issue-1996-05-20•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-20
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-20
issue-1996-05-20Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-20Proposed 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. 96-12638 Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Baker City, OR
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25157-25158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12638]
========================================================================
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. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 25157]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ANM-011]
Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Baker City, OR
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend the Baker City, Oregon, Class E
airspace to provide additional controlled airspace for Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the Baker City Municipal Airport. The
area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference.
During an airspace review, it was noted that the airport name and the
referenced navigational aid were incorrectly stated in the airspace
designation for the existing Class E airspace. This proposed rule would
correct that error.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 1, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager,
Operations Branch, ANM-530, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No.
96-ANM-011, 1601 Lind Avenue S.W., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The official docket may be examined at the same address.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James C. Frala, ANM-532.4, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No.
96-ANM-011, 1601 Lind Avenue S.W., Renton, Washington 98055-4056;
telephone number: (206) 227-2535.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-
ANM-011.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the specified
closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on
the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed
in the light of comments received. All comments submitted will be
available for examination at the address listed above both before and
after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this
rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Branch, ANM-530,
1601 Lind Avenue S.W., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Communications
must identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in
being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should also request a
copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which describes the application
procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to amend Class E airspace at
Baker City, Oregon, to provide additional controlled airspace for IFR
operations at the Baker City Municipal Airport. The area would be
depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. During an airspace
review, it was noted that the airport name and the referenced
navigational aid were incorrectly stated in the airspace designation
for the existing Class E airspace. This proposed rule would correct
that error. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be
published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389, 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace
[[Page 25158]]
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ANM OR E5 Baker City, OR
Baker City Municipal Airport, OR
(lat. 44 deg.50'17'' N, long. 117 deg.48'35'' W)
Baker City VOR/DME
(lat. 44 deg.50'26'' N, long. 117 deg.48'28'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
within 7 miles northeast and 5.3 miles southwest of the Baker City
VOR/DME 138 deg. and 317 deg. radials extending from 12.2 miles
southeast to 14 miles northwest of the VOR/DME, and within 8.7 miles
west and 4.3 miles east of the Baker City VOR/DME 345 deg. radial
extending from the VOR/DME to the south edge of V-298, and that
airspace east of Baker City VOR/DME bounded on the north by the
south edge of V-121, on the southeast by the northwest edge of V-
269, and on the southwest by the northeast edge of V-4-444;
excluding the Boise, ID, Enroute Domestic Airspace Area.
* * * * *
Issued in Seattle, Washington, on May 3, 1996.
Richard E. Prang,
Acting Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division, Northwest Mountain
Region.
[FR Doc. 96-12638 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12630 Amendments to the Uniform Offering Circular for the Sale and Issue of Marketable Book-Entry Treasury Bills, Notes and Bonds
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25164-25173]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12630]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets
Fiscal Service
31 CFR Part 356
Amendments to the Uniform Offering Circular for the Sale and
Issue of Marketable Book-Entry Treasury Bills, Notes and Bonds
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets,
Treasury.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) is authorized under
Chapter 31 of Title 31, United States Code, to issue United States
obligations and to offer them for sale under such terms and conditions
as the Secretary may prescribe. The Department of the Treasury
(Department or Treasury) is issuing this Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking to solicit comments on the design details, terms and
conditions, and other features of a new type of marketable book-entry
security the Treasury intends to issue, inflation-protection notes or
bonds, with a return linked to the inflation rate in prices or wages.
The Treasury is specifically interested in comments concerning choice
of index, structure of the security, auction technique, offering sizes,
and maturities. The Treasury also invites comments on other specific
issues raised, as well as on any other issues relevant to the new type
of security.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to: the Government Securities
Regulations Staff, Bureau of the Public Debt, 999 E Street NW., Room
515, Washington, DC 20239. Comments received will be available for
public inspection and copying at the Treasury Department Library, Room
5030, Main Treasury Building, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20220.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Norman Carleton, Director, Office of
Federal Finance Policy Analysis, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Financial Markets, at 202-622-2680. In addition, the Treasury plans to
hold a series of investor meetings in New York, Washington, DC,
Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, and possibly other cities in late May
and in June 1996 to discuss the new securities, answer questions, and
solicit comments. To request information about attending any of these
meetings, contact the Office of Financing, Bureau of the Public Debt,
at 202-219-3350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Treasury Department intends to issue a
new type of marketable book-entry security with a nominal return linked
to the inflation rate in prices or wages, as officially published by
the United States Government. The Treasury is considering various
indices for this purpose, including the Consumer Price Index for All
Urban Consumers (CPI-U) published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) of the Department of Labor, the core CPI (CPI-U, excluding food
and energy, as published by the BLS), the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
deflator published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) of the
Department of Commerce, and the Employment Cost Index--Private Industry
(ECI) also published by BLS. Through this notice, the Treasury is
soliciting comments on the design details of the planned inflation-
protection securities and on which index (those mentioned above or
another index) would be most likely to result in the broadest market
for the new securities. At the end of this notice is a hypothetical
term sheet with proposed formulas applicable to one of the structures
being considered for the new security.
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking is not an offering of
securities, and any of the currently contemplated features of
inflation-protection securities that are described in this notice may
change. The terms and conditions of particular securities that may be
offered will be set forth in
[[Page 25165]]
the Uniform Offering Circular (31 CFR Part 356) and the applicable
offering announcement.
The Department intends to issue inflation-protection notes or bonds
in order to save on interest costs and to broaden the types of debt
instruments available to investors in U.S. financial markets. Because
the Treasury, rather than the investor, would bear the inflation risk
on an inflation-protection security, the Department expects that the
prices at which it would sell this new type of security would capture
some or all of the inflation risk premium charged by investors on
conventional Treasury securities. In other words, investors should be
willing to pay extra for a security on which the issuer, rather than
the investor, bears the risk of higher than expected inflation.
Consequently, the expected interest costs to the Treasury of inflation-
protection securities should be lower than those on conventional
Treasury securities.
In addition, inflation-protection securities may prove to be
attractive investments to investors who do not now invest in Treasury
securities to any significant extent. For example, certain pension
funds that currently invest in bonds other than Treasury securities
because of the higher yields on private fixed-income securities may
find Treasury inflation-protection notes or bonds useful to include in
their portfolios. The new securities would offer explicit inflation
protection to investors, which has heretofore been unavailable in a
Treasury debt instrument. This inflation protection could prove
attractive for investments for retirement. Also, because the path of
changes in market prices of inflation-protection securities would be
markedly different from that of the market price of conventional fixed-
income instruments or equity investments, inflation-protection
securities could be useful for achieving some portfolio
diversification. This broadening of the market for Treasury securities
should also result in lower overall interest costs for the Treasury
over time.
Indexation Methodology. A design of the inflation-protection
securities that is currently being considered is modeled, with some
modifications, on the Real Return Bonds currently issued by the
Government of Canada. The Department is soliciting comments about this
choice of model and the specific details described below and in the
hypothetical term sheet, as well as the formulas in the appendix.
For this particular structure, the principal amount of the
inflation-protection security is adjusted for inflation, so that the
adjusted value remains the same in constant dollars. This is achieved
by multiplying the principal value of the security at issuance by an
index ratio. The index ratio is the reference index number applicable
for the valuation day divided by the reference index number applicable
for the issue date.
Because the reporting of a monthly price or wage series index
number for a particular month by necessity takes place after the month
has ended and because the market needs to determine accrued interest on
a daily basis, there has to be a lag in the indexation of the security.
For this structure, if it is based on a monthly index that is reported
in the following month, the indexation of the principal on the first
day of any month is based on the index number for the third preceding
month. For example, the index number applicable to the first day of
December is the one reported for September. For other days of the
month, a linear interpolation is made between the index number for the
third preceding month and the one for the second preceding month (in
this example, October). Using the third preceding month as the
reference month is the minimum lag that enables interpolation between
the index number for that month and the following month.
Under this structure, interest is payable semiannually. Interest
payments are a fixed percentage of the value of the inflation-adjusted
principal, in current dollars, for the date on which it is paid.
Alternative Structures. The Treasury has given the most study to
the Canadian model for inflation-protection securities, which in turn
is a modification of the United Kingdom's index-linked gilts. However,
alternative structures are possible, and the Treasury is asking for
comment on whether alternative structures might be more desirable for
U.S. financial markets.
One alternative structure is a zero-coupon inflation-indexed
security. This type of security could prove to be quite volatile in
price, but, if held to maturity, this structure would provide the
greatest certainty about its return, since there would be no
reinvestment risk associated with coupon payments.
In addition to general comments concerning the market for a zero-
coupon inflation-protection security, the Treasury is soliciting
comments about the use for this structure of an index, such as the GDP
deflator, that is subject to retroactive revisions. Since the Treasury
would only make one payment on a zero-coupon inflation-protection
security, revisions would be less of a problem from the cash flow
perspective than with a security that pays interest every six months.
However, the use of an index that is revised retroactively may cause
some impediments to trading the security and would complicate the
applicable tax rules.
Another quite different structure is an inflation-protection
security that pays out principal and interest at periodic intervals.
Ignoring the lags, under this structure, each payment is equal in real
terms, but the proportion of each payment representing principal and
interest changes. In other words, this structure is similar to the cash
flows of a home mortgage, and, more specifically, a price level
adjusted mortgage. This structure may be appealing to investors
desiring a flow of periodic payments that stay constant in real terms.
It is also possible that this structure may be more appealing than a
Canadian-type security to taxable investors concerned about receiving
sufficient cash payments from the security to satisfy the tax on the
income from the security.
Price or Wage Indices. The Treasury is requesting comments on which
price or wage index is likely to result in the broadest market for
inflation-protection securities. Specifically, the Department is
considering (1) the CPI-U, (2) the core CPI, (3) the GDP deflator, and
(4) the ECI. The Treasury also requests comments on whether another
index would serve the desired purpose better.
The CPI-U is the best known measure of inflation, and, as such, is
a logical candidate for indexing the securities. However, the CPI-U may
not be the best index for certain investors. For example, pension
funds' liabilities are more sensitive to change in wages than to
changes in consumer prices.
The core CPI is a less volatile index than the CPI-U, and this may
be appealing to investors. However, while energy and food prices
eventually influence other prices, the core CPI could be criticized for
not completely reflecting any trend that may develop in prices in the
energy and food sectors.
The GDP deflator is a broad measure of price trends in the economy.
As noted above, its use may be better suited to a zero-coupon
inflation-protection security than to a note or bond paying semiannual
coupons, because the GDP deflator, unlike the other indices under
consideration, is subject to periodic revision.
Periodic revisions of an index pose three potential problems. The
first is the need for finality in determining payment amounts. Second,
the change in an index for a given period could be based on an index
number for a previous period that has since been
[[Page 25166]]
revised. An indexation methodology designed to correct for revisions in
previous values of the index would create additional complexity.
Finally, even for a zero-coupon security, revisions may cause
complications in the applicable tax rules throughout the life of the
security. Revisions may be less of a problem for a security that makes
only one payment at maturity than for one that pays interest every six
months.
The ECI may appeal to pension funds, whose liabilities are more
linked to wage, rather than price, inflation. In this regard,
commenters are also asked to address whether the total compensation or
the wages and salaries series of the ECI would be the most useful.
Since the ECI is a quarterly index, the precise indexation methodology
and the formulas in the appendix, which assume a monthly index, would
need to be modified.
The Treasury is also requesting comments on whether a seasonally
adjusted or non-seasonally adjusted series would be preferable.
Seasonal adjustment smoothes out fluctuations, but seasonal factors are
subject to revisions for a considerable period of time.
Calculation of the Price or Wage Series. From time to time,
government statistical agencies, such as the BLS and the BEA, revise
their methodology for calculating indices in order to improve their
accuracy. Such revisions on a forward-going basis may affect the
inflation rate as measured by the index and, therefore, the return to
investors.
For a Canadian-type or level real payment inflation-protection
security, revisions of a price or wage index number that has previously
been reported, however, would not be used for calculations of principal
value or interest payments. This is in order for there to be finality
in determining payment amounts.
When a price or wage index is rebased to a different year, the
Treasury would use the price or wage index series with the same base
year(s) as when the security was first issued, as long as that series
continues to be published. The reason for this is to maintain precision
in the indexation of the security that may otherwise be lost due to
rounding, a problem that becomes more acute if the price or wage index
has increased significantly from the original base year(s) to the new
one. The Department is specifically soliciting comments on this point.
In the case of an index series reported on a monthly basis in the
following month, the Department is considering the following procedure
for the Canadian-type security if the index is reported late. If the
index number for a particular month is not reported by the last day of
the following month, the Department would announce by the end of the
next business day an index number based on the last twelve-month change
in the index available. This number would be used for all subsequent
calculations and would not be replaced by the actual price or wage
index number when it is reported. Since the Treasury may use a price or
wage series that is not seasonally adjusted, the Treasury welcomes
comments on this procedure. The Department believes that this
calculation would rarely, if ever, be necessary.
If the price or wage index for an inflation-protection security is
discontinued while that security is outstanding, the Treasury would
consult with the agency responsible for the index, and, based on such
discussions, the Treasury would select an appropriate substitute index
and methodology for linking the two series. Determinations of the
Secretary in this regard would be final.
Finally, if the Federal Government commences publication of a new
version of the index that is more appropriate for indexation than the
one originally chosen, the Treasury expects it would then use the new
version for indexing new inflation-protection securities. Concerning
the introduction of a new version, the Treasury is requesting
commenters to address whether the Treasury should also index
outstanding inflation-protection securities to the new version starting
from its introduction or whether outstanding securities should remain
indexed to the original series as long as that series continues to be
published.
Auction Technique. The Department is considering offering
inflation-protection securities through a single-price auction. The
exact type of auction has yet to be determined, and the Department is
particularly interested in input from potential auction participants,
as well as others, on this subject.
For a Canadian-type inflation-protection security, options include
two types of single-price auctions where the Treasury asks for bids in
terms of real yield to three decimal places. In the first case, the
highest accepted yield would become the coupon, and the inflation-
protection note or bond would be issued at par. In the second case, the
Treasury would set a coupon after the auction in an increment of
0.125%, and the price of the security would be determined by the
formulas in the appendix.
Also, the Treasury could announce a coupon on the security and
accept bids in terms of price. However, this option runs counter to the
Department's auction practice for its conventional Treasury securities,
and, at least initially, it may be difficult to judge what would be the
appropriate coupon.
Noncompetitive bids up to $5 million per bidder would be permitted
for inflation-protection securities. In order to ensure that enough
competitive bids are accepted to price the security fairly, the
Treasury is considering whether all or part of the noncompetitive bids
should be filled by issuing more securities than the originally
announced public offering amount. The Department is requesting comments
on this issue.
Given the pricing uncertainty inherent in any new type of security,
the Treasury is requesting comments on whether the Treasury should
announce prior to a single-price auction of an inflation-protection
security that it retains, and may exercise, the option to award an
amount greater or less than the announced public offering amount. The
reason for awarding less stems from the use of the single-price auction
technique and the unique nature of this new instrument. If there were
an extremely long tail between the yield necessary to sell, for
example, 95 percent of the announced size and the remaining 5 percent,
awarding less would avoid issuing the security with an unreasonably
high real yield. (In any case, the Secretary reserves the right, in any
auction, to award an amount of securities greater or less than the
offering amount. See 31 CFR 356.33)
The Department also welcomes comments on whether a single-price or
a multiple-price auction would be more appropriate for inflation-
protection securities.
The Treasury is also requesting commenters to address whether any
of the auction rules for conventional Treasury securities are
inappropriate for an offering of inflation-protection securities and
specifically whether there should be a limit to the amount recognized
at a single yield from a bidder or the amount awarded to a single
bidder in an auction of inflation-protection securities.
Frequency. The Treasury contemplates issuance of inflation-
protection securities on a regular quarterly cycle.
Reopenings. The Treasury could reopen an issue of an inflation-
protection note or bond, though the flexibility to do this under
changing market conditions is conditioned by tax issues involving the
original issue discount rules that have yet to be
[[Page 25167]]
decided. A reopening would also be accomplished by an auction. The
Department welcomes comments on whether bids on an issue that is being
reopened should be in terms of real yield or price.
For a Canadian-type security, amounts bid at an auction for a
reopened inflation-protection security would be in terms of original
par amount, not the inflation-adjusted par amount. The Treasury would
announce prior to the auction the index ratio necessary to convert the
original par amount to the inflation-adjusted par value for the
settlement date. This means that if the index ratio for the settlement
date is 1.03, a $1,000 bid amount would translate into $1,030
inflation-adjusted par value. The Treasury is requesting comments on
this procedure.
Also, the Treasury is requesting comments on whether reopenings of
an issue would be important for market liquidity, or whether they would
act as a constraint on prices, given the possibility of additional
supply of the security in the next quarter.
Maturities. The Department's current thinking is that 10-year
inflation-protection notes or 30-year inflation-protection bonds would
be the most appropriate maturity sectors for this instrument. The
Treasury is soliciting comments on which maturity sectors would be most
in demand for inflation-protection notes or bonds.
Amounts. The Department is requesting comments on the appropriate
size of the initial auctions of inflation-protection notes or bonds.
The Treasury intends to increase the size of the auctions from the
initial levels over time.
Book-Entry Form and Systems. The inflation-protection securities
would be offered only in book-entry form. They would be issued and
maintained in the commercial book-entry system which is operated by the
Federal Reserve Banks, acting as fiscal agents for the Treasury
Department. The Treasury also would make inflation-protection
securities available through TREASURY DIRECT, a system designed
primarily to enable investors who do not intend to trade Treasury
securities to hold their book-entry securities directly on the records
of the Treasury.
Eligible amounts for holding and transferring would be in multiples
of $1000 of original par value for a Canadian-type inflation-protection
security. The Treasury is soliciting comments on any operational issues
arising from the fact that the amount of an inflation-protection
security held and transferred on the book-entry systems would be
referred to in terms of the original par value, not the inflation-
adjusted value.
Treasury Tax and Loan Accounts. The Treasury intends to make
inflation-protection securities eligible as collateral for Treasury Tax
and Loan Accounts. Valuation for collateral purposes would depend on
the precise structure of the security.
Stripping. For a Canadian-type security, the Treasury would make
inflation-protection securities eligible for stripping on the
commercial book-entry system at some point after issuance of the new
security had begun. This would not be operationally possible initially.
Eligibility for stripping might extend only to inflation-protection
securities issued after a future effective date.
Taxation. In general, a payment on an inflation-protection security
or an increase in the principal amount of the security attributable to
the inflation adjustment would be includible in taxable income for the
year in which it occurs and would be treated as interest income.
Interest payments on inflation-protection securities generally would
have to be included in the owner's taxable income when received or as
accrued, depending on the owner's method of accounting for tax
purposes. For a zero-coupon inflation-protection security, the
difference between the issue price and the original par amount would be
interest that the holder would include as taxable income on a constant
yield basis. The precise tax treatment in the event the principal
decreases because of a decline in the price or wage index has yet to be
determined. Other tax issues, including the reporting of income on the
securities by brokers and other intermediaries (i.e., custodians), also
remain to be determined. Relevant tax issues would be announced before
the first issue.
Minimum Guarantee. If the sum of all the interest payments and the
inflation-adjusted principal value at maturity of the inflation-
protection note or bond is less than the par value of the note or bond
at issuance, the Treasury would make an additional payment at maturity
for the difference.
After receipt and consideration of responses to this advance notice
of proposed rulemaking, the Department intends to issue a final rule
amending 31 CFR Part 356, ``Sale and Issue of Marketable Book-Entry
Treasury Bills, Notes, and Bonds'' (Uniform Offering Circular). Because
the rule would relate to public contracts and procedures for United
States securities, the notice, public comment, and delayed effective
date provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act are inapplicable,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).
Hypothetical Term Sheet
Note: This hypothetical term sheet assumes that an inflation-
protection note or bond would be linked to a price or wage index
reported monthly and that the index number for each month is
reported the following month.
Issuer: United States Treasury.
Issue: Inflation-protection note or bond.
Payment Dates: Inflation-adjusted principal on the security will be
paid on the maturity date as specified in the offering announcement.
Interest on the security is payable on a semiannual basis on the
interest payment dates specified in the offering announcement through
the date the principal becomes payable. In the event any principal or
interest payment date is a Saturday, Sunday or other day on which the
Federal Reserve Banks are not open for business, the amount is payable
(without additional interest) on the next business day.
Maturities: Ten or thirty years.
Indexing Methodology: To calculate the value of the principal for a
particular valuation date, the value of the principal at issuance is
multiplied by the index ratio applicable to that valuation date.
Semiannual coupon interest is determined by multiplying the value of
the principal at issuance by the index ratio for the coupon payment
date by one-half the stated rate of interest.
Index Ratio: The index ratio for any date is the ratio of the
reference index number (reference INUM) applicable to such date to the
reference INUM applicable to the original issue date.
Reference Inum: The reference INUM for the first day of any
calendar month is the INUM for the third preceding calendar month. (For
example, the reference INUM for December 1 is the INUM reported for
September of the same year, which is released in October.) The
reference INUM for any other day of the month is calculated by a linear
interpolation between the reference INUM applicable to the first day of
the month and the reference INUM applicable to the first day of the
following month.
Any revisions that the agency responsible for the index makes to
any INUM that has been previously released shall not be used in
calculations of the value of Treasury inflation-protection securities.
In the case that the INUM for a particular month is not reported by
the last day of the following month, the Treasury will announce an
index
[[Page 25168]]
number based on the last year-over-year inflation rate as measured by
the chosen index. Any calculations of the Treasury's payment
obligations on the inflation-protection security that need that month's
INUM number will be based on the index number that the Treasury has
announced.
If the applicable price or wage series is discontinued during the
period the inflation-protection security is outstanding, the Treasury
will, in consultation with the agency responsible for the series,
determine an appropriate substitute index and methodology for linking
the discontinued series with the new price or wage index series.
Determinations of the Secretary in this regard will be final.
Strips: Eligible for the STRIPS program at a future date.
Taxation: Appreciation of the principal will be taxed as interest
income in the period the appreciation occurs. Interest payments will be
includible as interest income when received or as they accrue,
depending on the taxpayer's method of accounting. Other tax details
remain to be determined.
Auction Technique: Single-price auction. Options:
(1) Bidders bid for coupon, with bids expressed to three decimal
places. The highest accepted yield becomes the coupon. Security is
issued at par.
(2) Bidders bid real yield, with bids expressed to three decimal
places. Coupon is set near the highest accepted real yield in
increments of \1/8\ of 1 percent. Price is determined by formula in the
appendix using the highest accepted yield.
(3) Before the auction Treasury announces a coupon, securities are
issued at lowest accepted price.
Minimum Guarantee: If the sum of all the interest payments and the
inflation-adjusted principal is less than the par value of the security
at time of issuance, the Treasury will pay an additional sum at
maturity equal to the difference.
Minimums and Multiples to Bid, Hold, and Transfer: The minimum to
bid, hold, and transfer is $1000 original principal value. Larger
amounts must be in multiples of $1000.
BILLING CODE 4810-39-W
[[Page 25169]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20MY96.006
[[Page 25170]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20MY96.007
[[Page 25171]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20MY96.008
[[Page 25172]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20MY96.009
BILLING CODE 4810-39-C
[[Page 25173]]
PART 356--SALE AND ISSUE OF MARKETABLE BOOK-ENTRY TREASURY BILLS,
NOTES, AND BONDS (DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY CIRCULAR, PUBLIC DEBT
SERIES NO. 1-93)
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 3102, et seq.; 12 U.S.C. 391.
Date: May 15, 1996.
Darcy Bradbury,
Assistant Secretary (Financial Markets).
[FR Doc. 96-12630 Filed 5-16-96; 11:00 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-39-W
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12627 Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations Delegation Remand
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25173-25175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12627]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 55
[FRL-5507-7]
RIN 2060-AG40 and AG39
Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations Delegation Remand
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing revision to the outer continental shelf
(OCS) regulations in response to a voluntary remand from the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. These regulations
establish air pollution control requirements for certain sources
located on the OCS.
In response to the requirements of section 328 of the Clean Air Act
(Act), on September 4, 1992, EPA promulgated the OCS regulations
setting up two regimes for controlling air pollution from OCS sources
for the purposes of attaining and maintaining Federal air quality
standards and to comply with certain Act requirements for
preconstruction review of new and modified major sources. Sources
located within 25 miles of the States' seaward boundaries (the 25-mile
limit) must comply with regulations which are, in most respects, the
same as the regulations for similar sources located on shore. Sources
beyond the 25-mile limit are required to comply with Federal new source
performance standards (NSPS), requirements for the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD), and national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) related to attainment and maintenance
of ambient air quality standards or the requirements of part C of title
I of the Act. The Federal operating permits program and enhanced
compliance monitoring regulatory requirements will also be incorporated
into part 55 when they are promulgated. In promulgating the OCS
regulations, EPA provided for delegation to State and local agencies
the authority to implement and enforce the regulations for sources
within the 25-mile limit. However, EPA did not provide for delegation
of the authority to implement and enforce the regulations for sources
located beyond the 25-mile limit. The Santa Barbara County Air
Pollution Control District (APCD) filed a petition for review of the
regulations on several issues, including the issue of delegation beyond
the 25-mile limit. Upon EPA's request for a voluntary remand, the court
remanded the delegation issue to EPA for reconsideration.
By this action, EPA is revising the OCS regulations to provide for
delegation to State and local agencies the authority to implement and
enforce the OCS regulations beyond the 25-mile limit. Delegation of the
program to any specific State or local agency will be under separate
action.
DATES: Written comments on the proposed action must be received by EPA
at the address below on or before June 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to the public docket for this
action is available for public inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m.
and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Air and Radiation Docket
and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket A-95-07, South
Conference Center, Room 4, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. A
reasonable fee for copying may be charged.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Stonefield, U.S. EPA, MD-15,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5350.
Supplementary Information:
I. Background and Purpose
A. Introduction
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat.
2399 (1990)) added section 328 to the Act and transferred authority to
regulate sources on part of the OCS from the Department of the Interior
(DOI) to EPA. The DOI retained the authority to regulate OCS sources in
the Gulf of Mexico west of 87.5 degrees longitude. As to the remaining
portions of the OCS--the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic coasts and the
Gulf of Mexico east of 87.5 degrees--section 328 requires EPA to
establish requirements for the control of air pollution from OCS
sources to attain and maintain Federal and State ambient air quality
standards and to comply with the provisions of part C (for the
prevention of significant deterioration) of title I of the Act. For
sources within 25 miles of the States' seaward boundaries, those
requirements must be the same as would be applicable if the source were
located in the corresponding onshore area (COA). For sources beyond the
25-mile limit, the Administrator had discretion in determining the
requirements. The EPA proposed (56 FR 63774, December 5, 1991) and
promulgated (57 FR 40792, September 4, 1992) regulations to implement
the requirements of section 328. The regulations require, among other
things, that sources located beyond 25 miles of States' seaward
boundaries meet applicable Federal pollution control requirements which
include PSD, NSPS and NESHAP regulations to the extent that they are
rationally related to protection of air quality standards or part C of
title I of the Act (40 CFR 55.13). In addition, EPA stated in the
preamble to the final rule that it would incorporate into the OCS rules
the requirements of the Federal operating permits regulations (40 CFR
part 71) and the enhanced monitoring regulations, when promulgated (57
FR 40803).
B. Delegation Authority
Section 328(a)(3) of the Act permits States adjacent to an OCS
source to adopt and submit to EPA regulations for implementing and
enforcing the requirements of that section. It requires that:
[I]f the Administrator [of EPA] finds that the State regulations
are adequate, the Administrator shall delegate to that State any
authority the Administrator has under this Act to implement and
enforce such requirements.
Therefore, in the OCS regulations, EPA included Sec. 55.11 which
authorizes the delegation of the implementation and enforcement
authority to State and local agencies for OCS sources that are located
within the 25-mile limit. However, in the preamble to the proposed and
final rules, EPA stated that it would retain the authority to implement
and enforce the OCS regulations for sources located beyond the 25-mile
limit for two reasons. First, since the sources located beyond the 25-
mile limit are subject only to Federal requirements, the State would
have to adopt two OCS programs, one for sources within the 25-mile
limit and one for sources beyond the limit. Second, it may be difficult
to determine the appropriate agency to receive delegation for sources
located beyond the 25-mile limit (56 FR 63784 and 57 FR 40801-802).
Therefore, in the final
[[Page 25174]]
rule, EPA did not provide for the delegation of the implementation and
enforcement authority for sources beyond the 25-mile limit.
C. Judicial Review
On November 2, 1992, the Santa Barbara County APCD filed a petition
for review of the OCS regulations with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (Santa Barbara County Air Pollution
Control District v. EPA, 31 F. 3rd 1179 (D.C. Cir., 1994)). One of the
issues that the Santa Barbara County APCD raised was EPA's failure to
provide for delegation of the authority to implement and enforce the
OCS regulations for sources located beyond 25 miles from a State's
seaward boundary.1 In reviewing the issue, EPA determined that
section 328 of the Act requires it to delegate any authority the EPA
has under the Act to implement and enforce the requirements of section
328(a) if it determines that the State government has adequate
regulations. Therefore, EPA requested the court to remand this issue to
it for reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Another issue raised by the Santa Barbara County APCD
petition involved EPA special offset provisions for OCS sources. On
August 12, 1994, the court vacated that portion of the OCS
regulations and remanded it to EPA for further consideration.
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA is promulgating an
interim final regulation revising the OCS regulation in accordance
with the court's instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Revisions to the Regulations
The OCS regulations contain three references to the delegation
authority beyond the 25-mile limit. The EPA is proposing in each case
to revise the language of the OCS regulations to make clear that EPA
may delegate the authority to implement and enforce the OCS regulations
for the OCS sources beyond the 25-mile limit. Specific regulatory
changes are proposed for Secs. 55.3(c), 55.6(d), and 55.11(a). In
addition, to allow for the delegation of authority for sources beyond
the 25-mile limit, revisions in the wording of other sections are
necessary to clarify the regulations. The specific regulatory changes
proposed include revisions to Sec. 55.2 (definition of nearest onshore
area) and the addition of Sec. 55.11(j).
Section 55.3 establishes the applicability of the regulations for
OCS sources. Section 55.3(c) relates to sources located beyond the 25-
mile limit and excludes those sources from the requirements of
Sec. 55.11, which specifically deals with the delegation of the
authority for implementation and enforcement within the 25-mile limit.
The EPA proposes to delete the reference in Sec. 55.3(c) that provides
that the delegation requirements of Sec. 55.11 do not apply for sources
located beyond the 25-mile limit.
Section 55.6 establishes permit requirements for OCS sources.
Section 55.6(d) relates to sources located beyond the 25=mile limit,
and paragraph (2) states that the Administrator will retain the
authority to implement and enforce the OCS regulations for those
sources. The proposed revisions would delete the existing paragraph (2)
and replace it with a new paragraph (2) which defines the permit
requirements for sources if the program is delegated. The new
provisions prohibit the issuance of permits to operators that have not
demonstrated compliance with all applicable requirements of the OCS
regulations. This new paragraph is identical to the paragraph in
Sec. 55.6(c) for sources located within the 25-mile limit.
Section 55.11 currently establishes the requirements for the
delegation of the implementation and enforcement of the OCS regulations
within the 25-mile limit. The EPA proposes to revise Sec. 55.11(a) to
clarify that the State can request delegation for sources beyond the
25-mile limit, as well as for sources located within the 25-mile limit.
The existing definition of ``nearest onshore area'' (NOA) only
applies to sources within 25 miles of States' seaward boundaries. Under
the existing regulatory scheme for OCS sources in which EPA retained
all authority for sources beyond the 25-mile limit, the definition was
only needed for sources located within 25 miles of States' seaward
boundaries. However, in delegating the authority to implement and
enforce the regulations for sources beyond the 25-mile limit, it will
be necessary to determine the NOA for the source. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to expand the NOA definition by deleting the limitation to
sources within 25 miles of the States' seaward boundaries.
A new subsection ``(j)'' is proposed for Sec. 55.11 to define the
exercise of authority over OCS sources. The delegated agency in the COA
for sources located within the 25-mile limit and the delegated agency
in the NOA for sources located beyond the 25-mile limit will exercise
all delegated authority. If there is no delegated agency in the COA or
NOA, EPA will issue permits and implement and enforce the OCS
regulations. This language mirrors that of Sec. 55.5(c)(4), which
discusses the exercise of authority for sources within the 25-mile
limit.
Section 328(a)(4)(B) of the Act and Sec. 55.5 of the OCS
regulations establish a procedure for areas other than the NOA to be
designated as the COA for sources within the 25-mile limit. Pursuant to
Sec. 55.5, for an area other than the NOA to be designated as the COA,
it must demonstrate, among other things, that it has more stringent air
pollution control regulations than the NOA. Since sources located
beyond the 25-mile limit are subject only to Federal regulations, as
identified in Sec. 55.13, any delegated State or local agency would be
enforcing the same regulations. Therefore, for sources beyond the 25-
mile limit, EPA will delegate the authority to implement and enforce
the OCS regulations only to the State or local agency that is
responsible for the NOA, assuming that the requirements for delegation
are met (Sec. 55.5(b)).
The EPA is also rescinding that preamble language which
specifically states that delegation beyond the 25-mile limit is
unacceptable (57 FR 40794, 40797, 40801, and 40802).
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, the Agency must determine whether the
regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines significant regulatory action as one
that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another Agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has determined
that the revisions to the OCS rules are ``significant'' because the OCS
sources would be regulated by two Federal agencies, EPA and DOI. As
such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations are documented in the
public record.
B. Unfunded Mandates Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 requires that EPA
prepare a budgetary impact statement
[[Page 25175]]
before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1
year. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for obtaining input
from, informing, educating, and advising any small governments that may
be significantly or uniquely affected by the rule.
Under section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act, EPA must identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before
promulgating a rule for which a budgetary impact statement must be
prepared. The EPA must select from those alternatives the least costly,
most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objective of the rule, unless EPA explains why a particular alternative
is not selected or the selection of a particular alternative is
inconsistent with law.
Because this proposed rule does not impose any new mandates on
State, local, or tribal governments, and the rule is estimated to
result in the expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments or
the private sector of less that $100 million in any 1 year, EPA has not
prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the
selection of the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative. Because small governments will not be significantly or
uniquely affected by this rule, EPA is not required to develop a plan
with regard to small governments. However, EPA will work with eligible
State and local air pollution control agencies to assist them in
requesting delegation of authority to implement and enforce the OCS
regulations.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
These rule revisions do not contain any information collection
requirements subject to review by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3501, et seq.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 requires Federal
agencies to identify potentially adverse impacts of Federal rules upon
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, organizations,
and governmental jurisdictions. In instances where significant economic
impacts are possible on a substantial number of these entities,
agencies are required to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Furthermore, EPA Guidelines for Implementing the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, issued on April 9, 1992, require the Agency to determine whether
regulations will have any economic impacts on small entities. These
revisions to the OCS regulations do not, in themselves, impose any
requirements on small entities, nor require or exclude small entities
from meeting the requirements of the OCS regulations. As a result, EPA
has determined that these revisions will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, as required under Sec. 605 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, I
certify that these revisions do not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 55
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Continental shelf, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, permits, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: May 13, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 55 is proposed to
be amended as set forth below.
PART 55--OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF AIR REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 55 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Section 328 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.) as amended by Public Law 101-549.
Sec. 55.2 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 55.2 the introductory text of the definition of
``Nearest Onshore Area'' is proposed to be amended by adding a comma
after ``OCS source'' and removing the words ``located within 25 miles
of the States' seaward boundary,'' which follows.
3. Section 55.3 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph (c)
to read as follows:
Sec. 55.3 Applicability.
* * * * *
(c) The OCS sources located beyond 25 miles of States' seaward
boundaries shall be subject to all the requirements of this part,
except the requirements of Secs. 55.4, 55.5, 55.12 and 55.14 of this
part.
* * * * *
4. Section 55.6 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(d)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 55.6 Permit requirements.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) The Administrator or delegated agency shall not issue a permit
to operate to any existing OCS source that has not demonstrated
compliance with all the applicable requirements of this part.
* * * * *
5. Section 55.11 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraph
(a) and by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 55.11 Delegation.
(a) The governor or the governor's designee of any State adjacent
to an OCS source subject to the requirements of this part may submit a
request, pursuant to section 328(a)(3) of the Act, to the Administrator
for the authority to implement and enforce the requirements of this OCS
program (i) within 25 miles of the State's seaward boundary and/or
beyond 25 miles of the State's seaward boundary. Authority to implement
and enforce Secs. 55.5, 55.11, and 55.12 of this part will not be
delegated.
* * * * *
(j) Delegated Authority.
The delegated agency in the COA for sources located within 25 miles
of the State's seaward boundary or the delegated agency in the NOA for
sources located beyond 25 miles of the State's seaward boundary will
exercise all delegated authority. If there is no delegated agency in
the COA for sources located within 25 miles of the State's seaward
boundary, or in the NOA for sources located beyond 25 miles of the
State's seaward boundary, the EPA will issue the permit and implement
and enforce the requirements of this part. For sources located within
25 miles of the State's seaward boundary, the Administrator may retain
the authority for implementing and enforcing the requirements of this
part if the NOA and COA are in different States.
[FR Doc. 96-12627 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12607 Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25175-25183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12607]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-5507-8]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
grant a
[[Page 25176]]
petition to Giant Refining Company (Giant) to exclude (or ``delist''),
on a one-time basis, certain solid wastes generated at its facility
from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and
261.32 (hereinafter all sectional references are to 40 CFR unless
otherwise indicated). This action responds to a delisting petition
originally submitted by the Bloomfield Refining Company, Inc.
(Bloomfield), in Bloomfield, New Mexico. Bloomfield was purchased by
Giant on October 4, 1995. Giant has advised the Agency that it wishes
to proceed with the petition for delisting submitted by Bloomfield.
This petition was submitted under 40 CFR 260.20, which allows any
person to petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision
of 40 CFR parts 260 through 266, 268 and 273, and under 40 CFR 260.22,
which specifically provides generators the opportunity to petition the
Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator specific'' basis from
the hazardous waste lists. This proposed decision is based on an
evaluation of waste-specific information provided by the petitioner. If
this proposed decision is finalized, the petitioned waste will be
conditionally excluded from the requirements of hazardous waste
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The EPA is also proposing the use of a fate and transport model
(the EPA Composite Model for Landfills (EPACML)) to evaluate the
potential impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the
environment, based on the waste-specific information provided by the
petitioner. This model has been used in evaluating the petition to
predict the concentration of hazardous constituents that may be
released from the petitioned waste, once it is disposed.
DATES: The EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision
and on the applicability of the fate and transport model used to
evaluate the petition. Comments will be accepted until July 5, 1996.
Comments postmarked after the close of the comment period will be
stamped ``late.''
Any person may request a hearing on this proposed decision by
filing a request with Jane N. Saginaw, Regional Administrator, whose
address appears below, by June 4, 1996. The request must contain the
information prescribed in 40 CFR 260.20(d).
ADDRESSES: Send three copies of your comments. Two copies should be
sent to William Gallagher, Delisting Program, Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division (6PD-O), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. A third copy should be sent to
the New Mexico Environment Department, Hazardous and Radioactive
Materials Bureau, 1190 St. Francis Drive, Sante Fe, New Mexico 87502.
Identify your comments at the top with this regulatory docket number:
``F-96-NMDEL-GIANT.''
Requests for a hearing should be addressed to the Regional
Administrator, Region 6, Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202.
The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule is located at the
Region 6, Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202 and is available for viewing in the EPA library on the 12th
floor from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for appointments. The docket may
also be viewed at the New Mexico Environment Department, 1190 St.
Francis Drive, Sante Fe, New Mexico 87502. The public may copy material
from any regulatory docket at no cost for the first 100 pages, and at
$0.15 per page for additional copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: For technical information concerning
this notice, contact Michelle Peace, Delisting Program (6PD-O), Region
6, Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas
75202, (214) 665-7430.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Authority
On January 16, 1981, as part of its final and interim final
regulations implementing Section 3001 of RCRA, the EPA published an
amended list of hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific
sources. This list has been amended several times, and is published in
Sec. 261.31 and Sec. 261.32. These wastes are listed as hazardous
because they typically and frequently exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous wastes identified in Subpart C of Part 261
(i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or meet the
criteria for listing contained in Sec. 261.11 (a)(2) or (a)(3).
Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw
materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste
that is described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a
specific waste from an individual facility meeting the listing
description may not be. For this reason, Sec. 260.20 and Sec. 260.22
provide an exclusion procedure, allowing persons to demonstrate that a
specific waste from a particular generating facility should not be
regulated as a hazardous waste.
To have their wastes excluded, petitioners must show that wastes
generated at their facilities do not meet any of the criteria for which
the wastes were listed. See Sec. 260.22(a) and the background documents
for the listed wastes. In addition, the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 require the Agency to consider any factors
(including additional constituents) other than those for which the
waste was listed, if there is a reasonable basis to believe that such
additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. Accordingly,
a petitioner also must demonstrate that the waste does not exhibit any
of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability, reactivity,
corrosivity, and toxicity), and must present sufficient information for
the Agency to determine whether the waste contains any other toxicants
at hazardous levels. See Sec. 260.22(a), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6921(f), and
the background documents for the listed wastes. Although wastes which
are ``delisted'' (i.e., excluded) have been evaluated to determine
whether or not they exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous
waste, generators remain obligated under RCRA to determine whether or
not their waste remains non-hazardous based on the hazardous waste
characteristics.
In addition, residues from the treatment, storage, or disposal of
listed hazardous wastes and mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes
are also considered hazardous wastes. See Secs. 261.3 (a)(2)(iv) and
(c)(2)(i), referred to as the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively. Such wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain
hazardous wastes until excluded. On December 6, 1991, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the ``mixture/derived
from'' rules and remanded them to the Agency on procedural grounds. See
Shell Oil Co. v. EPA, 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1991). On March 3, 1992,
EPA reinstated the mixture and derived-from rules, and solicited
comments on other ways to regulate waste mixtures and residues (57
Federal Register (FR) 7628). On December 21, 1995, the EPA proposed
rules related to waste mixtures and residues at 60 FR 66344 and invited
public comment.
B. Approach Used To Evaluate This Petition
Giant's petition requests a delisting for a listed hazardous waste.
In making the initial delisting determination, the EPA evaluated the
petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors
[[Page 25177]]
cited in Sec. 261.11 (a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, the EPA
agreed with the petitioner that the waste is non-hazardous with respect
to the original listing criteria. (If the EPA had found, based on this
review, that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for
which the waste was originally listed, the EPA would have proposed to
deny the petition.) The EPA then evaluated the waste with respect to
other factors or criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis
to believe that such additional factors could cause the waste to be
hazardous. The EPA considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, and
considered the toxicity of the constituents, the concentration of the
constituents in the waste, their tendency to migrate and to
bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from
the waste, plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned
waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste variability.
For this delisting determination, the EPA used such information to
identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground water, surface water,
air) for hazardous constituents present in the petitioned waste. The
EPA determined that disposal in a Subtitle D landfill is the most
reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for Giant's petitioned waste,
and that the major exposure route of concern would be ingestion of
contaminated ground water. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to use a
particular fate and transport model to predict the maximum allowable
concentrations of hazardous constituents that may be released from the
petitioned waste after disposal and to determine the potential impact
of the disposal of Giant's petitioned waste on human health and the
environment. Specifically, the EPA used the maximum estimated waste
volume and the maximum reported extract concentrations as inputs to
estimate the constituent concentrations in the ground water at a
hypothetical receptor well downgradient from the disposal site. The
calculated receptor well concentrations (referred to as compliance-
point concentrations) were then compared directly to the current
health-based levels at an assumed risk value of 10-6 used in
delisting decision-making for the hazardous constituents of concern.
The EPA believes that this fate and transport model represents a
reasonable worst-case scenario for disposal of the petitioned waste in
a landfill, and that a reasonable worst-case scenario is appropriate
when evaluating whether a waste should be relieved of the protective
management constraints of RCRA Subtitle C. The use of a reasonable
worst-case scenario results in conservative values for the compliance-
point concentrations and ensures that the waste, once removed from
hazardous waste regulation, will not pose a threat to human health or
the environment. Because a delisted waste is no longer subject to
hazardous waste control, the EPA is generally unable to predict and
does not presently control how a waste will be managed after delisting.
Therefore, the EPA does not currently consider extensive site-specific
factors when applying the fate and transport model.
The EPA also considers the applicability of groundwater monitoring
data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. The EPA normally
requests groundwater monitoring data for wastes managed on-site to
determine whether hazardous constituents have migrated to the
underlying groundwater. Groundwater monitoring data provides
significant additional information important to fully characterize the
potential impact (if any) of the disposal of a petitioned waste on
human health and the environment. In this case, the EPA determined that
the groundwater monitoring data was not applicable to the evaluation of
the petitioned waste. Although Giant's petitioned waste is managed in
an on-site waste pile, the EPA Region 6 has not required Giant to
install groundwater monitoring wells specifically to monitor the waste
pile. Giant does have a monitoring system in place at its facility,
including wells in the vicinity of the waste pile. However, the
location of these wells were not selected with the specific intent of
monitoring the waste pile. For these reasons, the EPA does not believe
that data collected from Giant's groundwater monitoring system will
provide a clear measure of whether the waste pile has adversely
impacted groundwater quality at the Giant site. However, the potential
impact of these wastes on the groundwater will be predicted through the
application of the EPACML, fate and transport model.
Finally, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
specifically require the EPA to provide notice and an opportunity for
comment before granting or denying a final exclusion. Thus, a final
decision will not be made until all timely public comments (including
those at public hearings, if any) on today's proposal are addressed.
II. Disposition of Delisting Petition
Giant Refining Company, Bloomfield, New Mexico
A. Petition for Exclusion
Giant, located in Bloomfield, New Mexico, is involved in the
processing and refining of petroleum. Giant petitioned the EPA for an
exclusion of a discrete volume of contaminated soil presently stored in
an on-site waste pile, generated from the cleaning of two wastewater
treatment impoundments (referred to as the South and North Oily Water
Ponds) in 1982. The soil is classified as EPA Hazardous Waste No.
K051--``API separator sludge from the petroleum refining industry.''
The listed constituents of concern for EPA Hazardous Waste No. K051 are
hexavalent chromium and lead (see Part 261, Appendix VII).
Giant petitioned the EPA to exclude this discrete volume of
excavated soil because it does not believe that the waste meets the
criteria for which it was listed. Giant also believes that the waste
does not contain any other constituents that would render it hazardous.
Review of this petition included consideration of the original listing
criteria, as well as the additional factors required by the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. See Section 222 of HSWA, 42
U.S.C. Sec. 6921(f), and 40 CFR Sec. 260.22(d) (2)-(4). Today's
proposal to grant this petition for delisting is the result of the
EPA's evaluation of Giant's petition.
B. Background
On April 15, 1991, Bloomfield, now Giant, petitioned the EPA to
exclude, from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in 40 CFR
Sec. 261.31 and Sec. 261.32, a discrete volume of contaminated soil
excavated from its wastewater treatment impoundments. Giant
subsequently provided additional information to complete its petition.
Specifically, in its petition, Giant requested that the EPA grant an
one-time exclusion for 2,000 cubic yards of excavated soil presently
stored in an on-site waste pile.
In support of its petition, Giant submitted: (1) descriptions of
its wastewater treatment processes and the excavation activities
associated with the petitioned waste; (2) results from total
constituent analyses for the eight Toxicity Characteristic (TC) metals
listed in Sec. 261.24 (i.e., the TC metals) antimony, beryllium,
cyanide, nickel, vanadium, and zinc from representative samples of the
stockpiled waste; (3) results from the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP, SW-846
[[Page 25178]]
Method 1311) for the eight TC metals, antimony, beryllium, cyanide,
nickel, vanadium, and zinc from representative samples of the
stockpiled waste; (4) results from the Oily Waste Extraction Procedure
(OWEP, SW-846 Method 1330) for the eight TC metals, antimony,
beryllium, nickel, vanadium, and zinc from representative samples of
the stockpiled waste; (5) results from the Extraction Procedure
Toxicity Test (EP, SW-846 Method 1310) for the eight metals listed in
Sec. 261.24 from representative samples of the stockpiled waste; (6)
results from total oil and grease analyses from representative samples
of the stockpiled waste; (7) test results and information regarding the
hazardous characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity;
and (8) results from total constituent and TCLP analyses for certain
volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds from representative
samples of the stockpiled waste.
Giant is an active petroleum refinery. In October 1984, Bloomfield
purchased the refinery located in Bloomfield, New Mexico, from Plateau,
Inc., a subsidiary of Suburban Propane Gas Corporation. On October 4,
1995, Giant purchased the refinery from Bloomfield. Giant has assumed
ownership and operation of the Bloomfield site and wishes to proceed
with the petition for delisting originally submitted by Bloomfield.
Current refinery operations, including wastewater treatment, are
different than the operations on-line during the time period the waste
considered in this petition was generated. During the period of
interest, Plateau operated the refinery primarily as a producer of
gasoline and diesel fuel. The facility processed roughly 10,000 barrels
per day of low sulfur crude oil. The refinery was altered substantially
during the period of time in which the waste was generated. In 1976,
the refinery consisted of a crude unit with a capacity of 8,000 barrels
per day, a reformer with a capacity of roughly 2,800 barrels per day,
and required tankage and utilities. By November 1982, the refinery had
installed a 6,000 barrel per day fluidized catalytic cracking unit,
expanded the crude unit to 16,500 barrels per day, installed a
wastewater treatment system, and had added to tankage and utilities.
The refinery experienced no periods of inactivity during this time.
Prior to November 1982, Plateau operated two wastewater treatment
surface impoundments; the bottoms of the two impoundments had been
treated with bentonite to retard migration of contaminants. These two
impoundments were used to contain water outflow from an API separator.
The API separator was used to remove oil and oily sludges from refinery
wastewater and consisted of two reinforced concrete bays. The API
separator system received wastewaters from many sources during the time
period of waste generation, including boiler blowdown; cooling tower
blowdown; desalination water; process area runoff; small amounts of
solvent cleaners and sealants; and lubricants used in site vehicles,
pump reservoirs, metal machining tools, instrument air supplies, and
during the overhaul and rebuilding of various pieces of process
equipment. Oily wastewater entered the API separator and was contained
for a period of approximately 27 hours (flow to the API separator
averaged roughly 35 gallons per minute during the period of interest).
Oil within the wastewater was allowed to rise and form a separate
floating phase. This phase was recovered through a weir at the
downstream end of each bay. Wastewater from each bay flowed under the
weir, discharging into the first of two impoundments. Wastewater from
the first impoundment was subsequently directed through an outflow pipe
to the second impoundment. In addition, any oily sludge with a density
heavier than the wastewater sank to the bottom of the concrete bays.
These sludges were removed and disposed of at a hazardous waste
facility approximately every two years.
During the period around October and November 1982, Plateau cleaned
the impoundments to install a 100 milliliter synthetic high density
polyethylene (HDPE) liner. Approximately 90,000 gallons of sludge were
removed by vacuum truck and disposed of in an offsite hazardous waste
disposal facility. This sludge was mainly the result of the
accumulation of windblown dirt and debris. Visibly contaminated soil
from the impoundments was removed and disposed of in an unlined on-site
landfill in October 1984. This landfill was a dedicated area of the
Giant site, and did not hold any other waste material. Plateau assumed
this material was not hazardous based on characteristic testing. As
part of subsequent closure activities, the contaminated soil was
reexcavated in November 1989 and stockpiled at its present location,
where it awaits final disposal. This volume of stockpiled soil is the
subject of Giant's delisting petition.
The impoundments were originally installed about 1974 for fresh
water use. Following the installation of the API separator in late
1976, wastewater from the API separator was routed to the impoundments
for further wastewater treatment. Prior to the installation of the API
separator, a tank was used to recover oil from wastewater. The API
separator was installed because of substantial expansion planned and
underway for the refinery. Therefore, the period of generation of waste
sludges into the impoundments (and, therefore, the generation of the
contaminated soil) was from late 1976 until the impoundments were
cleaned in November 1982.
The stockpiled waste has a moisture content of roughly 25 percent.
The waste does not contain any free liquids or liquid petroleum. The
stockpiled waste consists only of the waste that was originally
deposited in the landfill from the impoundments and a small amount of
soils adjacent to the landfill that was removed during the November
1989 excavation activities.
To collect representative samples from a waste pile like Giant's,
petitioners are normally requested to divide the unit into four
quadrants (not exceeding 10,000 square feet per quadrant) and randomly
collect five full-depth core samples from each quadrant. The five full-
depth core samples are then composited (mixed) by quadrant to produce a
total of four composite samples. See Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Wastes: Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Publication SW-846 (third edition), November 1986,
and Petitions to Delist Hazardous Wastes--A Guidance Manual, (second
edition), EPA, Office of Solid Waste, (EPA/530-R-93-007), March 1993.
The first sampling and analysis of the stockpiled waste took place
in May 1990. Two samples of waste were gathered over the full depth of
the waste pile, from the surface to the bottom of the waste pile. This
was accomplished by cutting trenches into the waste pile using a
backhoe and gathering composite samples, with a trowel, from ten
locations within each trench spanning the entire depth of the trench.
To form a composite from the west side of the waste pile, ten samples
each from six trenches were mixed in a bucket (for a total of 60
samples). The same procedure was followed in forming a composite from
the east side of the waste pile. These two composite samples were
analyzed for the total concentrations (i.e., mass of a particular
constituent per mass of waste) of the eight TCLP metals, nickel,
antimony, beryllium, vanadium, selected volatile and semi-volatile
organic constituents, and oil and grease content. These two samples
were also analyzed to
[[Page 25179]]
determine whether the waste exhibited ignitable, corrosive, or reactive
properties as defined, respectively, under Sec. 261.21, Sec. 261.22,
and Sec. 261.23, including analysis for total constituent
concentrations of cyanide, sulfide, reactive cyanide, and reactive
sulfide. These two samples were also analyzed for TCLP concentrations
(i.e., mass of a particular constituent per unit volume of extract) of
the eight TC metals, nickel, and selected volatile and semi-volatile
organic constituents. Finally, these two samples were analyzed for EP
toxicity concentrations of the eight metals listed in Sec. 261.24.
To highlight any possible variance of the outer material due to
weathering, a third composite sample was formed from samples taken from
eight locations across the surface of the waste pile. The maximum depth
sampled was twelve inches. This composite sample was subject to the
same analyses as the other two composite samples. In August 1990, Giant
collected three samples, one sample each from the west side, east side,
and surface of the waste pile. These samples were analyzed for TCLP
concentrations of selected semi-volatile constituents.
Giant claims that because the waste pile was subjected to several
operations that would have mixed the waste to a significant extent,
including dredging of the wastewater treatment impoundments; loading
and transporting the waste; unloading and spreading the waste in the
landfill; reexcavating, loading and transporting the waste; and
spreading and contouring the waste, the analytical data obtained from
the two composite samples are representative of any variation in the
waste pile concentrations. Based on its review of information
describing this sampling event, the EPA concluded that these samples
were not sufficient to support a delisting determination in part,
because only two of the samples represented the full depth of the waste
pile. At the request of the EPA, Giant submitted an addendum to its
delisting petition. This addendum, submitted on June 25, 1993, included
results from the analysis of four additional samples of the petitioned
waste. Four waste samples were collected from the waste pile at the
Giant facility in April 1993. The waste pile was divided into four
quadrants and four full-depth core samples were collected from each
quadrant.
All four samples were analyzed for total constituent concentrations
of the TC metals, antimony, beryllium, cyanide, nickel, sulfide,
vanadium, zinc, reactive cyanide, and reactive sulfide. The four
composite samples were also analyzed for oil and grease content and
leachate concentrations (using the TCLP and OWEP) of the TC metals,
antimony, beryllium, cyanide, nickel, vanadium, and zinc (using
distilled water in the cyanide extraction). An aliquot of the full-
depth core sample was removed and analyzed for total constituent and
TCLP leachate concentrations of selected volatile organic constituents.
In addition, the remainder of the sample was composited and analyzed
for total constituent and TCLP leachate concentrations of selected
semi-volatile organic constituents.
C. Agency Analysis
Giant used SW-846 Methods 7041 through 7740 to quantify the total
constituent concentrations of antimony, arsenic, lead, mercury, and
selenium; and SW-846 Method 6010 to quantify total constituent
concentrations of barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, silver,
vanadium, and zinc in the 1990 and 1993 samples. Giant used SW-846
Methods 9010 (modified) to quantify the total constituent
concentrations of cyanide in the 1990 and 1993 samples. Giant used
Methods 7.3.4.2 and 9030 modified to quantify the total constituent
concentrations of sulfide, respectively, in the 1990 and 1993 samples.
Using modified SW 846 Method 9071, Giant determined that the
petitioned waste had a maximum oil and grease content of 2.35 percent.
Two composite samples of the waste had more than one percent oil and
grease. The leachate analyses for one sample extract (as discussed
below) was modified in accordance with the OWEP methodology. The
leachate analysis for the other sample extract was not modified, as the
laboratory had already conducted the TCLP without filtration
difficulties. Wastes having more than one percent total oil and grease
may either have significant concentrations of constituents of concern
in the oil phase, which may not be assessed using the standard leachate
procedures, or the concentration of oil and grease may be sufficient to
coat the solid phase of the sample and interfere with the leaching of
metals from the sample.
Giant used SW-846 Method 1311 (TCLP)/Method 6010 to quantify the
leachable concentrations of the eight TC metals, antimony, beryllium,
nickel, vanadium, and zinc in the 1990 and 1993 samples. SW-846 Method
7470 was used for mercury analyses of the extracts from the 1993
samples. Giant used SW-846 Method 1311 (TCLP; modified using distilled
water)/Method 9010 to quantify leachable cyanide concentrations in the
1993 samples. Extractable metals for one of the 1993 composite samples
(i.e., Sample D) was evaluated by the OWEP (SW-846 Method 1330).1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Oily Waste Extraction Procedure (OWEP) is a leach test
used to determine the mobile metal concentration in oily wastes. The
OWEP simulates biodegradation that has occurred in the landfill. The
oil in the wastes, which tends to bind complex metals such that they
are not available for leaching, degrades in the landfill disposal
environment, eventually resulting in the release of the metals into
the underlying strata and ground water. Per the EPA instructions,
Bloomfield modified the OWEP by substituting the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) for the Extraction
Procedure (EP) in step 7.10 of the OWEP method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Giant used SW-846 Method 1310 (EP)/Method 6010 to quantify the
leachable concentrations of arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead,
selenium, and silver in the 1990 samples. SW-846 Method 7470 was used
for mercury analyses of the extracts from the 1990 samples. The EP
analyses were only conducted on the three 1990 composite samples.
Characteristic testing was conducted on the 1990 and 1993 samples
of the stockpiled waste, including analysis for reactive cyanide and
reactive sulfide (SW-846 Methods 7.3.3.2 and 7.3.4.2, respectively),
ignitability (SW-846 Method 1010 (modified)), and corrosivity (SW-846
Method 9045).
Table 1 presents the maximum total constituent and leachate
concentrations for the eight TC metals, antimony, beryllium, cyanide,
nickel, vanadium, and zinc for the composite samples of the petitioned
waste. Table 1 also presents maximum reactive cyanide and reactive
sulfide concentrations.
The detection limits presented in Table 1 represent the lowest
concentrations quantifiable by Giant when using the appropriate SW-846
or Agency-approved analytical methods to analyze its waste. (Detection
limits may vary according to the waste and waste matrix being analyzed,
i.e., the ``cleanliness'' waste matrices varies and ``dirty'' waste
matrices may cause interferences, thus raising the detection limits).
Giant used SW-846 Methods 8240 and 8270 to quantify the total
constituent concentrations of 41 volatile and 65 semi-volatile organic
compounds, respectively, in the stockpiled waste samples. This suite of
constituents included all of the nonpesticide organic constituents
listed in Sec. 261.24. Giant used SW-846 Methods 8240 and 8270 to
quantify the leachable concentrations of 21 volatile and 76 semi-
volatile organic compounds, respectively, in the stockpiled waste
samples, following extraction by SW-846 Method 1311
[[Page 25180]]
(TCLP). This suite of constituents included all of the organic
constituents listed in Sec. 261.24. Table 2 presents the maximum total
and leachate concentrations of all detected organic constituents in
Giant's waste and waste extract samples. Lastly, on the basis of
explanations and analytical data provided by Giant, none of the
analyzed samples exhibited the characteristics of ignitability,
corrosivity, or reactivity. See Sec. 261.21, Sec. 261.22 and
Sec. 261.23.
Table 1.--Maximum Total Constituent and Leachate Concentrations (ppm)
\1\ Stockpiled Soil
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Leachate analyses
Inorganic constituents constituent ---------------------------
analyses EP/TCLP OWEP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony...................... < 0.3 0.07 < 0.616
Arsenic....................... 3.9 < 0.2 < 2.05
Barium........................ 194 0.632 0.629
Beryllium..................... 0.3 0.002 < 1.03
Cadmium....................... 3.9 0.003 < 0.030
Chromium (total).............. 507 0.149 < 0.0999
Cyanide (total)............... < 1 < 0.02
Lead.......................... 26.2 < 0.08 0.916
Mercury....................... 0.29 < 0.1 < 0.006
Nickel........................ 14.7 0.007 0.954
Selenium...................... < 0.4 < 0.09 1.68
Silver........................ < 0.7 < 0.007 < 0.074
Vanadium...................... 55 < 0.04 < 0.41
Zinc.......................... 302 1.67 0.978
Cyanide (reactive)............ < 2
Sulfide (reactive)............ < 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
< Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the detection limit
specified in the table.
\1\ These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent
found in any one sample. These levels do not necessarily represent the
specific levels found in one sample.
Table 2.--Maximum Total Constituent and Leachate Concentrations (ppm)
\1\ Stockpiled Soil
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total TCLP
Organic constituents constituent leachate
analyses analyses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone..................................... 0.032 < 0.1
Benzo(a)anthracene.......................... 1.2 < 0.005
Benzo(a)pyrene.............................. 2.1 < 0.005
Chrysene.................................... 3.9 < 0.005
Fluorene.................................... 1.5 < 0.005
2-Methylnaphthalene......................... 5.9 0.006
Naphthalene................................. 0.83 < 0.005
Phenanthrene................................ 4.4 < 0.005
Pyrene...................................... 2.1 < 0.005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
< Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the detection limit
specified in the table.
\1\ These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent
found in any one sample. These levels do not necessarily represent the
specific levels found in one sample.
Giant submitted a signed certification stating that the waste pile
contains 2,000 cubic yards of waste. The EPA reviews a petitioner's
estimates and, on occasion, has requested a petitioner to re-evaluate
estimated waste volume. The EPA accepted Giant's certified estimate of
2,000 cubic yards of stockpiled waste.
The EPA does not generally verify submitted test data before
proposing delisting decisions. The sworn affidavit submitted with this
petition binds the petitioner to present truthful and accurate results.
The EPA, however, has maintained a spot-check sampling and analysis
program to verify the representative nature of the data for some
percentage of the submitted petitions. A spot-check visit to a selected
facility may be initiated before finalizing a delisting petition or
after granting a final exclusion.
D. Agency Evaluation
The EPA considered the appropriateness of alternative waste
management scenarios for Giant's stockpiled waste and decided, based on
the information provided in the petition, that disposal in a municipal
solid waste landfill is the most reasonable, worst-case scenario for
this waste. Under a landfill disposal scenario, the major exposure
route of concern for any hazardous constituents would be ingestion of
contaminated ground water. The EPA, therefore, evaluated Giant's
petitioned waste using the modified EPACML which predicts the potential
for groundwater contamination from wastes that are landfilled. See 56
FR 32993 (July 18, 1991), 56 FR 67197 (December 30, 1991), and the RCRA
public docket for these notices for a detailed description of the
EPACML model, the disposal assumptions, and the modifications made for
delisting. This model, which includes both unsaturated and saturated
zone transport modules, was used to predict reasonable worst-case
contaminant levels in groundwater at a compliance point (i.e., a
receptor well serving as a drinking-water supply). Specifically, the
model estimated the dilution/attenuation factor (DAF) resulting from
subsurface processes such as three-dimensional dispersion and dilution
from groundwater recharge for a specific volume of waste. The EPA
requests comments on the use of the
[[Page 25181]]
EPACML as applied to the evaluation of Giant's petitioned waste.
For the evaluation of Giant's petitioned waste, the EPA used the
EPACML to evaluate the mobility of the hazardous inorganic constituents
detected in the extract of samples of Giant's stockpiled waste. The EPA
intends to evaluate petitions for wastes no longer being generated on a
case-by-case basis. The DAFs are currently calculated assuming an
ongoing process generates wastes for 20 years. Therefore, the DAF needs
to be adjusted as appropriate for an one-time exclusion. The DAF for
the waste volume of 2,000 cubic yards/year has been adjusted for the
evaluation of this petition. The DAF for 2,000 cubic yards/year
assuming 20 years of generation is 79, for this petition a DAF of 100
is being used. The EPA's evaluation, using a DAF of 100, maximum waste
volume estimate of 2,000 cubic yards and the maximum reported TCLP or
OWEP leachate concentrations (see Table 1), yielded compliance-point
concentrations (see Table 3) that are below the current health-based
levels at an assumed risk level of 10-6 used in delisting
decision-making.
Table 3.--EPACML: Calculated Compliance-Point Concentrations (ppm) Stockpiled Soil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Levels of
Compliance point regulatory
Inorganic constituents concentrations concern \2\
\1\ (mg/l) (mg/l)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony....................................................................... 0.0007 0.006
Barium......................................................................... 0.0063 2.0
Beryllium...................................................................... 0.00002 0.004
Cadmium........................................................................ 0.00003 0.005
Chromium....................................................................... 0.0015 0.1
Lead........................................................................... 0.009 0.015
Nickel......................................................................... 0.010 0.1
Selenium....................................................................... 0.017 0.05
Zinc........................................................................... 0.017 10.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Using the maximum EP/TCLP leachate level and based on a DAF of 100 calculated using the EPACML for an one-
time volume of 2,000 cubic yards.
\2\ See Docket Report on Health-Based Levels and Solubilities Used in the Evaluation of Delisting Petitions,
December 1994 located in the RCRA public docket for today's notice.
The maximum reported or calculated leachate concentrations of
antimony, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel selenium,
and zinc in the stockpiled waste yielded compliance point
concentrations well below the health-based levels used in delisting
decision-making. The EPA did not evaluate the mobility of the remaining
inorganic constituents (i.e., arsenic, mercury, silver, vanadium, and
cyanide) from Giant's waste because they were not detected in the
leachate using the appropriate analytical test methods (see Table 1).
The EPA believes that it is inappropriate to evaluate nondetectable
concentrations of a constituent of concern in its modeling efforts if
the nondetectable value was obtained using the appropriate analytical
method. If a constituent cannot be detected (when using the appropriate
analytical method with an adequate detection limit), the EPA assumes
that the constituent is not present and therefore does not present a
threat to human health or the environment.
The EPA also evaluated the potential hazard of 2-methylnaphthalene,
the only organic constituent detected in the TCLP extract of samples of
Giant's stockpiled waste. Although, the EPA does not have a health-
based level of concern for comparison, the EPA believes that the
reported leachate concentration of 0.006 ppm does not present a
potential concern. In particular, were this leachate concentration
evaluated using the EPACML, the calculated compliance-point
concentration would be 0.00006 ppm, a value lower than other chemicals
from the naphthalene family. The EPA does not believe that this
concentration, at the receptor well, would present an adverse impact on
human health or the environment.
As reported in Table 1, the maximum concentrations of reactive
cyanide and sulfide in Giant's stockpiled waste are less than 2 and 10
ppm, respectively. These concentrations are below the EPA's interim
standards of 250 and 500 ppm, respectively. See Interim Agency
Thresholds for Toxic Gas Generation, July 12, 1985, internal Agency
Memorandum in the RCRA public docket. Therefore, reactive cyanide and
sulfide levels are not of concern.
The EPA concluded, after reviewing Giant's processes, that no other
hazardous constituents of concern, other than those tested for, are
likely to be present or formed as reaction products or by-products in
Giant's waste. In addition, on the basis of explanations and analytical
data provided by Giant, pursuant to Sec. 260.22, the EPA concludes that
the waste does not exhibit any of the characteristics of ignitability,
corrosivity, or reactivity. See Sec. 261.21, Sec. 261.22, and
Sec. 261.23, respectively.
During the evaluation of Giant's petition, the EPA also considered
the potential impact of the petitioned waste via non-ground water
routes (i.e., air emission and surface runoff). With regard to airborne
dispersion in particular, the EPA believes that exposure to airborne
contaminants from Giant's petitioned waste is unlikely. The EPA
evaluated the potential hazards resulting from the unlikely scenario of
airborne exposure to hazardous constituents released from Giant's waste
in an open landfill. The results of this worst-case analysis indicated
that there is no substantial present or potential hazard to human
health from airborne exposure to constituents from Giant's stockpiled
waste. A description of the EPA's assessment of the potential impact of
Giant's waste, with regard to airborne dispersion of waste
contaminants, is presented in the RCRA public docket for today's
proposed rule.
The EPA also considered the potential impact of the petitioned
waste via a surface water route. The EPA believes that containment
structures at municipal solid waste landfills can effectively control
surface water run-off, as the recently promulgated Subtitle D
regulations (see 56 FR 50978, October 9, 1991) prohibit pollutant
discharges into surface waters. Furthermore, the concentrations of any
hazardous constituents dissolved in the runoff will tend to be lower
than the levels in the
[[Page 25182]]
TCLP/EP or OWEP leachate analyses reported in today's notice, due to
the aggressive acid medium used for extraction in the TCLP/EP and OWEP
tests. The EPA believes that, in general, leachate derived from the
waste is unlikely to enter a surface water body directly without first
travelling through the saturated subsurface zone where further dilution
and attenuation of hazardous constituents will also occur. Leachable
concentrations provide a direct measure of the solubility of a toxic
constituent in water, and are indicative of the fraction of the
constituent that may be mobilized in surface water, as well as ground
water. The reported TCLP/EP and OWEP extraction data show that the
metals in Giant's stockpiled waste are essentially immobile in aqueous
solution. Therefore, constituents that might be released from Giant's
waste to surface water would be likely to remain undissolved. Finally,
any transported constituents would be further diluted in the receiving
surface water body due to relatively large flows of the streams/rivers
of concern.
Based on the reasons discussed above, the EPA believes that
contamination of surface water through run-off from the waste disposal
area is very unlikely. Nevertheless, the EPA evaluated potential
impacts on surface water if Giant's waste were released from a
municipal solid waste landfill through run-off and erosion. See, the
RCRA public docket for today's proposed rule. The estimated levels of
the hazardous constituents of concern in surface water would be well
below health-based levels for human health, as well as below the EPA
Chronic Water Quality Criteria for aquatic organisms (USEPA, OWRS,
1987). The EPA, therefore, concluded that Giant's stockpiled waste is
not a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the
environment via the surface water exposure pathway.
E. Conclusion
The EPA has reviewed the sampling procedures used by Giant and has
determined that they satisfy the EPA criteria for collecting
representative samples of the variations in constituent concentrations
found throughout the waste pile. The data submitted in support of the
petition show that constituents in Giant's waste are present below the
health-based levels used in the delisting decision-making. In addition,
the constituents are immobile and should not leach from the waste pile
into potential receptors. The EPA believes that Giant has successfully
demonstrated that the stockpiled waste is non-hazardous.
The EPA, therefore, proposes to grant a one-time exclusion to Giant
Refining Company, Inc., located in Bloomfield, New Mexico, for the
stockpiled waste described in its petition as EPA Hazardous Waste No.
K051. The EPA's decision to exclude this waste is based on descriptions
of the excavation activities associated with the petitioned waste,
descriptions of Giant's wastewater treatment process, and
characterization of the stockpiled waste. If the proposed rule is
finalized, the petitioned waste will no longer be subject to regulation
under Parts 262 through 268 and the permitting standards of Part 270.
If made final, the proposed exclusion will apply only to the 2,000
cubic yards of stockpiled waste generated during the excavation of
Giant's two wastewater treatment impoundments (referred to as the South
and North Oily Water Ponds). The facility would need to file a new
petition for any new waste produced. The facility must treat any
excavated soil in excess of the original 2,000 cubic yards as hazardous
unless a new exclusion is granted.
Although management of the waste covered by this petition would be
removed from Subtitle C jurisdiction upon final promulgation of an
exclusion, the generator of a delisted waste must either treat, store,
or dispose of the waste in an on-site facility, or ensure that the
waste is delivered to an off-site storage, treatment, or disposal
facility, either of which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a
State to manage municipal or industrial solid waste. Alternatively, the
delisted waste may be delivered to a facility that beneficially uses or
reuses, or legitimately recycles or reclaims the waste, or treats the
waste prior to such beneficial use, reuse, recycling, or reclamation.
IV. Effective Date
This rule, if made final, will become effective immediately upon
final publication. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
amended Section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to become effective in less
than six-months when the regulated community does not need the six-
month period to come into compliance. That is the case here, because
this rule, if finalized, would reduce the existing requirements for
persons generating hazardous wastes. In light of the unnecessary
hardship and expense that would be imposed on this petitioner by an
effective date six months after publication and the fact that a six-
month deadline is not necessary to achieve the purpose of Section 3010,
the EPA believes that this exclusion should be effective immediately
upon final publication. These reasons also provide a basis for making
this rule effective immediately, upon final publication, under the
Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.Sec. 553(d).
V. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12866, the EPA must conduct an ``assessment
of the potential costs and benefits'' for all ``significant''
regulatory actions. This proposal to grant an exclusion is not
significant, since its effect, if promulgated, would be to reduce the
overall costs and economic impact of the EPA's hazardous waste
management regulations. This reduction would be achieved by excluding
waste generated at a specific facility from the EPA's lists of
hazardous wastes, thereby enabling this facility to treat its waste as
non-hazardous. There is no additional impact due to today's rule.
Therefore, this proposal would not be a significant regulation, and no
cost/benefit assessment is required. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has also exempted this rule from the requirement for OMB
review under Section (6) of Executive Order 12866.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Secs. 601-612,
whenever an agency is required to publish a general notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the impact of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required, however, if the
Administrator or delegated representative certifies that the rule will
not have any impact on any small entities.
This rule, if promulgated, will not have any adverse economic
impact on any small entities since its effect would be to reduce the
overall costs of the EPA's hazardous waste regulations and would be
limited to one facility. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this
proposed regulation, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
regulation, therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility
analysis.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection and recordkeeping requirements associated
with this proposed rule have been approved by OMB under the provisions
[[Page 25183]]
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C.
Sec. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2050-0053.
VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995,
the EPA generally must prepare a written statement for rules with
Federal mandates that may result in estimated costs to State, local,
and tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of
$100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is required
for EPA rules, under section 205 of the UMRA, the EPA must identify and
consider alternatives, including the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the
rule. The EPA must select that alternative, unless the Administrator
explains in the final rule why it was not selected or it is
inconsistent with law. Before the EPA establishes regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must develop under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, giving
them meaningful and timely input in the development of the EPA
regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them on compliance
with the regulatory requirements. The UMRA generally defines a Federal
mandate for regulatory purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty
upon state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. The EPA
finds that today's proposed delisting decision is deregulatory in
nature and does not impose any enforceable duty upon state, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. In addition, the proposed
delisting does not establish any regulatory requirements for small
governments and so does not require a small government agency plan
under UMRA section 203.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6921(f).
Dated: May 3, 1996.
Jane N. Saginaw,
Regional Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR Part 261 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for Part 261 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
2. In Table 2 of Appendix IX of Part 261 it is proposed to add the
following waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as
follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. 260.20 and
260.22.
Table 2.--Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Giant Refining Company, Inc........ Bloomfield, New Mexico..... Waste generated during the excavation of soils
from two wastewater treatment impoundments
(referred to as the South and North Oily
Water Ponds) used to contain water outflow
from an API separator (EPA Hazardous Waste
No. K051). This is a one-time exclusion for
approximately 2,000 cubic yards of stockpiled
waste. This exclusion was published on
[insert publication date of the final rule].
Notification Requirements:
Giant Refining Company must provide a one-time
written notification to any State Regulatory
Agency to which or through which the delisted
waste described above will be transported for
disposal at least 60 days prior to the
commencement of such activities. Failure to
provide such a notification will result in a
violation of the delisting petition and a
possible revocation of the decision.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-12607 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12588 Revision of Broadcast EEO Policies
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25183-25184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12588]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 73
[MM Docket No. 96-16, FCC 96-198]
Revision of Broadcast EEO Policies
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period; dismissal of
petition for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In Streamlining Broadcast EEO Rules and Policies, FCC 96-198,
released April 26, 1996 (Streamlining), the Commission dismisses a
Petition for Reconsideration, grants a Petition for Clarification in
part and denies it in part, and grants a motion for extension of time
concerning the Commission's Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making,
11 FCC Rcd 5154 (1996), MM Docket No. 96-16, 61 FR 9964 (March 12,
1996) (NPRM). The Commission finds that the public interest favors
grant of the motion for extension of time.
DATES: Initial comments due July 1, 1996; reply comments due July 31,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
Washington, D.C. 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hope G. Cooper, Mass Media Bureau,
Enforcement Division. (202) 418-1450.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of Streamlining, FCC 96-
198, adopted and released April 26, 1996.
The complete text of Streamlining is available for inspection and
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room
239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC, and also may be purchased
from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription
Services,
[[Page 25184]]
Inc., at (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140, Washington, DC
20037.
Synopsis of Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making
The Commission responds to two pleadings, a Petition for
Reconsideration and Clarification, and a Motion for Extension of Time,
filed by twenty organizations (including the Minority Media and
Telecommunications Council), concerning the Commission's Order and
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd 5154 (1996), MM Docket No.
96-16, 61 FR 9964 (March 12, 1996). In the Petition for Reconsideration
and Clarification, among other things, Petitioners argue that, because
the NPRM has the effect of rejecting proposals previously submitted to
the Commission, the NPRM is a final action against which petitions for
reconsideration may be filed pursuant to Section 1.429 of the
Commission's Rules. They also argue that the Commission should amend
the NPRM to include various proposals set forth in the Petition, as
well as revise language in the NPRM to clarify that it is soliciting
comment in support of increased, as well as reduced, EEO requirements.
In the Motion for Extension of Time, Petitioners request that the
Commission extend the date for submission of comments in response to
the NPRM to two months following the issuance of an order reconsidering
and/or clarifying the NPRM. They contend that without such an order
they would be unable to develop thorough and meaningful comments to the
NPRM. In addition, Petitioners assert that their present resources are
severely limited by, among other things, their involvement in
proceedings concerning the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
2. The Commission rejects Petitioners' argument that the NPRM is a
final action, finding that the NPRM did not implement any rule or
reject any proposals presently pending before the Commission, and,
accordingly, dismisses the Petition for Reconsideration. See 47 CFR
1.429. The Commission grants the Petition for Clarification in part and
otherwise denies it. The Commission states that ``[t]he proposals in
the NPRM sought to further the objectives of our EEO Rule and policies
while minimizing undue regulatory burdens on broadcasters. We encourage
Petitioners to submit with their comments any alternatives to the
proposals that further these goals.'' Finally, the Commission finds
that the public interest favors grant of the motion for extension of
time, and, therefore, the Commission extends the comment and reply
comment dates to July 1, 1996, and July 31, 1996, respectively.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-12588 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12587 Public Safety Radio Requirements Through the Year 2010
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25184-25185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12587]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 25185]]
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 90
[WT Docket No. 96-86, FCC 96-155]
Public Safety Radio Requirements Through the Year 2010
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission has adopted a Notice of Proposed Rule Making to
address the present deficiencies in public safety wireless
communications as well as its expanding spectrum needs. These proposed
amendments will solicit comments on how to meet public safety needs,
and to facilitate a transition to a communications environment in which
public safety agencies have access to higher quality transmission,
emerging technologies, and broader services. The Notice also furthers
the Commission's efforts to implement Section 6002 of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which requires the Commission to
study public safety spectrum needs and to develop a plan that ensures
that adequate frequenices are available for public safety uses through
the year 2010.
DATES: Comments are due September 20, 1996; reply comments are due
October 18, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNamara the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau at (202) 418-0680.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rule Making, adopted April 5, 1996, and released April 10,
1996. The full text of this action is available for inspection and
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room
239, 1919 M Street, N..W., Washington, D.C. The complete text may be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857-
3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
Summary of Report and Order
1. In this action, the Commission initiates an overall evaluation
and assessment of public safety wireless communications, which builds
upon our findings and conclusions presented in the 1995 FCC Public
Safety Report. We believe that the critical responsibilities of public
safety agencies, such as protection of life and property, can be
performed more effectively by increasing the flexibility and
opportunities that wireless communications can offer. The goal of this
proceeding is to develop the data necessary to evaluate the spectrum
needs of public safety agencies, to solicit comment on how best to meet
these needs, and to facilitate a transition to a communications
environment in which public safety agencies have access to higher
quality transmission, emerging technologies, and broader services,
including the ability to communicate readily with one another
(interoperability). We recognize that such an environment can be
achieved through a variety of regulatory approaches, such as requiring
more efficient use of current public safety spectrum, reallocating
additional spectrum for public safety uses, and facilitating the use of
commercial service providers for increased communications capacity. We
believe, however, that no one approach will satisfy all public safety
communications spectrum needs. We further believe that the optimal
approach should allow each of these individual approaches to be
strategically combined in a way that meets the specific needs of
individual public safety entities.
2. The Notice of Proposed Rule Making emphasizes two primary
issues. The first issue is the critical nature of public safety
responsibilities to the Nation's well being and the role of modern
wireless communications in ensuring that these duties are fulfilled
effectively. The second issue is that the fragmented nature of present
public safety wireless communications has a detrimental impact on
present and future capabilities. We believe that bringing about
improved quality and tangible access to expanded services is dependent
largely on public safety operating in a wider and more consistent
environment. This proceeding seeks to broaden the opportunity for
public safety agencies to obtain access to the benefits that accrue
from the increased competition and innovation that has emerged in
telecommunications generally while maintaining the independence,
reliability, universal service and security that are integral to public
safety. We believe that a regulatory structure can emerge that is more
efficient, commits more discretion to users, and facilitates access to
a much broader range of services.
3. Authority for issuance of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making is
contained in Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 154(i) and 303(r).
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
4. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the expected impact on small entities of the proposals
suggested in this document. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A of the
Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Written public comments are requested
on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same
filing deadlines as comments on the rest of the Notice of Proposed Rule
Making, but they must have a separate and distinct heading designating
them as responses to the IRFA. The Secretary shall send a copy of this
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance
with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law No.
96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 90
Communications equipment, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-12587 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12586 Allocation of Costs Associated With Local Exchange Carrier Provision of Video Programming Services
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 25184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12586]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CC Docket No. 96-112; FCC 96-214]
Allocation of Costs Associated With Local Exchange Carrier
Provision of Video Programming Services
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In the NPRM, the Commission would define the goals of our cost
allocation rules and of the 1996 Act. Guided by these goals, the NPRM
would seek specific comment on allocating certain categories of
incumbent local exchange carriers' plant between regulated Title II and
nonregulated (non-Title II) activities. Particular attention would be
directed to the allocation of loop facilities, all of which have been
allocated to regulated activities in the past. The intended effect of
this action is to revise the Commission's rules regarding cost
allocation to accommodate the provision of nonregulated and non-Title
II services that share outside plant facilities with regulated
services.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 28, 1996. Reply
comments are due on or before June 7, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M St., N. W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Mulitz, Attorney/Advisor
Accounting and Audits, Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-0850.
Supplementary Information:
1. This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking adopted May 10, 1996, and released May 10, 1996. The full
text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Dockets Branch (Room
239), 1919 M St., N.W., Washington, D.C. The complete text of this
decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Services, Inc., 202 857-3800, 1990 M
Street, N.W., Suite 246, Washington, D.C. 20554.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
2. We have determined that Section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b) does not apply to this
rulemaking proceeding because if promulgated, it would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The definition of a ``small entity'' in Section 3 of the Small Business
Act excludes any business that is dominant in its field of operation.
Although some of the local exchange carriers that will be affected are
very small, local exchange companies do not qualify as small entities
because they have a nationwide monopoly on ubiquitous access to the
subscribers in their service area. The Commission has found all
exchange carriers to be dominant in the Competitive Carrier proceeding.
85 FCC 2d 1, 23-24 (1980). To the extent that small telephone companies
will be affected by these rules, we hereby certify that these rules
will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of
``small entities.'' Although we do not find that the Regulatory
Flexibility Act is applicable to this proceeding, this Commission has
an ongoing concern with the effect of its rules and regulations on
small business and the customers of the regulated carriers as is
evidenced by this proceeding.
Ordering Clause
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 302 and 703
of the 1996 Act, and sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 215, 218 and 220 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i),
154(j), 201, 215, 218, 220), a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby
ADOPTED.
It is further ordered that the Secretary shall send a copy of this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Regulatory Flexibility
Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration, in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (1981).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Communications common carriers, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-12586 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12545 Review of Existing Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25160-25164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12545]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
30 CFR Chapter II
Review of Existing Regulations
agency: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.
action: Review of regulations; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
summary: MMS performs annual periodic reviews of its significant
regulations and asks the public to participate in these reviews. The
purpose of the reviews is to identify and eliminate regulations that
are obsolete, ineffective or burdensome. In addition, the reviews are
meant to identify essential regulations that should be revised because
they are either unclear, inefficient or interfere with normal market
conditions.
The purpose of this document is to: Provide the public an
opportunity to comment on MMS regulations that should be eliminated or
revised; and provide a status update of the actions MMS has taken on
comments previously received from the public in response to documents
published March 1, 1994 and March 28, 1995.
dates: Written comments must be received by July 19, 1996.
addresses: Mail written comments to Department of the Interior;
Minerals Management Service, Mail Stop 4013; 1849 C Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20240; Attention: Bettine Montgomery, MMS Regulatory
Coordinator, Policy and Management Improvement.
for further information contact: Bettine Montgomery, Policy and
[[Page 25161]]
Management Improvement, telephone (202) 208-3976; Fax (202) 208-3118.
supplementary information: MMS began a review of its regulations in
early 1994 pursuant to the directives contained in the President's
Executive Order 12866. The Executive Order calls for periodic
regulatory reviews to ensure that all significant regulations are
efficient and effective, impose the least possible burden upon the
public, and are tailored no broader than necessary to meet the agency's
objectives and Presidential priorities.
MMS invited the public to participate in the regulatory review. The
invitation was sent out via different media, namely a Federal Register
document dated March 1, 1994 (59 FR 9718), MMS and independent
publications, and public speeches by MMS officials during that time.
MMS received approximately 40 public comments which were almost
equally divided between its Royalty Management and Offshore Minerals
Management Programs. MMS acknowledged the comments in a July 15, 1994
document (59 FR 36108) and set forth its planned actions to address the
comments, along with an estimated timetable for the actions.
In the March 28, 1995, document (60 FR 15888), MMS: (a) asked for
further public comments on its regulations, and (b) provided a status
update of actions it had taken on the 40 public comments received the
prior year. MMS received 10 responses from the March 28 document. We
believe MMS has been very responsive to most of the comments received,
to date.
This document updates the MMS planned actions and related
timetables on the major comments received to date. It also solicits
additional comments from the public concerning regulations that should
be either eliminated or revised. Since some of the public responses
received in response to prior documents contained comments on very
specific and detailed parts of the regulations, this document does not
address every one received. For information on any comment submitted
which is not addressed in this document, please contact Mrs. Montgomery
at the number and location stated in the forward sections of this
document.
These annual reviews of regulations have resulted in the
elimination of approximately 18 pages of regulations from the Code of
Federal Regulations and the improvement, by rewriting, of over 200
pages. We are fully committed to improving our regulations and working
more closely with our customers and constituents. This is part of our
effort to improve government by making it more efficient and
responsive.
MMS regulations are found at Title 30 in the Code of Federal
Regulations. Parts 201 through 243 contain regulations applicable to
MMS' Royalty Management Program (note: part 213 applies to Offshore
royalty rate reductions); Parts 250 through 282 are applicable to MMS'
Offshore Minerals Management; and Part 290 is applicable to
Administrative Appeals.
Status Report
The following is a status report by program area on the comments
MMS has received, to date, on its regulations.
A. Offshore Minerals Management (OMM) Program
OMM is currently reviewing the following eight sections of OMM
regulations.
1. Regulations applicable to production in deepwater (30 CFR Part
250, Subpart H, Production).
Comments Received--(a) ``Revise current regulations to provide for
approval of extended flaring periods under certain situations (e.g.,
deepwater prospects, well tests, etc.) and clarify criteria for flaring
or venting small amounts of gas'',
(b) ``Revise requirements associated with subsea installations
* * *'', etc.
Action Taken or Planned--An MMS workgroup finalized its report on
deepwater regulatory issues. The major recommendation from the report
was that MMS should evaluate and regulate deepwater production
activities through a ``total systems'' approach. Under this
recommendation, MMS would require a lessee to submit a Deepwater
Operations Plan for each deepwater or subsea development project.
Individual projects could then be evaluated within the context of the
master plan. The Associate Director for Offshore Minerals Management
approved the report in May 1995, and we are finalizing guidelines and
procedures for the preparation and approval of the Deepwater Operations
Plan.
Timetable--We are preparing a Letter to Lessees explaining the
Deepwater Operations Plan and will issue it in June 1996.
2. Regulations applicable to blowout preventer (BOP) testing and
maintenance requirements (30 CFR 250.56 and 57).
Comments Received--``Revise BOP testing regulations to allow for
less frequent and shorter tests. Allow 14 day BOP test interval vs.
current 7 day * * *.''
Action Taken or Planned--MMS recently announced (March 1996) the
selection of an engineering consulting firm to assess the performance
of blowout preventer equipment and the frequency it should be tested.
Selection of the firm was a joint effort of MMS and industry. MMS will
use this cooperative study in determining if increased blowout
preventer testing intervals will afford an equal or better degree of
protection, safety, or performance. This study requires the systematic
review and analysis of blowout preventer test results from wells
drilled on the OCS.
Timetable--The contractor will provide us with a report on the
study in November 1966. MMS will use the study's results to revise our
regulations as appropriate.
3. Regulations governing safety and pollution prevention equipment
(SPPE) (30 CFR Subpart H).
Comments Received--(a) ``Reduce associated administrative burden on
lessees and operators by eliminating unnecessary record keeping
requirements (i.e., inventory lists, paperwork notifications, etc.).''
(b) ``Revise regulations governing Safety Valves to increase time
between test and allowable leakage rates.''
Action Taken or Planned--(a) MMS is drafting a proposed rule to
revise the regulations governing SPPE. This proposed rule will address
the concerns raised regarding recordkeeping. (b) MMS is reviewing
Subpart H, Production Safety Systems, and plans to rewrite the subpart
in plain English and update requirements where warranted. We expect to
work with industry in areas where we need further data. The cooperative
effort with the blowout preventer study can serve as a model.
Timetable.--(a) MMS should publish this proposed rule in the
Federal Register by September 1996. (b) MMS will begin rewriting
subpart H by this summer. We will work with industry to initiate needed
safety value studies early in 1997, following the joint blowout
preventer study.
4. Regulations governing conservation of resources and diligence
(30 CFR 250. Subpart A, General and Subpart K, Oil and Gas Production
Rates).
Comment Received--(a) ``Revised Suspension of Production approval/
lease holding criteria * * *'', (b) ``Revise Determination of Well
Producibility to make wireline testing and/or mud logging analysis
optional * * *'', (c) ``revise current regulations to provide for
approval of extending flaring periods * * *'', (d) ``Relax restrictions
on commingling reservoirs in a common wellbore * * *'', (e) ``Allow
flexibility in the methods of
[[Page 25162]]
testing subsea wells. * * *'', (f) ``MMS [should] determine and specify
allowable volumes of liquid hydrocarbons that lessees could burn
without requesting approval.''
Action Taken or Planned--For (a) above, MMS published a proposed
rule on April 25, 1996, to extend the period for holding a lease beyond
its primary term from 90 to 180 days. For (b) above, MMS is currently
rewriting Subpart A in plain English. This effort will also include any
changes needed to the regulations. We will obtain more ideas from
industry concerning what changes are needed. For (c) above, MMS will
not relax current regulations at this time. We are reviewing the
results of air quality studies and will not make any changes to the
regulations until this review is complete. For (d) above, MMS issued a
Letter to Lessees that allowed for greater flexibility in dealing with
commingling issues. For (e) above, MMS will not change the regulations.
Current regulations allow operators to request that different testing
methods be allowed when conventional testing is impractical. For (f)
above, MMS, is addressing the burning of liquid hydrocarbons in a rule
that we published as proposed on February 17, 1995. MMS agrees with the
benefits of using a specific value for the term ``minimal.'' However,
in approving a request to burn liquid hydocarbons, we need to deal with
many economic, technical, safety, and environmental factors.
Conservation is a key factor in determining how much liquid
hydrocarbons a lessee can burn. Making volume determinations on a case
by case basis allows us to properly consider technical, safety, and
environmental factors.
Timetable.--A final rule addressing (f) above, (burning small
quantities of liquid hydrocarbons) is scheduled for publication in May
1996. Proposed rules covering the other matters mentioned above will be
published during 1996 and early 1997.
5. Regulations regarding construction and removal of platforms and
structures (30 CFR 250. Subpart I, Platforms and Structures).
Comments Received--(a) ``Modify platform design wave return period
calculation by placing a cap of 100 years on the field life calculation
* * *'', (b) ``Adopt API RP2A (20th edition) Section 14, Surveys, in
its entirety * * *'', (c) ``Revise site clearance requirements * * *'',
(d) ``Revise requirements for placing protective domes over well studs
* * *'', etc.
Action Taken or Planned--For (a) above, MMS is reviewing this
request and considering some options. For (b) above, MMS will not
modify the regulations. Current rules allow operators to petition for
longer inspection intervals. On April 15-17, 1996, MMS held a workshop
in New Orleans and discussed lease abandonment and platform removal
issues with interested parties from other government agencies and
private industry. We will continue to work with these parties to
identify needed research and potential changes to the regulations.
Timetable--In the coming months, MMS will identify specific action
items and timetables for both further regulatory changes and research.
6. Regulations applicable to directional surveys, (30 CFR 250.51).
Comments Received--``Revise directional survey requirements to
allow composite measurement-while-drilling directional survey to be
acceptable * * *.''
Action Taken or Planned--MMS is planning to rewrite the regulations
governing Oil and Gas Drilling Operations, found in Subpart D, in plain
English. We plan to update the regulations to keep pace with current
technology as part of the plain English initiative.
Timetable--MMS plans to begin drafting a proposed rule shortly,
Publication in the Federal Register would be sometime in 1997.
7. Regulations applicable to daily pollution inspection
requirements (30 CFR 250.41).
Comments Received--``Revise current requirements for daily
pollution inspection of unmanned production facilities * * *.''
Action Taken or Planned--On February 15, 1996, MMS issued a Notice
to Lessees regarding the pollution inspection frequency for unmanned
facilities. The current regulations allow operators to request a waiver
from the daily inspection of unmanned facilities. The Notice to Lessees
reviewed the criteria MMS uses in determining whether or not to grant
the waiver.
Timetable--MMS has no plans to change the regulations in this area.
8. Regulations applicable to production safety system training (30
CFR 250.214).
Comments Received--(a) ``Revise training regulations to reduce the
associated burden on operators by modifying requirements (e.g.,
frequency, refresher requirements, structure, etc.) and allow expanded
training delivery modes.'' (b) ``* * * training regulations (well-
control) are not clearly stated and often not relevant * * *.''
Action Taken or Planned--MMS rewrote the entire section (subpart O)
of training regulations in a plain English format and published a
proposed rule in the Federal Register on November 2, 1995 (60 FR
55683), MMS received comments and is preparing the final rule.
Timetable--MMS should publish the final rule by the end of 1996.
9. Regulations applicable to Pipelines and Pipeline Rights-of-Way
(Subpart J).
Comments Received--Revise regulations to avoid duplication of
requirements between DOI and the Department of Transportation (DOT).
Action Taken or Planned--MMS continues to work with DOT and with
other interested parties to develop a new memorandum of understanding
(MOU) between DOI and DOT. After we have a new MOU, MMS will revise
regulations to clarify rules and remove redundant requirements, and
promote compatible regulations.
Timetable--We expect that DOI and DOT will approve a new MOU by
fall of 1996.
B. Royalty Management Program (RMP)
RMP is reviewing regulations in the following subject areas.
1. Statute of Limitations and Record Retention
Comments Received--``Statute of limitations is unclear.''
--``Establish a reciprocal 5-year statute of limitations from the date
an obligation becomes due.''
--``Absence of a record retention program creates some confusion.
Regulations should require record retention to coincide with the 5-year
statute of limitations.''
Action Taken or Planned--The extent of the time periods covered by
audits of royalty payments has been a matter of considerable
controversy between MMS and the minerals industry for several years.
MMS's goal, more recently, as reflected in the Contemporaneous Audit
Initiative, has been to conduct all audits on a contemporaneous basis
consistent with the most effective and efficient use of audit
resources, to provide industry with earlier closure, to streamline the
royalty collection process, and to be more responsive to the public we
serve.
Timetable--Accordingly, MMS issued a policy memorandum on July 14,
1995, that affirms MMS's policy to complete reviews and audits of
royalty payments made on Federal and Indian leased land, including
issuance of enforcement documents for underpayments (orders to pay or
to recompute and pay). Within the 30 U.S.C. 1713 principal documents
retention period, that is within six years of the royalty payment due
date. Some exceptions to this requirement may occur in RMP compliance
activities.
[[Page 25163]]
2. Interests on Overpayments
Comment received--``Interest accrual should be equitable between
the Agency and industry.''
Action Taken or Planned--MMS does not have statutory authority to
remit interest to companies for overpayments. We are pursuing
strategies to improve electronic royalty reporting and paying options
to our customers. This along with the option for companies to post
surety in lieu of paying disputed amounts should decrease lost interest
on overpayments to MMS.
Timetable--Ongoing.
3. Gas Valuation
Comments received--``Define gross proceeds more equitably and
clearly in this ever changing gas marketing environment.''
--``It is important that the Federal Gas Valuation Rule final rule not
discriminate against producers which are affiliated with marketing
companies and are party to non-arms-length contracts.''
--``Extend the elimination of processing and transportation allowance
forms to oil.''
--``* * * commends the MMS on their use of negotiated rulemaking
process to address the valuation of gas. Rule should result in
administrative cost savings for all parties.''
--``If the Takes vs. Entitlements policy stays in effect, MMS should
strictly enforce reporting on actual quantities taken for all industry
participants.''
Action Taken or Planned--Revisions of the Valuation Regulations
Governing Allowances were published in the Federal Register as a final
rule on February 12, 1996. This rule eliminated most allowance forms
filing requirements for oil, gas, and coal produced from Federal
leases.
The Federal Gas Valuation proposed rule was published in the
Federal Register on November 6, 1995, and the comment period closed on
February 5, 1996. The proposed rule represented the consensus of the
Federal Gas Valuation Negotiated Rulemaking Committee with
representation from MMS, industry and the states.
MMS is preparing a Federal Register document to announce the
reconvening of the committee in June 1966 and another Federal Register
document to reopen the public comment period. The proposed rule would
provide alternatives to using gross proceeds as a basis for gas
valuation, such as published natural gas index prices.
The Indian Gas Valuation Negotiated Rulemaking Committee is
developing a proposed rule governing the valuation for royalty purposes
of natural gas produced from Indian leases. The proposed rule would add
a methodology to calculate the major portion value and an alternative
methodology for dual accounting as required by Indian lease terms. The
proposed rulemaking would simplify and add certainty to the valuation
of production from Indian leases.
MMS is developing a proposed rule clarifying what deductions may be
taken from gross proceeds for the costs of transportation under Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order No. 636.
Timetable--MMS will reconvene the Federal Gas Valuation Negotiated
Rulemaking Committee in June 1996, and has reopened the comment period
to discuss options for proceeding further with a rulemaking. MMS
anticipates publishing a proposed rulemaking for Indian gas valuation
in July 1996. MMS also expects to publish a proposed rule on FERC Order
No. 636 early this summer.
4. Reporting Procedures and Threshold
Comments Received--``Eliminate or streamline MMS Form 2014
reporting.''
--``Report prior period adjustments on a `net' basis.''
--``Change estimated payment from lease level to payor level.''
--``Assess interest at the payor level--for the Indian leases on the
basis of each Indian Tribe.''
--``Eliminate Payor Information (PIF) Filings. This is an unnecessary
and costly reporting requirement.''
--``MMS should modify the regulations and system tolerances/thresholds
so that only those exceptions that are cost beneficial for MMS to
pursue are generated.''
--``Set thresholds or tolerances for regulations to save costs to both
MMS and industry. (Example: Invoices are sent for less than $1.00.)''
--``MMS should not implement regulations until its systems are
programmed to handle the new regulations.''
Action Taken or Planned--MMS has revised its billing thresholds and
assessments policy to reduce administrative costs, and we continue to
review these issues through the Royalty Policy Committee which was
formed in September 1995. The Committee's membership includes
representatives from states, tribes, allottee associations, industry
trade groups and other agencies. At their initial meeting, a Royalty
Reporting and Production Accounting Subcommittee was established.
The Subcommittee had its first meeting in November 1995 and agreed
to review all royalty and production reporting forms and policies. To
assure all areas were addressed, four workgroups were formed to review
the Payor Information Form, royalty reporting, oil and gas production
reporting, and solids production reporting.
The preliminary recommendations from the workgroups cover
streamlining of all reporting forms; reducing or eliminating redundant
data collection; changing estimates; and reviewing thresholds for
allowance and interest billings.
Timetable--The Subcommittee recommendations are to be finalized and
forwarded to the full committee for their review and approval in June
1996. The recommendations will then be reviewed for possible
implementation by MMS. In particular, recommendations that can be
implemented in the short term without significant cost will be pursued
by MMS.
5. Refunds Due to Industry Which Are Controlled by Section 10 of the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
Comments Received--``Section 10 refund requirements should be
eliminated. The refund process used for onshore properties should be
established for offshore properties.''
--``Eliminate documentation requirements for refund requests over $250
M, and/or increase this threshold to $500 M; raise the refund request
limit to $5 M. Exempt pure accounting adjustments for items such as
production date adjustments and incorrect AID numbers; exempt unit
revisions because these revisions are often made more than two years
after the date of production; establish a time limit on MMS for review
of a refund request to expedite the process; and overpayments on OCS
properties should be allowed to be offset against any OCS
underpayment.''
Action Taken or Planned--A legislative change would be required to
eliminate the Section 10 refund requirements of 43 U.S.C. 1339.
Section 10(b) of 43 U.S.C. 1339(b) requires MMS to report refunds
or credits to both Houses of Congress and can increase the time to
process refunds and recoupments. The final rule published on July 28,
1994 (59 FR 38359), Titled ``Offsets Recoupments and Refunds of Excess
Payments of Royalties, Rentals; Bonuses, or other amounts under Federal
Offshore
[[Page 25164]]
Minerals Leases'' established procedures for obtaining refunds and
credits of excess payments and clarified what payments are not subject
to Section 10's requirements. Unit agreement revisions are covered in
this rule under ``Transactions not subject to section 10''.
This rule also provides for a de minimis exception to the MMS
approval process. On February 23, 1996 (61 FR 7016), MMS published a
document raising the de minimis reporting requirements from $250 to
$2,500. By raising the de minimis level, companies may now recover
overpayments below the de minimis amount from future royalty payments.
This change will reduce administrative costs for MMS and companies.
6. The Appeals Process
Comments Received--``Current appeals process is too long.''
Action Taken or Planned--MMS has made several administrative
processing changes to streamline the appeal process. One change was
transferring decisionmaking on routine appeals from the Appeals
Division to the Royalty Management Program. This has reduced the
Appeals Division's workload by 20 percent and freed up staff to work on
more complex cases.
Other efforts included the initiation of several pilot programs to
look at additional streamlining possibilities. One pilot program was
aimed at decreasing the time and expense incurred by MMS in its
preparation of an appellant's administrative record. A second pilot
program involved reformatting the decisionmaking process to speed the
issuance of shorter, more timely decisions. The third pilot program
will test the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to
resolve many of the administrative appeals.
Spinoff projects from these pilot efforts are still ongoing and
will result in further changes to the appeals process in the future. We
are engaged in a concentrated effort, during the spring and summer of
1996, to resolve all of the older, active appeals on the docket. Also,
the Royalty Policy Committee has established an Appeals/Settlement/ADR
subcommittee which should provide MMS with additional advice on ways to
improve the process of resolving disputes involving royalty
collections.
Timetable--The first two pilots were put in place the latter half
of 1994, and the third pilot began the end of February 1995.
Further administrative streamlining changes and possibly regulatory
changes by MMS are anticipated for calendar year 1996.
7. Other MMS Regulatory Actions
--MMS is evaluating comments received on the proposed rule to establish
liability for royalty due on Federal and Indian leases, and to
establish responsibility to pay and report royalty and other payments.
--MMS published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on valuation
of oil from Federal and Indian leases and is evaluating the comments
received from industry, States, and Indian tribes on this notice.
Dated: May 13, 1996.
Cynthia Quarterman,
Director, Minerals Management Service.
[FR Doc. 96-12545 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12534 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Hearings
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25185-25186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12534]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 655
[I.D. 050296B]
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Hearings
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Public hearings; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will
hold five public hearings to allow for input on the resubmitted portion
of Amendment 5 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic
Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery.
DATES: Written comments will be accepted through June 7, 1996. The
hearings will be held during the months of May and June. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the time and dates of the hearings.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to David R. Keifer, Executive Director, Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300
South New
[[Page 25186]]
Street, Dover, DE 19904. The public hearings will be held in New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the locations of the hearings.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David R. Keifer, (302) 674-2331.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Amendment 5 was partially disapproved by
NMFS on February 9, 1996. The following management measures were
approved by NMFS: Lowering of the Loligo maximum sustainable yield;
eliminating the possibility of directed foreign fishing for Loligo,
Illex, and butterfish; instituting a dealer and vessel reporting
system; instituting an operator permitting system; and expanding of the
management unit to include all Atlantic mackerel, Loligo, Illex, and
butterfish under U.S. jurisdiction. NMFS disapproved three measures:
(1) The use of long term potential catch to cap allowable biological
catch (ABC) for Atlantic mackerel, (2) the Illex moratorium, and (3)
the exemption from the minimum mesh requirement for the Loligo fishery
for a vessel fishing for sea herring whose catch is comprised of 75
percent or more of sea herring.
In the draft proposed resubmitted portion of Amendment 5,
overfishing for Atlantic mackerel is defined as the catch of Atlantic
mackerel exceeding the annual ABC for the species. The fishing
mortality rate associated with the total catch of Atlantic mackerel
(ABC + C) shall not exceed F0.1 (as determined by the most recent
stock assessment conducted by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center).
ABC is the allowable biological catch in U.S. waters for the upcoming
fishing year and C is defined as the quantity of mackerel that is
expected to be caught in Canadian waters. In addition, a spawning stock
size (S) of no less than 900,000 mt shall be maintained at the end of
the fishing year for which catch estimates and quotas are being
prepared.
The qualification language for the Illex moratorium in the
preferred alternative is: A vessel is eligible for a moratorium permit
in the Illex fishery if it meets any of the following criteria: (1) The
vessel had five landings (including at-sea joint venture transfers) of
5,000 lb (2.27 mt) of Illex (i.e., landed five trips of at least 5,000
lb (2.27 mt) between August 13, 1981, and August 13, 1993, (2) the
vessel is replacing a vessel of substantially similar harvesting
capacity that involuntarily left the Illex squid fishery during the
moratorium, and both the entering and replaced vessels are owned by the
same person. ``Substantially similar harvesting capacity'' means the
same or less gross registered tonnage (GRT) and vessel registered
length for commercial vessels, or (3) vessels that are judged
unseaworthy by the U.S. Coast Guard for reasons other than lack of
maintenance may be replaced by a vessel with the same GRT and vessel
registered length for commercial vessels.
A vessel that does not qualify for an Illex moratorium permit may
land Illex if: (1) The vessel possesses an incidental catch permit, (2)
the vessel fishes with a net legal in the directed fishery, (3) the
vessel lands no more than 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) of Illex per trip, and (4)
the operator of the vessel files the appropriate trip reports. The
bycatch allowance may be adjusted by the Director, Northeast Region,
NMFS, based on the recommendation of the Council.
The public hearings will be tape recorded with the tapes filed as
the official transcript of the hearings. The hearings will be held at
the following locations.
1. May 20, 1996, 6 p.m.--Holiday Inn, 300 Woodbury Avenue,
Portsmouth, NH.
2. May 21, 1996, 4 p.m.--Holiday Inn at the Crossings, 800
Greenwich Avenue, Warwick, RI.
3. May 30, 1996, 6:30 p.m.--Cape May extension Office, Dennisville
Road, Cape May, NJ.
4. June 3, 1996, 7:30 p.m.--Ramada Inn, Exit 72 L.I.E. & Route 25,
Riverhead, NY.
5. June 3, 1996, 7 p.m.--North Carolina State Aquarium, Airport
Road, Manteo, NC.
These hearings are physically accessible to people with
disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to David R. Keifer (see ADDRESSES) at
least 5 days prior to the hearing dates.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: May 14, 1996.
Richard H. Schaefer,
Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-12534 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12464 Rules Governing Misconduct by Attorneys or Party Representatives Before the Agency
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25158-25160]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12464]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
29 CFR Part 102
Rules Governing Misconduct by Attorneys or Party Representatives
Before the Agency
AGENCY: National Labor Relations Board.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is proposing to
revise its rules governing misconduct by attorneys and party
representatives before the Agency. The proposed changes consolidate the
current misconduct rules applicable to unfair labor practice and
representation proceedings into a single rule, clarify and revise the
current rules to cover such misconduct at any and all stages of any
Agency proceeding, whether or not it occurs during a hearing, and set
forth the procedures for processing allegations of misconduct. In
addition, the proposed changes revise Section 102.21 of the Board's
rules governing the filing of answers to unfair labor practice
complaints to make that section's disciplinary provisions applicable to
non-attorney party representatives as well as attorneys.
DATES: All comments must be received on or before June 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: All written comments should be sent to Office of the
Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1099 14th Street,
NW, Room 11600, Washington, DC 20570. Telephone: (202) 273-1940. The
comments should be filed in eight copies, double spaced, on 8\1/2\ by
11 inch paper and shall be printed or otherwise legibly duplicated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John J. Toner, Executive Secretary,
Telephone: (202) 273-1940.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NLRB's rules governing misconduct by
attorneys and party representatives before the Agency are currently set
forth in two separate sections of the Board's rules and regulations:
Section 102.44 (unfair labor practice proceedings) and 102.66(d)
(representation proceedings). These sections, which are virtually
identical, currently provide that misconduct at a hearing shall be
grounds for summary exclusion from the hearing, and that ``such
misconduct of an aggravated character'' may also be grounds for
suspension or disbarment by the Board from further practice before it
after due notice and hearing.
Applying these rules, the Board in several cases has suspended or
disbarred attorneys or non-attorney party representatives from further
practice before the Agency for engaging in misconduct during the course
of unfair labor practice or representation hearings. See, e.g., Joel
Kieler, 316 NLRB 763 (1995); Sargent Karch, 314 NLRB 482 (1994); In re
An Attorney, 307 NLRB 913 (1992); Kings Harbor Health Care, 239 NLRB
679 (1978); Roy T. Rhodes, 152 NLRB 912 (1965); Herbert J. Nichol, 111
NLRB 447 (1955); and Robert S. Cahoon, 106 NLRB 831 (1953).
As currently written, however, the Board's rules have several
deficiencies. First, they do not specifically cover misconduct that
does not occur during the course of a hearing. As a result, the Board
has been unable to take effective and appropriate disciplinary action
against attorneys or party representatives who are alleged to have
engaged in misconduct in the pre-hearing, investigative and/or
compliance stages of its proceedings. Thus, for example, the Board
recently held that it was without authority under its current rules to
institute disciplinary proceedings against an attorney who allegedly
suborned perjury during the pre-complaint investigation of an unfair
labor practice charge. See H.P. Townsend Mfg. Co., 317 NLRB 1169
(1995). The Board in that case instead transferred the record to the
State Bar Association with a request that it investigate whether
disciplinary action was warranted.
Second, the Board has found that the language in the current rules,
``misconduct of an aggravated character,'' has sometimes caused
confusion about what types of conduct would be subject to suspension or
disbarment. See, e.g., Sargent Karch, supra, 314 NLRB at 486. The
courts often consider both ``aggravating'' and ``mitigating'' factors
in determining the appropriate sanction for attorney misconduct under
the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the various state rules
of professional conduct. See ABA/BNA Lawyers Manual on Professional
Conduct 101:3101-3102 (1995). However, the phrase ``aggravated''
misconduct is not often used as in the Board's rules. This has raised
questions about whether the Board's rules are intended to cover the
same type of conduct covered by those rules.
Third, the Board's rules fail to set forth the procedures to be
followed in processing allegations of misconduct. Thus, the Board's
current rules fail to advise parties how or where to file allegations
of misconduct or how such allegations will be processed or what their
rights are.
The proposed changes are intended to address each of these
problems. First, the Board is proposing to revise the rules to cover
misconduct at any and all stages of any Agency proceeding, whether or
not it occurs during a hearing. Unlike under the current rules, under
the new rule misconduct by attorneys or party representatives will be
subject to disciplinary sanction even if the misconduct occurs during
the pre-hearing, investigative or compliance stage of the
proceeding.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Misconduct by Agency employees, at any stage of an Agency
proceeding, will be dealt with under internal disciplinary
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the Board is proposing to delete the phrase ``aggravated''
misconduct from the rules, and to substitute the phrase ``misconduct
including unprofessional or improper behavior''. By substituting this
language it is not the Board's intent to make any change in the kind of
conduct currently covered by the Board's misconduct rules. Rather, the
Board is simply attempting to make the current rule more understandable
by using language that is more familiar to attorneys and party
representatives who practice before the Board. The Board will
[[Page 25159]]
continue to consider both aggravating and mitigating factors in
determining the appropriate disciplinary sanction.
Third, the Board proposes to set forth the procedures for the
processing of misconduct allegations. Under the proposal, all such
allegations would be investigated by the Associate General Counsel,
Division of Operations-Management or his/her designee (the
Investigating Officer). Following an investigation, the Investigating
Officer would make a recommendation to the General Counsel, who would
make the determination whether to institute disciplinary proceedings
against the attorney or party representative (the respondent). The
General Counsel's determination not to institute such proceedings would
be final and non-reviewable. The procedures also set forth the rights
of the respondent to respond and to request a hearing, and the
procedures for conducting the hearing, where a hearing is found
warranted. Except as otherwise provided, the procedures are similar to
those applied in unfair labor practice proceedings.
The procedures also address the role of the person bringing the
allegations of misconduct or petitioning for disciplinary proceedings
against the respondent. The procedures provide that any such person
shall be permitted to partipate in the disciplinary hearing to a
limited extent by examining and cross-examining witnesses called by the
General Counsel and the respondent, but shall not be a party to the
proceeding or afforded the rights of a party to call witnesses or
introduce evidence, to file exceptions to the administrative law
judge's decision, or to appeal the Board's decision. The Board believes
that this provision strikes a proper balance by providing such
interested persons the opportunity to participate to some extent in the
proceeding while ensuring that the responsibility for prosecuting the
disciplinary complaint will at all times remain with the General
Counsel and that the disciplinary proceeding will not be transformed
into an adversary proceeding between the complaining person and the
respondent.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Courts have long held that attorney disciplinary proceedings
are in the nature of an internal investigation concerning the
protection and integrity of the adjudicatory process rather than
adversarial disputes involving the conflicting rights or obligations
of private parties. Accordingly, they have refused to grant party
status or a right to appeal to the complaining person or individual
in such proceedings, even if that person or individual was a party
or party representative in the case where the alleged misconduct
occurred and/or was permitted to participate in the disciplinary
hearing. See Ramos Colon v. U.S. Attorney for the District of Puerto
Rico, 576 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1978); Application of Phillips, 510 F.2d
126 (2d Cir. 1975); In re Echeles, 430 F.2d 347 (7th Cir. 1970); and
Mattice v. Meyer, 353 F.2d 316 (8th Cir. 1965). See also Matter of
Doe, 801 F. Supp. 478 (D. N.M. 1992). The Board believes that this
policy is a sound one and is properly applied in Agency disciplinary
proceedings as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Board is also proposing to revise Section 102.21 of
its rules and regulations governing the filing of answers to unfair
labor practice complaints. The current rule provides that the answer of
a party represented by counsel shall be signed by at least one attorney
of record; that the attorney's signature constitutes a certificate by
the attorney that he/she has read the answer, there is good ground to
support it to the best of his/her knowledge, information and belief,
and it is not interposed for delay; and that the attorney may be
subjected to appropriate disciplinary action for willful violations of
the rule or if scandalous or indecent matter is inserted.
It is not required under the Board's rules, however, that a party
representative be an attorney. Further, it is not infrequent that a
party will be represented by a non-attorney and that the non-attorney
party representative will sign the answer on behalf of the party.
Accordingly, the Board believes that Section 102.21 should be revised
to make the foregoing provisions of that section applicable to non-
attorney party representatives as well as attorneys.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), the NLRB certifies that these rules will not have a significant
impact on small business entities.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 102
Administrative practice and procedure, Labor management relations.
For the reasons set forth above, the NLRB proposes to amend 29 CFR
Part 102 as follows:
PART 102--RULES AND REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for 29 CFR part 102 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Section 6, National Labor Relations Act, as amended
(29 U.S.C. 151, 156). Section 102.117(c) also issued under Section
552(a)(4)(A) of the Freedom of Information Act, as amended (5 U.S.C.
552(a)(4)(A)). Sections 102.143 through 102.155 also issued under
Section 504(c)(1) of the Equal Access to Justice Act, as amended (5
U.S.C. 504(c)(1)).
2. Section 102.21 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 102.21 Where to file; service upon the parties; form.
An original and four copies of the answer shall be filed with the
Regional Director issuing the complaint. Immediately upon the filing of
his answer, respondent shall serve a copy thereof on the other parties.
An answer of a party represented by counsel or non-attorney
representative shall be signed by at least one such attorney or non-
attorney representative of record in his/her individual name, whose
address shall be stated. A party who is not represented by an attorney
or non-attorney representative shall sign his/her answer and state his/
her address. Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or
statute, an answer need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit.
The signature of an attorney or non-attorney party representative
constitutes a certificate by him/her that he/she has read the answer;
that to the best of his/her knowledge, information, and belief there is
good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay. If
an answer is not signed or is signed with intent to defeat the purpose
of this section, it may be stricken as sham and false and the action
may proceed as though the answer had not been served. For a willful
violation of this section an attorney or non-attorney party
representative may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action.
Similar action may be taken if scandalous or indecent matter is
inserted.
Sec. 102.44 [Removed]
3. Section 102.44 is removed.
Sec. 102.66 [Amended]
3a. Paragraph (d) of Sec. 102.66 is removed, and paragraphs (e),
(f), and (g) are redesignated paragraphs (d), (e), and (f),
respectively.
4. The following new Subpart U--Misconduct By Attorneys or Party
Representatives, consisting of new Sec. 102.156, is added to read as
follows:
Subpart U--Misconduct by Attorneys or Party Representatives
Sec. 102.156 Exclusion from hearings; Refusal of witness to answer
questions; Misconduct including unprofessional or improper behavior by
attorneys and party representatives before the Agency; Procedures for
processing misconduct allegations.
(a) Misconduct including unprofessional or improper behavior at any
hearing before an administrative law judge, hearing officer, or the
Board shall be ground for summary exclusion from the hearing.
[[Page 25160]]
(b) The refusal of a witness at any such hearing to answer any
question which has been ruled to be proper shall, in the discretion of
the administrative law judge or hearing officer, be ground for striking
all testimony previously given by such witness on related matters.
(c) Notwithstanding any action taken under paragraph (a) of this
section, misconduct including unprofessional or improper behavior by an
attorney or party representative before the Agency, including but not
limited to such misconduct at any hearing, shall be ground for
appropriate discipline including suspension and/or disbarment from
practice before the Agency and/or other sanctions.
(d) Allegations of misconduct pursuant to paragraph (c) of this
section, except for those involving the conduct of Agency employees,
shall be handled in accordance with the following procedures:
(1) Allegations that an attorney or party representative has
engaged in misconduct may be brought to the attention of the
Investigating Officer by any person. The Investigating Officer, for
purposes of this paragraph, shall be the Associate General Counsel,
Division of Operations-Management, or his/her designee.
(2) The Investigating Officer or his/her designee shall conduct
such investigation as he/she deems appropriate. Following an
investigation, the Investigating Officer shall make a recommendation to
the General Counsel, who shall make the determination whether to
institute disciplinary proceedings against the attorney or party
representative. If the General Counsel determines not to institute
disciplinary proceedings, all interested persons shall be notified of
the determination, which shall be final.
(3) If the General Counsel decides to institute disciplinary
proceedings against the attorney or party representative, the General
Counsel or his/her designee shall serve the Respondent with a complaint
which shall include: a statement of the acts which are claimed to
constitute misconduct including the approximate date and place of such
acts together with a statement of the discipline recommended;
notification of the right to a hearing before an administrative law
judge with respect to any material issues of fact or mitigation; and an
explanation of the method by which a hearing may be requested. Sections
102.24 through 102.51, rules applicable to unfair labor practice
proceedings, shall be applicable to the extent that they are not
contrary to the provisions of this section.
(4) Within 14 days of service of the disciplinary complaint, the
respondent shall respond by admitting or denying the allegations, and
may request a hearing. If no response is filed or no material issue of
fact or relevant to mitigation warranting a hearing is raised, the
matter may be submitted directly to the Board. If no response is filed,
then the allegations shall be deemed admitted.
(5) The hearing shall be conducted at a reasonable time, date, and
place. In setting the hearing date, the administrative law judge shall
give due regard to the respondent's need for time to prepare an
adequate defense and the need of the Agency and the respondent for an
expeditious resolution of the allegations.
(6) The hearing shall be public unless otherwise ordered by the
Board or the administrative law judge.
(7) Any person bringing allegations of misconduct or filing a
petition for disciplinary proceedings against an attorney or party
representative shall be given notice of the scheduled hearing and shall
be afforded the opportunity to examine or cross-examine witnesses
called by the General Counsel and respondent at such hearing. Any such
questioning must be limited to the issues raised in the General
Counsel's complaint. Any such person shall not be a party to the
disciplinary proceeding, however, and shall not be afforded the rights
of a party to call witnesses and introduce evidence at the hearing, to
file exceptions to the administrative law judge's decision, or to
appeal the Board's decision.
(8) The respondent will, upon request, be provided with an
opportunity to read the transcript or listen to a recording of the
hearing.
(9) The General Counsel must establish the alleged misconduct by a
preponderance of the evidence.
(10) At any stage of the proceeding prior to hearing, the
respondent may submit a settlement proposal to the General Counsel, who
may approve the settlement or elect to continue with the proceedings.
Any formal settlement reached between the General Counsel and the
respondent, providing for entry of a Board order, shall be subject to
final approval by the Board. In the event any settlement, formal or
informal, is reached after opening of the hearing, such settlement must
be submitted to the administrative law judge for approval. In the event
the administrative law judge rejects the settlement, either the General
Counsel or the respondent may appeal such ruling to the Board as
provided in Sec. 102.26.
(11) If it is found that the respondent has engaged in misconduct
in violation of paragraph (c) of this section, the Board may issue a
final order imposing such disciplinary sanctions as it deems
appropriate, including suspension and/or disbarment from practice
before the Agency, and/or other sanctions.
(12) Any person found to have engaged in misconduct warranting
disciplinary sanctions under this section may seek judicial review of
the administrative determination.
Dated: Washington, D.C., May 14, 1996.
By direction of the Board.
John J. Toner,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-12464 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7545-01-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.