal toxicity is 10 mg/kg/day and the LOEL is 30
mg/kg/day based on an increased incidence of soft stool and dark
colored feces and decreased defecation and urination. The NOEL for
developmental toxicity is 30 mg/kg/day. The LOEL could not be assessed
due to excessive toxicity at dose levels of 30 mg/kg/day.
This study suggested that severe maternal toxicity occurred at
lower doses than external developmental toxicity. However, following an
extensive literature evaluation, the National Research Council
(National Academy of Sciences Subcommittee of Health Effects of
Ingested Fluoride) (NAS) determined that,
There have been reports of adverse effects on reproductive
outcomes associated with high levels of fluoride intake in many
animal species. In most of the studies, however, the fluoride
concentrations associated with adverse effects were far higher than
those encountered in drinking water. . . .
Based on these findings, the subcommittee concludes that the
fluoride concentrations associated with adverse reproductive effects
in animals are far higher than those to which human populations are
exposed. Consequently, ingestion of fluoride at current
concentrations should have no adverse effects on human reproduction.
Therefore, an additional developmental study in rabbits is not
required.
8. A 28-day range-finding feeding study conducted with cryolite in
rats at dose levels of 0, 250, 500, 1,000, 2,000, 4,000, 10,000, 25,000
and 50,000 ppm in the diet (representing approximately 0, 25, 50, 100,
200, 400, 1,000, 2,500 and 5,000 mg/kg/day) with the only compound
related effect being a change in coloration and physical property of
the teeth.
The NOEL was not determined. The LOEL is 250 ppm (25 mg/kg/day)
based on dental fluorosis.
9. A 90-day rat feeding study conducted with cryolite at dose
levels of 0, 50, 5,000, and 50,000 ppm (corresponding to 0, 3.8, 399.2
and 4,172.3 mg/kg/day in males and 0, 4.5, 455.9 and 4,758.1 mg/kg/day
in females).
The NOEL is 50 ppm (3.8 mg/kg/day) for effects other than fluoride
accumulation. The LOEL is 5,000 ppm (399.2 mg/kg/day) based on lesions
observed in the stomach. Fluoride accumulated at all dose levels.
10. A 90-day dog feeding study conducted with cryolite at dose
levels of 0, 500, 10,000, and 50,000 ppm (corresponding to 0, 17, 368
and 1,692 mg/kg/day).
The NOEL is 10,000 ppm (368 mg/kg/day). The LOEL is 50,000 ppm
(1,692 mg/kg/day) for effects other than fluoride accumulation.
Fluoride accumulation occurred at all dose levels.
11. Genotoxicity studies including an Ames test (negative) at dose
levels of 167, 500, 1,670, 5,000, 7,500 and 10,000 ug/plate; an in
vitro assay in human lymphocytes (negative) at 100, 500, and 1,000 ug/
ml; and an unscheduled DNA synthesis study in rat hepatocytes
(negative) at dose levels up to and including 50 ug/ml.
12. Open literature studies showing that human and animal
metabolism of
[[Page 20784]]
cryolite and/or synthetic cryolite manifests itself as normal free
fluoride metabolism. That is, dissociation occurs, producing free
fluoride ions which are assimilated into bone.
The available toxicity data are considered adequate to support the
proposed regulations to establish maximum permissible levels for
residues of the insecticidal fluorine compounds in or on potatoes and
in processed potato waste.
The available information does not support the regulation of the
cryolite insecticides as carcinogens.
Fluoride has been the subject of a comprehensive review by the
National Research Council (National Academy of Sciences Subcommittee of
Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride) who concluded that ``. . . the
available laboratory data are insufficient to demonstrate a
carcinogenic effect of fluoride in animals.'' and that ``. . . the
weight of evidence from more than 50 epidemiological studies does not
support the hypothesis of an association between fluoride exposure and
increased cancer risk in humans.'' EPA is in agreement with the
conclusions reached by the National Academy of Science (NAS).
Rather than the establishment of the traditional Reference Dose
(RfD), a weight-of-the-evidence risk assessment was determined by the
Agency to be a more appropriate approach for the assessment of the
dietary exposure to fluoride residues as a result of agricultural uses
of cryolite for the following reasons:
National and international regulatory organizations (U.S.
EPA Office of Water, U.S. DHHS, the Canadian Government, and the World
Health Organization) have assessed potential health risks from exposure
to fluoride. The endpoints and estimated effect levels documented by
these organizations are similar.
The U.S. Surgeon General (Koop, 1984 and Elders, 1994)
has recommended a guideline level of exposure that should provide an
adequate ``margin of safety'' based on a large amount of human data,
including epidemiology studies.
Animal data considered in evaluating the proposed
regulations are consistent with human data with respect to dose-related
skeletal effects.
The weight-of-the-evidence dietary risk assessment was conducted
utilizing the following factors. All calculations are based on 2 L/day
water consumption and 70 kg adult.
There exists no directly applicable scientific
documentation of adverse medical effects at levels of fluoride below 8
mg/L [0.23 mg/kg/day]. (U.S. EPA. 1985. National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations; Fluoride. Proposed Rulemaking. (50 FR 20166, May 14,
1985).
Less than 0.4% of the U.S. population (on public water
supplies) is exposed to greater than 2 mg/L fluoride [0.057 mg/kg/day]
in the public water supply. (U.S. EPA. 1985. Drinking Water Criteria
Document on Fluoride. U.S. EPA Office of Drinking Water, Washington,
D.C. TR-832-5. pg. IV-3, Table IV-1.)
Dietary exposure estimates using reassessed tolerances
including the subject proposed tolerance and regulation for potatoes
and percent of crops treated are approximately 0.029 mg/kg/day for the
U.S. population and 0.038 mg/kg/day for the highest exposed subgroup
(females 20 years old and over).
Therefore, it can be concluded that levels of fluoride in/on food
from the agricultural use of cryolite plus fluoride levels in U.S.
drinking water supplies results in a daily dietary intake of fluoride
of approximately 0.095 mg/kg/day. This is less than the Maximum
Concentration Limit (MCL) of 4.0 mg/L [0.114 mg/kg/day], a level which
provides no known or anticipated adverse health effect as determined by
the Surgeon General.
The estimated dietary exposure resulting from the subject proposed
tolerance on potatoes is approximately 0.00016 mg/kg/day.
The metabolism of the subject insecticides in plants and animals is
adequately understood. Plant residues are inorganic surface residues of
cryolite which are measured as total fluoride. Cryolite metabolism in
animals manifests itself as free fluorine metabolism and the residue of
concern in animals is total fluoride.
An adequate analytical method (fluoride specific electrode) is
available for enforcement purposes for the RAC potatoes and the animal
feed, potato waste. Because the subject compounds are inorganic
compounds, the requirement for data using the multiresidue protocols in
PAM Vol. I is not applicable.
Because of the long lead time from establishing this tolerance and
regulation to publication of the enforcement methodology in the
Pesticide Analytical Manual, Vol. II, the analytical methodology is
being made available in the interim to anyone interested in pesticide
enforcement when requested from: Calvin Furlow, Public Information
Branch, Field Operations Division (H7506C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Office location and telephone number; Rm. 1128, CM #2, 1921
Jefferson Davis Hwy., VA 22202, (703)-305-5232.
There is no reasonable expectation of finite residues of cryolite
or synthetic cryolite occurring in the meat, milk, poultry, and eggs of
animals fed potato waste resulting from the processing of treated
potatoes and 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3) applies. Thus, secondary tolerances are
not necessary at this time in meat, milk, poultry, and eggs.
There are presently no actions pending against the continued
registration of these insecticidal compounds.
The pesticide is considered useful for the purpose for which the
tolerance is sought and capable of achieving its physical or technical
effect.
Based on the information and data considered, the Agency has
determined that the tolerance established by amending 40 CFR part 180
would protect the public health, and the establishment of a feed
additive regulation by amending 40 CFR part 186 would be safe.
Therefore, it is proposed that they be established as set forth below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, which contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after publication
of this notice in the Federal Register that this rulemaking proposal as
it relates to the section 408 tolerance be referred to an Advisory
Committee in accordance with section 408(e) of the FFDCA.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the
proposed regulation. Comments must bear a notation indicating the
document control number, PP 9F3739 and FAP 1H5604/P. All written
comments filed in response to this petition will be available in the
Public Response and Program Resources Branch at the above address from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays.
A record has been established for this proposal under docket number
(PP 9F3739 and FAP 1H5604/P654) (including comments and data submitted
electronically as described below). A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does
not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection
from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.
[[Page 20785]]
The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public Response
and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office
of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal Mall
#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
[email protected]
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this proposal, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into printed,
paper form as they are received and will place the paper copies in the
official rulemaking record which will also include all comments
submitted directly in writing. The official rulemaking record is the
paper record maintained at the address in ADDRESSES at the beginning of
this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order
(i.e., Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines
``significant'' as those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and
materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local or tribal governments or communities (also known as
``economically significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty, or
contain any ``unfunded mandates'' as described in Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), or require prior
consultation as specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093,
October 28, 1993), entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership, or special consideration as required by Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance
requirements, or establishing or raising food additive regulations do
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. A certification statement to this effect was published in the
Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 180 and 186
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Animal feed, Food additive, Pesticides and
pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 30, 1996.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that chapter I of title 40 be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. In part 180:
a. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
b. In Sec. 180.145, by adding a commodity to paragraph (a) in the
table therein and deleting paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 180.145 Fluoride compounds; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Potatoes 2.0
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
PART 186--[AMENDED]
2. In part 186:
a. The authority citation for part 186 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 348.
b. Section 186.3375 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 186.3375 Fluorine compounds.
A tolerance is established for residues of the insecticidal
fluorine compounds cryolite and synthetic cryolite (sodium aluminum
fluoride) in the following ready-to-eat animal feed resulting from
application of the compounds to growing crops:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potatoes, waste from processing 22.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-11341 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11330 Adjustment of Reid Vapor Pressure Lower Limit for Reformulated Gasoline Sold in the State of California
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11330]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
[FRL-5501-2]
Adjustment of Reid Vapor Pressure Lower Limit for Reformulated
Gasoline Sold in the State of California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is proposing to amend the lower limit of
the valid range for Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) for reformulated gasoline
certified under the simple model and sold in the State of California.
The lower limit is proposed to be changed from 6.6 pounds per square
inch (psi) to 6.4 psi. In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is promulgating this amendment as a direct final rule
without prior proposal, because EPA views this as a noncontroversial
action and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for
the proposed change is set forth in the direct final rule. If no
adverse comments are received in response to the direct final rule, no
further activity is contemplated in relation to this proposed rule. If
EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn
and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent
final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on
this notice should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by June 7, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this proposed action should be addressed
to Public Docket No. A-96-14, Waterside Mall (Room M-1500),
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket Section, 401 M Street, SW
., Washington, DC 20460. Documents related to this rule have been
placed in the public docket and may be inspected between the hours of
8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying docket material. Those wishing to notify EPA of
their intent to submit adverse comment or request an opportunity for a
public hearing on this action should contact Anne-Marie C.
Pastorkovich, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Radiation, (202) 233-9013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne-Marie C. Pastorkovich, Attorney/
Advisor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Radiation, (202) 233-9013.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
Regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this
action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................... Refiners of California gasoline.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could be potentially regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
Sec. 80.42 (c)(1), note (1), of today's regulatory action. You should
also carefully examine the existing provisions at 40 CFR 80.81, dealing
specifically with California gasoline.
For additional information, see the direct final rule published
in the rules section of this Federal Register.
Dated: May 1, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-11330 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11311 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20785-20789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11311]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-5500-3]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to Delete the Carter Lee Lumber Company
Superfund Site National From Priorities List; Request for Comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
Region V announces its intent to delete the Carter Lee Lumber Company
Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests
public comment on this action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B to the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),
which U.S. EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) as amended. This action is being taken by U.S. EPA, because it
has been determined that all Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have
been implemented and U.S. EPA, in consultation with the State of
Indiana, has determined that no further response is appropriate.
Moreover, U.S. EPA and the State have determined that remedial
activities conducted at the Site to date have been protective of public
health, welfare, and the environment.
DATES: Comments concerning the proposed deletion of the Site from the
NPL may be submitted on or before June 7, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Helen Smith (SR-6J) Environmental
Protection Assistant, Superfund Division, U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 W.
Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.
[[Page 20786]]
Comprehensive information on the site is available at U.S. EPA's Region
V office and at the local information repository located at: Hawthorn
Community Center, 2440 West Ohio Street, Indianapolis IN and the
offices of the Indiana Department of Environmental management, 100 N.
Senate Avenue, N1255, Indianapolis, IN. Requests for comprehensive
copies of documents should be directed formally to the Region V Docket
Office. The address and phone number for the Regional Docket Officer is
Jan Pfundheller (SMR-7J), U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 W. Jackson Blvd.,
Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353-5821.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Orr (SR-6J) Remedial Project
Manager at (312) 886-7576, Helen Smith (SR-6J) Environmental Protection
Assistant, Superfund Division, U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 W. Jackson Blvd.,
Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886-6229 or David Novak (P-19J), Office of
Public Affairs, U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL
60604, (312) 886-9840.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
I. Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region V announces
its intent to delete the Carter Lee Lumber Company Superfund Site
(Site) from the National Priorities List (NPL), which constitutes
Appendix B of the (NCP), and requests comments on the proposed
deletion. The U.S. EPA identifies sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare or the environment, and
maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. Sites on the NPL may be
the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance
Superfund Response Trust Fund (Fund). Pursuant to Section 300.425(e)(3)
of the NCP, any site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-
financed remedial actions if the conditions at the site warrant such
action.
The U.S. EPA will accept comments on this proposal for thirty (30)
days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Section II of this notice explains the criteria for deleting sites
from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that U.S. EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the history of this site and
explains how the site meets the deletion criteria.
Deletion of sites from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Furthermore, deletion
from the NPL does not in any way alter U.S. EPA's right to take
enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist in Agency management.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
The NCP establishes the criteria the Agency uses to delete Sites
from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be
deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In
making this determination, U.S. EPA will consider, in consultation with
the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:
(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required; or
(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
(iii) The Remedial investigation has shown that the release poses
no significant threat to public health or the environment and,
therefore, remedial measures are not appropriate.
III. Deletion Procedures
Upon determination that at least one of the criteria described in
300.425(e) has been met, U.S. EPA may formally begin deletion
procedures once the State has concurred. This Federal Register notice,
and a concurrent notice in the local newspaper in the vicinity of the
Site, announce the initiation of a 30-day comment period. The public is
asked to comment on U.S. EPA's intention to delete the Site from the
NPL. All critical documents needed to evaluate U.S. EPA's decision are
included in the information repository and the deletion docket.
Upon completion of the public comment period, if necessary, the
U.S. EPA Regional Office will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to
evaluate and address comments that were received. The public is welcome
to contact the U.S. EPA Region V Office to obtain a copy of this
responsiveness summary, if one is prepared. If U.S. EPA then determines
the deletion from the NPL is appropriate, final notice of deletion will
be published in the Federal Register.
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
Decision Summary
I. Site Description
The Site is located west of downtown Indianapolis at 1621 West
Washington Street. Eagle Creek is approximately one-half mile southwest
and the White River is about one mile east of the site. The Site is
located 7 miles upgradient of one of the groundwater pumps used to
supplement the drinking water supply for the City of Indianapolis. It
is located in a commercial and industrial center primarily composed of
heavy industry with the exception of some scattered areas of older
single-family residential dwellings. The Site is currently used for
storage for a commercial lumber yard and is, therefore, fenced and
access is restricted. The Carter Lee Lumber (CLL) Company has been at
its present location for over 120 years. The Site occupies only part of
the CLL property, a four acre trapezoid in the southeast corner, that
was acquired by CLL in 1979 for expansion of lumber storage
capabilities.
Lumber and associated materials are stored in three sheds on the
Site. The Site is paved with asphalt except for the southeast corner,
which is covered with about six inches compacted gravel and soil. The
Site is relatively flat. It is bordered on the east and south by
Conrail railroad tracks, on the west by Reichwein Avenue and the north
by CLL property. The bordering tracks are elevated as much as 6 to 8
feet above the Site. The southeast corner of the property is the lowest
elevation point on the Site.
Over 36,000 people live within 2-miles of CLL. The closest
residence is across Reichwein Avenue. Demographics from the 1990 census
data, show that the area adjacent to the Site has a more culturally
diverse population than the general population of Marion County.
Thirty-two percent of the residents within a two mile radius of the
Site are non-white while twenty-two percent of the residents of Marion
County identified themselves as non-white. Census data shows that the
average household within a two mile radius of the Site has an income
thirty-three percent lower than the average income of a typical Marion
County resident.
II. Site History and Enforcement Activities
Prior to 1979, the Site was owned by Penn Central Corporation and,
in the period from 1960-1973, leased to several commercial waste
hauling
[[Page 20787]]
companies that used the Site for industrial waste product disposal. The
Site was leased first for the disposal of calcium ferrosulfate (about
30% solid). There is no evidence that this material was hazardous. It
was then leased to a series of partnerships that, from court records,
state the nature of the business was to purchase lime slurry, a waste
product from Union Carbide Corporation, Linde Division, and to sell it
to Ford Motor Company, in Indianapolis, Delco Electronics in Kokomo and
Jones Laughlin Steel. Neutralized metal plating sludge and neutralized
calcium ferrosulfate were reported sprayed on the Site from 1971-1972.
There are unsubstantiated allegations of tank car dumping and
disposal of oily filter cakes from Conrail Lines. In addition, from
1940-1985, CLL operated a small quantity, batch-load wood preserving
operation immediately off-site, north of the northeast corner of the
Site. This operation reportedly used consumer-grade pentachlorophenol.
CCL purchased the Site in 1979. While the property was being
developed for lumber storage, red soil was discovered. When the red
soil interfered with proper soil compaction, it was moved. The red soil
was stored near a trench area dug to hold construction debris. Asphalt
was laid on portions of the Site and the storage yard was fenced as
part of this work. The soil was later spread over an area covering
about 220 by 250 feet in the southeast corner of the Site, where it is
currently located.
The Site was investigated by the Environment and Ecology Field
Investigation Team (FIT) in 1985 as a result of a CLL Company employee
reports of spotting small animals with sores and patchy fur and
complaints by employees of skin lesions and weight loss. Neither
reports were confirmed by local health officials. Following the FIT
investigation which included soil sampling, the Site was scored for NPL
listing due to the potential for groundwater contamination and a
concern for potential dermal contact should the soils be disturbed.
Research to identify parties responsible for conditions at the Site
was completed in June 1988. Potentially responsible owners, operators
and generators were identified. Based on information gathered during
this search and responses from information requests, special notice
letters were sent out during January 1992.
III. Highlights of Community Participation
U.S. EPA hosted a ``kick off'' public meeting on September 3, 1992
at the Presbyterian Church located across the street from the Site. The
purpose of the meeting was to inform the local residents of the
Superfund process and the work to be conducted under the Remedial
Investigation (RI). Thirty-nine people attended the meeting. Two RI
update newsletters were issued to individuals on the Site specific
mailing list in June 1993 and July 1995.
Information repositories for the Site have been established at
Hawthorn Community Center, 2440 West Ohio Street, Indianapolis IN and
the offices of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, 100
N. Senate Avenue, N1255, Indianapolis, IN. The Administrative Record
for the Site has been made available to the public at the U.S. EPA
Docket Room in Region V and at the Hawthorn Community Center.
The RI was released to the public in May 1995. The proposed plan
was mailed July 28, 1995. A public meeting to discuss the remedial
investigation and the proposed plan was held on August 10, 1995.
Advertisements were placed in the Indiana Star/News and the West-Side
Enterprise to announce the public meetings and comment period. Ten
people attended the proposed plan meeting. The proposed plan was
available for public comments from August 1, 1995 through August 30,
1995.
The public participation requirements of CERCLA Sections
113(k)(2)(I-v) and 117 of CERCLA have been met in the remedy selection
process. This decision document presents the selected remedial action
for the CLL Company Superfund Site, chosen in accordance with CERCLA,
as amended by SARA and, to the extent practicable, the NCP. The
decision for this Site is based on the administrative record.
IV. Scope and Role of Operable Units
U.S. EPA has determined that no further action is required at this
Site. Because hazardous substances at concentrations above unacceptable
risk levels will not remain at the Site, a five-year review will not be
necessary.
V. Site Characteristics
During the RI, sampling and analysis of groundwater and subsurface
and surface soil occurred which allows a determination of Site
conditions to be made. The investigation took place in two phases
beginning in November 1992 and ending about one year later in September
1993.
During Phase I in November 1992, all surface and subsurface on-site
soil samples were collected, five monitoring wells were installed and
sampled and 15 of the 17 off-site soil samples were collected.
Phase II, which occurred in June, August and September of 1993,
consisted of two rounds of groundwater samples, 3 rounds of water level
measurements and the collection of 2 additional off-site soil samples.
A groundwater user survey was implemented during this time period as
well. An ecological investigation of the Site was also conducted as
part of Phase 2.
Using the U.S. EPA risk assessment guidance and procedures, many
contaminants found at the Site, including Semi-volatile Organic
Compounds (SVOCs), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), metals and
cyanide were eliminated from further consideration primarily because
on-site concentrations did not differ significantly from background, or
off-site contaminant concentrations.
The ecological investigation consisted of review of current
literature to determine whether the area contained protected plants or
animals or whether sensitive habitats existed in the area. A Site visit
also took place.
Based on the evaluation of Site conditions, U.S. EPA determined
that there is no threat to human health and the environment through
exposure by ingestion or direct contact with the pesticides/herbicides
and PCBs found in the soils and groundwater on and near the Site. The
effects of background contamination was not evaluated as part of this
study. The following is a result of the findings.
1. Physiography. The Site is located within the commercial and
industrial center of the City of Indianapolis, central Marion County.
The area is relatively flat and ranges in topographic relief from about
745 feet above mean sea level measured 2.75 miles west of the Site to
about 705 feet at the White River, which is 1 mile east. The Site is
paved with asphalt except for the southeast corner, which is covered
with compacted gravel. Drainage swells, formed by rail road track berms
6 to 8 feet high, run parallel to the eastern and southern Site
boundaries and collect surface run-off from the Site. The southeast
corner is the lowest elevation point on the Site at an elevation of 691
feet above mean sea level.
2. Geology. An extensive sand and gravel outwash deposit exists
under the Site. The outwash is composed of coarse-grained material
deposited by glacial meltwater streams during the Wisconsian
glaciation. Discontinuous silt and clay deposits are numerous. The
outwash extends along the White River, Eagle Creek and Fall Creek and
it is
[[Page 20788]]
about 6.5 miles wide from east to west. At the outer edges of the
outwash, the deposits integrate with deposits of till. Sand and gravel
deposits are discontinuous in the till plain. The thickness of the
unconsolidated deposits in Marion County ranges from less than 15 feet
to more than 300 feet. Within the vicinity of the Site, the bedrock
beneath the outwash deposits consists of Silurian and Devonian age
limestones and dolomites. Depth to bedrock is about 120 feet. West of
the Site, Mississippian age shale separates the outwash deposits from
the limestones and dolomites. The bedrock surface slopes gently to the
west.
The Site geology is characterized by a series of fill layers
starting at about 12 inches below the ground surface This fill material
varies across the Site but generally consists of sandy gravel and
clayey silty sand with miscellaneous debris including bricks, concrete
and wood. Some areas of the Site are filled with black dense sand
similar to a foundry sand mixed with what appeared to be fly ash.
3. Hydrology. There are two groundwater systems beneath the Site.
The outwash deposits along the White River comprise the upper,
unconfined aquifer. The thickness of the aquifer ranges from 30 to more
than 80 feet. The limestone and dolomite formations comprise the
uppermost bedrock aquifer. The average horizontal hydraulic
conductivity is about 300 feet/day for the outwash aquifer and about 10
feet/day for the bedrock aquifer. The hydraulic conductivity in the
bedrock aquifer can be considerably greater in areas where solution
channeling has occurred.
Wells in the outwash aquifer have produced as much as 3,000 gallons
per minute (gpm). Bedrock wells may yield 75 to 250 gpm. The bedrock is
most productive in the upper 100 feet where it was once exposed to
weathering elements and where the greatest amount of solution
development has occurred.
At the Site the unconfined, shallow water table was encountered at
about 20 to 25 feet below ground surface. Typically, groundwater flows
toward the southeast. Through the well users survey, a cone of
depression was identified southeast of the Site. Most of the wells
within 1 mile of the Site are used exclusively for manufacturing
processes. Marion County depends on surface water for 92% of its
drinking water supply, the remainder comes from groundwater. The use of
groundwater to supplement drinking water is expected to increase to 19%
by the year 2000.
Groundwater elevations in Marion County range from about 830 feet
in the northwestern portion of the county to less than 680 feet near
the White River in the central portion of the county. Regional
groundwater flow in the western half of Marion County is to the east-
southeast toward Eagle Creek and the White River. In eastern Marion
County, groundwater flow is to the west-southwest toward Fall Creek and
the White River.
4. Contamination. a. Soils. SVOCs and heavy metals were detected in
on-site soil at depths ranging from 4 to 8 feet below the ground
surface. Several pesticides were also detected in on-site soil. The
findings were similar to those resulting from FIT sampling. The
concentration of SVOCs and metals in on-site soils were within the
ranges previously found by the FIT and the distribution of SVOCs on-
site was consistent with the presence of red soil and with the black
cinder fill material.
b. Groundwater. Sampling of the groundwater identified low
concentrations of some SVOCs including phenol, phenanthrene, di-n-
butylphthalate, pyrene, and bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate. These were
found sporadically in groundwater samples. Low concentrations of
arsenic and cyanide were detected in several Site ground-water
monitoring wells during one sampling event. Low concentrations of
beryllium were also detected in two sampling events.
5. Ecological. The investigation determined that the area south of
the Site by virtue of plant community composition and evidence of
hydrology typical of wetlands, appeared to consist of palustrine
emergent or scrub/shrub communities. Through research and observations
during the Site visit, it was determined that this area is not a
sensitive or high-value ecological habitat. Wildlife and plant
communities are limited because of the urban nature of the area. During
the Site visit gross evidence of adverse impacts on the plant and
animal communities from the Site were not apparent.
VI. Summary of Site Risks
Given that most of the contaminated soil on-site is either covered
by asphalt or six inches of compacted gravel and soil, no worker or
nearby residents are currently exposed to contaminants through
inhalation of dust emissions.
Volatilization of some contaminants to the air can pose a risk if
present at the soil surface. Because contaminants on-site are covered
as described above, volatilization is not considered a transport
mechanism at this Site.
The analytical results for SVOCs and metals for on-site and off-
site samples were evaluated using a statistical comparative analysis.
It was verified statistically, that there is no significant difference
between the SVOCs and the heavy metal concentrations found in on-site
soils compared with those found in off-site soils. The Site is located
in an area with many industries which may have contributed to the
metals and PAHs found. These facts lead to the conclusion that the
source of PAH and metals contamination are not solely attributable to
the site. Based on this, PAHs and metals were not carried forward in
the Site related risk evaluation. The berms surrounding the Site on the
east and southern boundary are an effective barrier to overland flow of
contaminants into surface water via Site run off. For this reason, the
risk for the surface water pathway was determined to be negligible.
During the analysis, infiltration of rainwater to groundwater was
considered as a potential transport mechanism that could leach
contaminants from deeper soils into the groundwater. The remedial
investigation identified some Site characteristics that makes this
unlikely. The soils are covered with compacted gravel and this
decreases the amount of rain through infiltration. The soils underlying
contaminants consist of clayey sands. Since contaminants tend to sorb
more tightly to clay, contaminants are less likely to be released. In
addition, a fate and transport analysis of the effects of the PAHs,
arsenic and beryllium determined that groundwater does not appear to be
threatened by Site contaminants. Based on these findings, it was
determined that this pathway did not present an unacceptable risk.
The contaminants of concern evaluated quantitatively for the Site
include heptachlor and arochlor-1254 in on-site soils and alpha BHC and
4,4'-DDT, both in groundwater.
The risk assessment determined that the Site contaminants do not
pose a significant risk to those who may come in contact with them.
Risk was evaluated for on-site worker exposure and residential exposure
as well. The risk to a hypothetical future worker exposed to on-site
soil and groundwater was calculated. The calculated numbers are well
below U.S. EPA's acceptable risk range. A reasonable future land use
anticipates the land will continue to be used as commercial/industrial
property. Notwithstanding this assumption, the same calculation is
performed for the hypothetical on-site resident. The estimate of
cumulative excess cancer risk is at the low end of U.S. EPA's
acceptable risk range for exposure to
[[Page 20789]]
soils. For groundwater, the number is below the lower end of U.S. EPA's
acceptable risk range.
Given the above, the no action alternative was chosen since it has
been demonstrated that the contamination found could not be attributed
solely to CLL and the level of contamination attributable to the Site
results in negligible risk. U.S. EPA issued its finding in the document
Remedial Investigation Report dated May 1995. U.S. EPA executed a
Record of Decision requiring no action on September 29, 1995. The State
concurred with this ROD on October 13, 1995.
U.S. EPA, with concurrence from the State of Indiana, has
determined that all appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA at
the Carter Lee Lumber Company Superfund Site have been completed, and
no further CERCLA response is appropriate in order to provide
protection of human health and the environment. Therefore, U.S. EPA
proposes to delete the site from the NPL.
Dated: April 25, 1996.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region V.
[FR Doc. 96-11311 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11306 State Program Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20768-20773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11306]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Parts 901, 902, 904, 906, 913, 914, 915, 916, 917, 918 and
920
RIN 1029-AB86
State Program Amendments
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)
is proposing to amend its regulations by revising the information
currently reported in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) regarding
the OSM Director's approval of amendments to State regulatory programs
and abandoned mine land reclamation plans (hereafter State program
amendments). This information would be condensed to a tabular
presentation depicting the dates when State program amendments were
originally submitted to OSM and the dates the OSM Director's decision
approving all or portions of these amendments were published in the
Federal Register. Such a rulemaking would reduce the number of
unnecessary pages in the CFR. As always, people interested in getting
copies of the full text of the amended State regulatory program or
abandoned mine land reclamation plan could contact the State regulatory
authority office or the OSM field office with oversight authority for
that State.
DATES: Written comments: We will accept written comments on the
proposed rule until 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on July 8, 1996.
Public hearings: We will accept requests for a public hearing until
4:00 p.m. Eastern time on June 7, 1996. People who want to attend but
not testify at the hearing, must contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, beforehand to verify that we will hold a
hearing. Any disabled individuals who need special accommodations to
attend a public hearing should also contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
ADDRESSES: Written comments: Please hand-deliver to the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Room 120, 1951 Constitution
Ave., NW, Washington, DC, or mail to the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative Record, SIB 120, 1951
Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20240.
You may also sent comments through the Internet to OSM's
Administrative Record. Our Internet address is: [email protected] We
will file copies of any electronic messages received with our
Administrative Record.
Public hearings: You must contact the person identified under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by the time required under DATES to request
a public hearing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John A. Trelease, Rules and Legislation Staff, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,
DC 20240; Telephone (202) 208-2783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Comment Procedures
II. Discussion of Proposed Rule
Why is this rule being written?
What would change?
How do I get a copy of State program amendments?
III. Procedural Matters
I. Public Comment Procedures
Written Comments
If you are submitting written comments on the proposed rule please
be specific, limit your comments to issues pertinent to the proposed
rule, and explain the reason for your recommendations. If possible,
please submit three copies of your comments to our Administrative
Record (see ADDRESSES). We may not consider your comments for the final
rule when received after the close of the comment period (see DATES) or
delivered to addresses other than those listed in ADDRESSES.
[[Page 20769]]
Public Hearings
We will hold public hearings on the proposed rule by request only.
If no one has contacted Mr. Trelease requesting a hearing by the date
listed in DATES, we will not hold a hearing. We will hold a public
meeting instead of a hearing if only one person expresses an interest.
We will include the results of all meetings and hearings in our
Administrative Record.
If we hold a hearing, it will continue until everyone who wants to
testify is heard. Please provide us with an advanced copy of your
testimony at the address specified for the submission of written
comments (see ADDRESSES), and a copy to the transcriber when you arrive
at the hearing. This will assist us in preparing appropriate questions,
and ensure that the transcriber provides us with an accurate record of
the testimony.
II. Discussion of Rule
Why Is This Rule Being Written?
On March 4, 1995, the President announced a government-wide
Regulatory Reinvention Initiative. The President directed each agency
to conduct a page-by-page review of its regulations for the purpose of
eliminating or revising those that are outdated or otherwise in need of
reform. As part of that effort, OSM is considering several means of
reducing the number of pages in the CFR.
This rulemaking would result in a reduction of approximately 50
pages from the CFR and reduce future printing costs for the government,
and contribute to on-going efforts to make the CFR a more readable
document.
What Would Change?
The OSM Director's approval or approval in part of State program
amendments is published in the Federal Register and codified in the
CFR. The regulatory text documenting such decisions usually contains
topical outlines of the amendments and associated program citations,
the dates the amendments were submitted to OSM, and the dates the
amendments became effective. Under the revised procedures of this
rulemaking, the regulatory text would be limited to a tabular
presentation of the dates that States submitted amendments, and the
dates the amendments were published in the Federal Register after
approval, or partial approval, by the OSM Director for 30 CFR parts
901, 902, 904, 906, 913, 914, 915, 916, 917, 918 and 920.
OSM believes that there is no compelling public need to codify all
of the information currently found in the regulatory text of State
program amendment approvals. Although the topical outline of an
approved amendment may be a convenient reference for members of the
public who want to begin their research of particular provisions of
that program amendment, OSM believes that the public would still find
it necessary to refer back to the final rule's Federal Register notice
for a thorough preamble discussion of those provisions. As before,
those people who would like copies of the full text of the State
program amendment may contact the State regulatory authority office or
the OSM field office with oversight authority for that State.
How do I Get a Copy of State Program Amendments?
Copies of approved State program amendments may be obtained by
contacting the State regulatory authority or the local OSM field office
with oversight authority for that State. Addresses for these offices
are found in parts 900 through 950 of the CFR with their respective
State programs.
III. Procedural Matters
Federal Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain collections of information which require
approval by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior certifies that this revision would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule has been reviewed by OSM and it has been determined to be
categorically excluded from the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process in accordance with the Departmental Manual 516 DM 6,
Appendix 8.4.A.(2).
Executive Order 12866
This rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866 and does
not require review by the Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order 12778
This proposed rule has been reviewed under the applicable standards
of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform (56
FR 55195). In general, the requirements of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12778 are covered by the preamble discussion of this proposed
rule. Additional remarks follow concerning individual elements of the
Executive Order:
A. What is the preemptive effect, if any, to be given to the
regulation?
The proposed rule would have no preemptive effect.
B. What is the effect on existing Federal law or regulation, if
any, including all provisions repealed or modified?
This rule does not modify the implementation of SMCRA, nor does it
modify the implementation of any other Federal statute. The preceding
discussion of this rule specifies the Federal regulatory provisions
that are affected by this rule.
C. Does the rule provide a clear and certain legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general standard, while promoting
simplification and burden reduction?
The standards established by this rule are as clear and certain as
practicable, given the complexity of the topics covered and the
mandates of SMCRA.
D. What is the retroactive effect, if any, to be given to the
regulation?
This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
E. Are administrative proceedings required before parties may file
suit in court? Which proceedings apply? Is the exhaustion of
administrative remedies required?
No administrative proceedings are required before parties may file
suit in court challenging the provisions of this rule under section
526(a) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1276(a).
Prior to any judicial challenge to the application of the rule,
however, administrative procedures must be exhausted. In situations
involving OSM application of the rule, applicable administrative
procedures may be found at 43 CFR Part 4. In situations involving State
regulatory authority application of provisions equivalent to those
contained in this rule, applicable administrative procedures are set
forth in the particular State program.
F. Does the rule define key terms, either explicitly or by
reference to other regulations or statutes that explicitly define those
items?
Terms which are important to the understanding of this rule are set
forth in 30 CFR 700.5 and 701.5.
G. Does the rule address other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship of regulations set forth by the Attorney
General, with the concurrence of the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, that are determined to be in accordance with the
purposes of the Executive Order?
As of the date of publication, the Attorney General and the
Director of the
[[Page 20770]]
Office of Management and Budget have not issued any guidance on this
requirement.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Parts 901, 902, 904, 906, 913, 914, 915,
916, 917, 918, and 920.
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
Dated: April 20, 1996.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR parts 901, 902,
904, 906, 913, 914, 915, 916, 917, 918, and 920 are amended as follows:
PART 901--ALABAMA
1. The authority citation for part 901 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
2. Section 901.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 901.15 Approval of Alabama regulatory program amendments.
(a) The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted
to OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 24, 1982.......................... July 27, 1983.
Aug. 29, 1983.......................... Mar. 2, 1984.
Nov. 28, 1983.......................... July 5, 1984.
Jan. 9, 1984........................... Sept. 27, 1984.
May 22, 1985........................... July 19, 1985.
April 2, 1985.......................... Dec. 3, 1985.
May 7, 1986............................ Aug. 14, 1986.
May 20, 1986........................... Sept. 8, 1986.
June 15, 1987.......................... July 7, 1988.
Nov. 22, 1989.......................... Feb. 5, 1991.
July 16, 1990.......................... Feb. 28, 1991.
July 16, 1990.......................... July 3, 1991.
Nov. 22, 1989; July 16, 1990 and Aug. May 11, 1992.
1, 1991.
June 23, 1993.......................... Oct. 21, 1993.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) The trial period for Alabama's excess spoil disposal plan is
extended from January 1, 1991, to January 1, 1993. The trial study is
extended with the following conditions:
(1) The Director, at his discretion, may terminate the trial study
period at any time during the extended period, if sufficient data
becomes available. On termination of the trial study period and OSM's
analysis of the data, the Director may then approve or disapprove the
excess spoil provisions.
(2) At any time during the trial period the Director may, at his
discretion, place a moratorium on new permit applications which include
consideration of excess spoil provisions.
(3) The State is required to continue to report to the OSM
Birmingham Field Office annually on August 20, on the status of all
permits and permit applications which include consideration under
excess spoil provisions.
3. Section 901.25 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 901.25 Approval of Alabama abandoned mine land reclamation plan
amendments.
(a) The Alabama Amendment, submitted to OSM on June 15, 1987, was
approved on August 8, 1988. You may receive a copy from:
(1) Alabama Department of Industrial Relations, 649 Monroe Street,
Montgomery, Alabama 36130;
(2) Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
Birmingham Field Office, 135 Gemini Circle, Birmingham, Alabama 35209;
or
(3) Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center, Three Parkway Center,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15220.
(b) The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted
to OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 25, 1990......................... Aug. 31, 1990.
June 26, 1992.......................... Jan. 12, 1993.
Oct. 1, 1993........................... June 30, 1994.
Dec. 5, 1994........................... Aug. 15, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 90--ALASKA
4. The authority citation for part 902 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
5. Section 902.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 902.15 Approval of Alaska regulatory program amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 12, 1983.......................... Dec. 23, 1983.
May 28, 1985 and Feb. 24, 1987......... Feb. 22, 1988.
Feb. 2, 1990........................... Aug. 19, 1992.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Section 902.25 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 902.25 Approval of Alaska abandoned mine land reclamation plan
amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 28, 1992........................... Nov. 16, 1992.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 904--ARKANSAS
7. The authority citation for part 904 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
8. Section 904.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 904.15 Approval of Arkansas regulatory program amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Fedeal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec. 7, 1983........................... March 16, 1984.
May 21, 1985........................... Aug. 15, 1985.
Dec. 17, 1984.......................... Dec. 2, 1985.
March 10, 1986......................... March 28, 1988.
Nov. 4, 1987........................... June 1, 1988.
Dec. 22, 1988.......................... Nov. 14, 1989.
Dec. 18, 1989.......................... Nov. 23, 1990.
Sept. 20, 1990......................... June 14, 1991.
Sept. 27, 1990......................... July 18, 1991.
Oct. 11, 1991.......................... April 23, 1992.
April 11, 1991 and Sept. 25, 1991...... Aug. 19, 1992.
March 31, 1993......................... Nov. 17, 1994.
Aug. 26, 1994.......................... June 30, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Section 904.25 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 904.25 Approval of Arkansas abandoned mine land reclamation plan
amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 31, 1993......................... July 19, 1993.
Oct. 6, 1993........................... Jan. 5, 1994.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 20771]]
PART 906--COLORADO
10. The authority citation for part 906 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
11. Section 906.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 906.15 Approval of Colorado regulatory program amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 11, 1982 and Feb. 25, 1982........ Dec. 16, 1982.
Jan. 11, 1982 and Feb. 25, 1982; May May 1, 1984.
26, 1983 and Aug. 2, 1983.
Aug. 28, 1985.......................... Nov. 15, 1985.
Aug. 28, 1984 and March 12, 1985....... Feb. 5, 1986.
Jan. 23, 1986.......................... May 30, 1986.
Jan. 27, 1986 and May 13, 1986......... July 1, 1986.
Aug. 18, 1986.......................... Feb. 5, 1987.
Nov. 25, 1986.......................... May 7, 1987.
May 26, 1987........................... March 31, 1989.
Oct. 14, 1988.......................... June 6, 1989.
Aug. 23, 1988.......................... Dec. 11, 1989.
July 18, 1989.......................... Jan. 14, 1991.
April 11, 1991......................... July 22, 1991.
March 19, 1993......................... Jan. 19, 1994.
June 30, 1993.......................... June 1, 1994.
April 18, 1994......................... Dec. 6, 1994.
March 18, 1994......................... May 15, 1995.
July 12, 1995.......................... Dec. 14, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 Section 906.25 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 906.25 Approval of Colorado abandoned mine land reclamation plan
amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 29, 1995......................... Oct. 25, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 913--ILLINOIS
13. The authority citation for part 913 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.
14. Section 913.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 913.15 Approval of Illinois regulatory program amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 3, 1980.......................... Nov. 23, 1982.
Nov. 30, 1982.......................... May 25, 1983.
July 27, 1983.......................... Oct. 13, 1983.
Aug. 11, 1983.......................... Nov. 10, 1983.
March 16, 1984......................... Sept. 28, 1984.
Sept. 27, 1984......................... Jan. 11, 1985.
Dec. 23, 1983.......................... Oct 30, 1985.
May 30, 1985 and June 2, 1986.......... Dec. 10, 1986.
March 28, 1986......................... Oct. 25, 1988 and Jan. 4, 1989.
July 17, 1989.......................... Aug. 29, 1990.
July 26, 1990.......................... May 6, 1991.
March 5, 1991.......................... Aug. 2, 1991.
Feb. 1, 1991........................... Dec. 13, 1991.
June 22, 1992.......................... Sept. 3, 1993.
Aug. 17, 1993.......................... Feb. 2, 1994.
Sept. 9, 1994.......................... Nov. 21, 1994.
March 3, 1995.......................... July 11, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Section 913.25 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 913.25 Approval of Illinois abandoned mine land reclamation plan
amendments.
(a) You may receive copies of the Illinois Abandoned Mine Land
Reclamation Plan and amendments from the:
(1) Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office of Mines and
Minerals, Division of Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation, 524 South
Second Street, Springfield, Illinois 62701-1787; or
(2) Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
Indianapolis Field Office, Minton-Capehart Federal Building, room 301,
575 North Pennsylvania Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204.
(b) The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted
to OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 19, 1984.......................... June 11, 1984.
Sept. 6, 1989.......................... Feb. 14, 1990.
June 29, 1990.......................... Nov. 2, 1990.
Aug. 13, 1992.......................... Jan. 14, 1993.
July 2, 1993........................... Sept. 21, 1993.
April 10, 1995......................... July 11, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 914--INDIANA
16. The authority citation for part 914 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
17. Section 914.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 914.15 Approval of Indiana regulatory program amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 1, 1982.......................... Dec. 17, 1982.
Dec. 9, 1982........................... March 4, 1983.
April 19 and 28, 1983.................. Aug. 19, 1983.
March 5, 1984.......................... July 10, 1984.
March 19, 1984......................... Oct. 19, 1984.
Feb. 7, 1985........................... May 13, 1985.
Dec. 7, 1984........................... May 15, 1985.
May 29, 1984........................... May 16, 1985.
Feb. 18, 1985.......................... June 5, 1985.
Dec. 10 and 16, 1985................... March 14, 1986.
Sept. 4, 1985.......................... March 17, 1986.
Jan. 31, 1986.......................... May 13, 1986.
May 29, 1986........................... Aug. 14, 1986.
Sept. 24, 1986......................... Jan. 21, 1987.
June 11, 1986 and Nov. 7, 1986......... April 1, 1987.
June 11, 1986 and May 4, 1987.......... Feb. 16, 1988.
April 10, 1987......................... March 22, 1988.
Aug. 13, 1987.......................... Nov. 10, 1988.
Aug. 13, 1987 and June 12, 1989........ Oct. 12, 1989.
Sept. 28, 1988......................... Nov. 1, 1989.
March 18, 1988......................... Dec. 15, 1989.
Nov. 8, 1989........................... April 5, 1990.
March 18, 1988......................... April 23, 1990.
Dec. 5, 1989 and May 16, 1990.......... Aug. 10, 1990.
Dec. 4, 1989 and Aug. 9, 1990.......... Sept. 24, 1990.
Aug. 15, 1989 and Dec. 5, 1989......... Jan. 18, 1991.
Oct. 24, 1990.......................... March 15, 1991.
Dec. 11, 1990.......................... March 21, 1991.
Sept. 29, 1988 and Feb. 15, 1991....... Aug. 2, 1991.
June 4, 1991........................... Nov. 27, 1991 and Dec. 13,
1991.
July 11, 1991.......................... Dec. 13, 1991.
March 18, 1988......................... April 20, 1992.
Dec. 6, 1991........................... May 11, 1992.
May 22 and 23, 1991.................... May 29, 1992.
June 4, 1991........................... June 23, 1992.
May 23, 1991........................... Sept. 14, 1992.
May 7, 1992............................ Dec. 17, 1992.
March 18, 1988, Feb. 15, 1991 and July Dec. 30, 1992.
10, 1991.
July 16, 1992.......................... Jan. 14, 1993.
Dec. 2, 1992........................... May 17, 1993.
Nov. 13, 1992.......................... June 24, 1993.
Jan. 4, 1993........................... Aug. 2, 1993.
March 26, 1992......................... Aug. 16, 1993.
Aug. 8, 1992........................... Sept. 3, 1993.
[[Page 20772]]
April 19, 1993......................... Sept. 21, 1993.
Feb. 24, 1993.......................... Nov. 18, 1993.
July 2, 1993........................... June 16, 1994.
April 2, 1993.......................... July 15, 1994.
Oct. 1, 1993........................... July 27, 1994.
June 15, 1994.......................... Oct. 20, 1994.
Aug. 11, 1994.......................... Dec. 13, 1994.
Sept. 26, 1994......................... Feb. 2, 1995.
Dec. 7, 1994........................... March 10, 1995.
March 21, 1994......................... April 4, 1995.
Jan. 31, 1995.......................... April 7, 1995.
March 18, 1994 and Aug. 25, 1994....... April 20, 1995.
May 3, 1995............................ Sept. 14, 1995 and Oct. 25,
1995.
May 11, 1995........................... Oct. 16, 1995.
Dec. 30, 1993.......................... Nov. 9, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Section 914.25 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 914.25 Approval of Indiana abandoned mine land reclamation plan
amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 22, 1988.......................... Dec. 29, 1988, May 11, 1992 and
Oct. 6, 1992.
Nov. 17, 1992.......................... Oct. 26, 1994.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 915--IOWA
19. The authority citation for part 915 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
20. Section 915.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 915.15 Approval of Iowa regulatory program amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 28, 1982......................... Jan. 4, 1983.
May 9, 1984............................ Dec. 7, 1984.
Jan. 31, 1985 and February 5, 1985..... May 24, 1985.
July 25 and 26, 1985................... May 9, 1986.
June 16, 1986.......................... Oct. 7, 1986.
Aug. 12, 1986.......................... Dec. 11, 1986.
April 28, 1987......................... Oct. 7, 1987.
June 9, 1988........................... Dec. 9, 1988.
Dec. 26, 1990.......................... Nov. 6, 1991.
Nov. 23, 1992.......................... Feb. 8, 1994.
April 13, 1994......................... April 6, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 916--KANSAS
21. The authority citation for part 916 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
22. Section 916.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 916.15 Approval of Kansas regulatory program amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 20, 1981........................... April 14, 1982.
Nov. 16, 1982.......................... March 1, 1983.
March 16, 1984......................... June 8, 1984.
Dec. 21, 1984.......................... April 11, 1985.
April 4, 1985.......................... Nov. 15, 1985.
April 23, 1986......................... May 26, 1987.
Aug. 5, 1987........................... Dec. 31, 1987.
April 29, 1988......................... Oct. 5, 1988.
Jan. 26, 1988.......................... Oct. 7, 1988.
June 8, 1990 and Sept. 14 and 17, 1990. Feb. 19, 1991.
June 29, 1989; Oct. 24 and 30, 1989 and Sept. 13, 1991.
Nov. 9 and 17, 1989.
June 29, 1989; July 10, 1989; June 29, April 13, 1992.
1990 and Oct. 9, 1990.
June 3, 1991........................... Aug. 19, 1992.
July 10, 1992 and Dec. 23, 1992........ June 14, 1993 and Aug. 30,
1993.
Sept. 14, 1993; Jan. 26, 1994 and March June 3, 1994.
10, 1994.
July 10, 1989.......................... Sept. 9, 1994.
Aug. 9, 1995........................... Nov. 27, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Section 916.25 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 916.25 Approval of Kansas abandoned mine land reclamation plan
amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 29, 1988......................... Oct. 5, 1988.
Sept. 30, 1988 and Dec. 6, 1988........ Jan. 10, 1989.
June 29, 1989 and Sept. 11, 1989....... Nov. 30, 1989.
Oct. 25, 1991.......................... April 13, 1992.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 917--KENTUCKY
24. The authority citation for part 917 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
25. Section 917.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 917.15 Approval of Kentucky regulatory program amendments.
(a) The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted
to OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 28, 1982........................... Jan. 4, 1983.
May 28, 1982........................... May 13, 1983.
Jan. 11, 1983.......................... May 20, 1983.
Feb. 1, 1983........................... Oct. 12, 1983.
Oct. 31, 1983.......................... Nov. 25, 1983.
Jan. 10, 1984.......................... April 13, 1984.
May 1, 1984............................ Aug. 22, 1984.
Oct. 31, 1983.......................... Sept. 25, 1984.
Oct. 31, 1983.......................... Oct. 3, 1984.
Oct. 12, 1984.......................... March 4, 1985.
Aug. 3, 1984........................... May 30, 1985.
Aug. 29, 1985.......................... Nov. 20, 1985.
Dec. 4, 1984........................... Dec. 10, 1985.
June 6, 1984 and Dec. 17, 1985......... Jan. 24, 1986.
Aug. 13, 1985.......................... March 3, 1986.
Sept. 16, 1985 and Dec. 10, 1985....... March 17, 1986.
Dec. 10, 1985.......................... April 4, 1986.
Dec. 3, 1985........................... April 9, 1986.
Aug. 3, 1984........................... May 27, 1986.
April 29, 1986......................... July 15, 1986.
Aug. 30, 1985, Sept. 16, 1985, and Feb. Aug. 27, 1986.
7, 1986.
Sept. 5, 1986.......................... March 9, 1987.
Feb. 27, 1987.......................... Dec. 31, 1987.
June 17, 1987.......................... March 10, 1988.
May 28, 1987........................... Oct. 7, 1988.
April 29, 1988......................... oct. 6, 1988.
July 5, 1989........................... Dec. 15, 1989.
April 29, 1986......................... April 9, 1990.
April 21, 1988......................... Aug. 10, 1990.
Aug. 15, 1989.......................... Nov. 1, 1990.
July 15, 1988.......................... Dec. 31, 1990.
May 8, 1990............................ Feb. 6, 1991.
Jan. 9, 1991........................... April 16, 1991.
Jan. 24, 1991.......................... Sept. 23, 1991.
June 28, 1991.......................... April 15, 1992.
Sept. 18, 1989......................... Aug. 18, 1992.
June 28, 1991.......................... Oct. 1, 1992.
March 13, 1992......................... Dec. 9, 1992.
July 30, 1992.......................... Dec. 17, 1992.
June 28, 1991.......................... Jan. 12, 1993.
June 28, 1991.......................... June 8, 1993.
July 30, 1992.......................... March 26, 1993.
July 28, 1992.......................... Aug. 6, 1993.
July 21, 1992.......................... Oct. 1, 1993.
June 28, 1991.......................... May 26, 1994.
May 21, 1993........................... Feb. 24, 1994.
[[Page 20773]]
April 26, 1994......................... Sept. 1, 1994.
April 18, 1994......................... Sept. 16, 1994.
Oct. 3, 1994........................... Feb. 15, 1995.
April 29, 1994......................... June 27, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) The Director is deferring his decision on the enforcement
provisions of section 720 of the Act from its effective date (October
24, 1992), to the effective date of KRS 350.421 (1) and (2) (July 15,
1994).
26. Section 917.21 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 917.21 Approval of Kentucky abandoned mine land reclamation plan
amendments.
(a) The Kentucky Amendment, submitted to OSM on December 8, 1982,
is approved. You may receive a copy from:
(1) Commonwealth of Kentucky, Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Cabinet, Division of Abandoned Lands, 618 Teton Trail,
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601; or
(2) Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Lexington
Field Office, 2675 Regency Road, Lexington, Kentucky 40503-2922.
(b) The Kentucky Abandoned Mine Reclamation Amendment, submitted to
OSM on March 25, 1985, is approved. Copies may be obtained at the
addresses listed in paragraph (a).
(c) The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted
to OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 24, 1992.......................... Dec. 17, 1992.
May 5, 1994............................ July 29, 1994.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 918--LOUISIANA
27. The authority citation for part 918 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
28. Section 918.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 918.15 Approval of Louisiana regulatory program amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 19, 1990.......................... May 8, 1991.
Aug. 14, 1990.......................... May 21, 1991.
Nov. 12, 1991.......................... Oct. 28, 1992.
May 3, 1994............................ Sept. 20, 1994.
Nov. 2, 1994........................... Jan. 24, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 920--MARYLAND
29. The authority citation for part 920 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
30. Section 920.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 920.15 Approval of Maryland regulatory program amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 28, 1982.......................... Feb. 8, 1984.
May 28, 1984 and Oct. 5, 1984.......... Jan. 22, 1985.
Jan. 30, 1985.......................... Sept. 10, 1985.
Jan. 13, 1984; June 8, 1984; Aug. 7, Nov. 18, 1985.
1984; Oct. 10, 1984 and Nov. 9, 1984.
Jan. 14, 1986 and May 15, 1986......... Dec. 12, 1986.
March 18, 1986 and April 23, 1986...... Jan. 30, 1987.
July 8, 1987 and June 10, 1988......... June 5, 1990.
March 30, 1989......................... Jan. 11, 1991.
June 15, 1989.......................... March 21, 1991.
Sept. 28, 1990 and Nov. 21, 1990....... April 26, 1991.
March 27, 1989......................... May 22, 1991.
March 23, 1990......................... June 21, 1991.
Oct. 31, 1989.......................... Aug. 9, 1991.
Dec. 6, 1990........................... Dec. 2, 1991.
June 10, 1988; June 14, 1989 and June Dec. 5, 1991.
15, 1989.
May 7, 1991 and May 16, 1991........... Jan. 10, 1992.
Jan. 23, 1992.......................... Sept. 24, 1992.
June 11, 1992.......................... Nov. 16, 1992.
July 14, 1992.......................... Dec. 17, 1992.
June 23, 1992.......................... Dec. 30, 1992.
Oct. 21, 1992.......................... May 17, 1993.
Feb. 23, 1993.......................... June 17, 1993.
Feb. 7, 1992........................... June 22, 1993.
Feb. 5, 1993........................... July 6, 1993.
Feb. 25, 1994.......................... June 30, 1994.
May 16, 1994 and May 31, 1994.......... Nov. 14, 1994.
June 16, 1995.......................... Nov. 9, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Section 920.25 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 920.25 Approval of Maryland abandoned mine land reclamation plan
amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sept. 4, 1992.......................... March 22, 1993.
Aug. 19, 1993.......................... Dec. 9, 1994.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-11306 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11292 Wyoming Regulatory Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20773-20775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11292]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
30 CFR Part 950
[WY-026]
Wyoming Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public
hearing on proposed amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is
announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Wyoming regulatory
program (hereinafter, the ``Wyoming program'') under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The proposed amendment
consists of revisions to statutes pertaining to in situ mining. The
amendment is intended to revise the Wyoming program to be consistent
with SMCRA.
DATES: Written comments must be received by 4:00 p.m., m.d.t. June 7,
1996. If requested, a public hearing on the proposed amendment will be
held on June 3, 1996. Requests to present oral testimony at the hearing
must be received by 4:00 p.m., m.d.t. on May 23, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed or hand delivered to Guy
Padgett at the address listed below.
Copies of the Wyoming program, the proposed amendment, and all
written comments received in response to this document will be
available for public review at the addresses listed below during normal
business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Each
requester may receive one free copy of the proposed amendment by
contacting OSM's Casper Field Office.
Guy Padgett, Director, Casper Field Office, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Federal Building, Room 2128, 100 East
``B'' Street, Casper, Wyoming 82601-1918
Dennis Hemmer, Director, Department of Environmental Quality, Herschler
Building--4th Floor West, 125 West
[[Page 20774]]
25th Street, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, Telephone: (307) 777-7938
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Guy Padgett, Telephone: (307) 261-5824, Internet address:
[email protected]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Wyoming Program
On November 26, 1980, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally
approved the Wyoming program. General background information on the
Wyoming program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of
comments, and the conditions of approval of the Wyoming program can be
found in the November 26, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 78637).
Subsequent actions concerning Wyoming's program and program amendments
can be found at 30 CFR 950.11, 950.12, 950.15, 950.16, and 950.20.
II. Proposed Amendment
By letter dated April 18, 1996 (administrative record No. WY-32-
02), Wyoming submitted a proposed amendment to its program pursuant to
SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Wyoming submitted the proposed
amendment in response to a January 27, 1995, letter (administrative
record No. WY-32-01) that OSM sent to Wyoming in accordance with 30 CFR
732.17(c). The provisions of the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act that
Wyoming proposes to revise are: Wyoming Statute (W.S.) 35-11-426, in
situ mineral mining permits and testing licenses, and W.S. 35-11-431,
research and development licenses, renewals, and applications.
Specifically, Wyoming proposes to revise W.S. 35-11-426 to read as
follows (italicized words denote proposed additions and words enclosed
in brackets denote proposed deletions):
35-11-426. In situ mineral mining permits and testing licenses.
(a) Any person desiring to engage in situ mineral mining or
research and development testing is governed by this act. [Any
general provisions of the act which are more stringent than the
particular requirements contained in W.S. 35-11-427 through 35-11-
436 shall control for purposes of the regulation of coal in situ
processing activity.]
(b) All provisions of this act applicable to a surface coal
mining operation, as defined in W.S. 35-11-103(e)(xx), shall apply
to coal in situ operations, regardless of whether such operations
are connected with existing surface or underground coal mines,
including research and development testing licenses, in addition to
the requirements of W.S. 35-11-427 through 35-11-436.
Wyoming proposes to revise W.S. 35-11-426 to read as follows:
35-11-431. Research and development license; renewal; application.
(a) A special license to conduct research and development
testing may be issued by the administrator for a one (1) year period
without a permit and may be renewed annually. An application for a
research and development testing license shall be accompanied by a
fee of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) and shall include:
* * * * *
(vi) [Proof of notice and mailing to all persons within one half
(\1/2\) mile of the license area having a valid legal estate of
record] All requirements of W.S. 35-11-406 (j) and (k); and
III. Public Comment Procedures
In accordance with the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM is
seeking comments on whether the proposed amendment satisfies the
applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If the amendment
is deemed adequate, it will become part of the Wyoming program.
1. Written Comments
Written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues
proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of the
commenter's recommendations. Comments received after the time indicated
under ``DATES'' or at locations other than the Casper Field Office will
not necessarily be considered in the final rulemaking or included in
the administrative record.
2. Public Hearing
Persons wishing to testify at the public hearing should contact the
persons listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4:00 p.m.,
m.d.t. on May 23, 1996. Any disabled individual who has need for a
special accommodation to attend a public hearing should contact the
individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The location
and time of the hearing will be arranged with those persons requesting
the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to testify at the public
hearing, the hearing will not be held.
Filing of a written statement at the time of the hearing is
requested as it will greatly assist the transcriber. Submission of
written statements in advance of the hearing will allow OSM officials
to prepare adequate responses and appropriate questions.
The public hearing will continue on the specified date until all
persons scheduled to testify have been heard. Persons in the audience
who have not been scheduled to testify, and who wish to do so, will be
heard following those who have been scheduled. The hearing will end
after all persons scheduled to testify and persons present in the
audience who wish to testify have been heard.
3. Public Meeting
If only one persons requests an opportunity to testify at a
hearing, a public meeting, rather than a public hearing, may be held.
Persons wishing to meet with OSM representatives to discuss the
proposed amendment may request a meeting by contacting the person
listed under ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.'' All such meetings
will be open to the public and, if possible, notices of meetings will
be posted at the locations listed under ``ADDRESSES.'' A written
summary of each meeting will be made a part of the administrative
record.
IV. Procedural Determinations
1. Executive Order 12866
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review).
2. Executive Order 12778
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 2 of Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform) and has
determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections
(a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not
applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and
program amendments since each such program is drafted and promulgated
by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA
(30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11,
732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory
programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based
solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with
SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other
requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.
3. National Environmental Policy Act
No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since
section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency
decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332
(2)(C)).
[[Page 20775]]
4. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
5. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The State submittal that is the subject of this rule is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In
making the determination as to whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and
assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 950
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: April 25, 1996.
Russell F. Price,
Acting Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 96-11292 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11165 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; National Emission Standard for Radon Emissions From Phosphogypsum Stacks
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20775-20779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11165]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 61
[FRL-5468-4]
RIN 2060-AF04
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants;
National Emission Standard for Radon Emissions From Phosphogypsum
Stacks
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of Reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 24, 1994, EPA announced its decision concerning a
petition by The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) seeking reconsideration of a
June 3, 1992 final rule revising the National Emission Standard for
Radon Emissions from Phosphogypsum Stacks, 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart R.
EPA partially granted and partially denied the TFI petition for
reconsideration. Pursuant to that decision, EPA is convening a
rulemaking to reconsider 40 CFR 61.205, the provision of the final rule
which governs distribution and use of phosphogypsum for research and
development, and the methodology utilized under 40 CFR 61.207 to
establish the average radium-226 concentration for phosphogypsum
removed from a phosphogypsum stack. This document identifies proposed
changes to be considered as part of this reconsideration and specific
underlying issues on which EPA seeks further comment.
DATES: Comments concerning this proposed rule must be received by EPA
on or before July 8, 1996. EPA will hold a public hearing concerning
this proposed rule in Washington, D.C. if a request for a hearing is
received by EPA by June 7, 1996. In the event a hearing is requested,
EPA will publish a separate notice specifying the date and location of
the hearing.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:
Air and Radiation Docket and
[[Page 20776]]
Information Center, 6102, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, Attn: Air Docket No. A-94-57.
Requests for a public hearing should be made in writing to the
Director, Radiation Protection Division, 6602J, Office of Radiation and
Indoor Air, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460. Requests may also be faxed to EPA at (202) 233-
9629.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacolyn Dziuban, Center for Federal
Guidance and Air Standards (6602J), Office of Radiation and Indoor Air,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460 (202) 233-9474.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Docket
Docket No. A-79-11 contains the public record supporting the final
rule revising 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart R, which EPA issued in 1992 (57
FR 23305, June 3, 1992). It also contains the August 3, 1992 TFI
petition which led to the initiation of this rulemaking, and the EPA
response partially granting and partially denying the TFI petition (59
FR 14040, March 24, 1994). Docket No. A-94-57 contains certain
documents upon which this proposal is based. These dockets are
available for public inspection between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, in room M1500 of Waterside Mall, 401 M Street,
SW, Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
I. Background
A. Description of Phosphogypsum
Phosphogypsum is a waste byproduct which results from the wet
process of producing phosphoric acid from phosphate rock. Phosphogypsum
stacks are piles of waste or mines utilized to store and dispose of
phosphogypsum. Because phosphate ore contains a relatively high
concentration of uranium and radium, phosphogypsum piles also contain
high levels of these elements. The vast majority of piles are located
in Florida, although other states also involved in phosphate rock
production include Idaho, North Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Alabama and
Wyoming.
B. Regulatory History
1. The December 15, 1989 Standard
On December 15, 1989, EPA published a National Emission Standard
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) applicable to radon emissions
from phosphogypsum stacks, 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart R (54 FR 51654,
December 15, 1989) (Subpart R). As part of that standard, EPA adopted a
work practice requirement that all phosphogypsum be disposed of in
stacks, thereby permitting control and measurement of gaseous radon-222
which is emitted when the radium present in the phosphogypsum decays.
Subsequent to the issuance of Subpart R, EPA received petitions for
reconsideration from The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), Consolidated
Minerals, Inc., and U.S. Gypsum Company. These petitioners objected to
the requirement that all phosphogypsum be disposed and managed in
stacks, because it precluded various alternative uses of phosphogypsum,
including use of phosphogypsum in agriculture, construction, and
research and development. Because EPA had not fully considered the
implications of its work practice standard for alternative uses, EPA
agreed to convene a reconsideration proceeding in which the risks
associated with alternative uses and the procedures under which
alternative uses might be permitted could be evaluated (54 FR 9612,
March 7, 1989).
Rather than setting forth one specific proposal for revision of
Subpart R, EPA requested comment on a variety of substantive issues,
including specific types of proposed alternative uses of phosphogypsum
and the health risks associated with these alternative uses. EPA also
requested comment on four general options for regulation of alternative
uses: (1) no change in the work practice requirement, (2) changing the
definition of phosphogypsum to exclude from the work practice
requirement material with radium-226 concentrations up to 10
picocuries/gram (pCi/g), (3) permitting use of phosphogypsum in
research and development on processes to remove radium from the
phosphogypsum, and (4) permitting alternative use of phosphogypsum only
after specific permission from EPA.
2. The June 3, 1992 Revision of Subpart R
After analyzing the risks associated with the various alternative
uses of phosphogypsum which were proposed and evaluating the comments
which were received, EPA issued a final rule revising Subpart R (57 FR
23305, June 3, 1992). The approach which EPA ultimately adopted was a
hybrid of the options it had previously identified. For phosphogypsum
use in agriculture, EPA decided that it would be impractical to require
case-by-case approval. Based on its analysis of potential risks
associated with long-term use of phosphogypsum in agriculture, EPA set
a maximum upper limit of 10 pCi/g for radium-226 in phosphogypsum
distributed for use in agriculture. Rather than excluding material at
or below 10 pCi/g from the standard, EPA established sampling,
measurement, and certification procedures permitting such material to
be removed from stacks and sold for agricultural use. Based on an
analysis of potential risks associated with the research and
development use, EPA decided to permit the use of up to 700 pounds of
phosphogypsum for a particular research and development activity. EPA
also decided to adopt procedures permitting approval of other uses of
phosphogypsum on a case-by-case basis.
After EPA issued its final rule concluding the reconsideration
proceeding and revising Subpart R, The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
sought judicial review of the 1992 revisions of Subpart R in The
Fertilizer Institute v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 92-1320
(D.C. Cir.). TFI also filed a petition dated August 3, 1992 seeking
further reconsideration of the revisions of the rule pursuant to Clean
Air Act Section 307(d)(7)(B). TFI, EPA, and ManaSota-88, another
petitioner who sought review of the 1992 rule in ManaSota-88 v.
Browner, No. 92-1330 (D.C. Cir.), later reached an agreement to jointly
move the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to stay judicial review of the
1992 rule, and the Court granted the motion. As part of that agreement,
EPA agreed to make a final decision whether to grant or to deny the TFI
petition for reconsideration. After a careful review of all of the
objections set forth in the petition for reconsideration, EPA decided
to partially deny and to partially grant the petition (59 FR 14040,
March 24, 1994).
II. Standard for Reconsideration
Under Clean Air Act Section 307(d)(7)(B), the EPA Administrator is
required to convene a reconsideration proceeding if: (1) the person
raising an objection to a rule can demonstrate to the Administrator
that it was impracticable to raise such objection within the time
permitted for public comment or the grounds for the objection arose
after the period for public comment, and (2) if the Administrator
determines that the objection is of central relevance to the outcome of
the rule. Therefore, reconsideration is not required if the objections
by a petitioner were raised or could reasonably have been raised during
the pendency of the rulemaking. Moreover, even in the circumstance
[[Page 20777]]
where a particular objection could not have been raised earlier,
reconsideration is not required if EPA determines that such objections
would not have altered the outcome of the rule had they been raised
earlier.
In the notice announcing the Agency's decision to partially deny
and partially grant TFI's Petition for Reconsideration (59 FR 14040,
March 24, 1994), EPA concluded that most of the objections raised by
TFI did not warrant convening a reconsideration proceeding, but that
some of the objections by TFI did warrant reconsideration of certain
provisions of the 1992 rule. EPA found that many of the technical and
policy objections by TFI to the EPA analysis of the potential risks of
phosphogypsum use were not of central relevance to the outcome of the
1992 rule, and that some of the other policy objections could have been
raised during the public comment period. Therefore, EPA denied the
petition for those objections.
EPA also determined, as explained in the March 24, 1994 notice,
that it was not practicable for TFI to raise some of its objections
during the previous reconsideration proceeding, and that these
objections might have affected the content of the 1992 rule had they
been raised during the comment period. EPA therefore concluded that
these specific objections were of central relevance to the outcome of
the 1992 rule for the specific provisions of the rule which they
concern, and stated that the Agency would convene a rulemaking to
reconsider these provisions of the rule.
III. Issues To Be Reconsidered
A. The 700 Pound Limitation
In the EPA analysis of potential risks associated with the research
and development use of phosphogypsum upon which the 1992 revisions of
Subpart R were based, EPA assumed that all of the free radon generated
by phosphogypsum containing 26 pCi/g radium-226 would be released to
one small laboratory room. As part of its analysis of the TFI petition,
EPA concluded that most laboratory experiments using phosphogypsum
would not result in such a high emanation rate. In addition, EPA
discovered during its review of the TFI petition that the EPA analysis
upon which the 1992 rule was based erroneously assumed that five 700
pound drums would be stored or utilized in the same area of the
laboratory, even though only a single 700 pound drum limit was
permitted by the 1992 rule. Based on these two factors, EPA decided
that it would be appropriate to reassess the risks associated with the
use of phosphogypsum in laboratory research and development activities
and to reconsider the 700 pound limitation in light of that
reassessment. The Agency's new risk assessment for laboratory use of
phosphogypsum entitled ``Addendum--Risk Assessment for Research and
Development Uses'' of Phosphogypsum has been included in the docket for
this proposed rule and may also be obtained from the EPA contact person
listed at the beginning of this notice.
The new EPA risk assessment for laboratory use of phosphogypsum
concludes that use of 700 pounds of phosphogypsum is expected to cause
an increase in lifetime cancer risk for the researchers working with
this material of approximately 1.2 x 10-6 for each year of
exposure. If it is assumed that a researcher might work with this
phosphogypsum in a laboratory for 10 years, this would result in a
total increase in lifetime cancer risk for that researcher of
approximately 1 x 10-5. Utilizing the two-step process for
determining the emission level which would provide an ``ample margin of
safety'' which was established by the Court in the vinyl chloride
decision, Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1146 (D.C.
Cir. 1987), EPA has determined in some prior instances that increases
in lifetime cancer risk of approximately 1 x 10-4 are acceptable.
However, the second step of the methodology required by the vinyl
chloride decision involves considering the economic feasibility of
further reductions in exposure and the associated risks. Therefore, to
properly apply this methodology in selecting an appropriate limit, EPA
must determine whether there are circumstances where it would be
helpful to researchers to utilize quantities of phosphogypsum greater
than 700 pounds in a laboratory setting. EPA is specifically requesting
comments on whether any individual believes it would be useful to use
more than the current limit of 700 pounds of phosphogypsum in any
single laboratory research and development project and if so, what
practical advantages a higher limit would provide.
In its petition, TFI also argued that it was not clear from the
text of the 1992 rule whether more than one research and development
activity utilizing 700 pounds of phosphogypsum would be permitted at a
single facility, as well as whether or not a single research activity
would be limited to a total of 700 pounds or only to 700 pounds at any
given time for a given activity. EPA responded that multiple research
and development activities each utilizing 700 pounds of phosphogypsum
would be permitted at a single facility, and that the 700 pound limit
applies only to the amount of phosphogypsum on hand at any given time.
However, the request for clarification by TFI also underscores another
limitation in the risk assessment supporting the 1992 rule. The EPA
risk analysis failed to consider that a given laboratory worker might
be exposed to radiation as a result of more than one research and
development activity utilizing phosphogypsum. Therefore, EPA is
requesting comment on whether there should be any limit on multiple
research and development activities at a single facility or by a
particular investigator.
Since multiple research and development activities involving use of
phosphogypsum may be undertaken in the same laboratory or at the same
facility, EPA believes that it may be difficult for researchers, as
well as enforcement personnel, to clearly distinguish between the
phosphogypsum intended for use in different research and development
activities. In view of this difficulty, it may be simpler and less
cumbersome to establish a single quantitative limit for the total
amount of phosphogypsum which may be utilized for all research and
development activities at a single facility. If quantities of
phosphogypsum in excess of the present limit of 700 pounds would be
useful for a particular research activity, a single larger limit for
all activities could afford greater flexibility, while still limiting
the overall radon exposure and cancer risk. The Agency's new risk
assessment for laboratory use of phosphogypsum suggests that an overall
limit per facility of 7000 pounds of phosphogypsum would assure that no
individual has an increased cancer risk over a ten year period in
excess of 1 x 10-4. Therefore, EPA is requesting comment on
whether it would be preferable to establish a single aggregate limit on
laboratory use of phosphogypsum for research and development purposes
at each facility, rather than a separate limit for each individual
experiment.
B. Use Outside of a Laboratory Setting
In its petition for reconsideration, TFI argued that the limitation
of 700 pounds of phosphogypsum for each specific research and
development activity effectively bans research activities in the field.
EPA responded that 40 CFR Section 61.205 was designed to permit
research and development activities involving phosphogypsum to proceed
in the laboratory, not to authorize large scale field research. The
risk assessment
[[Page 20778]]
underlying the research and development provision in the 1992 rule
considered the potential hazard of radon exposure for laboratory
workers, but it did not and could not consider those other risks to
humans or the environment which might result from research activities
utilizing phosphogypsum in the field. It was always the Agency's
expectation that proposals to conduct field studies utilizing
phosphogypsum would be submitted for EPA approval pursuant to 40 CFR
Section 61.206, and EPA has in fact approved field research under this
provision since promulgation of the 1992 rule. Accordingly, EPA is also
proposing to clarify the language of 40 CFR Section 61.205 to limit
that provision to research and development activities undertaken in a
controlled laboratory setting.
C. Sampling and Certification Requirements for Laboratory Use
In its petition, TFI objected to the requirement that owners or
operators conduct sampling or measurement of radium-226 and include
such information in certification documents accompanying the
phosphogypsum distributed for use in research and development. TFI
noted correctly that there is no quantitative limit on the amount of
radium-226 which phosphogypsum distributed for the research and
development use may contain. Because there is no upper limit on the
amount of radium permitted in phosphogypsum distributed for research
and development use, EPA has assumed in its analysis of potential risks
associated with such use that the phosphogypsum would contain high
levels of radium. EPA believes that in most instances analysis of the
radium-226 content in phosphogypsum distributed for use by laboratories
in research and development projects will be necessary as part of the
research activity. However, EPA has concluded that requiring
certification documents accompanying phosphogypsum distributed for use
in research and development to include quantitative analyses of radium
content is not necessary to monitor compliance. Thus EPA is proposing
to eliminate the requirement that owners or operators of phosphogypsum
stacks analyze the radium-226 content of phosphogypsum distributed for
research and development and the requirement that certification
documents accompanying phosphogypsum distributed for research and
development include information on radium-226 content. EPA requests
comment on this proposal.
D. Sampling Statistics
In its petition, TFI objected that the formula set forth in 40 CFR
Section 61.207(d), which is used to establish the number of samples
necessary to determine a representative average radium-226
concentration, is ambiguous, because it does not specify the amount of
allowable error. EPA agreed with this objection and stated it would
reconsider this issue.
EPA has carefully evaluated the methods which can be utilized to
demonstrate that the radium-226 concentration is less than 10 pCi/g in
phosphogypsum removed from a stack for agricultural purposes, under the
provisions of 40 CFR Section 61.204, and to measure the radium-226
concentration in phosphogypsum to be used for other purposes, under the
provisions of 40 CFR Section 61.206. EPA has concluded that the
equations used for determining the radium-226 concentration in the
phosphogypsum should be clarified, and that the methods for determining
the sample size and testing needed to demonstrate that the
concentration is less than 10 pCi/g should be revised. The revised
techniques do not utilize the error term required by the present
version of 40 CFR Section 61.207.
The proposed revisions of these methods are set forth in a document
entitled ``Statistical Procedures for Certifying Phosphogypsum for
Entry into Commerce, as Required by Section 61.207 of 40 CFR Part 61,
Subpart R.'' A copy of this document has been included in the docket
for this rulemaking and is also available from the EPA contact person
listed at the beginning of this notice. EPA requests comments
concerning the proposed revisions of the statistical methods described
in this document.
IV. Miscellaneous
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
Eliminating the requirement that owners or operators of
phosphogypsum stacks analyze the radium-226 content of phosphogypsum
distributed for research and development and the associated
certification documents will eliminate the current burden, of 100 hours
per year per stack.
B. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 57735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether this regulation, if promulgated, is
``significant'' and therefore subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under 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.
This action will not result in an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or another adverse economic impact; it does not create a
serious inconsistency or interfere with another agency's action; it
does not materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements,
grants, user fees, etc.; and it does not raise novel legal or policy
issues. Thus, EPA has determined that this proposal to reconsider
Subpart R is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of
Executive Order 12866.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603,
requires EPA to prepare and make available for comment an ``initial
regulatory flexibility analysis'' which describes the effect of the
proposed rule on small business entities. However, Section 604(b) of
the Act provides that an analysis not be required when the head of an
Agency certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
EPA has determined that there will be no significant impact on any
of the institutions and businesses affected by the revisions proposed
in this notice. Accordingly, I certify that the revisions proposed in
this notice, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written
[[Page 20779]]
statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final
rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Under section
203 of the UMRA, before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
tribal governments, it must develop a small government agency plan.
The intended purpose of this proposed rule is to relax existing
regulatory requirements, rather than to impose any new enforceable
duties on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. In
any event, EPA has determined that none of the options discussed in
this proposal would, if adopted, include any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one
year. EPA has also determined that none of the options discussed in
this proposal might, if adopted, significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
Dated: April 26, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-11165 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.